Larry David once again did his impression of Bernie Sanders on the opening of Saturday Night Live on Saturday. He shared a drink with Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon). Video above.
Larry David once again did his impression of Bernie Sanders on the opening of Saturday Night Live on Saturday. He shared a drink with Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon). Video above.
This year is looking a lot like 1968 politically. While the campaign is not over, it is increasingly looking like the Democratic Party will be nominating a candidate which is unacceptable to many on the left. In many ways this is reminiscent of how the left opposed the Democratic leadership in protest against the war in Viet Nam. Plus, in addition to protesting Clinton’s ultra-militaristic views, protest against her extends more to economic matters as the corrupting role of money in politics has become a bigger issue. While LBJ at least received credit for the Civil Rights Act and programs such as Medicare, Clinton’s record has been far less liberal. A return to the Clinton/DLC philosophy is a return to conservative policies of the past. As Dan Roberts wrote in The Guardian, Clintons continue to tout legacy where others see era of mistakes and scandal.
Roberts wrote, “From trade liberalisation and welfare reform, to gay rights and the war on drugs, the once-vaunted legislative successes of the first Clinton decade are being re-litigated in a very different America.”
In this atmosphere, protests against the Democratic establishment are inevitable.
Protests will be on two levels. Bernie Sanders will go to the convention with a strong contingent of pledged delegates, even if the superdelegates will probably give the edge to Clinton. Sanders will fight for more liberal planks in the party platform and for reforms in the primary process. Unfortunately, changes in the party platform will have no bearing on how Clinton actually governs if elected, and procedural reforms can be changed in the future if conservative Democrats remain in control of the party apparatus.
There has also been talk on social media for several weeks regarding protests outside the convention. The Wall Street Journal reports on Sanders supporter obtaining permits to hold protests. (In case the story is behind the WSJ pay wall, The Hill also has a report).
Philadelphia has approved four demonstration permits in support of Sen. Bernie Sanders at the July Democratic National Convention — including a large rally planned near the convention’s epicenter.
One of the permits is for an event consisting of four days of all-day rallies at FDR Park in support of Mr. Sanders. The city said it expects 30,000 participants, and organizers said in an interview they hope turnout will be much higher.
The park is adjacent to the Wells Fargo Center, where many of the Democratic National Convention events will be held — raising the possibility of a large demonstration in support of Mr. Sanders just steps away from where delegates will officially select the Democratic nominee. A growing number of Democrats are concerned the convention could turn out to be divisive and disorderly due to activities planned by Sanders supporters.
The city has also granted permits to three smaller demonstrations at Thomas Paine Plaza, a few miles from the Wells Fargo Center. The city says it expects 2,000 to 3,000 participants at those events.
The events — which are being organized independent of campaign by supporters of Mr. Sanders — aim to call attention to support the Vermont Senator has received throughout the primary process and push for long-term changes in the way that the Democratic Party nominates candidates.
“The whole Bernie movement is an ideology. If Bernie wins the nomination, wins the presidency, that would be amazing. But even if Hillary does win the nomination, the movement has already started,” said Steve Okan Layne, who is helping organize one of the demonstrations.
It is important that the movement to protest against Clinton has already started. If Clinton is the nominee, and winds up being elected president, top priority will be to establish a liberal opposition to her, which could be difficult seeing what lemmings so many Democrats are.
Jon Stewart discussed the flaws of Hillary Clinton in the video above. Stewart said, “What I think about Hillary Clinton is–I imagine to be a bright woman without the courage of her convictions because I am not even sure what they are.”
If Stewart was on still on television regularly, I wonder how much better Bernie would have done in the primaries against Clinton.
The video also has additional commentary from Secular Talk.
In related news today, the views of Sanders supporters is increasingly making it into the mainstream media. I suspect that with the Republican nomination battle now over, the media wants to have some drama from Democrats to replace it. The Hill reports today, Army of Sanders supporters fuming over Wasserman Schultz.
Bernie Sanders supporters aren’t fond of Hillary Clinton.
But they really don’t like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chairwoman and Florida lawmaker.
Sanders supporters blame Wasserman Schultz for what they see as system rigged against their candidate and say he is being cheated by contests closed to independents and unfair weight to superdelegates.
“I think I’m honestly starting to hate @DWStweets more than @realDonaldTrump,” one Sanders supporter tweeted on Thursday, with the hashtag #FeelTheBern.
Other hashtags being used by Sanders supporters on Thursday included #DebbieDowner, #DownwithDebbie and #DumpDebbie…
Eight years ago Hillary Clinton remained in the race until after the last primary. Now she would clearly like to see Sanders leave the race. Even if Clinton supporters agree that Sanders can remain in the race, they think that it is wrong for Sanders to criticize both Clinton’s views and the manner in which the primary battle has been rigged to favor Clinton.
The media covers this from Clinton’s perspective–at least the corporate mainstream media, and some bloggers who identify more with the Democratic Party than promoting liberal principles. There are exceptions. Trevor Timm tried to set the record straight at The Guardian.
The idea that Sanders, and to a certain extent others on the left, should stop criticizing Clinton because it gives Trump a better chance to win is ridiculous. Do people think that Clinton should get a free pass for the next six months – and potentially incentive to move to the right – on issues like Wall Street, trade, war, foreign policy and others? Just because Trump would be a disaster does not mean Clinton should be immune from criticism, nor does it mean holding her accountable will prevent her from ultimately defeating Trump.
Around this time in 2008, Clinton was still heavily criticizing the inevitable nominee Barack Obama and making divisive statements that make this primary campaign look like a walk in the park. How quickly everyone forgets (or pretends not to remember.) In fact, some of the issues Clinton once criticized Obama for are now the same issues that Sanders hits Clinton on. Clinton supporters had no problem with it then, but are now feigning being offended now.
It’s quite possible to both continue pushing Clinton on important issues and condemn Trump. The American people are smarter than the Clinton crowd is giving them credit for…
I can’t believe Sanders isn’t enthused about the Democratic party! Let’s see: the DNC chair is a vocal Clinton supporter who tried to hide Democratic debates on the worst nights possible for exposure, the committee cut Sanders off from its important voter database, various state party representatives have unfairly given Clinton an advantage in delegate selection processes, the party has a sweetheart fundraising deal with Clinton and they recently changed their rules to accept more money from corporate lobbyists – a practice that Sanders deplores.
Why should running in the Democratic primary stop Sanders from criticizing the party leadership and apparatus? Some prominent Democrats have even insinuated that he never should have ran as a Democrat if he doesn’t like the way the party is run.
Robert McChesney summed up the problem with media coverage (emphasis mine):
Well, it’s been deplorable, even by the standards—and we’ve talked about this in past years. Grading with a curve allowing for bad coverage as a rule, this has been, I think, an all-time low by mainstream corporate media. And NPR, I’d toss right in there.
You know, you have in the Sanders campaign—whatever one might think of Sanders, as a journalist, you’re looking at one of the most extraordinary political stories in decades that’s come along. You have someone who’s galvanized young support on really an entirely different vision of our society like no other candidate, again, in decades. As journalists, you’d think this would be heaven on Earth, this is the greatest story you could possibly ever cover; you’d look to the sky and say, “Thank you for putting me here in 2016.” Yet what we’ve seen is the Sanders campaign has been largely neglected—all the data shows this—barely covered. And the coverage and the framing of it has been largely through the eyes of the establishment for the Hillary Clinton campaign: This guy is a nuisance, he’s a pain in the butt; he’s getting in the way, in front of the real candidate, the presumptive nominee—presumptive going back to the very beginning. And when you see Sanders or one of his surrogates on the air, generally the tenor of the questioning is “What would Hillary’s people want to ask him?” You know, it’s never like “Let’s take these people on their own terms.” So you put it all together, it’s been pretty distressing and the source, I think, of frustration for a lot of people, that they’ve not really had a fair hearing and a fair exposure to people who rely upon cable news networks and the mainstream media to learn about politics.
Sanders has the right to both express his views and expose the corruption of the party leadership. He has actually gone rather light on Clinton in not using the scandals which surround her in the campaign. In contrast, it has been Clinton who has waged a dishonest Rovian-style campaign against Sanders.
It is not even a case of weakening the candidate who can beat Donald Trump, as that would be Bernie Sanders. Multiple polls, including both national and battleground state polls, have shown that Trump has tied up the race with Clinton while Sanders maintains a significant lead. Two new polls out show the same trend. Fox shows Trump leading Clinton 45 percent to 42 percent, while Sanders leads Trump 46 percent to 42 percent. Rasmussen shows Trump leading Clinton 42 percent to 37 percent.
These latest polls, which are even more favorable to Trump than those earlier in the week, could be showing a trend, or could be demonstrating a house effect for Republicans. Regardless, numerous polls show that Democrats should be backing Bernie Sanders if they want to have the best chance of beating Donald Trump. Plus Democrats should be supporting the candidate who holds liberal principles as opposed to a candidate as conservative as Clinton.
Polls for many months have consistently demonstrated that Hillary Clinton would make a very weak general election candidate compared to Bernie Sanders due to opposition to her among independents and in the battleground states. We have seen this again in recent national polls, as well as in battleground state polls, including Georgia. The same pattern is now present in a poll from New Hampshire:
If the presidential election were held today between the apparent Republican nominee, Donald Trump, and the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, the outcome would be very close. That’s according to a new WBUR poll (topline, crosstabs) of likely New Hampshire voters.
According to the survey, Clinton leads Trump 44 percent to 42 percent among likely Granite State voters, with about 7 percent still undecided.
The new WBUR poll is consistent with several recent surveys from around the country that suggest the general election race would be competitive.
The reason this race is so close is that both Clinton and Trump are exceptionally unpopular across New Hampshire…
By contrast, Democrat Bernie Sanders’ numbers are just the opposite: 55 percent view him favorably, while 34 percent view him unfavorably.
And according to the poll, if Sanders were the Democratic nominee, he’d beat Trump today decisively in New Hampshire — by 16 points, 54-38.
A two point lead for Clinton versus Trump compared to a sixteen point lead for Sanders.
New Hampshire is of particular interest as a battleground state due to its role in the 2000 election. The situation in Florida is most memorable considering that Al Gore rather than George Bush would have won the presidency if there was a state-wide recount there. As in Florida, Gore would have won in New Hampshire if those voting for Ralph Nader had voted for him, and winning either state would have made him president. Democrats could have won if they were able to hold on to the votes from left-leaning independents in either state, and Hillary Clinton is probably at far greater risk than Gore was of independents and liberals being unable to vote for her on principle.
While I have qualms about the entire superdelegate system, the system was designed to prevent the nomination of an unelectable candidate. With Trump also being extremely unpopular, it is possible that she could still win, but nominating Sanders eliminates the risk we see with Clinton. If the superdelegates switch to support Sanders (admittedly a long shot), it would not be a case of them overruling the vote in a democratic process. Clinton’s lead is largely due to a system rigged to support her. Clinton is also unprecedented as a candidate in the scandal surrounding her and in her many of her views being more aligned with those of the Republicans than Democrats. Superdelegates could remedy this by having the convention nominating the candidate who would not only be the stronger general election candidate, but who would make the best president.
When the first poll showed Donald Trump pulling just behind Hillary Clinton there was a question as to whether it might be an outlier. Battleground state polls similarly showed a close race, with Sanders outperforming Clinton in Georgia along with the expected battleground states. Now another poll shows the same trend. The NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll shows Clinton’s lead falling from 5 percent last week to 3 percent this week. This includes independents supporting Trump over Clinton 44 percent to 36 percent.
While the media concentrates on Clinton and Trump, the internals of the poll show the same trend as in all the others. While Clinton is in a dead heat against Trump, Sanders leads Trump 53 to 41 percent. Sanders’ twelve point margin is down only one point from the previous week. Other numbers of interest include 59 percent having an unfavorable view of Clinton, compared to 46 percent for Sanders. Sixty-two percent have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump.
At this time I doubt that many superdelegates will change their votes based upon these numbers, but what happens in July if Trump should have a significant lead over Clinton while Sanders still beats Trump? Will they stick with Clinton, pay attention to the incredible support seen for Sanders, or will they turn to Joe Biden?
Of course, while the downward trajectory for Clinton should concern Democrats, there is a long way until November and these numbers should change. Part of this will depend upon the campaigns run by each candidate. I looked at the strategy for each campaign yesterday, although I would expect that both campaigns have plans which they are not discussing with the media. External events might also play a part. With Hillary Clinton clinging so close to Barack Obama as part of her strategy in the Democratic primaries, she will probably also be held accountable should there be any bad news on the economy, terrorism, or international affairs over the next several months.
Hillary Clinton currently is tied with Donald Trump in some polls and leads in others. The Democrats should have an advantage in the electoral college, although this is no longer clear with Clinton doing poorly in battleground states and independent voters. If the general election is between Clinton and Trump, the contest might come down to which of the two is disliked less, and whether Trump’s attacks on Clinton are as effective as they were against his Republican opponents.
The New York Times has a report on how Trump is expected to attack Clinton:
Donald J. Trump plans to throw Bill Clinton’s infidelities in Hillary Clinton’s face on live television during the presidential debates this fall, questioning whether she enabled his behavior and sought to discredit the women involved.
Mr. Trump will try to hold her accountable for security lapses at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and for the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens there.
And he intends to portray Mrs. Clinton as fundamentally corrupt, invoking everything from her cattle futures trades in the late 1970s to the federal investigation into her email practices as secretary of state.
Drawing on psychological warfare tactics that Mr. Trump used to defeat “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz, “Little Marco” Rubio and “Low-Energy” Jeb Bush in the Republican primaries, the Trump campaign is mapping out character attacks on the Clintons to try to increase their negative poll ratings and bait them into making political mistakes, according to interviews with Mr. Trump and his advisers.
On the surface, I have my doubts as to whether this will really work but, on the other hand, who would have thought that Trump could have eliminated Jeb Bush from competition by calling him “low-energy?” Still, much of this looks like the typical overreach which has worked to the advantage of the Clintons in the past. Rather than attack the Clintons with factual criticism, Republicans tend to mix in a tremendous amount of fiction with their attacks, leading many to discount the large amount of legitimate criticism.
I really have my doubt that there is any benefit in bringing up ancient history. People already have their opinions about Bill’s affairs and the impeachment–with his popularity increasing tremendously in response to Republican over-reach with impeachment. Clinton has received criticism even from some feminists for the manner in which she treated women who have made accusations against Bill, but Trump is hardly going to benefit from feminist criticism of Clinton considering his record.
Trump could benefit from criticism based upon the fortune Bill and Hillary made from their political positions. The question here is whether voters will see the person who pays out money for political influence as being any better than those who receive money by influence peddling. Personally I see them as just two sides of the same bad coin, but Trump might be able to turn this to his advantage if he can be seen as someone exposing a dirty system.
There is plenty to work with regarding the email scandal. While mishandling of classified information is receiving the most talk these days, Trump might be better off concentrating on other aspects of the scandal. It is best to wait and see what happens with the FBI investigation. If there is any type of adverse report coming out of this, that will be more significant than anything Trump says. If nothing comes out of this, there is no point in making it an issue. I suspect that there will be no prosecution based upon Clinton’s position, even if others at lower levels have been prosecuted for less.
Trump should stick with criticism based upon violating government regulations regarding government transparency, influence peddling, and simply acting foolishly. Of course Trump has hardly been acting like an open-government advocate himself.
The email scandal could help Trump make the argument that Clinton is dishonest. Factcheckers have repeatedly demonstrated that Clinton has been lying on the facts, with Factcheck.org and Jake Tapper at CNN recently showing yet again that Clinton is lying when she claims that what she did was allowed (video above). Of course Trump will have the problem that the factcheckers consider him to be even more dishonest than Clinton.
Benghazi has been repeatedly investigated and there is little there. The major accusations don’t hold up at all. While systemic errors might have increased the risk, the various right wing conspiracy theories regarding the attack have been debunked. There is no reason to think that the outcome would have been different if someone else had been Secretary of State at the time. This whole scandal has now been reduced to discrepancies between what Clinton told her family and others regarding the cause of the attack. Whether this was an attempt at pre-election spin versus errors made during the fog of war, this is hardly enough to justify further talk of Benghazi. Similarly, many of the other lines of attack coming from right wing sources do not hold up.
Rather than using Benghazi, Trump would be much smarter to campaign against Clinton’s policy on regime change in Libya, as well as her support of military interventionism in Syria and Iraq, along with her overly belligerent attitude towards Iran and Russia. A vote for Clinton is very likely a vote for wars, and for reigniting the Cold War with Russia. Clinton’s hawkishness could cost her the election if Trump could manage to sound coherent on foreign policy, bit it is questionable if he can handle this.
While these major lines of attack from Trump all have problems, Clinton’s strategy looks absolutely out of touch with reality. Greg Sargent interviewed Clinton’s chief strategist, Joel Benenson. He suggested that a major strategy of the campaign will be to argue that Trump has “been in it for himself.” The counter-attacks from Trump regarding the conduct of the Clintons are obvious considering the fortunes they made by capitalizing on their political positions. I’d suggest that Clinton obtain a new strategist, as a campaign based upon the lines outlined by Berenson would greatly increase the chances of a Trump victory in November.
In contrast, Bernie Sanders could easily campaign on the line that Berenson recommends for Clinton. Plus he would not have Clinton’s problems with dishonesty, money in politics, and foreign policy. Nominating Bernie Sanders would be the best way for Democrats to defeat Donald Trump.
Polls for several months have consistently demonstrated that Hillary Clinton would have difficulty in a general election, while Bernie Sanders would do much better. Head to head polling frequently showed Clinton losing to all candidates except Donald Trump, and now that Trump has probably clinched the GOP nomination, even that race has become a virtual tie. I have seen several Clinton supporters brag about polls showing that Clinton has a chance to flip Georgia. What they ignore is that this is not due to any great degree of support for Clinton. It is due to demographic changes in Georgia, and Bernie Sanders has an even better chance of carrying the state. From AJC polling (emphasis mine):
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump are locked in a statistical tie in Georgia, according to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll that laid bare the deep divide over the presidential race.
Trump’s 4-point lead over Clinton — he’s at 45 percent — is within the poll’s margin of error, meaning neither can confidently claim a state that’s voted for the GOP nominee since 1996. Sprinkled throughout are reminders of the challenges both face in capturing Georgia: dim voter enthusiasm, high unfavorability ratings and deep skepticism from voters.
Perhaps the most telling sign of all: Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders polled higher than both in one-on-one matchups, winning a potential contest with Trump 47 percent to 42 percent. Although Clinton seems poised to win her party’s nomination, the AJC poll is among a string of surveys bolstering Sanders’ case that he poses the bigger threat to Trump.
Sanders does better than Clinton both nationally and in the battleground states, along with showing a much better chance of expanding the playing field.It would place the Republican nominee at a disadvantage if Trump had to fight just to hold onto Georgia. In contrast, Clinton is vulnerable in several states which have voted Democratic in recent years.
As David Niose, legal director of the American Humanist Association, wrote at Salon, This is one weak nominee: Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t Bernie Sanders. It’s Hillary Clinton.
No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton as the presidential primaries wind down, there is one undeniable fact that lingers in the background. Despite having had enormous advantages from the start of the campaign—no serious competition from within the party, solid support from national party leaders, a massive war chest and a nationwide grassroots network built over the course of decades in national politics—Clinton has struggled to put away a 74-year-old Jewish socialist who has had almost no establishment support.
Clinton lost to an inexperienced Barack Obama eight years ago, and is barely beating Sanders despite a system heavily rigged in her favor. She has been fortunate that Sanders has not used her major scandals against her, but we can be sure Trump will.
Seeing Sanders do better than Clinton in a general election match-up, despite her landslide victory in the Democratic primary, also shows how Democratic primary results are not representative of all potential Democratic voters. This might also indicate a decrease in support for Clinton and increase in support for Sanders since the date of the primary. While I would not normally like to see superdelegates decide the nominee, this is the time for them to intervene to correct the problems caused initially by the system giving such an advantage to Clinton. If the superdelegates system was initiated to protect against nominating an unelectable candidate, this very well could be such a situation. Plus we have not encountered a situation in which the leading candidate was as unethically unfit to be president as Hillary Clinton, along with currently being under FBI investigation (and not a security inquiry as Clinton falsely states).
Bernie Sanders teaches Stephen Colbert to never give up–video above. He explained why he remains in the race despite pressure to get out:
Here’s the story. It’s a narrow shot, but we still have a chance to win a majority of the pledged delegates. We’re going to fight for every last vote. And at the end of the day, I hope and believe that we are going to win this.
Sanders told Stephen he had to rock the system, and used this principle to get the “contested confection” and got Stephen his candy. Why was Bernie there: “I don’t take money from billionaires, but I do check every vending machine change slot.”