Democratic Strategists Finally Realizing There Is Danger In Nominating A Candidate Who Is Disliked and Distrusted Like Clinton

clintonfavorabilitygraphic

Some Democrats (such as Bill Curry) have realized for a long time that Hillary Clinton had serious problems as a candidate. While this should have been obvious since at least 2008, it appears that some are just catching on now, with The Hill running a story entitled Clinton’s dismal approval ratings prompt Dem fears.

Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings are historically low and increasingly a concern for her supporters.

Clinton is now viewed unfavorably by 55 percent of the electorate, according to the HuffPost Pollster average, which tracks findings from 42 different polling outfits. Only 40.2 percent of people view her favorably, according to that average.

An Associated Press/GfK poll released last week also found 55 percent giving Clinton an unfavorable rating. In the most recent Gallup poll, released late last month, her unfavorable number was 53 percent versus only 42 percent who saw her favorably.

Even Democrats acknowledge those findings are a problem.

“They’re pretty bad,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon, who connected the poor poll numbers to separate findings that show a broad number of Americans don’t trust Clinton.

“The No. 1 reason that her favorability is so bad is that you have large numbers of Americans who say they don’t trust her,” he said. “I could make it sound more complicated than that, but that’s really what it is. Voters see her as the ultimate politician, who will do or say anything to get elected.”

The historic comparisons are stark. At this point in the 2008 presidential cycle, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was seen favorably by 62 percent of voters and unfavorably by just 33 percent.  Even in February 2012, the closest comparable point in his re-election campaign, he had a net positive favorability rating in the Gallup poll of 2 percentage points, compared to Clinton’s current net rating of minus 11.

In March 2000, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) was viewed favorably by 63 percent of respondents in the Gallup poll and unfavorably by 32 percent.

The article points out that her low favorability ratings might not matter if running against a candidate as weak as Donald Trump, but there are still risks of low turnout among Democratic-leaning voters affecting the results as seen in 2014. It would be far safer to run with a candidate who receives more enthusiasm among the general population as opposed to primarily older, hardcore Democratic voters. The Hill went on to say:

But independent observers note that, while a general election is by its nature comparative, the capacity of each candidate to inspire supporters and thus drive turnout can also be crucial.

“Where it becomes a problem is the question of turnout and enthusiasm,” said Grant Reeher, a professor of political science at Syracuse University. Reeher added that, in the Democratic primary, Clinton’s rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), “is generating quite a bit of enthusiasm. In that sense, he is overperforming, even though he’s losing. She, I think, is underperforming in terms of turnout and enthusiasm.”

As The Hill noted, much of Clinton’s lack of support is based upon her dishonesty. I recently listed some of her major dishonest statements during the campaign here. In another recent post on Clinton’s dishonesty, I quoted  The New York Times, chastizing her for her dishonesty:

Even with a double-digit lead before the primary, she failed to avoid the type of negative tactics that could damage her in the long haul. A new Washington Post-ABC poll says that nationally, Mrs. Clinton’s margin over Bernie Sanders has shrunk: she polls at 49 percent compared with 42 percent for Mr. Sanders; in January her lead was more than double that. If she hopes to unify Democrats as the nominee, trying to tarnish Mr. Sanders as she did in Michigan this week is not the way to go.

Mrs. Clinton’s falsely parsing Mr. Sanders’s Senate vote on a 2008 recession-related bailout bill as abandoning the auto industry rescue hurt her credibility. As soon as she uttered it in Sunday’s debate, the Democratic strategist David Axelrod registered his dismay, tweeting that the Senate vote wasn’t explicitly a vote about saving the auto industry. Even as reporters challenged her claim, she doubled down in ads across the state. As The Washington Post noted, “it seems like she’s willing to take the gamble that fact-checkers may call her out for her tactic Sunday — but that voters won’t.”

…The Clinton machine should stop trying to tie Mr. Sanders to the National Rifle Association. Though Mr. Sanders has a D-minus from the N.R.A., in Michigan Mrs. Clinton’s operatives took to Twitter touting the N.R.A.’s tweets supporting Mr. Sanders’s statement that making manufacturers liable for gun violence would destroy gun manufacturing in America. On Tuesday, her campaign issued a news release saying that the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, two African-American shooting victims, “are speaking out about Senator Bernie Sanders’ comments on guns and African-Americans in Sunday’s Democratic primary debate.” Mr. Sanders, like Mrs. Clinton, has spent decades working against racial discrimination, poverty and gun violence. To suggest otherwise is wrong.

This did not keep Clinton from continuing to lie about Sanders’ gun record while campaigning in New York. Among her many lies is to attack Sanders with claims that guns from Vermont are a major source of gun violence in New York. This distortion is based upon playing games with the numbers based upon the population of Vermont. The Washington Post Fact Checker gave her Three Pinocchios for this lie. Factcheck.org and PolitiFact also criticized her for her distortion with selected statistics, especially as guns from Vermont represent less than two percent of guns recovered and traced in New York. Clinton looks further dishonest when attacking Sanders on guns should voters recall that in 2008 Clinton ran as a self-described pro-gun chruchgoer. This only reinforces the fact that Clinton will say anything go get elected.

As The Washington Post pointed out, Clinton gambles that people will not pay attention to the fact checkers. There certainly are a number of partisan Democrats who will overlook all her lies, but the majority of independent voters, along with many Democrats, realize that if Hillary Clinton’s lips are moving, she is probably lying. So, yes, if some Democratic strategists are now starting to become fearful that many voters will not turn out to vote Democratic if  Hillary Clinton is the nominee, they are right.

Quote of the Day: Jimmy Fallon, Conan O’Brien & Seth Meyers on Donald Trump

This Feb. 21, 2013 photo released by NBC shows Jimmy Fallon, host of "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon," on the set in New York. The program was nominated for an Emmy award for outstanding variety series, Thursday, July 18, 2013. (AP Photo/NBC, Lloyd Bishop)

“Donald Trump told The Washington Post that he’ll be able to get the United States completely out of debt in eight years. When asked how, Trump was like, ‘Easy, declare bankruptcy and start fresh! It’s fantastic. I’ve done it already. It’s amazing.'” –Jimmy Fallon

Bonus Quotes:

Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, just gave birth last week and she’s already back on the campaign trail for her dad. Ivanka’s friends were like, “Shouldn’t you be with the baby?” And Ivanka was like, “Yeah, I’m campaigning for him.” –Jimmy Fallon

After losing in Wisconsin, there has been a big shake-up in the Trump campaign staff. In fact, the guy in charge of racist comments is now in charge of sexist comments. –Conan O’Brien

People on Wall Street are worried about the negative effects of a Donald Trump presidency. Also worried, people on every street. All the streets. –Seth Meyers

SciFi Weekend: World’s Finest, Supergirl and The Flash; Another Death on The 100; Gilmore Girls; Studios vs. Religious Liberty Law; Gilmore Girls; Bernie Sanders on Colbert; Donald Trump Heroin

Superman-Flash-Supergirl-Flash-comic-book-cover-Worlds-Finest_edited-2

When I was younger and reading comics in the 1960’s, World’s Finest featured a team up between Superman and Batman in every issue, and at other times in its history it included other DC superheroes. While Superman and Batman are together in the same movie this month, television teamed up Supergirl and The Flash instead. Lacking the rights to Superman, ideas from the comics are often adapted to Supergirl (as Batman story lines have been adapted for Arrow).

I also clearly recalled the classic Superman cover with Superman racing The Flash. Supergirl used a similar poster to promote the show, and TV Addict has put the two together in the graphic above.

Melissa Benoist and Grant Gustin had terrific chemistry together in this Glee reunion. I don’t know if them having worked together in the past helped, and it certainly helped that both characters are similarly light. I doubt we would have seen the same chemistry with an Arrow/Supergirl crossover, unless Supergirl became a Felicity-substitute for Oliver.

Their awkward meeting can be seen in the video above.

The premise was actually explained further on Tuesday’s episode of The Flash in which Barry traveled back in time to seek ways to become faster to fight Zoom. Fortunately the show kept technobabble to a minimum and concentrated on the chemistry between the characters–although I do wonder how Barry would be able to get back to his original earth. I can envision this as a Barry from yet another earth who is spending years traveling from one earth to another in search of home. While there was a brief discussion of parallel earths, it was pretty much limited to Winn’s “That’s cool.”

The show had many other great lines. Supergirl was still trying to regain the support of the people of National City after the episode in which she was exposed to red kryptonite and briefly became a menace. She expressed her frustration and the drastic measures she was utilizing: “I saw that winning the people back wasn’t going so well. I have tried everything I can think of. Last night, I helped a family assemble their IKEA table!” The Flash demonstrated his super speed to Supergirl by quickly running out for ice cream. Supergirl’s response was perfect: “That’s cool.”

Cat might have been fooled by Supergirl’s secret identity (although now that she knows there is a shape shifter around, I’d would expect her to figure out how she was tricked). She had no difficulty figuring out that Barry was the new speedster in town, but she did not like the name of The Flash: “The Flash sounds like someone whose only super-power is jumping out of an alley in a trench coat.”

There was a reference to  CW, which The Flash is on: “All four of you, standing there, doing nothing. You look like the attractive yet non-threatening, racially diverse cast of a CW show.”

While I could have easily spent the hour just watching Supergirl and The Flash hanging out together, there was even a plot to the story. If there were two superheroes, there had to be too super villains working together, Siobhan (Italia Ricci) and Livewire (Brit Morgan):

Siobhan: “You want to kill Cat Grant and Supergirl, and I want to kill Cat’s assistant, who’s protected by them both. Figured we could team up.”

Livewire: “Like an evil Taylor Swift squad?”

Worlds-Finest-crop-740x431

Nerdist has information from Greg Berlanti and Andrew Kreisberg on the repercussions of the cross over episode:

“We always wanted to do it,” says Berlanti of the crossover. “From the day we cast Melissa [Benoist], the notion of her in scenes with Grant [Gustin] or someday maybe, in the best of all worlds, with Stephen [Amell] as well…it’s exciting to think of them on screen together. And there was a similar tonality to the shows. But a few things had to go right. We were introducing this notion of Earth-2 and the Multiverse on Flash, and that had to work for us. We always said very openly that Flash and Arrow exist in a universe where there’s no Superman, or you would have heard about him. They would have had at least one conversation about him, and certainly Supergirl as well. And he exists on this show.”

But the multiverse would prove the easier hurdle of the two shows converging—even though they live on different networks (CW for The Flash and CBS for Supergirl. “It was more challenging in that way because it’s not so convenient. It’s two separate cites that they shoot in. You wanted the show to work and stand on its own, and CBS has its own audience. We thought we might wait until the second season,” explained Berlanti. “But after Christmas we came back and we were planning out the final third of the year and we saw a way that we thought we could do it; and it felt like the right time for him to enter her world and help her out. So it all came together. We went to all the powers that be and said, ‘I think we had indicated maybe we’d wait a little longer. But we’d really like to do this now.’”

…But will there ever come a day where Kara returns the favor and visit Barry on The Flash”

“We would love that,” said Berlanti. “Just like we love this and are excited about this. I think we want to wait and see the audience reaction to something like this. But just as storytellers and fans of the actors, obviously. We love it when we can figure out a way to do it creatively and hopefully everybody enjoys it.”

Of course, the Multiverse does add a tiny wrinkle to this: wouldn’t that mean a Kara already exists on Barry’s Earth? And if so, what might a version of her look like there?

“I would think that any Kara that exists on Earth-1 would also have to have been an alien,” explained Kreisberg. “There can’t just be Kara Danvers from Poughkeepsie. That’s the fun of the Multiverse. We have a really exciting, fun doppelgänger coming up on the penultimate episode of The Flash that we haven’t announced yet. That’s just another one of those ‘Oh, that would be really cool…’ It’s surprisingly easy to justify any of these decisions. Usually when we’re in the writers room, and arguing the merits of doing something or not doing something, it really comes down to ‘Is it cool? Is it fun?’ The logic of how we get to it we find we can make work, especially if you don’t dwell too much on it. Because at the end of the day the audience wants to see the fun thing, they want to see the Flash and Supergirl together. So getting them across—he ran a little too fast with his tachyon drive—it wasn’t a lot of shoe leather to make it happen. Then you get forty-two minutes of the fun stuff.”

As a lifelong fan of the DCU, we posited the idea of Melissa Benoist appearing on The Flash as the Power Girl of Earth-2 to Kreisberg. His thoughts? “Sure,” he laughs. “[It’s] a different costume, but sure!”

As for why the two iconic heroes are first meeting on Supergirl as opposed to The Flash, Berlanti explained that it was “because it was his capacity to come this way,” adding that they “never really considered it the other way” and that “it’s maybe a little bit more fun at first to bring the veteran from that show to the chemistry of a new show.”

As for whether or not the time-traveling heroes of the Flash spinoff Legends of Tomorrow could appear on Supergirl via their ship the Waverider, Kreisberg got our hopes way up, saying that, “The Waverider can go anywhere.”

That last line also explains how Rip Hunter once said, “I’ve seen Men of Steel die and Dark Knights fall. Your entire 21st century world will suffer.” Superman and Batman apparently do not exist in the Arrow/Flash world but did exist in Rip’s past. Does this mean that the characters picked up by Rip are actually working to save a different earth?

"Worlds Finest" -- Kara gains a new ally when the lightning-fast superhero The Flash suddenly appears from an alternate universe and helps Kara battle Siobhan, aka Silver Banshee, and Livewire in exchange for her help in finding a way to return him home, on SUPERGIRL, Monday, March 28 (8:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. Pictured left to right: Jeremy Jordan, Grant Gustin, Mehcad Brooks and Melissa Benoist Photo: Robert Voets/Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. © 2016 WBEI. All rights reserved.

More at TV Line, including some comments related to what I wrote above about Supergirl’s secret identity:

In discussing this crossover’s genesis, Berlanti also hints at the idea of Supergirl and Green Arrow interacting, saying, “From the day we cast Melissa [Benoist], the notion of her in scenes with Grant [Gustin] – or someday maybe in the best of all worlds with [Arrow star] Stephen [Amell], as well – it’s exciting to think of them on screen together.”

…If Cat was so easily able to decipher that Barry is The Flash, then how can she still be in the dark about her assistant’s secret identity? “There’s a number of people that assume that she does know and just doesn’t say anything,” Berlanti notes. “Both are safe bets. We haven’t firmed up if and when we [will] clarify that point. I think it’s kind of enjoyable to appreciate the show both ways.”

The 100 Steaiing Fire

When watching most television shows and a character’s life is in danger, the assumption is that they will survive. (Spoilers ahead). The opposite is true on The 100–especially when the character is played by an actor who has a role lined up on another television show, such as with Ricky Whittle. This is the second major death in a short time. Lincoln’s death has not been met with as much controversy as Lexa’s, but there has been some protests over how he died.

gilmore-girls-reunion

Amy Sherman-Palladino never got the chance to use the four final word she planned for The Gilmore Girls as she left the show in its final season due to a contract dispute.  She kept them secret in case she ever had a chance to use them, and it has been verified they will be used in the Netflix revival. There are many possibilities from, “Luke, I love you” to “Mother, you are insane” to “Rory, you were adopted.”

I recently posted on how Marvel Studios and others protested the “religious liberties” bill in Georgia. The loss of potential income to the state appears to have been more important than appeasing the religious right as Governor Deal has vetoed the measure.

Dave Schilling gave his ideas on who different television characters would vote for at The Guardian. For example:

Mulder & Scully

Mulder’s naturally rebellious, so he’d have to be for Bernie Sanders. All the revolutionary rhetoric would appeal to his lack of trust in government. Scully, on the other hand, is highly religious and less prone to seditious behavior. Still, I don’t think she’d ever vote for any of the Republicans because of their denial of climate change science and anti-choice policies. I’m going to guess Hillary on this one.

Bernie Sanders played Wheel of News on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Friday. The segment ended with Sanders shooting the T-shirt cannon. Video above.

After the Michigan and Missouri primaries, Donald Trump put on an infomercial and talked about all the products with his name on them, even if not very truthfully. Now there is a new product to add to the Donald Trump line, Donald Trump Heroin. Mediaite reports:

A New Hampshire woman was arrested a few days ago for selling heroin with the name of none other than Donald Trump branded on the bags.

According to the Union Leader Correspondent, Darcie Hall was busted after a confidential informant managed to organize two heroin buys––one at a McDonald’s, another at a mini-mart. She had been under investigation by the police and the state attorney general’s drug task force.

And the detective who saw the heroin bundles wrote in his affidavit, “I also observed that each wax bag was stamped with a ‘Donald Trump’ logo.” (Make Heroin Great Again was probably too on-the-nose.)

Plus The New York Post reports on women who not only support Donald Trump, but are stripping down or him. Pictures included.

Quote of the Day: James Corden & Seth Meyers On Donald Trump’s Campaign Manager

James Corden2

“Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was recently arrested and charged with battery of a female reporter after he allegedly grabbed and twisted her arm, but Trump is dismissing the allegations and is standing by his campaign manager. I know what you are thinking — how is this the one time that Trump doesn’t say, ‘You’re fired.'” –James Corden

Bonus  Quote:

“Donald Trump suggested this morning that his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who has been accused of harshly grabbing a reporter at a rally, could have just been keeping her from falling down. Sure. And Bill Cosby was just helping those ladies get a good night’s sleep.” –Seth Meyers

President Obama Grants Hillary Clinton A Full, Free, & Absolute Pardon For All Crimes Committed As Secretary of State

With the FBI moving onto a new phase of its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server, President Obama has granted Hillary Clinton a full, free, and absolute pardon for all crimes committed as Secretary of State. This includes protection against any charges related to mishandling of classified information, as well as influence peddling as Secretary of State due to payments to her husband and the Foundation from parties Clinton was making decisions about.

There was immediate opposition from both the left and right. Anti-war activists expressed concern that the pardon would also protect Clinton from any possible war crimes charges related to her role in Libya and in the Honduran coup.

Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with CatCo Worldwide Media while campaigning in National City, said that when he is elected he will still prosecute Clinton, stating that Obama’s pardon is not valid as Obama is not a natural born American citizen. During the interview, Trump also bragged about how women love him, and repeated campaign promises to destroy ISIS wherever they may be working, stating that if he was president he would bomb Brussels in response to the recent terrorist attack.

April 1 was also a good day for Clinton as, besides receiving the pardon, she received a Medal of Honor for dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. While previous reports, undoubtedly coming from the vast right-wing conspiracy against Clinton, had question whether this event occurred, we have new video confirming Clinton’s story:

Not everything is going well for Hillary Clinton today. If it wasn’t bad enough that she is being subjected to lies from Bernie Sanders, along environmentalists and from fact-checkers who verify the charges against Clinton, she is under attack from another source, which Sanders also appears to be responsible for:

bird-hillary-site

Hillary Clinton was attacked by a bird on live television this afternoon.

Clinton campaign manager Sheev Palpatine was quick to blame the rival campaign of the late Bernie Sanders for orchestrating the attack.

“We have evidence that proves Sanders was recently associating with a bird in Portland,” said Palpatine. “These attacks will not be tolerated. We already have an army of the nation’s finest bird lawyers working on our best legal options.”

Political analyst and bird watcher John James Audubon III claims that if the Sander’s campaign has actually tapped into the bird constituency, then it could mark the turn of the electoral battle…

Update: Related Stories for April 1

Susan Sarandon Shows The Risk Of Nominating Clinton And Winding Up With Trump As President

SarandonHayesMain

There are many celebrities supporting Bernie Sanders (along with celebrities supporting other candidates). Celebrities might not be experts on public policy, and their recommendations as to who to vote for might not mean very much, but comments from them often result in a tremendous amount of publicity. Susan Sarandon’s comments that Donald Trump might be better than Hillary Clinton would not mean very much if not for the fact that this highlights a problem Clinton will have in the general election. Many on the left will never vote for Hillary Clinton, for a variety of reasons.

While I agree with Sarandon’s criticism of Clinton and the status quo, I don’t agree with her particular argument that electing Trump would be better. Sarandon said:

“…some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.” Asked if she thinks that’s “dangerous,” she replied, “It’s dangerous to think that we can continue the way we are with the militarized police force, with privatized prisons, with the death penalty, with the low minimum wage, threats to women’s rights and think you can’t do something huge to turn that around.”

The problem for Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party, is that, for several different  reasons, some on the left do question if Clinton would do more harm than Trump, even if they agree that Trump is the greater evil. I’ve seen a handful give arguments like Sarandon’s based upon bringing about the destruction of the current system. Other arguments are less radical. I’m not saying I agree with all of these, but here are other arguments commonly made:

Some actually prefer Trump over Clinton. These are primarily those who stress trade deals, finding Trump preferable here. Plus Trump has been less hawkish than Clinton in supporting military intervention and nation building (not that I’d trust him at all on foreign policy).

Others see Clinton as being more likely to move the country to the right than Trump or a Republican. Policies from Trump would be opposed by Democrats, often being enough to block them from being passed. Clinton has already indicated a willingness to compromise with Republicans on areas from Social Security to access to abortion. We have already seen the downside of compromise with Republicans and triangulation by Bill Clinton. Such compromises by Clinton with Republicans would be more likely to move the country to the right than policies from a Republican president who would not have bipartisan support. We would be more likely to see cuts in Social Security, and restrictions on access to abortion, if Clinton is elected compared to Trump or another Republicans.

There is the question of what happens in 2018 and 2020. There is the fear that the election of Clinton would be highly damaging to the Democratic brand, leading to bigger GOP pick ups in 2018, and further state governments falling under Republican control in 2020, leading to more Congressional districts being redrawn to help Republicans.

Plus there is the effect on the Democratic Party. At what point is supporting the lesser of two evils counterproductive? Will Democrats continue to move to the right if they find that there is no political cost? If Clinton wins in 2016 she will probably be the nominee in 2020, leaving us stuck with eight years of a conservative Democrat. Or there is the danger that she lose in 2000, leaving a damaged Democratic brand, leading to a longer stretch of Republican presidents, and even more Republican court appointees.

Some prefer a loss in 2016, feeling that there is a better chance of having a liberal Democrat in 2020. A Clinton loss might be the final straw to kill off the remains of the DLC. Plus  another candidate as opposed to Clinton might increase the chances of Democratic pick ups in state governments, as opposed to having a party led by Clinton running for reelection in 2020.

The Nader/Gore argument from 2000 does not have much traction with many who do not plan to vote for Clinton because Clinton has many of the same problems which led the left to be so strongly opposed to Bush. Clinton supports the same neoconservative foreign policy. She has a conservative record on civil liberties, falling to the right of Antonin Scalia and even sounding far too much like Donald Trump on suppression of freedom of speech. Her opposition to open-government and government transparency is even worse than what we saw under Bush. She certainly is the last candidate to consider when looking at the role of money in government. If the election of George W. Bush was such a terrible thing in 2000, then voting for a candidate who supports so many of the same policies hardly seems acceptable.

The bottom line is that you may agree or disagree with the arguments above but the thing about democracy is that everyone makes their own decision. You can argue all you want, but you cannot make anyone vote for Clinton, even if she is the lesser of two evils. Some will ultimately vote for her, while others will either not show up to vote for a candidate they disagree with, or will vote for another choice. The polls have been quite clear that there is a significant drop-off in Democratic votes in general election match-ups when Clinton, as compared to Sanders, is the candidate. We already saw what happens to Democratic turnout in 2014 when Democrats run as Republican-lite.

It doesn’t matter if they are wrong and you are right. It doesn’t matter if Susan Sarandon is insane. If Democrats nominate a candidate as flawed as Hillary Clinton, many people will not turn out to vote for her, no matter how logical your arguments are that they should.

Susan Sarandon has just highlighted a point which has already been clear. If you are worried that many liberal and progressive Democrats will stay home or vote third party if Clinton is the nominee, letting Donald Trump become president, you are right. This could happen. Many people will not be able to vote for a corrupt warmonger like Clinton, so to ensure that Donald Trump does not get elected, the safest course would be to nominate Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic candidate. It is the obvious solution as he would not only make the better president, but he would also be the stronger general election candidate.

Why Millennials, And Older Liberals, Support Sanders Over Clinton

Clinton Progressive

The endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Rolling Stone was a surprise considering how this conflicts with the views of millennials, whom I assume make up a substantial portion of its readership. Matt Taibbi responded by writing, Why Young People Are Right About Hillary Clinton. Taibbi made many good points but only provided a broad outline. While this is not the article to give to try to convince them not to vote for Clinton, the points made are worth repeating, and expanding upon.

Taibbi correctly traces the problem with the Democratic Party, and disconnect with the views of millennials to living in the past, not getting past the defeat of George McGovern back in 1972. Never mind how much the country has changed or the unique specifics of 1972, with McGovern running against an incumbent president when there was a reaction against the 1960’s counterculture in this country. (Besides, Richard Nixon had the best campaign slogan ever: Don’t Change Dicks In The Middle Of A Screw, Reelect Nixon in ’72.) The Democratic establishment saw southern politicians like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton win and McGovern lose and they built the nomination process around that. As Taibbi put it, “it would be a shame if we disqualified every honest politician, or forever disavowed the judgment of young people, just because George McGovern lost an election four decades ago.”

Even besides the manner in which the DNC has rigged the nomination process for Hillary Clinton this year, preexisting rules favor a moderate southern candidate, or at least one who can win in southern Democratic primaries. We have a political process, from the nomination process through the general election, makes it difficult to achieve change.

The Democratic nomination system both super delegates, who are in place to keep insurgent candidates like McGovern or Sanders from winning, and front loading the primary process with southern primaries. The party has not taken into account the fact that a current Democratic candidate, no matter how moderate, will not win in the south, but they do risk depressing Democratic turnout in the battleground states with their current choices of candidates. They risk a repeat of 2014 when Democratic voters stayed home with a candidate such as Clinton who performs poorly among independents and in the battleground states.

The results this year could easily be quite different with fairer rules. Imagine if Iowa announced the popular vote, as they did eight years ago, which Bernie Sanders probably won. If he started out with wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, and then we had a mix of other states besides multiple southern states, Sanders and not Clinton would probably be the front runner now.

Taibbi described the transformation of the Democratic Party at the hands of the DLC and the Clintons:

That ’72 loss hovered like a raincloud over the Democrats until Bill Clinton came along. He took the White House using a formula engineered by a think tank, the Democratic Leadership Council, that was created in response to losses by McGovern and Walter Mondale.

The new strategy was a party that was socially liberal but fiscally conservative. It counterattacked Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy, a racially themed appeal to disaffected whites Nixon tabbed the “Silent Majority,” by subtly taking positions against the Democrats’ own left flank.

In 1992 and in 1996, Clinton recaptured some of Nixon’s territory through a mix of populist positions (like a middle-class tax cut) and the “triangulating” technique of pushing back against the Democrats’ own liberal legacy on issues like welfare, crime and trade.

And that was the point. No more McGoverns. The chief moral argument of the Clinton revolution was not about striving for an end to the war or poverty or racism or inequality, but keeping the far worse Republicans out of power.

Taibbi was relatively mild in his criticism of the DLC Democrats. Two weeks ago I cited two more detailed accounts of the era from Thomas Frank and Howard Zinn.

Taibbi tied this into the present with a look at Hillary Clinton and other recent Democratic policies:

For young voters, the foundational issues of our age have been the Iraq invasion, the financial crisis, free trade, mass incarceration, domestic surveillance, police brutality, debt and income inequality, among others.

And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues.

Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush administration’s fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where were they going to launch from, Martha’s Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales.

Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats did: They didn’t want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one.

It was a classic “we can’t be too pure” moment. Hillary gambled that Democrats would understand that she’d outraged conscience and common sense for the sake of the Democrats’ electoral viability going forward. As a mock-Hillary in a 2007 Saturday Night Live episode put it, “Democrats know me…. They know my support for the Iraq War has always been insincere.”

This pattern, of modern Democrats bending so far back to preserve what they believe is their claim on the middle that they end up plainly in the wrong, has continually repeated itself.

Take the mass incarceration phenomenon. This was pioneered in Mario Cuomo’s New York and furthered under Bill Clinton’s presidency, which authorized more than $16 billion for new prisons and more police in a crime bill.

As The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander noted, America when Bill Clinton left office had the world’s highest incarceration rate, with a prison admission rate for black drug inmates that was 23 times 1983 levels. Hillary stumped for that crime bill, adding the Reaganesque observation that inner-city criminals were “super-predators” who needed to be “brought to heel.”

You can go on down the line of all these issues. Trade? From NAFTA to the TPP, Hillary and her party cohorts have consistently supported these anti-union free trade agreements, until it became politically inexpedient. Debt? Hillary infamously voted for regressive bankruptcy reform just a few years after privately meeting with Elizabeth Warren and agreeing that such industry-driven efforts to choke off debt relief needed to be stopped.

Clinton not only voted for the war, she went beyond most supporters in making false claims of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. While she later claimed this was a mistake, she showed no signs of learning from her  mistakes with her hawkish views on Libya and Syria.

Taibbi only managed to mention a portion of the issues where Clinton is out of touch with millennial voters, along with older liberal voters such as myself. While millennial voters tend to be more libertarian on social and civil liberties issues, Clinton is conservative on both. She spent her time in the Senate working with the religious right as a member of The Fellowship, and her social conservatism can be seen in many of her views. She is far right win in her views on civil liberties, falling to the right of Antonin Scalia and not far from Donald Trump in her view of freedom of speech.

Taibbi concluded with matters of corruption, but again was very limited in this discussion of a very large topic. He did write:

Then of course there is the matter of the great gobs of money Hillary has taken to give speeches to Goldman Sachs and God knows whom else. Her answer about that — “That’s what they offered” — gets right to the heart of what young people find so repugnant about this brand of politics.

One can talk about having the strength to get things done, given the political reality of the times. But one also can become too easily convinced of certain political realities, particularly when they’re paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour.

Is Hillary really doing the most good that she can do, fighting for the best deal that’s there to get for ordinary people?

Or is she just doing something that satisfies her own definition of that, while taking tens of millions of dollars from some of the world’s biggest jerks?

Plus he pointed out, “her shifting explanations and flippant attitude about the email scandal” along with the “faulty thinking” of her defenders: “My worry is that Democrats like Hillary have been saying, ‘The Republicans are worse!’ for so long that they’ve begun to believe it excuses everything.”

Her defenders ignore how Clinton’s actions included serious breaches of rules to promote government transparency, including new rules instituted under Obama in 2009 in response to the abuses under George W. Bush. Her claims, such as that what she did was allowed, have been repeatedly debunked by the fact checkers. She acted highly unethically in making decisions regarding parties who were either donating to the Foundation or paying unprecedented speaking fees to Bill. She also failed to abide by an agreement to divulge all donors while she was Secretary of State.

While his article was limited in specifics, he hit the key argument against her:

Young people don’t see the Sanders-Clinton race as a choice between idealism and incremental progress. The choice they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so profoundly a part of the problem that she can’t even see it anymore.

A platform of “the Republicans are worse” might work if the problem was simply that (as her defenders often frame it) Clinton was not progressive enough for her critics on the left. However, that is not the case at all. The problem is that Clinton is not progressive at all. If anything, throughout her career she has been a “progressive” who gets conservative results. She has been on the wrong side of most issues, and not all that terribly far from the Republican viewpoint.

Quote of the Day: Jimmy Fallon & Conan O’Brien on Sarah Palin & Donald Trump

Jimmy Fallon

Sarah Palin just signed a deal to act as a judge on a new reality court TV show. Sarah said she just wants to get a little legal experience before Trump nominates her to the Supreme Court.–Jimmy Fallon

Bonus Quotes:

Conan Photo

Sarah Palin has just signed up to star in her own “Judge Judy”-style reality show. Palin said she knows how to deal with drunks, deadbeat dads, and barroom brawlers — and that’s just her family. –Conan O’Brien

Donald Trump continues to baffle and astound. A new study found that Donald Trump’s speeches are at a fifth grade level. In other words, he’s speaking two grades above his supporters right now. –Conan O’Brien

Elizabeth Warren Cheers Bernie Sanders On As He Ties Clinton In Latest Poll

Bernie-Sanders-Jimmy-Kimmel

Elizabeth Warren is not willing to make an endorsement yet in the Democratic primary battle, but she is “cheering Bernie on” as she attacks Donald Trump. AP reports:

On Thursday, when asked if Bernie Sanders should drop out of the race, Warren praised the Democratic senator from Vermont.

Sanders has echoed Warren’s criticism of Wall Street and rising student load debt more than any other candidate.

‘‘He’s out there. He fights from the heart. This is who Bernie is,’’ Warren said. ‘‘He has put the right issues on the table both for the Democratic Party and for the country in general so I’m still cheering Bernie on.’’

Warren declined to say which candidate she voted for in the Massachusetts primary. She said she plans to make an endorsement, but not yet.

Perhaps the cheering is helping. Bloomberg has a new poll out showing Sanders tied with Clinton, and Sanders continues to be the stronger general election candidate in match-ups against Republicans:

Even after more than two dozen primaries and caucuses in which Clinton’s amassed a commanding lead in votes and in delegates needed to win the nomination, a Bloomberg Politics national poll found that Sanders is the first choice of 49 percent of those who have voted or plan to vote in this year’s Democratic contests, while the former secretary of state is preferred by 48 percent…

The survey also signaled some trouble for Clinton in holding on to Sanders supporters in November. In general-election match-ups, Sanders holds a 24-point edge over Donald Trump, a 12-point lead over Ted Cruz, and a 4-point advantage over John Kasich among likely general-election voters. Clinton, by contrast, trails Kasich by 4 percentage points. She would carry a sizable lead into a contest against Cruz, where she holds a 9-point advantage, and Trump, whom she beats by 18 points.

There are additional media reports which question if Sanders supporters will back Clinton. With Sanders campaigning out west, the Times of San Diego has run a story under the headline, San Diegans Rally for Bernie, Warn Hillary: Don’t Count on Us. It is also looking like topless women might be a new feature of Sanders rallies.

Sanders also made an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live. He discussed the terrorist attack in Brussels. He once again distinguished himself from Clinton, Trump, and Cruz in stressing the importance of respecting the  Constitution. He had this to say about Donald Trump:

At the end of the day, we cannot allow the Trumps of the world to use these incidents to attack all of the Muslim people in the world. It is unfair. To imply that because somebody is a Muslim, they are a terrorist, that is an outrageous statement. Equally so when he talks about Mexicans coming over the border as rapists and criminals. That is not what this country is about, and we don’t need, in my view, a candidate for president hurling these types of insults.

Sanders also talked more about Donald Trump, legalization of marijuana, Flint, and campaign finance reform in the segment above. Regarding climate change, Sanders said:

If you’re going to run for president, you need many, many hundreds of millions of dollars. I’m on the Senate environmental committee. I’ve talked to scientists all over the world. Climate change is real; it’s caused by human activity. And yet you don’t have one Republican candidate prepared to say that. The reason for it is that the day they say it, their campaign funding is cut by the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel industry.

Bernie Sanders Is The Only Candidate To Consider Defending Civil Liberties Following Terrorist Attack

Sanders Passion Civil Liberties

There’s nothing like a terrorist attack to bring out the craziness in Republicans. The terrorist attacks in Brussels resulted in some rather absurd recommendations from the two leading Republican candidates.  Donald Trump called for more torture and closing the borders.

Ted Cruz, who sometimes pretends to be somewhat libertarian, called for a police state, complete with police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods. He also calls for securing the border, despite the Department of Homeland Security having frequently debunked Republican claims of ISIS infiltrating the United States by crossing the border.

The Democratic candidates showed greater sanity. Clinton called closing the borders unrealistic.  Sanders, as usual, took this further than Clinton, seeing the big issue beyond whether matters are realistic. He responding to Cruz by saying, “That would be unconstitutional, it would be wrong.” While I am glad to see that Clinton does not believe that it is realistic to close the borders, she has also sounded alarmingly close to Donald Trump when it comes to the civil liberties issues involved in responding to terrorism, as in this recnt statement:

You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating. It’s more complicated with some of what they do on encrypted apps, and I’m well aware of that, and that requires even more thinking about how to do it.

While Clinton remains the lesser evil in comparison to the Republican candidates, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate to stress civil liberties issues. This is crucial considering the degree to which conservatives (including Clinton) have been quick to abandon civil liberties in response to terrorist threats.

Update: CNN reports, Clinton calls for more surveillance, police after Brussels attacks