Sometimes "Democrats" Confuse Me
Some seem to be cheering on Ted Cruz as some sort of foil against Trump, nothing that odious fart has to say interests me one iota.
Next Hillary chooses Tim Kaine as her potential VP, it's seems as anything that might give the left of the party some hope is to be avoided at all costs. Yet they seem conditioned to accept and applaud the choice no matter what they actually think of it, all this choice seems to give them is more right to shout at us "lefties" about voting and stuff.
There seems to be a complete denial that this VP choice is but more triangulation, after giving lip service to the left when it was expedient to do so, the choice says more than all the words spoken to date. I cant wait until they pretzel themselves into Gordian knots when/if she starts appointing her executive team.
When winning becomes all that matters you risk losing because believe it or not people can actually see what is going down, we are not all little bots to be threatened by fear. I have often said I dislike H R Clinton. that's personal not political, but I distrust her so much more and these manoeuvrings only serve to exacerbate that distrust.
Once more when and if it matters we are appealed to for support and time, one has to ask why because the campaign obviously thinks that we are not worth the effort, they have enough disaffected Republicans to get them over the line or at the very least to depress the turnout on the right.
I wrote a diary on ToP yesterday saying that Trumps speech [with twisted co-option of some of Bernie's policies] was actually dangerous, even if it was ugly. Obviously I'm wrong because centrist democrats believe that they have this in the bag, I would say it's going to be closer than they think. Democrats have forgotten why populist policies work since they have given them lip service for decades, they work because they appeal to the masses and not just political junkies inside the beltway.
They give me the reasoning that progressive policies of yesteryear are no longer progressive and that progressive pretty much means triangulation now. Now I would say H R Clinton is about as progressive as Theresa May, they say pretty much the same things, just a reminder, T May is a conservative.
I really hope they don't hurt themselves too much as they tie themselves up in knots following and desperately trying to justify every twist and turn in The Clinton Campaign, they cannot say that they were not warned however.
Tim Kaine is just boring they say, a poor choice even, then they try and convince themselves that it is only Clinton that matters whilst ignoring completely what her actual choice signifies.
Wow
They really do confuse me.
Comments
At least it wasn't Lieberman.
Too old, I guess.
With news dumps every minute now, are any purported Democrats beginning to feel queasy? Somewhere out there is the uninformed public but with yet another expen$ive TV look at the Other prospect on the road.
Any polling on Trump coronation (!!!!!!) to see if there was a bounce yet? Would be super-delicious if there were negative reactions to both conventions. Please let someone capable be managing the Green convention but MSM probably won't be covering that. A tell if they do. But I don't think they have touch with a pulse unless it's managed by a pacemaker.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Not a pacemaker...
A time lock and stock ticker.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
Reuters/ipsos
Released a poll yesterday. 6 point Bounce for trump compared to their earlier numbers. Clinton 41, trump 38, 4 point margin of error.
It's always amazing how these Clintonistas can now support
the same freaking shit they hated in George Bush. (Same thing for Obama fans for that matter.) And irony of all ironies, they both stole elections. He stole the 2000 Presidential and she stole the 2016 primary. Birds of a feather?
We really need a higher caliber of elected officials. These people are all proven liars, cheats, sneaks, and opportunists. And this poor country is really in for some hard times I'm afraid.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
The people lost their way decades ago
…when they agreed ketchup was a vegetable when it was served to school children.
Perhaps a higher calibre of voters would have refused to participate in the political sabotage of themselves and their children.
“What better way to enslave a man than to give him the vote and tell him he's free.”
—Albert Camus
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
The people never agreed catsup was a vegetable.
The Executive Branch came up with that nonsense. When it was revealed the notion was roundly mocked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable
Of course, those were the days before media was totally complicit and Democrats in Congress still pushed back at Republican Presidents. IOW, those were the days before the DLC types took over the Democratic Party.
Just for the record, tomato is a fruit, anyway. So, products made from only tomatoes, such as tomato paste, which was mentioned, cannot be vegetables.
Funny you should mention the tyranny of the media
…because Reagan revoked the Fairness Doctrine during the ketchup years, which is how the media monopolized and were able to lie to the people on the news to propagandize and misinform them. The current corrupt media dystopia is the very direct result of that.
Americans must have taken to the streets to protest what would obviously become their doom. It would be source of their misinformation at the hands of corporate monopolies. It opened the way to the government corruption that has flourished to this day.
The people protested didn't they?
They demanded the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, right?
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Don't forget the Bill Clinton signed
That allowed media consolidation.
In addition to the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine,
the government allowed a concentration of media. It used to be illegal for a corporation to own as many outlets in as many markets as is now permitted. This has led to a political discourse that ranges all the way from "GM to GE."
The country is suffering greatly for this greed fueled legislation.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Yes and no.
The Reagan Executive Branch stopped enforcing the doctrine--over public objections of Democrats. However, any Democrat administration could have gotten the FCC to resume enforcement with no big deal. But:
And the Democrats in Congress who were so opposed to Reagan pretty much let Obama have his way.
Also, I agree that allowing massive media monopolies were a major part of the problem and the Reagan and Clinton administrations (D of J) were both responsible for enabling monopolies.
The temptation to blame Republicans, esp. Reagan, is strong, but not always entirely accurate. Remember, New Democrats came about because they wanted Reagan's big wins. Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama emulated him a lot and given him as much praise as they could without totally turning off their own base.
the caliber of $$Hillary voters
$$Hill's supporters don't care about the future one iota. They'll make liberal noises, but in the end the only thing they want is to cruise off into the sunset of retirement living.
On the rare occasion that I meet a younger person who supports $$Hillary, or has succumbed to the threat of Trumpf and is preparing to 'hold their nose', I point out to them that $$Hillary is Rommel of the coming generational war. The first skirmishes have been fought and lost by Berners. Will the young rally and fight, or surrender and face a future of billionaire table scraps and endless war?
I hear through the grapevine that some young people
would like a law that reduces the amount your vote counts as you get older and less invested in the future. A 70 year old might have a half a vote compared to a 20 year old. Of course first you need a reliable, tamperproof voting system....but its a good idea for down the road.
Beware the bullshit factories.
It's essential that the voting ages change to a window
…of generational sovereignty. This a dangerous structural flaw in the US constitution, which was designed for a people with an average lifespan of 43 years.
The voting window should be 20 to 50 years old. Older people can and should run for office. But no voting. Invest deeply in each new generation's health and education and citizenship and joyful wellbeing — and you will live well and have nothing to worry about.
That's how it was supposed to work.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
This comment, and the one
This comment, and the one that precedes it is some high grade ageist bullshit.
Turn this around and say to yourselves "18 year olds have no life experience so they shouldn't be allowed to vote." Or perhaps there's a racial, ethnic or religious group you'd like to eliminate from the democratic process. Go ahead and try out those statements substituting another identifiable group.
I thought we were supposed to be the inclusive ones.
Agreed.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
I think anyone who would propose that I lose my right to vote
is full of shit and needs to go join the crowd that loves disenfranchising people. This is some foul, petty, uncalled-for bullshit. I didn't work for decades, pay my stupid taxes, obey the laws and rules of this country just to have someone propose that I lose my rights as a citizen just because I'm aging.
I'M A SANDERS SUPPORTER. I DON'T BELIEVE IN DISENFRANCHISING ANYONE!
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Whoa there. In a Democracy, everyone gets a vote
Are you actually supporting discriminating against older people? Someday you'll be older, and we'll see how you feel about getting told you don't matter or care anymore.
I'm on the older side of the spectrum myself
This was a young relative, who was pissed at his older relatives for voting for Clinton, who told me that. I can kind of see some validity at being pissed at people who naively vote against a future that only you will have. But you're right, it's an ugly thought. Sorry.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Taxation without representation
Seems to me someone said that, somewhere in the distant past. "No taxation without representation." Or did I just dream that whole American Revolution thing?
Or perhaps the idea is that once we reach the age of 50, we'll be relieved of having to pay taxes along with the right to vote. But then I'd bet you'd have a lot of younger folks protesting, "Unfair! Unconstitutional! We don't want to pay taxes either! Why don't we just do away with this whole voting nonsense?"
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Not the calibre.
Voters (and more specifically, non voters) have been manipulated by "forces" intent on ensuring they continue to stay home on election day. And, "suppress the vote" to those voters still trudging off to the polls. It's useless... She's inevitable... Why bother... They're all the same... Voting won't change anything...
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
A higher caliber of voters
was avoided by dumbing down America as well as the requirement that people work 2 or 3 jobs to put food on the table and have no time for politics other that what they are fed by the teevee.
Mind you that was all deliberate and accomplished over several decades. There is a reason why our educational system has steadily dropped down compared to other nations - an educated public is not easily manipulated.
Exactly. n/t
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
They are the new Democratic Party...
They used to be Republicans...
We have witnessed a flipping of the party base...
There isn't one iota of progressivism left in the party...
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,
These are Professional Politicians
They are not representing the people, they represent the Oligarchy.
The best reason to never vote for an incumbent. Force the Billionaires to buy a new Congress every two years. We may not be able to outspend them, but we can bankrupt them in a couple of seasons.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
I would say the TPP is a done deal.
I was going to sit out, now I think I might vote against her.
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
TPP done deal? I would also say yes. There's no limit to the
anti-worker, anti-environment laws that will be passed in this lame duck session with Republicans in charge of Congress and Obama as President.
As a reminder, the Canadian pipeline company is suing the USA for $15Billion over the cancelled XL pipeline even though Obama saw to it that there was an alternate route for their planet-killing petro-sludge to the US Gulf coast. The only thing to stop the TPP is for a couple of other countries to come to their senses and reject it first.
Speaking of other countries, New Zealand is allowing a US warship into its waters for the first time in years thereby showing acquiescence to the American ginned up military actions to "contain" China.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
We can't let her be elected
Besides the Terrible TPP, she's egotistical and deluded enough to attack Russia - loves that bombing people stuff - and then we'll all glow in the dark. Our remains will, anyway. Are they us?
Agreed.
Trump is a blowhard who will likely be either impeached or assassinated, IMHO. Adolph he is not; he ain't even Mussolini. A clownish South American dictator is more like his speed. Sure, he will do a lot of harm, but Killary is on track to start WWIII. Which we cannot hope to win.
There is a frightening diary over at Kos about how the Kaine nomination is shows that she is "going for a rout". The electorate, the reasoning goes, will be so scared of Trump that they will flock to Clinton. Who is it again that is playing to a fearful public?
I think that what Bernie supporters need to be doing now is everything we can, such as voting Stein or Johnson, to weaken her administration, and make her impeachment more likely. Kaine as a caretaker president I could live with. I doubt he would be looking to start any more wars. First, deny her a landslide. Second, support that handful of Berniecrat candidates who made it through the primaries in the face of the hostility of the DCCC, and third, put the fear of God into our own elected representatives of whatever party. Let us remind them that they have ignored voters for far too long.
Mary Bennett
^^THIS^^
However, please vote and volunteer for Stein. Johnson is not a progressive and while saner than the frontrunners, he is a deficit hawk and would do untold damage to the social safety net and seniors particularly. They have divided us for too long over social issues so that they can screw us on the economic ones. Jill is the only true progressive in the race and we need to support her.
Although she is not polling well now, and people say she can't win, they said the same about Bernie. And before the election we have time to get her numbers up, which is our only way of showing them our strength. Call your supedelegates and let them know you won't vote for them if they support her heinous. Threatening their gravy train is the only weapon we have. Jill 2011 Because fuck this shit,
I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings
Sitting it out.
Respectfully, please don't sit it out. If you don't have the option to vote for Stein or don't agree with Stein and your state won't allow right-ins consider leaving the presidential slot blank and vote for the most progressive people down ticket. Leave some of those spots blank too as necessary. We need to send a message that there are a lot of us available for a progressive candidate, but we won't settle for this.
The comparatively low support for the two major party presidential candidates will send a message if enough of us get out there. If we stay home, they've won. They are trying to reduce turnout so that only easily managed sheep are left.
I know this comment sounds intrusive. I intend it only as food for thought.
Peace.
I'm not a progressive either. People use that term here like
everyone is assumed to be a progressive. I suppose I share many of the same stances on issues that many progressives do, but there are significant differences. Because progressives also include those Democrats on sites like Daily Kos that support war criminals Clinton and Obama. I relinquished all pretense of being a progressive and a liberal during my Daily Kos experience. Hell, even the little CIA dude says he and his site are progressive. I want no part of that. The term progressive actually leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Truthfully, Big Al, with the
Truthfully, Big Al, with the way people keep changing the definition of terms like Liberal and Progressive, I can't even self identify with any label these days. If someone asked me if I was a liberal or a progressive, I'd have to first have them define the term before I could answer the question. Especially considering who's claiming those labels for themselves.
They are not liberal
and especially not progressive. They appropriated those labels and tried to redefine them to mean "whatever the Dem establishment is or supports, no matter how actually Repub it is". They stole the terms because the terms were successful and gained traction. If we abandon " progressive" and choose a new label theyll appropriate that and if we eschew labels we camnt gain serious effective traction. Either way, they win. So I refuse to back down and give up "progressive" without a fight. And I mean a fight to the death if need be.
enddrugtestingblogspot.com
Please don't sit it out.
If you sit it out, your vote says either, "I'm good with the status quo" or "I don't care." The Koch brothers love both those messages. If you vote for Stein, you vote says "I want the country to go left." I really want disserved Americans to send that message.
If you vote for Stein you're also participating in and
perpetuating a broken and corrupt system that must be changed.
A vote for Stein will at least register as a vote for change
from the status quo. Not voting just registers as apathy and possibly even as approval of the status quo IMO. I also think a write-in vote for Bernie registers as a good indication of the political leanings of the voter.
While, I'd be happy to vote for either Stein or Sanders, but if Bernie is going to try to reform the Dems from within, like it's looking, to me that's simply a pointless and fruitless waste of time and I'm going to move along to Jill Stein.
After the DNC reveal, I'm hoping Sanders pulls a Cruz and says "Screw Unity!" I'm going Green and so should you."
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Totally agree! It's the closest thing we have to a
"none of the above" option.
I really wish our forefathers would have thought to include that clause in the constitution where if more people selected "none of the above" then either candidate it would require the parties to field acceptable candidates for a "do over" election or risk being totally rebuked by the citizenry.
That should be an option on EVERY ballot as far as I am concerned.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Well I don't agree that a non vote registers as apathy.
That's the meme from the establishment, that those that don't vote are apathetic. It's absolutely not true. A non-vote can be seen as a boycott of the election, of the system. It can be seen as a refusal to consent to being governed by these assholes they're trying to ram down our throats.
I voted for Stein in 2012, didn't work one bit. This time I'm refusing to participate in the oligarchy's fraud against democracy.
I think most people on this site have been so tied into the electoral process for so long they simply can't fathom someone like me not voting, they think I'm apathetic. Apathetic I'm not.
And like I said, I maintain those voting are simply perpetuating a broken and corrupt system. Voting third party gives people the illusion that somehow the system will become unbroken. Ain't gonna happen.
Non-votes don't count at all
Democrats and Republicans don't care about non-voters. Even if only one person votes, they're fine as long as one of the two parties get's that vote. In fact, they'd probably rather see election numbers down. It's easier to buy off or trick a smaller number of people.
No, we need to encourage everyone to vote.
Vote for Trump or Clinton?
What if I vote for Trump or Clinton? Is that better than not voting? Or is it just that I need to vote for the "right one". That I need to vote for someone who has zero chance in winning just to send a message? Who is going to get that message and what are they going to do with it?
Vote for neither.
But vote for someone.
Preferably, someone that enough other people voted for to register in TPTBs' collective consciousness. Sure, like Stein in 2012, it won't make a difference in the outcome ... but I imagine this year, the numbers for Stein (or whomever, even Johnson) will be much higher than a 3rd-party candidate has ever seen -- IF we all agree to vote that way. At least those votes show up in official counts.
Not voting subjects us all to the bullshit that happened in 2010 -- "boo-hoo, too many young people didn't show up, blah blah - fuckety - blah."
And actually, now that I've typed all of this, I'm feeling kind of nihilistic. None of it matters, does it? Fuck me.
And supporting a third party
makes that party more viable and makes all the parties more accountable.
enddrugtestingblogspot.com
How pray tell does one distinguish
your political decision not to participate, from the purely apathetic non voter? Because your vote for Stein didn't have the effect you wanted last time doesn't mean it isn't important this time around. In 2012 there was no Bernie movement and there were not the people up in arms that we find in this cycle. I respectfully ask you to rethink your position and consider supporting Jill if possible in your state.
I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings
I have thought a great deal about this, and I've been
chastised up down and sideways by long term democrats who just can't understand why people don't vote.
I think those voting in this presidential election are participating in a fraud which only serves to perpetuate it. I would urge all who are voting for Stein to rethink their positions.
We've done the non-voting thing to send a message, multiple time
It didn't work and it made things worse. You know what they say about doing things over and over and expecting different results.
The main two want low voter turnout. They want an apathetic public that stays home on voting day and doesn't hold them accountable. It empowers them, and allows them to shift the blame on us when everything blows up. "Well, what was I supposed to do? You didn't tell me what you wanted." Why else are they trying hard to depress turnout?
I have no intention of giving them what they want. They will see what used to be their vote going somewhere else, and they will know what I want. They can ignore it to their own peril.
enddrugtestingblogspot.com
In my view, not voting helps those who broke the system
and staying away from the polls does nothing to "unbreak" the system.
In my view, not voting helps those who broke the system
and staying away from the polls does nothing to "unbreak" the system.
Kochs pulled their money from
Republican candidate backing Trump. They want Hillary. Big warning shot.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
No Kidding...
The Koch Brothers are now part of "The New Democratic Party."
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,
The Koch brothers were always part of New Democrats.
The DLC birthed New Democrats and the Koch brothers were highly instrumental in forming the DLC. They and several corporations provided initial funding and the Kochs sat on the Executive Committee.
Indeed it appears that the Democratic Party has
become the Koch party. The realignment is complete.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Hillary supporters don't care
Hillary supporters love ex-Republicans. In their twisted minds, it's more evidence of how bad Trump is and how important it is that their queen saves us from him. All that hate thrown at the Kochs over the years as instantly vanished.
It's interesting how fungible convictions are for many people, eh?
Clinton is going for the twofer
Election win plus the annihilation of the left. I think the second may cost her the first but we will see.
Hubris
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire
Hubris requires a tragic fall, but Clintons seem to manage
to land on their feet like some supernatural cat from political Hell.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
A Billion Dollar Media & Public Private Partneship Pillow...
with pokey things on it.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Excellent similie. And so true.
I'd vote for Tim Kaine before
I'd vote for Tim Kaine before I'd vote for Hillary Clinton. If Republicans start impeachment on Day One, I would not be too upsedt.
However, should Hillary become President, I expect Kaine to have no influence at all on Hillary's Presidency. If possible, she may try to blame him for anything that goes wrong, but she and her husband will be running the show--and a show it will be.
Any impeachment proceedings
will be kabuki designed to provide media cover for all the anti-worker stuff getting rammed through.
The anti-worker stuff will go through anyway.
So, I'll take it with an impeachment chaser, rather than neat, please.
I'd vote for Bob Dole before I'd vote for Richard Nixon,
but I'd rather vote for someone who isn't a conservative ideologue.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Wouldn't we all!
Call me cynical, but . . .
. . . I think the Kaine choice is primarily about ensuring that the Dems don't take control of the Senate.
Regardless of what people in the state Dem parties might want, the national Dem party wants a President who is "powerless" to do anything that would inconvenience its billionaire donors.
Yep. That's my impression, too.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Sitting Governor picks replacement
and Governor McAuliffe belongs to the (Plutocrat wing of the) Democratic Party. So that excuse is unlikely to stand. We're just likely to get somebody even more useless than Kaine.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Tim Kaine
I think multiple factors are considered in these decisions. Hillary would be happy with her kind of Democratic senate. Obama paid no price for bailing out big banks and ignoring mortgage holders when the Democrats held the largest majorities in congress since LBJ.
1. Hillary is making her pivot to the right clear to all big donors.
2 .She intends to marginalize the left by proving she can win without them. The Kaine stick in the eye will let her see exactly how many progressives will accept anything and still vote for Clinton.
3. The senator from VA has one other advantage I haven't seen talked about. VA governor Terry McAuliffe is a long time Clinton insider, a deep insider. Clinton will be able to select Kaine's replacement.
OK, but there is a positive.
Kaine is, from what I've seen, a conservative corporatist, so the loss of that seat would mean the (slim) chance of a better senator getting elected. More likely is a bat-shit-crazy Republican, but at least it's not a loss of a better-than-average Democrat like Sherrod Brown or Elizabeth Warren.
Unfortunately, when Trump is selected by the vote-counters, Kaine will be just another voice proclaiming that only they can save you from the big bad wolf - by voting for the worst pieces of the Republican agenda.
I will not call you cynical.
No one lifted a finger to help Coakley defeat Brown, except for Kennedy's widow. Vicki Kennedy had started out angry at Coakley, but started campaigning for her once Coakley's numbers started going into the hopper. Bill Clinton campaigned for Coakley, but only in primary, which likely helped Coakley defeat three candidates who were stronger than she was.
With Brown taking Kennedy's seat, there were no longer 60 in the Democratic Senate caucus. They would probably have scapegoated Lieberman anyway, but sixty in the caucus would not have been easy to wave away.
Coakley = Gore
She ran a terrible campaign and demonstrated to the voters of Massachusetts that their votes meant less to her than the vacation she'd have had to cancel to campaign. She also bungled answers to questions about the Red Sox, a vital correctness if one expects to win Boston.
She beat herself.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Yes, but
I know how bad a candidate Coakley was. But that does not mean no one could have made her a better candidate. That election was the only election going on in the entire nation at that time and it should have been a crucial election for the country.
The DNC could have given her money, advice, campaign strategists, advice, prominent Democrats to campaign for her. The DNC gave her zip, even as they watched her numbers slide down.
Kennedy was dead. Kerry did not campaign for her. Neither did any member of the Massachusetts House delegation. Clinton, who had campaigned for her in the primary was nowhere to be seen during the general election campaign.
As of Friday evening before the election, the White House was saying Obama had no plans to go to Massachusetts to campaign for her. Then, suddenly, on Saturday, they said he would go on Sunday. He did, but on such short notice. The polls opened Tuesday morning.
Yes, they endorsed her to the press. What were they supposed to do? Say publicly that they did not care or secretly rooted for Brown?
As for the vacation, her campaign said she was fundraising and it was dead time for campaigning anyway. Who knows?
Besides, her being a bad candidate, which I said she was, certainly does not exclude the possibility that Democrats acted very much as though they wanted her, the only Democrat in that race, to lose.
These articles could be better, but, for whatever they're worth:
http://www.masspoliticsprofs.com/2013/10/10/the-myth-of-martha-coakleys-...
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2010/10/in-defense-of-martha/
I also have to wonder why, given that she was such an awful candidate, they ran her against Baker.
Coakley would have needed a brain to win
Unfortunately, EYE-gor took the one marked ABBY Normal.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
My point was not about Coakley winning or losing.
It was about the DNC and the rest of the Party.
The worse a candidate Coakley was, the more they should (a) not have campaigned for her in the primary; (b) have surrounded her in the general; and (c) not re-nominated her to run against Baker.
Back then, no one was more upset about Coakley than I was, but I was also upset with the others. However, today, Coakley is no longer an issue. The behavior of the DNC, the state parties and the party as a whole is still very much an issue.
Nice Try
They were the ones who ordered Coakley to run when no one supportable stepped up.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
"Nice try?"
Why the attitude?
In any event, the Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial primary was not as you described.
First, no one ever had to order Coakley to run for anything. To the contrary, she was, as always, an eager beaver, always the first to file her papers and signatures. http://www.wbur.org/news/2014/04/23/martha-coakley-governor-signatures
2. While many people did turn down the opportunity to run, four besides Coakley put themselves forward. All of them were as viable as Baker. The state party eliminated two of the five at convention (although one of those two seems strong). That left Coakley and two others. Of the three finalists, Coakley was most likely the weakest, if only because she had earned a horrific reputation with voters when she ran for the Senate.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/06/13/massachusetts-democrats-begin-stat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_gubernatorial_election,_2014
In my opinion, given Coakley's history and prior debate performance, choosing her over Avellone, Berwick and Grossman was a gift to the Republican nominee, now Governor.
However, again, this started with my post about the DNC and Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.
(bookmarked)
What really confuses me --
is how Democrats could think that a Republican candidate with no experience, campaign, money, or party could win a Presidential election when the Electoral College is tilted against him. Maybe we'll see nice close-looking polls all the way through August, and then there will be a Clinton media barrage that Trump will not be able to stop. It's just a show, like Donald Trump "threatening" to do things that are already happening now under Barack Obama is a show.
Come on, voters. Your choice is Clinton, the consensus candidate of the elites. They rigged twenty-odd primary elections to get her; she's getting money from the whole of the global elite class. Do you think for a moment that they're going to let her go, and declare their collective investment null and void?
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
Agreed, but . . .
I think you're correct. She who controls the polling machines controls the election.
I'm old and I'm about as down about politics as I have ever been. The only green shoots I see are the people here and people like us. We need to hold together and start building for a post Hillary future.
Ironically, the green shoots I see in my small community are people gathering together to oppose the F-35 basing in Burlington, a decision extorted out of the Air Force by Patrick Leahy and supported by Bernie, Representative Welch, Governor Shumlin, and Burlington Mayor Weinburg. A lot of these people contributed as much as they could to Bernie's presidential campaign. (The basing decision harms low income people disproportionately.) A lot of them won't be voting for him for senate next time. That won't matter to Bernie. He concluded a tirade against a young woman who, after he wouldn't listen to her explain the harm the F-35 would do to her community at a public meeting and she tearfully told him she wasn't sure she could support him any more, by snarling, and I do mean snarling, that he'd win without her.
A post Hillary future
I'm not so sure there will be a future post Hillary.
And that's not hyperbole.
America is in the middle of a political coup.
The only way to stop it is a military one. Lose\lose for the citizen.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Clinton is not this voter's choice.
She may well win, but that does not mean I have to vote for her.
None of us should vote for her.
She's really kind of a stepping-stone to Soviet-style "elections," in which there's only one candidate on the ballot and voting is required.
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
Agree with that
And have that on my conscience as everything we already know about the DNC and the Clintons materializes in new, worse forms? The only candidate with whom my conscience is ok, is Stein. We'll see what Bernie does though.
Beware the bullshit factories.
You already know what Bernie will do!
He did it! He endorsed Hillary. He's in her camp now. He will fight the greens to stop Trump.
He's not on our side. he's with her.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I can see a groundswell of Democrats who vote against her.
Deliberately vote so that she loses.
It's what an enlightened people would do, if they wanted to improve their lives. We have huge demographics in the US who are not represented at the Federal level. Workers, Millennials, Independents, the Progressive Left.
They can have any outcome they want. It's perfectly possible. The Bernie thing snowballed out of nowhere, pulling them all into the campaign. It gave them hope for representation, which was missing from their lives.
There are also a number of major events that could change everything.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Liberals are suckers for the "omigod Supreme Court" thing.
Clinton will win.
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
She will "win."
But I'm under no illusion that it has anything to do with accurate vote counts. Pants-pissing Dems aside.
Sometimes only? You are lucky, LaFeminista, they confuse me
all the time. Since I came into this country. In the German context of party policies I was a left leaning Social Democrat when I left my home country. In the US I felt like "a naive dummy". I guess those who made me feel that way were right.
To destroy a guy like Sanders is a sin in my books. I am done with those, who helped with it. It's a tragedy that he felt it's necessary to work with Hillary Clinton. She didn't deserve a guy with the integrity of Sanders. Bill Clinton even less so.
Please work to get both out of the White House. Their times should be bygone. As for Obama, I don't know what to do with him. As a constitutional lawyer or scholar, I think he failed his professional oath. I guess a career change is in order.
career change in order
Obama has already stated he's going into finance after his reine.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Reine???
1. Obama is NOT the king of the United States. He doesn't "reine" - he presides over the activity of the government. He has to ask Congress for the power to do almost everything. As anyone paying attention knows, the Congress has blocked almost everything he's sought to do. A king would have had them tossed into the Bastille.
2. The correct spelling you sought wasn't reine, rein or rain, but reiGn.
My guess is that Obama has already reserved a good corner on Wall Street to lick boots.
edited to add additional comment
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Well it sure looks like
he will get TPP passed with the help of his Republican pals or are they Subjects.
DBAD.
Mimi emigrated from Germany. And we all know how confusing English can be, especially re: homonyms.
Actually, that wasn't meant for mimi
It was meant for earthling1.
Just sayin'.
Pages