Only Hillary Can Save the Republican Party

Submitted by bodysurfer on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 9:50am

This article in HuffPo by Seth Abramson sounds bowel-wateringly accurate:

The Democrats Are Flawlessly Executing a 10-Point Plan to Lose the 2016 Presidential Election

Please read the whole thing and assure me that somehow Seth is wrong. Worrisome observations:

First he points out how Drumpf has a good chance to lose the nomination, then in point 2:

Nothing unites Republicans quite like hatred of the Clintons. If Trump’s supporters are denied seeing their favored candidate win the nomination despite his lead in delegates earned through primaries and caucuses — and make no mistake, they will be so denied — their impulse to bolt the Republican Party completely will (and can) only be stopped by a Clinton candidacy.

Then he goes on to explain how the Clinton Camp is destroying the party to save it, like a Vietnamese village:

In short, the Clinton campaign went relentlessly negative and managed to get the national media to accuse the Sanders campaign of doing so — a premise set up by a Clinton campaign memo leaked to the media alleging that Sanders “was about to go negative” in New York. It was Karl-Rovian political philosophy at its very best, and it worked for the Clinton campaign — but not in the way they intended.

If that weren't enough, she's salting the ground after the burning everything down:

Millennials don’t want someone from their grandparents’ generation saying, “I’m supporting you!”, nor do they even just wanted to be listened to — in fact, they want their values to be reflected, and sincerely so, in the politicians for whom they vote.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t share the values or vision for America of the generation that will steer the Democratic Party for the next half-century, and shows no interest in doing so.

So, again, please tell me the writer is wrong. Oh please oh please oh please. Read the whole thing, but do yourself a favor and don't read the rebuttals in the comments by glassy-eyed Hilbots.

I'm hiding under the covers now.

Tags:

#2016 Election #BernieSanders #HillaryClinton

Vote

Comments

Submitted by mileser on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 10:37am

Silly article

Still think Trump will win the nomination, but if not, he will run 3rd Party. Kasich could be nominee, but not likely. Bush would be more likely. Hillary may have difficulty against Trump, but would absolutely beat Cruz and Kasich. Bush would be harder.

Bernie nomination, however, would have no problem beating each and every Republican possible.

—

-9.75, -8.21

Submitted by truehawk on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 2:47pm

Past time for 3rd party to get on the ballot in most states.

Trump could not get enough electoral votes from states that would let him on the ballot to win the election.
In Texas 3rd party candidates had to file as such by Dec 15th.

Submitted by kellary on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 1:04am

Trump/Cruz/Kasich

I am the only non republican in my immediate family, my female relatives who all hate the idea of socialism because they are reagan republicans or basically brainwashed by them in the case of my cousins MIGHT vote Bernie over trump. They would all crawl over broken glass to vote trump over hillary, however they all view her as the most vile people in history. My mother has been salivating for years at the thought of hillary being the nominee because she can vote against her. That she has run as the second coming of Obama only makes the idea of voting against her even more satisfying because not only can she vote against hillary, but she can also repudiate everything the secret muslim who wasn't even born here stood for.

—

You are not prepared-Illidan

Submitted by Oldest Son Of A... on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 10:54am

Nope! I can't say the writer is wrong...

In fact I'd say the writer is 100% correct...

—

"Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,

Submitted by magicsister on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 11:03am

Don't hide bodysurfer,

The writer isn't wrong, but it is good news that these stories are getting out there.

This was a positive piece for the people. It's all good.

It's past time that the truth starts getting put out there.

The truth will make us win!

—

'Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years, Doctor, and I’m happy to state I finally won out over it." Elwood P. Dowd "

Submitted by MsGrin on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 11:24am

I see Seth as spot on.

The only thing I disagree w/ Seth on is that it's been going on for a LOT longer than 6 months. This part, of course, goes back to mid-last summer when the Repubs had their first debate in August and we let momentum dangle in the wind for two months until October, letting them have ALL the media cycles:

Clinton sat back and let the media focus primarily on Trump, because she thought that doing so would emphasize that, on the Democratic side, the front-runner’s eventual nomination was a near-certainty. This made the Republican contest the focal point of American political discourse month after month — a lack of media coverage that hurt Democratic turnout in caucuses and, more generally, made the Democratic Party seem less energetic than the Republicans.

And this is absolutely true: "Nothing unites Republicans quite like hatred of the Clintons."

Hey, thanks for suggesting I read the entire piece - I've been reading bits of his other recent pieces and not being conscious it's the same guy making excellent sense.

—

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

Submitted by wrbpmaui on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 3:50am

$hillary really got some bad advice

And planning from Debbie Worthless Shit. The whole Dem hierarchy is scared shitless of Bernie and his campaign. They fear their cushy jobs are in danger, and they know how bad it sucks to be unemployed. Panic is starting to set in. Que evil laugh.

Submitted by mouselander on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 11:31am

Let's be clear

The primary reason the corporate Democrats hate Bernie is that he represents a threat to the "bribe-ocracy" status quo. No more hogs feeding at the trough in a Sanders administration. So when the dust settles in November, as a practical matter the bought and paid for Demo whores would much rather deal with a President Kasich or even Cruz than they would a President Sanders. It's really a simple matter of self-preservation. So while those in the party hierarchy may well be aware that they are sowing the seeds of defeat by nominating Hillary Clinton, it's also true that they don't particularly care. Corporate D or corporate R, their gravy train will roll on.

—

inactive account

Submitted by JuliaW on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 6:29pm

It's the Iron Law of Institutions

The iron law of institutions, usually attributed to political blogger Jonathan Schwartz, states:[1]
”The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution."

Submitted by lotlizard on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 3:58am

As someone pushing 70, I’ve watched that dynamic unfold

in all sorts of organizations, from IBM to the Sierra Club (both of which were succeeding in 1968 to a degree that nowadays they can only dream of).

Submitted by FreakFlagFly on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 11:44am

This, if nothing else, has sealed the fate of HRC and Democrats

It's a very long article, this is one of 10 bullet points and I've snipped a bit hither and thither, so fair use should be applicable. All bold type is my emphasis.

3. Fracture the Democratic Party by broadly supporting the Clinton camp’s attempts to smear Bernie Sanders and his supporters.

Three weeks ago, no one was talking about the Democratic race being “negative.”

Then Bernie Sanders starting winning more Election Day votes than Clinton, started cutting into her delegate lead, and started developing the sort of momentum that could lead to catastrophic electoral results for Clinton in the latter half of the election season.

...

So the Clinton camp — with the help of the media and cable-news interviews (as well as newspaper editorials) by Party elites — changed the narrative.

Clinton campaign staff put out the conspiracy theory that Sanders was planning (I paraphrase) “a massive negative attack campaign” in New York, based solely on internal polls taken by Sanders to determine which issues New York voters are most interested in hearing the candidates discuss.

Clinton supporters Barney Frank and Bakari Sellers accused Sanders of being a “McCarthyite” — comparison to the late Senator Joe McCarthy being one of the most damning slanders in American politics — for noting that oil lobbyists were bundling money for the Clinton campaign and for her super-PAC.

The Clinton camp accused the Sanders campaign of “playing games” with the scheduling of a primary debate in New York.

They said Sanders was deliberately permitting his supporters to boo Clinton at his rallies.

They attacked his surrogates for mentioning, in passing, the FBI investigation into Clinton’s private email server.

They accused the Sanders campaign of “lying” about Clinton’s record.

They accused Sanders of a secret and anti-democratic plan to convince super-delegates to vote the same way as their states of origin did (and if you can explain to me how that’s either a secret plan or anti-democratic, I’d appreciate it).

They falsely claimed that Sanders hadn’t sufficiently rebuked Donald Trump for his comments about criminalizing abortion.

And on and on.

Every day for the past two weeks the Clinton campaign has attacked the ethics and integrity of Sanders and his campaign, usually by falsely claiming that Sanders — for instance, by broadly and on principle opposing super-PACs and money from lobbyists, no matter who their money goes to — was maliciously doing the same to them.

In short, the Clinton campaign went relentlessly negative and managed to get the national media to accuse the Sanders campaign of doing so — a premise set up by a Clinton campaign memo leaked to the media alleging that Sanders “was about to go negative” in New York. It was Karl-Rovian political philosophy at its very best, and it worked for the Clinton campaign — but not in the way they intended.

With each new attack on Sanders, the Clinton campaign has permanently alienated a new crop of Sanders voters. 33 percent of Sanders supporters already say that they might not vote for Clinton; so by going negative and so relentlessly, the Clinton campaign is tearing up potential November votes for their candidate by the tens of thousands or more.

And then I saw this...

There is a Concerted Effort On This Site To Drag Bernie's Name Through The Mud. It's Not Ok.
by cleros

by the same person that posted the comment below only a few days ago:

cleros
Mar 30 · 05:39:48 PM

Enough of this stupid fucking shit as a latino I can not afford you fucking white college kids to cry about writing in Bernie Sanders when members of my family are going to be arrested and kicked out of this country due to your childish inaction.

Refusing to vote for moderate leftists worked really great for the left in England and Canada didn’t it?

WTF????? - Just reverse "latino" and "white" in that comment. Would you rec that over 30 times? Would you have a leg to stand on to claim moral high ground?? Or is it all just more crocodile tears?

I haven't read cleros' article (why would I?) so maybe they had a come-to-jebus moment, I don't know or care.

But HRC has lost me, after voting for and supporting her and Bill for over 30 years, and I fear she will guarantee a Republican wave like none we've ever seen. The hatred of Hillary should not be underestimated. It reaches far beyond party lines.

And that will be on them, though I'm betting 10 to 1 they blame Bernie.

#NMFTG

rantoversorry

Submitted by GreyWolf on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 11:52am

Clinton News Network says HRC is a Republican

#OccupyCNN Hillary Clinton sure does talk like a Republican and acts like a Republican. She even confuses CNN pic.twitter.com/DsCps68B46

— Hula Zen (@HulaZen) April 4, 2016

EDIT: Oops, I guess you have to click the upper right photo to see:

00 HRC is R.jpg

Submitted by NWIA on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 12:20pm

Interesting article

But there is too much projection into an unknown future. I have no experience with the type of convention we will see when the GOP meets. What I can only imagine are two things: absolute over-the-top chaos leading to their selection, or a bunch of backroom deals that lead to a strong distaste for whoever comes out of the murkiness on top. It's possible that a "mainstream" nominee will come out of this and unite the faithful. But there are possibilities that are just as likely that lead to all kinds of bad stuff for the GOP.

So in an entirely bizarre election season, trying to predict anything outside of two weeks ahead is a fool's errsnd.

Submitted by Lady Libertine on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 2:47pm

I saw that article earlier

I saw that article earlier this morning, I think its pretty spot on.

Then I also saw this one, which I was tempted to 'essay' about here. Still might, if I can grab the time.

Sanders Wants to Reform ("Revitalize") the Democratic Party. Will He Play His Ace to Do It? by Gaius Publius

Submitted by pro left on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 2:52pm

I agree

with the above hrc might as well have a big R in front of her name.The only problem is that repubs hate her a lot worse than progressives and while it may be hard to predict the outcome the repub turnout against her and the lack of turnout by progressives is a pretty sure thing. I will go with the odds that hrc will never be POTUS!

Submitted by flitedocnm on Mon, 04/04/2016 - 3:30pm

And when HRC takes credit for something she opposed --

like the NYC $15 minimum wage announcement -- she can't hide the ugliness behind her plastered-on I'M GENUINE! smile. I suspect this will not help with getting Dems to unite behind her if she succeeds in steamrolling Bernie.

Submitted by neoconned on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 3:25am

It's 2008 Again

I don't have time to dig up specifics to support my point, but I recall Hillary taking similar poses once Obama passed her in the 2008 Primary. She attacked Obama for everything she could just because she was losing.

She produced the 3am call ad, yet is she the one who should be answering the call? What is she going to do when Vladimir Putin -a real chess player- plays a gambit on her (like he did Obama early in the Syrian crisis)? Is she going to pout and say nasty things about Ol' Vlad? Or will she drag us off to war against a nation which successfully fought off two huge invasions of their territory?

I wouldn't choose Hillary to run a grade school fund raiser much less the USA.

—

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 04/05/2016 - 1:27pm

If Bernie loses, don't be surprised if:

we become a country with at least Four prominent parties instead of two. I am still trying to figure this one out and have a few ideas, but not ready for prime time.
1. We actually one have one political party: the American Business Party.
2. There is within each of two, allegedly separate parties, enormous animus against other parts of the same party.
3. In the Republican party there are three significant factions: establishment, anti-establishment and the take-no-prisoners Tea Party.
4. In the democratic party, there are two major factions, the divisions between which become more and more evident with each passing primary day: establishment wing and progressive wing.
An amazing thing is coming to pass: the currently leading contenders of each party are vehemently opposed to by large of people in the SAME party.
5. In the increasingly likely chance that each political party's nomination is "brokered" (i.e., back room deals unreflective of party electorate choices) there is an excellent chance for the fracturing of each political party.
Not only is there deep division between the "two" parties, but there is increasingly more polarization WITHIN political parties.
We are heading for a complete destabilization of the political system in this country. Such fractiousness does not bode well for democracy in America. I'm going full-Godwin here: in Germany 1929 there were over 40 political parties. By 1933 there was only one. In the US of A, we have a surfeit of Demagogues: Trump, Cruz, Hillary and many more. Each of these will make Machiavelli proud by their behind-the-scenes power plays.
In short, as I have contended many times, both here and TOP, we are perilously close to revolution. We can hope for Bernie's peaceful revolution. But should the presidential process devolve into Trump or Cruz versus Hillary, we will be much closer to a violent revolution (e.g. France in 1793), although I give no estimate better than "sooner rather than later".