Campaigning Like It's 1999
According to The Hill, "Clinton allies" are blaming Bernie Sanders for Hillary Clinton's poor performance in recent opinion polls. They complain that Sanders' continued attacks on Clinton and his failure "to begin bringing everyone together” hurts Hillary Clinton because it "... holds her back from controlling the narrative.” What I see are changes in the U.S. electorate, changes which require new election campaign strategies.
Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist is Joel Benenson. His company's website emphasizes the use of language, words, and "messaging framework" for competitive advantage. The Hill comments that these latest polls "have cemented a belief in Clinton World that the candidate needs to devote all her time now to the general election." I think that means the Clinton campaign is approaching the 2016 Presidential Election with a strategy from the 1990's: talk one way -- liberal -- during the primary, and then moderate your language for the general election.
That's certainly the kind of campaign strategy which "Third Way" would endorse. "Third Way" glorifies political moderates and insists that "America is best led from the center." Another of their beliefs is that moderates are "the deciders" in national elections: "the outcome is decided by those in the middle." Naturally, they would like for campaigns to court "moderates." In 2014 they commissioned a survey of 1,500 registered U.S. voters by the Benenson Strategy Group and determined that the voters who called themselves "moderate" amounted to 37% of the sample population. One third of the moderates (12% of the total sample) said that they voted equally for Democrats and Republicans. And 65% of the moderates rejected the statement that "Politics do not really affect my life and I tune out most discussions about politics." Third Way called that proof that moderates are politically engaged, even though 62% of the moderates also said they actively avoided political discussions. According to Molly Ball at The Atlantic, Third Way's survey results showed that Democrats should not "stray too far to the left" in their election campaigns.
I'm betting that Hillary Clinton listens to Third Way campaign strategists. Her current campaign strategist runs the company which conducted the aforementioned survey for Third Way. Also, one of Third Way's founders, Matt Bennett, worked in Bill Clinton's presidential election campaigns. Finally, Hillary herself is said to have led a U.S. delegation to a 1997 conference on how to ensure the continuity of Third Way ideas. So I think she would certainly be inclined to listen to them.
Now, I have no experience or training as a campaign manager, but there is evidence which suggests that a Third Way campaign strategy might be less appropriate in 2016:
1. The PBS show "Frontline" observed that George W. Bush's campaign in 2004 differed from his campaign in 2000. To find out why, "Frontline" interviewed a number of people who participated in the Bush-Cheney campaign of 2004, including Matthew Dowd, the campaign's chief strategist. Dowd's explanation for the difference included the following remarks:
"One of the first things I looked at after 2000 was what was the real Republican vote and what was the real Democratic vote, not just who said they were Republicans and Democrats, but independents, how they really voted, whether or not they voted straight ticket or not. And I took a look at that in 2000, and then I took a look at what it was over the last five elections or six elections.
And what came from that analysis was a graph that I obviously gave Karl, which showed that independents or persuadable voters in the last 20 years had gone from 22 percent of the electorate to 7 percent of the electorate in 2000....you could lose the 6 or 7 percent and win the election, which was fairly revolutionary, because everybody up until that time had said, "Swing voters, swing voters, swing voters, swing voters, swing voters."
We didn't say, "Base motivation is what we're going to do, and that's all we're doing." We said, "Both are important, but we shouldn't be putting 80 percent of our resources into persuasion and 20 percent into base motivation," which is basically what had been happening up until that point...."
2. In 2014, Pew Research Center conducted a national survey of 10,013 adults and found that, over the past 20 years, the percentage of Americans with mixed liberal and conservative opinions -- the "center" -- had declined by 10%. Moreover, many of those in the "center" indicated that they "... remain on the edges of the political playing field, relatively distant and disengaged...." At the same time, the percentage of Americans who are consistently liberal or consistently conservative had risen from 10% to 21%, meaning that Democrats had moved to the left and Republicans had moved to the right, with less and less overlap between the parties. (PRC's report includes some nice graphics which reflect this.)
3. NPR analyzed exit polls from the 2016 primaries held thus far and found that "...voters are far less moderate than they were in their last primaries." More Republicans described themselves as "somewhat" or "very" conservative, and fewer called themselves "moderate" or "liberal." At the same time, more Democratic voters identified themselves as "somewhat" or "very liberal." NPR concluded that "Democrats this year have more decidedly moved toward the "very liberal" end of the spectrum."
4. Political scientists David Broockman and Doug Ahler noted that U.S. citizens may appear to be ideologically "moderate" because they often "support policies on both sides of the ideological spectrum." However, Broockman and Ahler's research disclosed that "...most citizens support idiosyncratic bundles of policies, many of which are not moderate." Moreover, "...citizens’ demand for politicians who represent these immoderate issue views appears greater than their desire for politicians with centrist positions."
So, following a campaign strategy which worked in the 1990's might not work anymore. There are fewer "moderates" in the electorate, they often have radical views on issues that matter to them, and they are generally less engaged anyway. Meanwhile, the bases of both parties are more engaged, have increased in size, and have become more "extreme." Perhaps a candidate in 2016 needs to ensure first that her party base is sufficiently motivated to support her, before attempting to persuade citizens outside of her party that she is worthy of their vote also.
P.S.: This is my first essay here. I like to write about political science, philosophy, psychology, neuroscience and sociology, especially as they apply to progressive improvement of the lives of the 99% of humanity. If this sort of essay creates anxiety here, would you please suggest an alternative blog? Thanks!
P.P.S.: Many thanks for the warm words of welcome! They are very much appreciated.
Comments
Both parties have moved right while most voters have moved left
"Third Way" glorifies political moderates and insists that "America is best led from the center." - The problem for HRC is the center is far to her left.
"... meaning that Democrats PARTY had moved to the
leftRIGHT and Republicans had moved to the right." ... while most voters have moved to the left!D = 32%
R = 24%
Independents = 41%
So the reality looks something like this:
EDIT: Sorry, I hope I wasn't rude again, but yes, please stay
Stay Here
We can use your point-of-view. I think you will find few of us are prone to anxiety over essays/ideas that have some depth and use reliable, verifiable sources or simply explain that they are the writer's opinions with reasoning to back up the opinion. One thing I have found here is that people aren't shy, but they are polite. That seems like a good combination to me.
As to this essay, I find it simply states what most of us here understand. The Republican Party is now the Religio-fascist Party and the Democratic Party has become the moderate Republican Party. Liberals, progressives, leftists, and all the rest of those who used to find a home with the Democrats have been disenfranchised. I put the onus on the Clintons. It is finally obvious to even non-political people that our politics have been hijacked by the neo-liberal elite. So when you say that the politics of 1999 won't work this time, you're preaching to the converted. I know I agree with you. I appreciate the references to credible sources and to the fact that I agree with your conclusions.
Stick around.
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
Polkageist..
I assume your avatar is a portrait of Kropotkin?
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Yes it is. A hero of mine. n/t
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
Damn
I was guessing Santa Claus.
The Democratic Party is now the "moderate" Republican
Party, only if you view neoliberalism as moderate rather than radical, including, among other things, its' attempt to move political power from the modern nation state to the private sector of the extreme few.
Personally, I think viewing neoliberalism and its' revolution against the modern nation state in favor of a few private citizens to be radical rather than moderate.
I agree katie
What has really happened, as pointed out by Thomas Franks, is that the Democrats and Republican parties have both become slaves to corporate interests, while choosing to conduct elections on social issues. They are both neoliberal, albeit embracing a warped form of neoliberalism, in which the language of neoliberalism prevails, while, in reality, the agenda is driven simply by corporate greed (i.e. if the free market comes up against corporate interests, corporate interests prevail). Both parties now prioritize corporate interests over the interests of citizens and even the nation state. In that sense, both parties are a radical change from the Democratic party of Franklin Roosevelt or the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower. The US is in an odd position in its role as guardian of international capitalism, because the interests of capitalism are often at odds with the interests of the US as a nation state.
Constructive Comments Katie and Roy Blakeley
I have used the term "moderate Republican" over the years with the Nelson Rockefeller idea of business as more important than any other consideration; however, I must admit that the new elite don't care about small business at all nor about big business as anything more than as a means to loot. Rockefeller tried to put in place some policies that benefitted all of us or, at least, didn't oppose such policies. Our new corporate masters have no such scruples.
Therefore, you have convinced me to find a new descriptive phrase to replace "moderate Republican." Any ideas?
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
Yes, I think we really do need to call out neoliberalism for
what it is: A radical political movement.
British documentarian Curtis Adams has a great doc on it, though I can't remember the name of the film right now - but it's one of these:
http://adamcurtisfilms.blogspot.com/
Alex, from your writing style and subject
I think you will fit in fine here.
I also think you might get on well and find a kindred spirit in David Akadjian.
You can find him on Twitter here: https://www.twitter.com/akadjian
He eats, lives and breathes the underlying framework of our American political system, and why things here work the way they do -- and how to change all of that.
www.Angie4Congress.com
#StrongerTogether for a better future for OUR posterity
Do Stay
I'm eager to read more from you. I think lots of others will also like your essays.
Blaming someone else for your own failure....
Hmmm.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Not anxiety-producing whatsoever (but thanks for asking)
A thoughtful thesis. I look forward to the discussion, and to other essays you care to post here on the topics you listed.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
What
they said up thread. Stick around, I think you'll like this place. And the people, of course.
peace
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
What bothers me as much as anything
is that Third Way is pure defense. It defines itself against other candidates or ideologies, saying it is less of what bothers us about those other possibilities. It attempts to be the adult in the room, forgetting that every bad idea currently operating within the power structure if our country originated in the mind of an adult.
Ultimately, the Third Way is the stiff, starched, empty suit, hoping that others joining it in the room are so blatantly offensive that emptiness is preferable.
As philosopher Roberto Unger says:
"Progressives" have no project. Their project is the project of the right to which they simply add a bit of "compensatory", "humanizing" crumbs for the masses.
Some of the best 15 minutes on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYOOwNRFTcY
Yyyaaasss.
I wholeheartedly agree with your entire well-written comment, but I especially love this little gem:
Most excellent description! Kudos!
I miss Colorado.
God is punishing us.
I'm am atheist, but if I weren't, I would sincerely believe that God is punishing us by saddling us with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
This was an excellent diary that I found myself nodding
vigorously with in agreement (to the point of nearly concussing myself
)
Do stay, you write well, and I'd love to see your writings on your preferred topics. We could all use a respite from what's coming over these next six months.
Again, excellent diary, and welcome aboard.
"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon
In family therapy its known
In family therapy its known as triangling: in psychiatric terms splitting: and in layman's terms "playing both sides against the middle" . . . mostly it is killing Democracy: see Princeton report. And it is not a real political philosophy: it is abject graft and corruption.
We are being punished by ignorance, stupidity, and greed.
It does seem ironic that the we are presented with two of the most unpopular people on the planet. Not only could Sanders wipe the floor in a 3 way, I think Satan might do pretty well against HRC and Trump.
Alas, we will be stuck with one of those two. I am already ashamed of what my country will do.
Peace out, tmp.
Third Way
1: That's Turd Way to you!
2: Please do stick around and keep writing essays! Thank You!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
The sheer incompetence of David Brock
Who would have thought that trashing Bernie would make Hillary less popular with Bernie supporters? Nah. "Where will they go?"
I can hardly wait for the general election "pivot":
"You ignorant Bernie Bros better support Hillary now or we will blame you for Donald Trump!" Cue up a dozen whiny, pissant diaries on TOP desperately trying to bestow blame . . .
Poor put upon Hillary
Part "whatever" since I've lost count.
What I would like to know is what deal was cut for Governor Brown's endorsement. I bet it has something to do with water conveyance.
Thanks for explaining that
Your essay goes a long way toward explaining something I've been wondering about. Why is the Clinton Campaign whining about Bernie's campaign, instead of taking advantage of the primaries to talk to the voters as part of her preparation for the GE? Bernie isn't stopping her from doing that.
She can't expect to "control the narrative" if she isn't out there talking to the voters.
Thank you for your excellent diary!
I think her entire strategy
I think her entire strategy is to unite women and minorities against Trump, with no focus on getting anybody to vote FOR her. She thinks she can ride Trump's negatives to the White House. Funny thing is, Trump thinks he can do the same to Clinton.
The party hacks think Bernie's presence, message, and crowds are distracting from HRC's ability to, as the diary put it, "command the narrative." They think once it's one on one, that Hillary's attacks will stick, because Trump will have to defend himself in between throwing bombs at Hillary. And the media will have no choice but to cover the Trump baggage that HRC operatives throw in their lap.
The problem with this analysis, is that is completely ignores that HRC is very unpopular and growing more so by the day. And the FBI hasn't even weighed in. With those facts on the table it is downright sinister bullshit to insinuate that Bernie is the weight holding her down. Her career and lack of personality is weight enough. And there is no way she carries it all the way into the White House.
Why? Because there are Trump voters (racists/idiots/celebrity worshipers/dummies/entrepreneurial fetishists/and morons)
And then there are the Protest voters. So pissed off they just want to freak out the establishment and love how Trump bashes politicians and the media alike. Trump gets all of these voters, as well.
Yikes. That's a lot of voters.
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
It seems obvious to me that what is really going on
is the attempt to bury any and all critiques of the neoliberal project.
It has little to do with campaign stradegy per se.
I think there are two things at play
1) Bernie has to be stopped at all costs because he challenges the neoliberal project.
2) HRC and her campaign staff really are bad at politics. They really are stuck in the '80s or '90s as the diarist suggests. The biggest block of voters for every presidential election are the people that do not vote. Non-voters always exceed the number of Democratic voters or Republican voters. Every election is about exciting enough people to get enough votes to win and HRC does not propose anything that excites voters. There is no persuasive vision for a better country or world. Phrases like "uniting the party" are meaningless. The 20 somethings that have embraced Bernie do not see themselves as Democrats. If Bernie is not the candidate, many of them will simply stay home, not out of petulance or because they like Trump, but because they simply have no enthusiasm for HRC and the status quo that she represents.
There's no persuasive vision of a better world
because that's not what is sought.
Haha this essay is causing me anxiety!!!!
Because it explains a very important aspect of why the Democrats are making a tragic mistake. I'm sure I'm not the first to say that this essay is very welcomed in this space.
The key to this HRC problem, to me, is in your description of "moderates" as having dynamic views, that make them idiosyncratic and not traditional party leaners. In my estimation, some of those views are deal breakers for those that hold them. Examples of deal breaker views are clean government, climate change, marijuana legalization, government over-surveillance, war, Israel, or the death penalty. On every single one of these issues, a voter could find no comfort with HRC, unless they are like some members of my family who think they are members of the Likud party.
But voters can find a lot about Sanders that appeal to those issues. In other words, HRC will NEVER get the "moderates" because they aren't really moderate. They just don't fit a category, which then leads them to vote on the issue they care about most. Sanders could unite the party and win those "moderate," or what I would call "main principle" voters.
But hey, the power mad money grubbers that run the party have other ideas. Like losing. Badly.
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
Definitional Problems
I think "moderate" and "centrist" are both terms of obfuscation, at least at this point. The OP gets at some of that, with the data about how "moderate" individuals don't hold "centrist" positions, as much as they hold positions on both sides of the supposed divide.
But I think it's a false frame all the way down. It presumes there's a right side and a left side, and the center is a compromise between the two. The right side preferences individual or corporate goals, the left side collective or government goals, and the center finds a balance. But if you think about most policy issues, you can quickly see how invalid that equation is. Take the ACA. That was presented as a compromise between left and right. But in reality, it was designed to maximize corporate benefit via governmental support -- the epitome of neoliberalism. The rest is propaganda.
There is no "center" in the way that the New Democrats claim. Plenty of "conservative" Republicans wants social insurance. They want protectionism. They want government to work for citizens, not for corporations. The most conservative Democrats -- the Hillary Clinton voters -- are in fact, socialists. They live off government money, whether they are retired and getting Social Security and Medicare, or bankers feeding off the Fed. They are objecting only to "out group" people getting the same handouts they get.
Neoliberals have used social and tribal identity to split class based affinities to protect their power. I realize I'm not saying anything new here. But it's relevant in the context of both Benenson's strategy and the OP's analysis. There is no center. There is only neoliberal corporate control. It's like a gang of trolls sitting on a hoard of gold, using one set of devious defenses to the west, and another set of devious defenses to the east. It relies on the western army and the eastern army never collaborating to answer the riddles and cross the rivers together, because if they did, they would overwhelm and crush the trolls and divide the gold. So in that regard, it is the "center" -- but not with regard to actual policy outcomes or constituency needs. There is no compromise position that delivers the greater good or reflects majority need or desire. That's a phantom chimera.
Moreover, she started messaging to this imaginary conservative center months ago. This notion that she would capture all those supposed conservative Independents and disaffected moderate Republicans if only that mean Bernie Sanders weren't getting in her way is not just utterly wrong, but easily disproved. Benenson and the other top strategists should know this, and are thus merely spewing it forth to soothe donors and minions. But I'm not so sure about that. I think they may be making the classic drug dealer's mistake -- I think they sampling the product. She can only win if this fetid Third Way thinking is true, and they need her to win, ergo it must be true.
But their wanting it to be so will not make it so. Only brute force power will get her the presidency, and as Billmon (I think) mentioned on Twitter a while ago, even monarchies fall if the people's needs are not met. She can steal our votes, she can call out the militarized police. But they have been ruling in great measure through deceit and debt; those weapons are out of ammo. One way or another, change is coming.
Social Security is not a handout.
And plenty of seniors back Bernie. It is the centrists that have offered CPI, means testing, extending the retirement age ,and out right cuts to SS.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
It's not a 'hand-out'...
But it is socialism. Which is the posters point. Most people who scream 'socialism is evil!' are on SS and Medicare - which are socialist programs.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
No it isn't
Providing government services isn't socialism. Government owning businesses, i.e. nationalizing entire industries, is socialism.
BTW, I wouldn't mind a little socialism, i.e. the federal government regulating interstate commerce by providing internet service to everyone instead of private corporations, like Comcast, monopolizing it without price regulation.
Editted for spelling
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
OP used the term handout
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
misplaced comment.
apologies.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
Wow
Beautifully said!
The center is not holding - globally
Uri Avnery has a very interesting discussion of the global nature of the decline of traditional right and left parties, the rise of far-right parties against a weak, disorganized left, and even the loss of belief in party politics, especially among the young, in his most recent column at Gush-Shalom. I found his global perspective both insightful and, given what he describes seeing world-wide . . . "troubling" might best describe it.
After a detailed discussion of Israel's recent hard right turn (most of which I, not knowing Israeli domestic politics, could not follow), which has led to its leading generals, its now-resigned head of the IDF (equivalent to the US Secretary of Defense), and a former prime minister all pubicly declarng Israel has just undergone a "fascist coup," Avnery turns his attention to politics across the world:
Avnery then discusses the rise of anti-establishment elements within the US two major parties, especially the rise of Trump on the right, before concluding:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1464371059
Except for Avnery's brilliant introductory evocation of William Butler Yeats' 1919 poem "The Second Coming," I recommend skimming or skipping his discussion of internal Israeli politics to get to the heart of his essay.
The column is actually not that long, very well written, and well worth reading.
Welcome to c99p, Alex, and thanks for your essay. Stick around. There are definitely important conversations to be had.
Only connect. - E.M. Forster
I have a notion as to why
I have a notion as to why these right wing authoritarians are popping up all over the world.
1. Neo liberalism stopped addressing the needs of people and became a ponzi scheme
2. The left splits because the people at the top cut deals to help their position, leaving the grass roots behind.
3. In the vacuum, of a demoralized and divided left, and neo liberal governments not addressing the needs of their people, charismatics or demagogues are able to pander to those desperate for answers, and rise to power.
After the crash of 2008, the neo-liberal order was challenged to alter course and rein in it's elites. The people of the world watched as the elites escaped accountability, and austerity was imposed. People suffered, and now they are pissed. The HRCs of the world offer no hope at all, and the Trumps offer hope to the misguided and ignorant. So they win.
We can stop that from happening here, if we elect the one man left in the race who is liked and trusted by the people, and will NOT cut deals that sell out the people. If Bernie was elected, he could lead reawakening for a new sustainable left vision to take hold in the industrialized world.
HRC and fake Dems, get out of the way so we can make real progress.
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
America Shows The Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong
Bernie would beat Trump soundly. Trump isn't going to win because the VOTERS are racist, or idiots, or any other negative thing. Trump is going to win because the controlling elite is MORE afraid of Bernie. If they were ACTUALLY afraid of Trump -- like they say they are -- they would shove Hillary aside and nominate the guy who can demonstrably win.
But they won't do that. They won't do that because they're betting that Trump is enough of their class that he aligns reasonably well with their interests, and is controllable. So for them, Bernie is the greater evil, to be kept out of power at all costs. Can't have actual democracy. Can't purge money out of the political system, because then money can't control the system.
Maybe they're right about Trump, and maybe they're wrong. But it isn't the voters' fault. A clear majority, including many of the conservative white working class, is prepared to vote for the socialist Jew. Bernie could win GEORGIA, for God's sake.
I'm tired of blaming the voters. It's an ugly, dishonest trick that neoliberals use to maintain their power. Yes, some voters are dumb, and some voters are not well-educated. But you give enough of them the right to vote and access to decent information and they'll crowdsource their way to a decent outcome. Meanwhile, the highly educated and credentialed people in charge who love to point and laugh at "hicks" are breaking the planet in the name of demonstrably discredited, self-serving beliefs. #FeelTheMath, indeed.
I agree.
The elites are very, very comfortable with Hillary. They are a bit concerned about Trump, but not really that worried about The Donald. Bernie? Bernie scares the bejeezus out of the elites.
"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey
Fu...Heck yeah!
Great comment!
Thoughts:
1. GradySeason's got it right. People are harder to define as "liberal" or "conservative" because after 50 years of corruption, cynicism, identity politics, pandering and triangulating no one knows what is left or right, moral and ethical or not.
2. It's not your tactics, or even your strategy. It's what I call the Five Tools: popular support. morality, knowledge, money and violence.
Popular support is not just the goal, it is a tool. Think more than numbers, think motivation and dedication, think the Bernie campaign. And yes, think Trump. Morality - if you want people to support you they have to believe you're right. It's almost that simple. But you also need knowledge. local politics especially is full of well meaning idiots, whose heart is in the right place, but who don't know what they're talking about. (and of course there's intelligent but evil…) Then there's money and violence. Money is necessary to get a message out - or to deny someone the ability to get his message out. And violence in America? Witness Trump and Hillary and tell me they're not violent. Arendt said that violence was the last resort of a failing state - think the Hillary/DNC attacks on Bernie.
On to Biden since 1973
good stuff
looking foward to the next one.
Solidarity forever
Excellent first essay!
I like data based essays with cogent analysis like you have provided in this one. I think you will find lots of kindred spirits here and I look forward to reading more from you.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Caused me untold anxiety... oh me...oh my...swoon.... crash
Please continue
Call the Waaaaambulance!!! Nothing is ever HRC's fault!
To blame Bernie because $Hillary is falling in polls (thanks to her own condescending attitude and illegal activities) and gathering crowds in the tens or maybe hundreds compared to Bernie's multiple thousands of cheering supporters stinks to high heaven of childish poutrage.
$Hillary & her campaign: Get over it. Grow up, take responsibility for your own actions, get out of politics.
It's Bernie we need as president. He's the only one who will at least TRY to do what's right for We the People and our planet.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute ..., where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference. — President John F. Kennedy, Houston, TX, 12 September 1960
Hi Alex Budarin
Thanks for the nice read. You help untangle some of what is going on in this election mess. I look forward to more help from you.
However there ARE moderates
Example, foreign policy. Some claim America is always right. Some claim America is always wrong. Most people believe sometimes America is right and sometimes wrong in varying percentages.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
The cracks in the Dem strategery are starting to show
A really good piece in Naked Capitalism today illustrates that the WH is sending out some strong messaging about Hillary. Comments to the piece are excellent too:
"Put these two things together and it’s clear there’s now just one goal for “top Democratic officials” including the White House — to get Clinton across the finish line despite the fact that her campaign is “in free fall” and she’s limping to get there. In White House terms, to get her into the convention and get her the nomination, no matter how or under what condition.
Two takeaways — one is that top Democrats know how precarious Clinton’s position is. They’re not fooled any more than you are. That’s worth noticing. And second, the White House and Bernstein are not blaming Sanders. Whoever crafted this message for us is blaming the Clinton campaign only, and by extension, Clinton herself.
Again, makes you wonder what they know and if they really know it."
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/gaius-publius-bernstein-the-white...
So Hillary can control the narrative?
Who the hell does she think she is? God? Even divine beings don't control the narrative when dealing with humans.
The only way she could do that would be if she were the only one talking. Perhaps that is what they really want.
To hell with that. We have things to say, too, and at the moment we are saying them rather loudly, I'm proud to say.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
Moderates vs. Independents
Food for thought. I think that because both political parties are wrapped up tight in bubble wrap, and haven't felt our pain for quite some time now, they have stopped feeling the need to deal with our reality. Their reality is lack of accountability, corruption, a revolving door from government - to corporations - to government. Perks, speeches, great health care, long vacations, cocktail parties where Dems and Repubs are part of the same exclusive club, including the supposedly neutral media, are their exclusive world. And, of course, fundraising and quid pro quo. Not the slightest resemblance to our world.
Actions, or inactions by both parties caused the Great Recession, the housing bust, job losses, and the hollowing out of the late, great middle class. But voters haven't made the two parties pay, until 2016. Trump is payback for Republicans, but Clinton is the same old, same old, and Democrats are living in LaLa Land. We are on to your crooked ways and will not give away our loyalty to you on the cheap anymore.
it is a mistaken assumption of the Clinton campaign that...
...the "independents" are the middle. they're not. not in 2016.
Gobsmacked by this diary! Just brilliant!
I love your writing, Mr. Alex, and I really like the way you tie everything together to prove your thesis. If I were grading this paper, you'd get an "A"!
I agree with what my peeps said above: stick around, will ya? We could use an excellent voice like yours.
Welcome to c99p!
I miss Colorado.
I have no problem with Hillary running as Third Way
...because that indeed is what she is.
Of course, I'm sure she will lie and pose as a progressive, if the focus groups and polling tell her to do so. The problem is not the message, really; it is the candidate and the whole value system she represents (when she isn't faking and lying about her real priorities). The marketing problem is that you can only fool people for so long.
I'm not saying that your thoughtful diary is doing this, but it is odd to see critiques of Hillary saying in essence, "lie to me better!"