ChrisWeigant.com

Populism Isn't Going To Go Away

[ Posted Monday, March 28th, 2016 – 16:54 UTC ]

Bernie Sanders just had a very good week. Six states voted in the past week, and Bernie won five of them. Overwhelmingly. Bernie got over 70 percent of the vote in four states, and over 80 percent in Alaska. All in all, a pretty good week. His delegate count has now hit four digits, with superdelegates added in. That's all pretty impressive, but rather than focusing on his chances for actually winning the Democratic presidential nomination this time around (which are still pretty low, even with that impressive string of victories), instead what intrigues me is how the movement of Democratic populism seems to be growing. If Sanders falls short this time around, the next time a populist runs they may actually succeed. Bernie has already gone a long way towards transforming the Democratic Party away from its embrace of economic centrism (the Bill Clinton and Democratic Leadership Council era) towards a much more people-centered party.

There have been previous attempts to move the party in a more progressive direction before Bernie threw his hat in the 2016 ring. Compared to them, Bernie is doing extremely well. The message Bernie is running on was pioneered by (in the recent past) John Edwards, Howard Dean, and even Ralph Nader. Nader earned a lot of disdain for his run, because he chose the third-party route. Many Democrats still blame him for the 2000 election loss. But that should have been a real wake-up call to the party. If Nader did make the difference in key states, it was because there were enough disaffected Democrats that jumped ship for a more populist candidate. Not many -- Nader didn't win a single state or Electoral College vote -- but enough to make the difference in a close contest between the two major parties. Nader was really following in the third-party footsteps of H. Ross Perot, who actually won 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 (but still not a single state or Electoral College vote).

Since 2000, there hasn't been a major third-party run for the presidency. Democrats ran within the primary system, but the message didn't change all that much. The idea that the little people were more important to the future of the Democratic Party than Wall Street and Big Business still existed, and in 2004 two candidates used versions of economic populism in their campaigns. Howard Dean and John Edwards both tried to rally the party around the concept, but both fell far short of winning the nomination. Edwards won two states, and Dean won one and the District of Columbia. Dean only got 167.5 delegates to the convention, but Edwards managed a more-impressive 559. Still far short of the goal, but a respectable number nonetheless.

Edwards tried again in 2008, with his message of the "Two Americas." Minus the slogans he used, his speeches could easily be read by Bernie Sanders today -- the message is almost identical. Unfortunately for him, there were two other strong candidates in the race that year. Edwards didn't win a single state, and only managed 25.5 delegates for the convention. Hillary Clinton won 1,973 delegates (but still lost to Barack Obama), to put that in some context.

It is impossible to know what that race would have looked like without the two notable candidates running to be the "first woman/African-American president," though. Barack Obama's victory was cathartic for the country, in terms of how we see race in politics. Hillary Clinton may achieve the same sort of breakthrough moment on gender, as the first woman in the Oval Office. Plus, Clinton herself is rather unique in the Democratic Party, since she has been a personality on the national stage since her husband's 1992 win. To put all of this another way, a presidential race with Obama and Clinton in it (or just Clinton, for that matter) is not exactly a generic presidential nomination year for Democrats. So it's very hard to generalize or predict what could follow in future contests from the 2008 and 2016 races.

Even having said all of that, though, Bernie Sanders is quite obviously doing a more impressive job of racking up delegates than Howard Dean or John Edwards managed. This, to me, shows the growing appeal of the populist message, at least in the Democratic electorate. Edwards only managed, in his best year, to get fewer than 600 delegates. Looking back even further, previous populist Democrats have also fallen short of this number. Jerry Brown won six states in 1992, but got only 596 delegates. Jesse Jackson only managed to get 446 delegates in 1984. Bernie Sanders is already over 1,000 delegates, and we've still got a lot of primaries left to go.

Bernie could still win, of course. Hillary Clinton could still flame out in one way or another. But let's assume that Bernie falls short this year, in order to look towards the next contests. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, there are two possible outcomes to the election: she loses, or she wins. If she lost, we'd have either President Donald Trump or President Ted Cruz for at least four years. That might be enough for a populist Democrat to win the 2020 nomination alone. Donald Trump is actually more populist than any of the other Republican candidates, at least in his rhetoric. But he likely has no clue how to implement any populist ideas, so after four years of President Trump, there might be a whole lot of voters willing to consider a Democratic populist the next time around.

Even if Clinton wins, she could get challenged by a Democratic populist in 2020. If the economy improves under her watch and she manages to pass some pro-middle-class measures, a viable 2020 challenge will likely not happen. But if the economic cycle turns sour under her watch (we've had a long stretch of improvement, but the business cycle will eventually turn back down again -- which may very well happen under the next president's watch, no matter who wins), then the time will be ripe for a populist Democrat to challenge her. If economic discontent actually grows in the next four years, the ideas of populism are going to look a lot better, in other words.

Bernie Sanders may not win the nomination this time around, unless he can duplicate the very good week he just had throughout the rest of the primary season. It's still a possibility that he does so. But if he falls short, the ideas he fought so hard for are not going away. Hillary Clinton may surprise some Democrats and actually push a very populist agenda items as president, which would help her win re-election, if her ideas were successful and popular.

If Bernie doesn't win, however, and President Clinton follows Barack Obama by appointing her economic advisors straight out of Wall Street, then the economic discontent may grow. Or if Clinton sees a recession on her watch (even if she had nothing to do with causing such a recession), then she also might be vulnerable in 2020. If a Republican wins the presidency, then Clinton likely won't run again, opening up the race to lesser-known populist Democrats in 2020. Even if Clinton has a wildly successful two terms in office, this fight may happen all over again in 2024.

That's a lot of "ifs," I realize. And a lot of possible scenarios. But my point is that even if Bernie Sanders supporters wind up disappointed this time around, the movement they are a part of isn't likely to disappear. This is especially true when you consider the demographics of Bernie's strongest support. Young people are Bernie voters. As time goes on, the young voters start to get older. If they remember why they backed Bernie in four or eight years (assuming they don't get completely disillusioned with the process), then the next time around there'll be even more support for a populist Democrat.

Some Democrats are currently hoping that Hillary Clinton will offer Bernie Sanders a job in her cabinet. Some are proposing a Clinton/Sanders ticket, even. My guess is that should Sanders fall short, he will throw his political support behind Clinton and may even campaign for her, but that he won't accept being part of her team in any way (the only one I could see enticing him might be to lead the V.A.). If Clinton does win in November, though, I will be much more interested to see not whether Clinton offers Sanders a cabinet job, but whether she offers one (Treasury, perhaps?) to Senator Elizabeth Warren. Because while a populist candidate could come out of nowhere in the future (Sanders certainly wasn't on anyone's radar before he threw his hat in the ring), Warren is the most likely candidate to lead a populist challenge in a future Democratic presidential contest.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

88 Comments on “Populism Isn't Going To Go Away”

  1. [1] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If Hillary does become President, you can count on the Republicans in Congress to continue with their refusal to support any legislation the President endorses In their attempt to deny her a second term.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    If, as is likely as of this writing, Bernie loses the nomination fight, the truly, truly great thing he can do for this country is find a way to keep his "revolution" going. That means building some kind of structured organization that continues his work. It's the missing piece.

    If he can get some of his supporters into office -- running at the city/county/state levels and winning, then some real change starts being teed up.

    The right has all kinds of top-down institutions that keep the messaging going between campaign seasons -- the left's isn't comperable.

    The right DOESN'T have genuine grass-roots stuff happening. The new folks coming into office from the right are usually rich/rich-ish, and/or get rich sugar-daddies to back them.

    The left needs to do it the lefty way -- the small donor, fact-focused, educate-voters way.

    We have to get away from the the prevailing President-Savior mentality and get serious about lower-offices.

    If Bernie/his team can do that kind of work his vision can be realized -- eventually. And that would be a hell of an achievement.

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    Today's anecdote: a late-20's, white, male librarian.

    He "doesn't pay attention to the campaigns until after the primaries are over." Then he "looks at the positions of the main candidates and picks the one who's closest to what he supports".

    He was a bit apologetic, saying most of the "noise" right now will all evaporate.

  4. [4] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    As an informed political pundit, I am disappointed you wrote-

    "Nader earned a lot of disdain for his run, because he chose the third-party route. Many Democrats still blame him for the 2000 election"

    Give me a break.
    People like you repeating that bull is why so many Dems are still deluding themselves.
    30,000... yes, thirty thousand registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush.
    Blaming Nader is pure distraction from the real reason Dems lost that election... they ran an uninspiring neoliberal, Wall Street coddling DLC'er.

    Speaking of which, that is exactly why Dems are at risk of losing AGAIN if Hillary is the nominee this year.

    And it won't be Bernie's fault (as many are already claiming it will be) if Hillary loses.
    It will be Hillary's fault for being an uninspiring, corrupt, warmongering, anti-populist, fake progressive, lessor of two evils is still evil, establishment boot-licker.

    As for the main content of your column, I'm disappointed once again that you skipped over the "why" and went right into the "what ifs", but you are right that the revolution is just beginning.

    Even if Bernie wins, there will be a need for some serious house cleaning (and senate too) in order to remove the obstacles for Bernie's New Deal type policies to get passed... not to mention, as Paula pointed out, undoing all the damage the neoliberal corporatists have done at the state and local level.

    And, since you left it out of the list of impressive victories, I'll note that Bernie impressively won the Democrats Abroad vote too, picking up as many delegates as he did from Alaska... plus he snagged a superdelegate who recognized Bernie's commanding win in his state made him obligated to follow the will of the vast majority of Dems in his state... something many more superdelegates should be doing if they want a political future.

    And, given that Bernie erased about 25% of Hillary's delegate lead with his LANDSLIDE wins in the last three states (or as the BBC put it- Bernie Trounces Hillary...), and given that there are 22 states left to vote, I'm going to criticize your "unlikely" claim too.

    Pffft!

    A

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Elizabeth Warren as Treasury Secretary? God help her should she ever have to handle a complicated financial crisis that threatens the global financial system.

    She certainly didn't do a very good job of convincing me that she would have handled the last one as deftly as Tim Geithner did.

  6. [6] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Exceptional article, CW.

    However, at 66, I don't see Warren as being a future Dem Prez candidate, at least not the "next big thing."

    She could parlay her "this big thing" to something big. I would love that, as she is relatively awesome. She be a good VP choice, especially following a woman president where the precedent has already been set on gender.

    The successful populist Prez candidate is going to need to be younger and more charismatic than our choices, including Warren and also have a better approach to channeling anger than Sanders.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    S2,

    What's wrong with how Sanders channels anger?

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    Watch Gary Newsome from California in the future, he will be lining up for a run in the next 10 years or so, and is savvy enough to be acceptable to the current Democratic establishment, but left-of-center enough to appeal to the populist wing. Plus he has the charisma to be a media darling.

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    The FBI cracked the San Bernardino iPhone - who'd have guessed it?

    (Hint: I'm feeling particularly smug right now.)

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    It will be Hillary's fault for being an uninspiring, corrupt, warmongering, anti-populist, fake progressive, lessor of two evils is still evil, establishment boot-licker.

    Not a Hillary fanboy I take it.

    Nader is blamed because, while there are always cross ticket voters (and how many Republicans voted for Gore?), 97,488 voters opted for Nader. (Bush 'won' by only 537 votes.)

    Granted that some of these voters would have opted for other candidates, some even for idiot-boy himself who was running as a compassionate conservative, but it requires some olympic gold level arithmetic gymnastics to envisage a Gore loss in Florida in 2000 without Nader.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    The FBI cracked the San Bernardino iPhone - who'd have guessed it?

    (Hint: I'm feeling particularly smug right now.)

    Me too.. :D

    The hysterical cry from the Left was, "WE MUST KEEP THIS CRACKING TECHNOLOGY OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT!!!"

    If Apple would have played ball, that's EXACTLY what would have happened.. But now the government has the technology and they can apply it whenever they want with no one the wiser..

    Truly hoisted by their own Picard... :D

    One has to wonder how Apple and the Hysterical Left would feel if intel is discovered on that iPhone that could have prevented the Brussels terrorist attack..

    MY guess is their response would be, "eh.. Our personal privacy is worth more than a thousand innocent lives!!"

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    It will be Hillary's fault for being an uninspiring, corrupt, warmongering, anti-populist, fake progressive, lessor of two evils is still evil, establishment boot-licker.

    To borrow a concept from one of our own..

    yep... :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apple attorneys said last week that they hoped the government would share that information with them if it proved successful.
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bed1c699575e4dedb694ccb5739a8750/justice-department-cracks-iphone-withdraws-legal-action

    And *I* am hoping that the government gives a big and might FRAK YOU to Apple..

    The nerve that Apple would put innocent lives at risk and then turn around and say, "Can ya help us out so we can make our phones even MORE secure for terrorists and child molesters?"

    I truly hope that the FBI spits in the face of Tim Cook...

    I have never liked Apple products. Over-priced pieces of carp that just appeal to the snotty elitist morons of this country who would pay $1000 for an app that just shows you a red light and made by a company on the blood and sweat of slave labor...

    Now I have another reason to hate Apple....

    And ta think there are people who actually DEFEND Apple...

    It boggles the mind..

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, getting back to the Populism..

    This is why you are seeing such fanatical response to Trump and (to a lesser extent) Bernie..

    The Establishment is seeing it's life flash before it's eyes..

    The Hysterical Left is especially becoming un-glued because they KNOW that Trump will defeat Hillary in the general..

    It will be interesting to see if Bernie and Trump can defeat the evil Empires.. :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    neilm,

    "Nader is blamed because, while there are always cross ticket voters (and how many Republicans voted for Gore?), 97,488 voters opted for Nader. (Bush 'won' by only 537 votes.)"

    Why are Nader votes the only votes that matter? According to Wikipedia, there were 10 candidates who got more than 537 votes.

    In order to blame Nader, you have to ignore all of the other "third party" candidates, ignore that Gore was a bad candidate, ignore how many Dems voted for Chimpy, and then assume that Gore was the second choice for Nader voters and that the (D)s & (R)s are actually entitled to our votes because they make self-serving, anti-democratic rules to exclude other parties. There's your olympic gold level arithmetic gymnastics.

    I voted for Nader and would not have voted for Gore.

  16. [16] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    altohone,

    "Nader earned a lot of disdain for his run, because he chose the third-party route. Many Democrats still blame him for the 2000 election"

    I don't see what your beef is with this quote. Although I don't agree with them, many Dems do blame Nader.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    If Hillary does become President, you can count on the Republicans in Congress to continue with their refusal to support any legislation the President endorses In their attempt to deny her a second term.

    And if Trump becomes President, you can count on Democrats in Congress doing the exact same thing for the exact same reason..

    What's yer point??

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Republicans presidential situation is a result of the Tea Party taking on the establishment Republican congressional and senatorial candidates in previous elections.
    Bernie's campaign will not have the same effect on the Democratic Party because it is going from the top down.
    What the Democrats need to change their party is a movement that combines the Tea Party strategy of taking on the establishment candidates in the primaries and extending Bernie's small contribution model to congressional and senatorial candidates in the primaries.
    The idea to "Occupy the Primaries" in 2016 is briefly explained in my Feb. 12 comment in the About Us section of the Revolt Against Plutocracy website and some previous comments on this site.
    More info at http://www.vouchervendetta.org
    But this approach is not limited to Democrats. All citizens can use this approach to influence all candidates and parties.
    Note: Although Robert Reich has not written about this idea, he did send me a response that said "I think it's a great idea. Thanks for sending it."

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    The Republicans presidential situation is a result of the Tea Party taking on the establishment Republican congressional and senatorial candidates in previous elections.

    I, surprisingly, disagree...

    Trumps power doesn't come from those in Congress, even if they were previous Tea Party candidates..

    Trump's power derives from the voters.. The masses who are really REALLY passionate about his candidacy..

    To a lesser degree, Bernie supports also have that passion...

    But make no mistake.. The power of these candidates comes from the bottom.. Not higher up...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    altohone wrote:

    neilm-

    30,000 Dems voted for Bush, and "Bush "won" by 537 votes".

    You claim I'm the one doing arithmetic gymnastics?

    And, btw, Gavin Newsome is a corporatist establishment boot licker too... but hey, if you find fake liberals and the metrosexual crap charismatic, go for it.

    A

  21. [21] 
    altohone wrote:

    JFC

    Here's the problem with the quote-

    It is the endless repetition by the establishment politicians and punditry that has intentionally misled so many Dems.

    They falsely blame Nader in order for the corporatist, warmongering Clinton/Gore/Obama/Clinton wing of the party to avoid admitting that it is their embrace of legalized corruption by Big Money at the expense of average Americans which is indistinguishable from Republicans that is the real problem.

    It is classical misdirection to maintain the failed status quo.

    If you break it down, these establishment shills who adhere to right wing economics are blaming the Left to maintain the charade that their neoliberalism is no different than actual liberalism when it is in fact economic wingnuttery.

    In case you don't know what I mean by that, that includes attacks on the New Deal safety net, corporate welfare and bailouts, legalized tax evasion by the rich and corporations, policy driven inequality, etc, etc, etc.

    So, CW deserves to be criticized for repeating it, even though in the quote he isn't including himself as one of those who blame Nader.

    A

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did the FBI Just Unleash a Hacker Army on Apple?
    When the tech giant wouldn’t unlock a San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone, the FBI initiated legal action—then found another way to get the information it needed.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/did-the-fbi-just-unleash-a-hacker-army-on-apple.html

    SQUIRM, Apple!!! SQUIRM!!!!!

    :D

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving company...

    I hope the iPhone is decimated!!!

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to give credit where credit is due..

    "HILLARY CLINTON: The lesser of two evils is still evil"

    That oughta be a bumper sticker... :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (19)
    I was talking about the problems of the Republican Party- not Trump specifically. It is true his support comes from voters as Bernie's do.
    What I meant was the Tea Party's previous congressional and senatorial candidates had pushed the party to the right and gave the crazies in the Tea Party enough influence on the Republican Party so that their more "rational" candidates could not compete with Trump, Cruz and Rubio in the 2016 presidential primary. If Trump wasn't running they would still having the same problems with Cruz and Rubio.

    note: Not all Tea Party members or Trump supporters are crazies. But the Tea Party and Trump seem to purposely try to attract the crazies. Not because they agree with them but to manipulate them and exploit their insanity.

    The difference with Bernie is that no such movement has pushed the Democrats to the left before he got started with his campaign. In fact, Hillary and the other "third way Democrats" have pushed the Democratic Party in the other direction.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Crap. I meant to mispell third way Democrats as tird way Democrats.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Crap. I meant to mispell third way Democrats as tird way Democrats.

    heh I think we get the point..

    Not all Tea Party members or Trump supporters are crazies. But the Tea Party and Trump seem to purposely try to attract the crazies.

    No more so than Democrats..

    Remember the voter who said that Obama was going to pay her mortgage... The crazies who think the government will give them everything for free...

    Those Left Wingeries are just as crazy as the Right Wingeries...

    Yer falling into the US vs THEM trap...

    Democrat vs Republicans... Right vs Left...

    All of that's just a smokescreen to cover the REAL conflict..

    Politicians vs everyone else...

    Democrat/Republican is not the disease.. POLITICIANS...

    THAT's the disease...

    You ever read TOM CLANCY's EXECUTIVE ORDERS???

    If you do, you'll get a very keen insight into where I am coming from as far as what constitutes leadership...

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    @JFC [15]

    Hi:

    Why are Nader votes the only votes that matter? According to Wikipedia, there were 10 candidates who got more than 537 votes.

    It is a statistical thing. If some of the other low vote candidates had not run, then there is a possibility that Nader would have made no difference, but it would have meant that all of their votes would have had to switch to Gore. However is Nader had not run it is almost certain that at least 537+ more voters would have voted for Gore than Bush, even taking into account the Nader voters that would have not voted, voted for somebody else, or even voted for Bush.

    No other candidate could have dropped out and virtually statistically guaranteed that Gore would have won.

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    30,000 Dems voted for Bush, and "Bush "won" by 537 votes".
    You claim I'm the one doing arithmetic gymnastics?

    Yes. Statistics is a grind, but basically enough Nader voters would have preferred Gore over Bush to overcome the 537 deficit, even taking into account that some would have stayed at home, some would have voted for idiot-boy and some would have voted for another candidate.

    The 30,000 Dems voting for Bush is not important because they were already counted in the 537+

    Can you supply the reference for the 30,000 number and for intellectual integrity also supply the number of Reps who voted for Gore?

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump's power derives from the voters.. The masses who are really REALLY passionate about his candidacy..

    Total Votes:
    Clinton 8,668,136
    Trump 7,548,429

    Oops.

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    And the nail in the 'passionate' voters argument:

    Republicans 20,375,925
    Democrats 15,070,178

    Hillary: 56%
    Trump: 37%

    Some 'passion' for Trump there.

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    You ever read TOM CLANCY's EXECUTIVE ORDERS???

    Really?

    After Harrison Ford ridiculed Trump for his "Air Force One" fantasy, we are getting a Tom Clancy modern day Western used as a political reference point?

    Let's try to stick with reality.

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I am not falling into the trap of defending the loonies on the left that want free stuff. But I do think that there is larger percentage of crazies on the right than loonies on the left.
    I am only as far left or right as it requires for me to stop getting screwed by both sides.
    Never read Tom Clancy's book. Books have too many words for my taste. I am a very patient person so I figure if the book is good enough they will eventually make it into a movie that I can watch when it comes on TV.

  33. [33] 
    Paula wrote:

    Kevin Drum -- who is notable for his love for statistics and logic -- was unusually emotional today in this post, and he made the case I try to make all the time: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/hillary-clinton-fundamentally-honest-and-trustworthy

    Not only do we know there's almost literally nothing to any of these "scandals," we also know exactly how they were deliberately and cynically manufactured at every step along the way. We were there, watching it happen in real time. So not only do we believe Hillary is basically honest, but the buzzwords actively piss us off. Every time we hear a young progressive kinda sorta suggest that Hillary can't be trusted, we want to strangle someone. It's the ultimate proof of how the right wing's big lie about the Clintons has successfully poisoned not just the electorate in general, but even the progressive movement itself.

    Go Kevin!

  34. [34] 
    altohone wrote:

    neilm

    They were already counted in the 537?

    The point is that they are responsible for that tally.
    You're giving you're own party members a pass, and laying the blame elsewhere.

    Gee.
    Who else never takes responsibility for the consequences of their actions?
    Oh yeah.
    Trump.

    The Dems moving so far to the right that they create a political space for a candidate on the left does not make the Left culpable for their losses, nor the consequences of their losses.

    It's cause and effect.
    Pretending the cause lies elsewhere is delusion or dishonesty.
    The delusion is held by the believers of the dishonesty by the politicians who don't want to even talk about or have it talked about how they have abandoned the middle class and poor by embracing right wing economics... Third Way... DLC... whatever you want to call it... it is a drastic departure from what pre-Clinton Democrats used to support.
    And the consequences have been awful.

    While you're googling your intellectual integrity that dismisses the obvious, check out Thomas Franks. He's got an excerpt from his new book on HP today.

    A

  35. [35] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear [1] -

    Yeah, I've always scratched my head over Hillary's argument that she'll get things done with Congress whereas Bernie can't. But maybe that's because I remember the 1990s, and what conservatives did to her husband. Does anyone seriously see House Republicans passing Clinton's agenda being any more likely than Bernie's? I don't.

    Paula [2] -

    You're right about that. The left needs more institutional support behind the scenes. The right figured this out like 30 years ago...

    Oh, and I love your continuing anecdotes, keep them coming!

    :-)

    Altohone -

    Well, that's why I wrote "many Democrats" -- I'm not one of them. Nader earned his votes. Plain and simple. But you've got to agree that a whole bunch of Dems do, in fact, still blame him.

    As for the "why" in the article, I wanted to look forward. "Why" would be a whole different article.

    Good point about Dems Abroad, too. I heard a Bernie spokesperson say something about "the last 6 out of 7" and went looking for it, but missed the Dems Abroad one and just assumed he misspoke. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Speak2 [6] -

    I almost said something about young and good looking and charismatic, but then I remembered that Edwards was all of those things, and didn't want to draw the parallel to how that turned out in the end... call me chicken, but there it is.

    neilm [8] -

    Good point about Newsom. I think it's "Gavin" though. For those who don't remember his name, his big start was as SF mayor, defiantly marrying gay people on City Hall steps just to push the issue -- a LONG time ago. He might be our next governor, which is certainly a path to the WH.

    altohone [20] -

    What's your beef with Newsom? I'd like to hear, since I may be voting on him for gov this year. I don't live in SF, so haven't really been following his career much (like most Californians, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to our state gov). There are plenty of CA Dems who disgust me for one reason or another (or multiple reasons, like DiFi), but haven't heard this particular beef against Newsom. Got a link?

    Everyone -

    My point about Nader is that he went third-party, and no matter what people think (or thought) about it, populist candidates learned their lesson and haven't run third-party since. There's an interesting article in the Washington Post written by Nader called something like: "Bernie Sanders Was Right To Run As A Democrat" which everyone with an opinion on Nader might like to read. If anyone asks, I'll look up the link. Ran in the past week, I think.

    Paula [33] -

    Here's another interesting article you might like:

    http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/the_strange_silence_about_hillarymania_clinton_fires_up_voters_more_than_bernie_does_so_why_is_no_one_talking_about_it/

    Clinton up in "excitement factor" polling...

    OK, that's it, gotta run...

    -CW

  36. [36] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula

    Uh, no.

    The criticism of Hillary from the left is VERY different than the manufactured scandals by the right.

    The policies that Hillary has embraced (which un-coincidentally are supported by Repubs too) are what have "poisoned" the views among progressives about her. It is fundamentally dishonest to claim otherwise.

    I would also note that having two Hillary apologists trotting out the "fundamentally honest" argument at the same time is rather pathetic.

    Not to mention the fact that the word "honest" needs a qualifier in the first place.

    A

  37. [37] 
    Paula wrote:

    [35] Chris: Oh, and I love your continuing anecdotes, keep them coming!

    Thanks! Missed today. We'll see about tomorrow!

  38. [38] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I lived in SF during the Newsom years.

    His embrace of gay marriage was not only not political risk taking in SF (to state the obvious), but was actually political expediency.

    His record of embracing Big Money interests is long and ugly, but I don't have any links for you.

    You could start your search with DiFi's support for Newsom (since you mentioned her) in his extremely close race against Gonzalez of the Green Party... or the Treasure Island redevelopment.

    As for Nader and Dems, I specifically noted you weren't counting yourself among them in a follow up comment, but repeating a "conventional wisdom" that amounts to propaganda is bothersome for those fighting against the corporatist sell out of the Democratic Party.
    It's part of their whole "Republicans are worse" bit that they think means the Left is obligated to support them no matter how often they stab us in the back... which is constantly.

    A

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    @altohone [34]

    The point is that they are responsible for that tally.
    You're giving you're own party members a pass, and laying the blame elsewhere.

    So, no link to support the "30,000 democrats" that supported Bush. And still no balancing number of Reps who supported Bush.

    97,000 voters pulled the lever for Nader - over three times the number of democrats you claim, but don't support, voted for Bush. So 'my party' (where did that come from, do you think this is a partisan argument rather than the statistical observation I've been making?) is only 1/3 as responsible as Nader if you want to apportion 'blame', which it seems is your goal.

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Reps who supported Gore (not Bush)"

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    @CW - yes Gavin Newsom, not Gary Newsom ... jetlag is a beeatch

  42. [42] 
    Paula wrote:

    [36] A. The criticism of Hillary from the left is VERY different than the manufactured scandals by the right.

    I was not aiming [33] at you. Was really just a link to an article I liked. Read the whole thing.

    I agree with Kevin that the ongoing rightwing slander thrown at Hillary HAS affected the overall perception of her honesty, and that DOES include many people on the left. I have had many Democrats tell me "they don't trust her" and when I ask why they end up making very vague statements or referencing old scandals that have been debunked.

    If you are a political-junkie you may well be able to list your reasons for distrusting Hillary and not once mention Whitewater or Vince Foster or Benghazi or vague generalities. You would be in a minority. Not to say there aren't other political junkies who are able to be discriminating in that way. But most Americans don't pay close attention and cannot separate the wheat from the chaff. They just know people have been accusing Hillary of "bad stuff" for years.

    I am not, btw, a "Hillary-apologist", I am a "Hillary-Supporter". I'm allowed to be. I get to like her even if you don't. I am also a Bernie-Supporter. I will vote for either of them. I like them for different reasons.

  43. [43] 
    altohone wrote:

    neilm

    You've got a computer.
    Use it.
    I'm not an effing journalist required to support my FACTS. Nor will I ask how high when some lazy piece asks me to jump.
    Since you doubt me, look it up.
    You will find I am not lying to you... the guy with such intellectual integrity you provide support for all of your figures... oh, wait. Unlike some, I won't assume they are false though.

    But you are still trying to change the subject.
    Democrats are the reason Democrats lost.
    It's a simple fact.
    I'm not "apportioning blame", I'm correcting the falsehood the establishment Dems used to maintain the failed status quo... which, for some reason, you seem determined to perpetuate.

    And I have noted your unwillingness to engage on the reason the Dem establishment wants to shift the focus to Nader.

    And, btw, I voted for Gore.
    I just happen to value truth.

    A

  44. [44] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula

    I was not calling you a Hillary apologist.

    There is a second article (out yesterday or today on HP) using the exact same "fundamentally honest" phrasing as the one to which you linked.

    Interesting coincidence, don't you think?

    Seems like a concerted effort at spin to me.

    I certainly have come across numerous Republican Hillary bashers who trot out the fake GOP scandal crap, but invariably the Bernie supporting progressives I interact with, not a "minority", are well aware of her actual shortcomings... factual, verifiable reasons for us to consider her untrustworthy and dishonest.

    And I think the authors of both pieces are well aware of that reality, thus both qualify as apologists.
    The false claims about Bernie supporters from Hillary supporters have been many of late, and each one makes me like her even less.

    A

  45. [45] 
    Paula wrote:

    [44] The phrase "fundamentally honest" comes from the tag line of the piece people were commenting/reporting on: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

    You might want to read it too.

    The false claims by Bernie Supporters about Hillary Supporters make me like those supporters even less too.

    As for "apologists" well, I think the Jill Abramson article does not qualify as that, nor does Kevin Drum's. I've followed Hillary Clinton since 1990 and I've seen the shit she's been put through. Sorry if that has no meaning for you but it does for me. I think it has caused her to become defensive at times and she parses her words because she's fully aware that every word she says can and will be used against her. And I think she's made the wrong calls at times. I don't think she's perfect at all. But I believe she's a legitimate politician with positive motives and intentions. You don't have to like her positions but you really don't need to personalize it.

    The "untrustworthy" and "dishonest" slurs anger me. If you want to call her "hawkish" that's fair. If you want to diss her vote for the Iraq War, you can. But wholesale "dishonest" stuff is right out of the republican playbook. Until they were campaign opponents Bernie was very positive about Hillary, and she about him. For awhile they avoided slanging each other. But things have degenerated somewhat and I don't like seeing it.

    I am not interested in engaging in a Hillary vs. Bernie match; I like them both and you don't like her. Bummer for me but there it is.

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm not an effing journalist required to support my FACTS. Nor will I ask how high when some lazy piece asks me to jump.

    Here is why I asked for your reference:

    "Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"
    -San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

    So you came up with another number, but as usual on the internet, claims are cheap and references are few and far between.

    It is always a red flag for me when somebody ignores repeated requests for a reference, then spends more time explaining why they don't need to provide one than it would just to post it, if in fact it wasn't just some number you remember hearing somewhere (you provided the usual excuse I get - "look it up yourself I'm not your flunky").

    Do you think this attitude increases or decreases your credibility, and before you trot out the "I don't care what you think" come back, ask yourself why you are taking the time to write out all these long posts if you don't want your posts to be taken seriously?

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not only do we know there's almost literally nothing to any of these "scandals," we also know exactly how they were deliberately and cynically manufactured at every step along the way.

    Really???

    Obama's FBI manufactured this "scandal"??

    Obama is part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy??

    Who knew... :D

    When it comes to scandals, it's Hillary who is her own worst enemy...

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    So what you are saying Paula, is that the Republicans have manufactured each and every scandal and, in doing so, have caused over 70% of Americans that the best words to describe Hillary is "liar" and "dishonest"...

    In essence, you are ascribing nearly god-like powers to Republicans and that Hillary is completely blameless for people thinking she is a liar....

    Is THAT really what you are saying???

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    neil,

    And the nail in the 'passionate' voters argument:

    Republicans 20,375,925
    Democrats 15,070,178

    Hillary: 56%
    Trump: 37%

    "There are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics.."
    -Mark Twain

    :D

    Yer right neil.. There are absolutely NO PASSION in the Trump or Bernie supporters...

    "That was sarcasm, right?? Oooo I'm on fire!!!"
    -Sheldon Cooper

    Seriously, Dood... Do you just post whatever is the opposite of what I post, just to be contrary??? :D

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Sorry, that one paragraph was a little tortured.. My fingers often get ahead of my brain when I have something really kewl to type in.. :D

    That SHOULD read..

    So what you are saying Paula, is that the Republicans have manufactured each and every scandal and, in doing so, have caused over 70% of Americans to believe that the best words to describe Hillary is "liar" and "dishonest"...

    Sorry about that...

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, btw, I voted for Gore.
    I just happen to value truth.

    That first statement seems to negate the second statement..

    heh

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not only do we know there's almost literally nothing to any of these "scandals," we also know exactly how they were deliberately and cynically manufactured at every step along the way.

    I am constrained to point out that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON here has addressed the *fact* that the email server scandal is NOT being run by the Republicans but rather is being pushed by OBAMA's FBI...

    Until ya'all can address that, ya'all have absolutely NO CASE that it's just the VRWC at work...

    NO.... CASE.... WHATSOEVER....

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ex-Miss Wisconsin tears up thanking Trump at rally
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/274624-ex-miss-wisconsin-tears-up-thanking-trump-at-rally

    According to the vast majority of Weigantians, this brave woman is a hysterical racist..

    Kinda puts all the bigotry in perspective, eh??

    :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    altohone wrote:

    neilm

    Let me get this straight...

    You asked me for a reference because you found a reference to a number that was almost seven times higher than the number I used, and you not only failed to mention it, but claimed Nader voters were more significant when the number you found proved otherwise?

    And you not only implied I was lying, but you now continue to question MY credibility?

    Color me disappointed.
    I thought there was only one regular here who could shoot themselves in the foot like that.

    A

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought there was only one regular here who could shoot themselves in the foot like that.

    Still thinking about me, Biga. How schweet... :D

    Tell me, do I haunt your dreams, too?? :D heh

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula

    Right out of the Republican playbook?

    I'm going to refer you to CW's republication of his article on Bernie that he just reposted for his clear explanation of the lefts problem with Hillary's honesty issues.

    But I'm also going to point out that Hillary claimed to be progressive.

    You admit that she's "hawkish"... well, that's not progressive.

    The list of her policies that fall into the "not progressive" category is actually very long... so Hillary claiming to be progressive is dishonest.

    Bernie and his supporters telling the truth about Hillary does not match the definition of "slurs".
    Hillary and her supporters lying about Bernie's positions do.

    Just so you know, friends and family have suffered greatly because of the positions Hillary has supported, so it is personal for me. Don't you dare tell me it shouldn't be.

    And, when you write a Hillary vs Bernie comment and then claim you're "not interested in a Hillary vs Bernie match"... well, that's very Clintonian.

    A

  57. [57] 
    altohone wrote:

    CW

    "populist candidates learned their lesson and haven't run third-party since"

    Geez dude.

    Maybe if you phrased it "populist establishment candidates..."

    But to claim that none of the third party candidates that have run after 2000 qualify as populists is just flat out wrong.

    You not writing about them doesn't mean they don't exist.

    A

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    @altohone

    I did a quick search, as requested, and came up with the 200,000 number - I have no idea if it is accurate or not, but I'd not use it as a 'fact' in an argument. I think, without context, the 30,000 or the 200,000 numbers are meaningless.

    If you want to use the 30,000 number you need to be able to support it, and also understand its context, such as:

    1. What is the average number of Democrats that vote for Republicans in presidential elections in Florida - 30,000 might be a low number in comparison to 1996, 2004, etc.

    2. How many Republicans vote for Democratic candidates normally?

    It could well be that in 1996 and 2004 200,000 Democrats crossed over, and in the average year 300,000 Republicans vote for Democratic presidential candidates, etc., so the 30,000 number might be a 'win' for Gore.

    Your problem is that the 30,000 number is unsubstantiated and has no context.

    However it is clear that the 97,000 people who voted for Nader in 2000 did not vote for Nader in 1996, 2004, etc.

    This is why I asked for the reference. But providing it was either beneath you or beyond you.

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    I am constrained to point out that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON here has addressed the *fact* that the email server scandal is NOT being run by the Republicans but rather is being pushed by OBAMA's FBI...

    The email server 'issue' was dug up by Republicans during the ridiculous Benghazi!!! fiasco, and trumped up out of all context by an embarrassed Republican Party trying to salvage any semblance of credibility.

    Once the allegations were made, the alligators (sorry) insisted that the FBI investigate.

    Sorry - this is just more of the same old story - keep throwing mud at the Clintons to make the 'no smoke without fire' argument (brazen use of mixed metaphors - sorry again).

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ex-Miss Wisconsin tears up thanking Trump at rally

    Problem is, she wasn't Miss Wisconsin 2005 as claimed.

    http://www.misswisconsin.com/miss-wi-pageants/2005-miss/2005_pageant/2005-pageant-contestants.html

    Oops.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    That's a real low.. even from you..

    http://i1.wp.com/thegreatpageantcommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/11176301_377881552402113_475990421_n.jpg?w=960

    You have to attack a sickly woman, SOLELY and COMPLETELY because she supports Trump...

    Ooops is right... But it's YOUR ooops...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    wow, talk about insult to injury. all those trumpies shouting for an indictment of hillary and her aides, and it looks like trump's own campaign manager has beaten her to the punch and been arrested.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trumps-campaign-manager-charged-with-battery-for-grabbing-reporter/

    "This is the world's smallest violin, Frank, and it's playing just for you"
    ~Major Houlihan, *M*A*S*H*

    JL

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    If this had been a feel good story about Clinton, it wouldn't have occurred to you to fact check it..

    Behold, the face of bigotry...

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    wow, talk about insult to injury. all those trumpies shouting for an indictment of hillary and her aides, and it looks like trump's own campaign manager has beaten her to the punch and been arrested.

    And, of course, you don't say "BOO" when Huma shoves a Hillary supporter...

    Behold, the face of bigotry, Part Duex....

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    But credit on the MASH quote... :D

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: Just FYI, Washington Post put out this correction today:

    ,,,Also, an earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50.

    This is not to rub it in, but more to show that the story has been blown out of proportion, in part due to bad journalism -- poor fact-checking and/or unreliable sources being used.

    The article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

    The article has plenty of meat but really seems to be a tale of Hillary not getting the tech support for her Blackberry; her not wanting to change devices; people trying to get stuff done under pressure hampered by user-unfriendly systems; squabbles about what should/shouldn't be classified, etc. What there ISN'T is any evidence of malign intent by anyone.

    That doesn't mean she's off the hook; we'll see. But I do think the fallacy of there being 147 Agents assigned to the case made it seem more dire than it is.

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nice try Michale, but checking something that you read on the Internet isn't bigotry, it is common sense, or do you believe everything you read on the Internet?

    I've been on the Internet since October 1992 and got skeptical about what was posted there about ... October 1992 - especially newsgroups.

    However, all I really wanted to do was see a pic of a pretty lady, so googled miss wisconsin 2005 and found the page I posted. Lo and behold, there was a discrepancy.

    Now that I've looked deeper, I owe you and Melissa Young an apology - it turns out that there are multiple Miss Wisconsin competitions (who knew?) or at least there were in 2005 and she is in fact one of the Miss Wisconsins 2005 and her story is true and very sad.

    Not my most proud moment. I'm going to donate $50 to her son's campaign.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nice try Michale, but checking something that you read on the Internet isn't bigotry, it is common sense, or do you believe everything you read on the Internet?

    But when you only do it against Republicans, then it IS bigotry..

    Textbook definition...

    I've been on the Internet since October 1992 and got skeptical about what was posted there about ... October 1992 - especially newsgroups.

    Got ya beat.. I started in late 1990... :D Right before I deployed to Iraq as an MI LT..

    Now that I've looked deeper, I owe you and Melissa Young an apology - it turns out that there are multiple Miss Wisconsin competitions (who knew?) or at least there were in 2005 and she is in fact one of the Miss Wisconsins 2005 and her story is true and very sad.

    Not my most proud moment. I'm going to donate $50 to her son's campaign.

    You are a truly honorable human being and I take back most of the bad things I was thinking about you.. :D

    "Egon?? I am going to take back some of the bad things I have said about you... Here.. You've..... You've earned it..."
    -Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    That doesn't mean she's off the hook; we'll see. But I do think the fallacy of there being 147 Agents assigned to the case made it seem more dire than it is.

    Actually the count was closer to 200, according to my sources..

    But of course, that number has been GREATLY reduced because the leg work is over.

    All that's needed now are the SUBJECT interviews and a small squad to run down leads and discrepancies from those interviews..

    It's SOP for very serious cases to throw a lot... a LOT of manpower into an investigation initially and then draw down as the investigative part of the investigation dies down...

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    wow, talk about insult to injury. all those trumpies shouting for an indictment of hillary and her aides, and it looks like trump's own campaign manager has beaten her to the punch and been arrested.

    And NOW we see why Trump's Campaign Manager was arrested..

    LEWANDOWSKI PROSECUTOR OUTED AS HILLARY SUPPORTER
    Put on Florida Democratic Party's campaign-endorsing council

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/lewandowski-prosecutor-outed-as-hillary-supporter/

    First Neil and now you...

    Ya'all are beginning to act like... like... ME!!!! :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    altohone wrote:

    neilm

    You did a quick search?
    How unbelievably heroic of you.

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Did I miss the apology or is the holier than thou, pathetic failure of a guilt trip approach what you're going with since the number you came up with trashed your own argument?

    Oh, you doubt that number?
    So, what you're saying is the one I presented may actually be correct?

    Oh, you ignore that possibility and are going to keep using your own other unsupported and thus "meaningless" numbers to ramble on in a distraction from your unwillingness to engage on the reason for the Dems insistence on blaming Nader for their own failures.

    Heroic and noble intellectual integrity on display.

    Do you need some tips on how to do a search of verifiable source material?
    A quick search on the topic may be useful.

    A

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously, people....

    Is that how ^^^^^^ I come across???

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    The article has plenty of meat but really seems to be a tale of Hillary not getting the tech support for her Blackberry; her not wanting to change devices; people trying to get stuff done under pressure hampered by user-unfriendly systems; squabbles about what should/shouldn't be classified, etc. What there ISN'T is any evidence of malign intent by anyone.

    It doesn't take 147 FBI Special Agents to determine that there is nothing to anything...

    A handful could have done that in less than a week..

    The mere fact that there are 147 (or 200) Agents on this should indicate to you the seriousness of the crimes...

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:
  75. [75] 
    neilm wrote:

    Seriously, people....

    Is that how ^^^^^^ I come across???

    Keep being you Michale, CW.com wouldn't be the same without you ;)

  76. [76] 
    Paula wrote:

    [72] Michale: I have to admit I found myself liking you better today :-)

    The devil we know…?

    Geez, I never realized how unprincipled and Clintonian I am. Thanks goodness someone came along and let me know!

  77. [77] 
    altohone wrote:

    Awwwww

    A group hug by Hillary supporters for the serial liar, self-admitted war criminal, and supporter of the greater of two evils, racist, wannabe war criminal!!!

    A PR firm would just gush at such enhancement of your images.

    It makes me feel all warm inside.

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @alto,

    huh?

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think he's just trying to be funny. :)

  80. [80] 
    Paula wrote:

    [77] It makes me feel all warm inside.

    We aim to please!

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    A group hug by Hillary supporters for the serial liar, self-admitted war criminal, and supporter of the greater of two evils, racist, wannabe war criminal!!!

    And I have had several overdue library books..

    :D

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    [72] Michale: I have to admit I found myself liking you better today :-)

    The devil we know…?

    "I'm fatter.... Er... FLATTERED"
    -Eddie Murphy, The Nutty Professor

    :D

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz and nypoet22

    Why yes.
    I was hoping a little bit of humor in there would offset the unfortunate reality of the apt descriptions of the troll and the Trumpon.

    I was of course referring to torture.
    The troll claimed personal experience with it in a comment a month or so back, and the Trumpon is eager to reinstitute that criminal policy if elected.
    And, under US law, torture is a war crime.

    The Hillary supporters embrace of the troll also reminded me of the pictures of Hillary and the Trumpon at his third wedding... the establishment love fest of the corruptor and the corrupted.

    I fear for this country if those are the only two viable choices in November.

    A

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    reality of the apt descriptions of the troll

    Right out of Goebbels' Playbook.. Congrats.. :D

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "Sure, call Trump a Nazi. Just make sure you know what you’re talking about. The inventor of "Godwin's Law" about Hitler comparisons on the Internet says they're not always inappropriate.
    [snip]
    "Sure enough, as Trump pontificates about immigrants or ethnic or religious minorities, with scarcely less subtlety than certain early 20th-century political aspirants in Europe did, people on the Internet feel compelled to ask me what I think about it."

    ~mike godwin

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    Not sure yer point here...

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey all

    Not quite a denial there from the troll, eh?

    Anybody can see his comment.
    Too bad for him they don't get erased.

    Pathetic.

    A

  88. [88] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet22
    re-85

    Not sure if you've ever checked out the Wikipedia definition of fascism, but it's astounding.

    They start with a general definition that admits that debate continues, and then list a whole range of definitions by scholars and philosophers and from historical figures from Mussolini to Roosevelt.

    Trump fits in rather nicely, but America in general shares a bit too much for comfort too.

    A

Comments for this article are closed.