Democrats, Can We Agree?

DaveSchmidt said:

Hillary's lead in Maplewood up to a ratio of 2.4 to 1.


http://villagegreennj.com/election/numbers-hillary-bested-bernie-maplewood/

Good thing Bernie is not running for Mayor of Maplewood..............Oh we don't directly elect our 

Mayor do we.

My sister, who lives in Vermont brought me a Bernie Tee Shirt

One side has a picture of Bernie

The other side says "The Republic of Burlington"

Guess I am limited to wearing it less than half the time

nan said:

BG9 said:

paulsurovell said:

NJ Democratic Party leadership rejects unity:

http://www.bluejersey.com/2016/06/kumbaya-over-bernie-sanders-nj-chair-wisniewski-summarily-dropped-as-dnc-member-2/

Politics is not a childs game. It can get tough.

Wisnieski was dumped because he represented a group (Bernie et al.) which denigrated the DNC. The consensus was "we can do without you."

Its like any team. You denigrate your team, you're out.

Well then I guess they don't want my vote.  I tried.

It's ok, because the lead that Clinton has over Trump doesn't include your vote.

DaveSchmidt said:

Hillary's lead in Maplewood up to a ratio of 2.4 to 1.


http://villagegreennj.com/election/numbers-hillary-bested-bernie-maplewood/

That's larger than the state ratio of 1.75 to 1 and  the 12th delegate district ratio of 2.26 to 1.

Clinton beat Sanders in South Orange, 2825 to 1246, or a ratio of 2.26 to 1.

I was a little surprised at the numbers out of Maplewood which I had assumed would go to Bernie but I think it sort of reflects what was happening on social media.  Bernie supporters were raucous making it seem as if their cause was larger than it was. Clinton supporters were quiet but resolute AND they went to the polls.

eliz said:

I was a little surprised at the numbers out of Maplewood which I had assumed would go to Bernie but I think it sort of reflects what was happening on social media.  Bernie supporters were raucous making it seem as if their cause was larger than it was. Clinton supporters were quiet but resolute AND they went to the polls.

I was also surprised, considering that Maplewood (and South Orange) are probably the two most progressive towns in the state. They both have an African-American population of around 30%, and Clinton did well in states that had large African-American populations, but it doesn't explain the ratios of 2.4 to 1 and 2.26 to 1.

cramer said:

eliz said:

I was a little surprised at the numbers out of Maplewood which I had assumed would go to Bernie but I think it sort of reflects what was happening on social media.  Bernie supporters were raucous making it seem as if their cause was larger than it was. Clinton supporters were quiet but resolute AND they went to the polls.

I was also surprised, considering that Maplewood (and South Orange) are probably the two most progressive towns in the state. They both have an African-American population of around 30%, and Clinton did well in states that had large African-American populations, but it doesn't explain the ratios of 2.4 to 1 and 2.26 to 1.

I don't think Maplewood and South Orange are as progressive as many people think.  Our townspeople are very progressive in terms of being against bigotry, and being in favor of women's rights and reproductive freedom, and coming out in favor of green initiatives. But in terms of economic issues, not as progressive from what I've observed. And that was Bernie's sweet spot -- people who put economic concerns first. Most SOMA liberals have the kind of high incomes that meant they'd be paying the tab for Bernie's initiatives if they came to pass. And that doesn't go over well with a lot of people.

That's a rather narrow definition of progressive, isn't it? Not to mention a reductive reading of people's politics. If I said something like "Sanders supporters just want benefits that other people pay for" (or, baldly, "free stuff") I think I would be quickly criticized, and with justice.

Bernie's core supporters also tend to be younger than most of us--people in their 20s who are more likely to be living in cities rather than parents who've moved to the burbs later in life. 

PVW said:

That's a rather narrow definition of progressive, isn't it? Not to mention a reductive reading of people's politics. If I said something like "Sanders supporters just want benefits that other people pay for" (or, baldly, "free stuff") I think I would be quickly criticized, and with justice.

it's not a narrow definition at all.  it's really common to hear people describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That's not a bad description of Hillary Clinton in fact. And SOMA voters chose her overwhelmingly over Bernie Sanders, whose primary appeals were economic. 

Then this came out yesterday:  The Congressional Black Caucus unanimously opposed to Sanders' demands for changes to the primary system

"The CBC is opposed to any state nominating system that would allow independent or Republican voters to participate in a Democratic Primary. The Democratic Party primary is the process used by the party to allow political aspirants to compete for their party’s nomination. Allowing independent or Republican voters to participate in the Democratic primary would dilute minority voting strength in many districts across the country."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/19/1540500/-Congressional-Black-Caucus-unanimously-opposed-to-the-two-key-Sanders-demands-for-primary-changes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/an-expensive-reminder-that-sanders-still-hasnt-dropped-out-his-secret-service-detail/2016/06/19/a3f717c6-3555-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

Don't forget to vote!

Supreme Court Says Police May Use Evidence Found After Illegal Stops

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that evidence found by police officers after illegal stops may be used in court if the officers conducted their searches after learning that the defendants had outstanding arrest warrants.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in the 5-to-3 decision, said such searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment when the warrant is valid and unconnected to the conduct that prompted the stop.

Justice Thomas’s opinion drew a fiery dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said that “it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.”

ml1 said:

PVW said:

That's a rather narrow definition of progressive, isn't it? Not to mention a reductive reading of people's politics. If I said something like "Sanders supporters just want benefits that other people pay for" (or, baldly, "free stuff") I think I would be quickly criticized, and with justice.

it's not a narrow definition at all.  it's really common to hear people describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That's not a bad description of Hillary Clinton in fact. And SOMA voters chose her overwhelmingly over Bernie Sanders, whose primary appeals were economic. 

Not narrow in usage, granted, but I think that in itself points to a weakness in the progressive movement. Not everything is explained by economics. Racism, for instance, often intersects quite a bit with economic issues, but is its own separate issue. Ditto misogyny.

This is historically something of a blind spot in American liberalism. It's what got us things like red lining alongside New Deal and Great Society programs, for instance.

You are right that, historically, it's sufficient to be liberal solely on economic issues to lay claim to the progressive tradition, but I maintain that this remains far too narrow of a definition.

NJ elected Christ Christie twice.    NJ isn't half as progressive as it likes to pretend.

dave said:

NJ elected Christ Christie twice.    NJ isn't half as progressive as it likes to pretend.

And the leader of Essex County's Democrats endorsed him and has never felt any repercussions from within the party.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/christie_cripples_ethics_watchdog_to_help_his_demo.html

PVW said:

ml1 said:

PVW said:

That's a rather narrow definition of progressive, isn't it? Not to mention a reductive reading of people's politics. If I said something like "Sanders supporters just want benefits that other people pay for" (or, baldly, "free stuff") I think I would be quickly criticized, and with justice.

it's not a narrow definition at all.  it's really common to hear people describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That's not a bad description of Hillary Clinton in fact. And SOMA voters chose her overwhelmingly over Bernie Sanders, whose primary appeals were economic. 

Not narrow in usage, granted, but I think that in itself points to a weakness in the progressive movement. Not everything is explained by economics. Racism, for instance, often intersects quite a bit with economic issues, but is its own separate issue. Ditto misogyny.

This is historically something of a blind spot in American liberalism. It's what got us things like red lining alongside New Deal and Great Society programs, for instance.

You are right that, historically, it's sufficient to be liberal solely on economic issues to lay claim to the progressive tradition, but I maintain that this remains far too narrow of a definition.

- Also, I'm not clear on your definition of "fiscally conservative." Clinton certainly doesn't fit the Republican definition of it, given that she wants to raise taxes on the very rich. Do you just mean fiscally conservative in the context of Democratic politics?

PVW said:

PVW said:

ml1 said:

PVW said:

That's a rather narrow definition of progressive, isn't it? Not to mention a reductive reading of people's politics. If I said something like "Sanders supporters just want benefits that other people pay for" (or, baldly, "free stuff") I think I would be quickly criticized, and with justice.

it's not a narrow definition at all.  it's really common to hear people describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That's not a bad description of Hillary Clinton in fact. And SOMA voters chose her overwhelmingly over Bernie Sanders, whose primary appeals were economic. 

Not narrow in usage, granted, but I think that in itself points to a weakness in the progressive movement. Not everything is explained by economics. Racism, for instance, often intersects quite a bit with economic issues, but is its own separate issue. Ditto misogyny.

This is historically something of a blind spot in American liberalism. It's what got us things like red lining alongside New Deal and Great Society programs, for instance.

You are right that, historically, it's sufficient to be liberal solely on economic issues to lay claim to the progressive tradition, but I maintain that this remains far too narrow of a definition.

- Also, I'm not clear on your definition of "fiscally conservative." Clinton certainly doesn't fit the Republican definition of it, given that she wants to raise taxes on the very rich. Do you just mean fiscally conservative in the context of Democratic politics?

compared to Bernie Sanders, Clinton is more fiscally conservative.  She's not the one proposing major expansions of public spending.

And with regard to the people I meet in SOMA, and the people I know well, and what I see posted on MOL or FB, I think "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" describes many many people in our towns.  How many people are ok with their taxes being increased to "redistribute" income?  How many people think the financial industry should be further regulated? How many people think universal single-payer health care is something that should be vigorously pursued? 

I think some people are considering this a pejorative. I don't think it is.  I think it's just a description. And I think it fits. What would be an alternate explanation for why Bernie Sanders got trounced in SOMA? When he got more than 40% of primary votes around the country, why did he get roughly half that % in our towns? My conclusion is that his economic populism didn't play with most voters here. 

ml1 said:

 What would be an alternate explanation for why Bernie Sanders got trounced in SOMA? When he got more than 40% of primary votes around the country, why did he get roughly half that % in our towns? My conclusion is that his economic populism didn't play with most voters here. 

My God.  You can't think of a single explanation other than your own?  I just love the way you're unwilling to give one ounce of credit to a (female, btw) candidate who is running a very fine campaign based on a policy agenda that's further to the left than any we've had for decades.  

I happen to like policy analysis, complexity & pragmatism.  I also like competence,  grit, and resilience. I can't honestly say I've given a lot of thought to the impact of the election on my income taxes.  

mjh said:
I just love the way you're unwilling to give one ounce of credit to a (female, btw) 

that's where you're going with this?

ml1 said:

PVW said:

PVW said:

ml1 said:

PVW said:

That's a rather narrow definition of progressive, isn't it? Not to mention a reductive reading of people's politics. If I said something like "Sanders supporters just want benefits that other people pay for" (or, baldly, "free stuff") I think I would be quickly criticized, and with justice.

it's not a narrow definition at all.  it's really common to hear people describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That's not a bad description of Hillary Clinton in fact. And SOMA voters chose her overwhelmingly over Bernie Sanders, whose primary appeals were economic. 

Not narrow in usage, granted, but I think that in itself points to a weakness in the progressive movement. Not everything is explained by economics. Racism, for instance, often intersects quite a bit with economic issues, but is its own separate issue. Ditto misogyny.

This is historically something of a blind spot in American liberalism. It's what got us things like red lining alongside New Deal and Great Society programs, for instance.

You are right that, historically, it's sufficient to be liberal solely on economic issues to lay claim to the progressive tradition, but I maintain that this remains far too narrow of a definition.

- Also, I'm not clear on your definition of "fiscally conservative." Clinton certainly doesn't fit the Republican definition of it, given that she wants to raise taxes on the very rich. Do you just mean fiscally conservative in the context of Democratic politics?

compared to Bernie Sanders, Clinton is more fiscally conservative.  She's not the one proposing major expansions of public spending.

And with regard to the people I meet in SOMA, and the people I know well, and what I see posted on MOL or FB, I think "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" describes many many people in our towns.  How many people are ok with their taxes being increased to "redistribute" income?  How many people think the financial industry should be further regulated? How many people think universal single-payer health care is something that should be vigorously pursued? 

I think some people are considering this a pejorative. I don't think it is.  I think it's just a description. And I think it fits. What would be an alternate explanation for why Bernie Sanders got trounced in SOMA? When he got more than 40% of primary votes around the country, why did he get roughly half that % in our towns? My conclusion is that his economic populism didn't play with most voters here. 

Compared to Sanders? Sure, I'll give you that one. She's proposing expansions of public spending, but nothing on the scale Sanders is. 

But in the larger view of American politics (and not just the post-Reagan era), Clinton pretty solidly counts as progressive. Clinton, after all, does believe in increasing taxes to redistribute income. She believes in regulating the financial industry. She believes in universal health care. To the degree and scale of Sanders? No, but certainly well within the historical parameters of American liberalism.

I wrote very little in the last several posts about Hillary Clinton. I was trying to understand why Bernie Sanders took such an extreme drubbing in towns that are thought to be very progressive. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the simplest explanation for why he got shellacked here was that most people didn't agree with his positions on the issues. 

My problem with statements like these

Compared to Sanders? Sure, I'll give you that one. She's proposing expansions of public spending, but nothing on the scale Sanders is. 
But in the larger view of American politics (and not just the post-Reagan era), Clinton pretty solidly counts as progressive. Clinton, after all, does believe in increasing taxes to redistribute income. She believes in regulating the financial industry. She believes in universal health care. To the degree and scale of Sanders? No, but certainly well within the historical parameters of American liberalism.

 is that I can't think this fully true.   Its my belief that she will not fight for these things, but will trade away tough legislation for watered down versions that do nothing or not enough and give up in that negotiation far more than she gets.   

so trust is a factor for me.  At this point I hope she proves me wrong, but its not the same as when Obama was running in 2008, with his candidacy there was something moving and special, not related to his being black but related to his personality.  Im not getting that with Clinton.

hoops said:

 is that I can't think this fully true.   Its my belief that she will not fight for these things, but will trade away tough legislation for watered down versions that do nothing or not enough and give up in that negotiation far more than she gets.   

Tough legislation along the lines of what Sanders wants simply will not pass. Zero chance.

ml1 said:

I wrote very little in the last several posts about Hillary Clinton. I was trying to understand why Bernie Sanders took such an extreme drubbing in towns that are thought to be very progressive. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the simplest explanation for why he got shellacked here was that most people didn't agree with his positions on the issues. 

If you asked local progressives about particular issues without naming politician names, I think most of the time they'd agree with Sanders' positions over Clinton's.  (eg. Do you want someone who wants to regime change in Syria? "No."   Do you think the TPP is good for working families? "No."   Should we have a carbon tax?  "Yes."   Should a sitting Sec of State be taking millions of dollars from dictators while doing her job?   "No.")     But  people don't really pay much attention and  happily consume a bought media's message that the other candidate who holds up actual democratic ideals is an old, out of touch guy.  

dave said:

But  people don't really pay much attention and  happily consume a bought media's message that the other candidate who holds up actual democratic ideals is an old, out of touch guy.  

That strikes me as being an attempt by Sanders' supporters to explain why he didn't win.  I found Sanders to be much like a one-hit 48 RPM record.  After I heard  "show your speech transcripts and break up the big banks" about 1000 times, I started to tune out.

That's all the media would play.   He has much more in-depth positions that have been vetted by independent think tanks.  But the lies persisted and here we are with the two worst candidates in history for the highest office. 

ml1 said:

mjh said:
I just love the way you're unwilling to give one ounce of credit to a (female, btw) 

that's where you're going with this?

How is it different in any way from the shallow "analysis" you've made to describe Clinton voters?

Everyone I know that supports Clinton  agrees with most or all of Bernie's economic agenda.  That's also what much of the polling shows.

Most Clinton supporters simply don't see Bernie as a good candidate for POTUS.  They believe he'd be less effect in moving us toward progressive goals than would Clinton.  

You seem blind to the possibility that some people aren't moved by what they perceive to be sloganeering.

it's different because I didn't suggest people aren't voting for Sanders because he's old or Jewish.

mjh said:

ml1 said:

mjh said:
I just love the way you're unwilling to give one ounce of credit to a (female, btw) 

that's where you're going with this?

How is it different in any way from the shallow "analysis" you've made to describe Clinton voters?

Everyone I know that supports Clinton  agrees with most or all of Bernie's economic agenda.  That's also what much of the polling shows.

Most Clinton supporters simply don't see Bernie as a good candidate for POTUS.  They believe he'd be less effect in moving us toward progressive goals than would Clinton.  


You seem blind to the possibility that some people aren't moved by what they perceive to be sloganeering.

dave said:

But the lies persisted and here we are with the two worst candidates in history for the highest office. 

Well, we certainly are seeing the corrosive effects of 25 years of attacks on Hillary Clinton.