Democrats, Can We Agree?

Isn't it possible that Hillary haters are every bit as influenced by "the media" as the Bernie opposition? Certainly seems like "the media" has amplified an anti-Hillary narrative over the years that has created a perception of her that's out of whack with the reality. Informed people on all sides are able to think for themselves. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them less informed or dumb or biased. Republicans have been whining that whine for years and it isn't any less silly coming from the left. 

imonlysleeping said:

Isn't it possible that Hillary haters are every bit as influenced by "the media" as the Bernie opposition? Certainly seems like "the media" has amplified an anti-Hillary narrative over the years that has created a perception of her that's out of whack with the reality. Informed people on all sides are able to think for themselves. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them less informed or dumb or biased. Republicans have been whining that whine for years and it isn't any less silly coming from the left. 

I agree that that is true for a lot of people on both the right and the left with regard to Hillary Clinton's persona.  People of all political persuasions believe a lot of untrue stuff about her that has been due to severely biased media coverage of her.  If not for that, there would be no doubt that she would win over Donald Trump in a landslide.  

tjohn said:

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.

but thats not the subject of this post.  I was talking about Clinton and my thoughts about what she will do once elected.  

Fact is, unless we get a dem controlled congress, nothing is getting accomplished except maybe some supremes being confirmed.   

Republican light is where I think Clinton falls.  All thinking about her being progressive and in touch with issues that will make any difference in our lives I think are false.   My hope for her presidential years would be that she leads a quiet administration, but realistically I can't help but think with her team of old Bill Clintonistas, that we are in for more bad deals that further exacerbate the income inequality and further worsen the lives of the least amongst us, while keeping our middle class struggling to find their balance.

Someone tell me something optimistic.

pvw

'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

"socially liberal and fiscally conservative" is the hallmark of the Libertarian Party. 

imonlysleeping said:

Isn't it possible that Hillary haters are every bit as influenced by "the media" as the Bernie opposition? Certainly seems like "the media" has amplified an anti-Hillary narrative over the years that has created a perception of her that's out of whack with the reality.

+1

Clinton media coverage was heavily unfavorable. Not just Fox news but the media as a whole. 84% of Clinton issue coverage that was negative coverage. Fox news was the worst. 

Fox news was favorable towards Sanders. The Republican establishment would have preferred Sanders as an opponent.

Whereas media coverage helped build up Trump, it helped tear down
Clinton. Trump’s positive coverage was the equivalent of millions of
dollars in ad-buys in his favor, whereas Clinton’s negative coverage can
be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the
receiving end. Of the eight news outlets in our study, Fox News easily
led the way. Clinton received 291 negative reports on Fox, compared with
only 39 positive ones, most of which were in the context of poll
results that showed her with a wide lead. By comparison, Sanders was the
subject of 79 positive reports on Fox and 31 negative reports.

http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

So much for the belief of some here that Bernie was screwed by Clinton's corporate controlled media. The reality is that media ganged up on Clinton.

tjohn said:

I found Sanders to be much like a one-hit 48 RPM record.  

My Close'N Play always did that speed, too.

Ha! I must admit I don't always understand your jokes, but when I do, they are funny. 

DaveSchmidt said:

tjohn said:

I found Sanders to be much like a one-hit 48 RPM record.  

My Close'N Play always did that speed, too.

imonlysleeping said:

Ha! I must admit I don't always understand your jokes, but when I do, they are funny. 

DaveSchmidt said:

tjohn said:

I found Sanders to be much like a one-hit 48 RPM record.  

My Close'N Play always did that speed, too.

I think they were 45 RPMs.

Yes, that's the joke. Along with Dave's reference to a crappy old toy record player. 

cramer said:

imonlysleeping said:

Ha! I must admit I don't always understand your jokes, but when I do, they are funny. 

DaveSchmidt said:

tjohn said:

I found Sanders to be much like a one-hit 48 RPM record.  

My Close'N Play always did that speed, too.

I think they were 45 RPMs.

The confusion of some posters with record to 45 RPM records makes me feel old.

imonlysleeping said:

Ha! I must admit I don't always understand your jokes, but when I do, they are funny. 

Appreciated. I don't always understand my jokes, either.

LOST said:

The confusion of some posters with record to 45 RPM records makes me feel old.

I could have said 78.

tjohn said:

LOST said:

The confusion of some posters with record to 45 RPM records makes me feel old.

I could have said 78.

The one-hit wonders were on 45's.  The Kingston Trio was on 78's.   

As to Hillary Clinton's unpopularity it stems from the Right's perception of her as a Leftist more than from the Left's perception as being too far to the Right. I have heard conservatives call her a socialist! Her background, her work in Poverty Programs, her Feminism fueled the image the Right had of her or created of her. 

They then used "Hillarycare" to further the image of her as a Big Government leftist. Some of them perceived that she was Gay or Bi-sexual and that she and Bill had an "open marriage".  One of her major supporters today is David Brock who wrote Blinded by the Right in which he talks about how as a young conservative journalist he was tasked by his editor with proving that Hillary was a Lesbian.

Sometimes I think that Progressives on here never interact with conservatives in real life.

I also believe that a lot of the Hillary hatred is based on antipathy toward her as a strong woman. The first statement she made which back fired on her is when she said that she pursued a career rather than staying home and baking cookies, or something like that.

I view the difference between Bernie and Hillary through the lens of the 60s. Bill and Hillary are like those who favored Progressive Politics and decided that the only way to accomplish anything was through moderation and compromise. And there were those  who saw  compromise as capitulation and believed that the way to victory was by staying pure. The latter ranged from those like Bernie who believed in Third-Party electoral politics and those who saw even that as unacceptable compromise. 

I'm trying to remember a lyric about "revolution" and "compromise solutions".

cramer said:

tjohn said:

LOST said:

The confusion of some posters with record to 45 RPM records makes me feel old.

I could have said 78.

The one-hit wonders were on 45's.  The Kingston Trio was on 78's.  "> 

Sorry lad,  the Kingston Trio recorded first for Capitol and later for Decca    All their vinyl was 33's with the exception of maybe their mega hits like Tom Dooley which were 45 s.  At one time I had about a dozen albums  but you know how things get left behind when you move residences.

Now I make do with one CD which contains a zillion of their songs given to me by my daughter..............or I go to You Tube

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.

It's actually not that surprising if you read analysis of Clinton and Sanders voter demographics, as it is a misconception that Sanders does better with very liberal voters. Analysis of Clinton voters show that they are basically as liberal as Sanders voters (some studies show that they are more liberal, some show that they are less, but the amount is almost negligible and is always qualified with slightly), so the level of very liberal voters in MWSO would not effect the outcome as they have basically split evenly among Clinton and Sanders in the past primaries. However, MWSO has two of the biggest demographic characteristics of likely Clinton supporter which is a large minority population and a high household income. 

Arguing over who (between Clinton and Sanders) would more easily defeat Trump is hypothetical and pointless. It is not even testable. Opinion polls are silly with a question like this.

I was on the receiving end of my very first opinion poll robocall the other day.  I was quite excited, however, by the third question, something about casinos, I hung up.  Who are these people who stay on the line for the whole thing?

hoops said:

tjohn said:

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.

but thats not the subject of this post.  I was talking about Clinton and my thoughts about what she will do once elected.  

Fact is, unless we get a dem controlled congress, nothing is getting accomplished except maybe some supremes being confirmed.   

Republican light is where I think Clinton falls.  All thinking about her being progressive and in touch with issues that will make any difference in our lives I think are false.   My hope for her presidential years would be that she leads a quiet administration, but realistically I can't help but think with her team of old Bill Clintonistas, that we are in for more bad deals that further exacerbate the income inequality and further worsen the lives of the least amongst us, while keeping our middle class struggling to find their balance.

Someone tell me something optimistic.

I will!  It is not 1994.   Bill Clinton is not going to be President. We've moved to the left and HRC has a very progressive proposed policy agenda. 

thanks

 "It's what they offered."

mjh said:

hoops said:

tjohn said:

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.

but thats not the subject of this post.  I was talking about Clinton and my thoughts about what she will do once elected.  

Fact is, unless we get a dem controlled congress, nothing is getting accomplished except maybe some supremes being confirmed.   

Republican light is where I think Clinton falls.  All thinking about her being progressive and in touch with issues that will make any difference in our lives I think are false.   My hope for her presidential years would be that she leads a quiet administration, but realistically I can't help but think with her team of old Bill Clintonistas, that we are in for more bad deals that further exacerbate the income inequality and further worsen the lives of the least amongst us, while keeping our middle class struggling to find their balance.

Someone tell me something optimistic.

I will!  It is not 1994.   Bill Clinton is not going to be President. We've moved to the left and HRC has a very progressive proposed policy agenda. 

She said she was going to put "Bill in charge of the economy"  so he is basically going to be President, at least part of the time. Also, what progressive policy agenda other than a woman's right to choose? She's more like a moderate Republican.  She is not a Progressive.  She's not even pretending to be one right now.  

paulsurovell said:

Hillary's lead in CA down to 10 points, 54.5 to 44.5 as the counting continues.

http://bit.ly/1UmK08u

And yesterday, Hillary's lead in CA dropped further to 9.4 points, 54.2 to 44.8, as the counting continues. And another county (Yolo) flipped to Bernie.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/president/party/democratic/

Edited to correct margin to 9.4

dave said:

 "It's what they offered."

The travel and accommodation requirements are even more revealing than the speaking fee requirement.

The party has another month to find its soul. 

dave said:

The party has another month to find its soul. 

Is that a picture of Sanders thinking about the best time and place to endorse to maximize party unity?

PVW said:

dave said:

The party has another month to find its soul. 

Is that a picture of Sanders thinking about the best time and place to endorse to maximize party unity?

Party unity is meaningless in a party that has nothing to offer. 

dave said:

PVW said:

dave said:

The party has another month to find its soul. 

Is that a picture of Sanders thinking about the best time and place to endorse to maximize party unity?

Party unity is meaningless in a party that has nothing to offer. 

Yes,  6 of one and a half dozen of the other

At least Hillary has a decent hair dresser

dave said:

PVW said:

dave said:

The party has another month to find its soul. 

Is that a picture of Sanders thinking about the best time and place to endorse to maximize party unity?

Party unity is meaningless in a party that has nothing to offer. 

Can we just give Sanders supporters participation trophies and get on with the business of stopping Trump?

What exactly do you expect in a nation of 300 millions?  Nobody can get everything they want.  Clinton will, in fact, push about as progressive an agenda as is possible.  I do worry about her foreign policy but also think she is able to learn from past mistakes.

If nothing else, there is the Supreme Court which can be the graveyard of voters' rights and women's rights or the protector.

Half of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton, according to a new Bloomberg poll.   A Trump victory is in the hands of the superdelegates, I'm afraid.