A bank teller today illustrated how Bill Clinton may provide a "halo effect" for Hillary

[Gloria]

Went into the bank to make a deposit and I don't even know how the subject of Hillary Clinton running for President came up.

The young man, probably in his mid-twenties, said he was voting for Hillary. He explained to me that Bill had a great economy and that he wanted another Clinton in the White House...We agreed on the rotten state of Republican politics and parted ways.

So, there you go. A young man has the takeaway from Bill's time in office that the economy was good and he is transferring his loyalty to Hillary, esp. since the Republicans seem to be so anti-everything...

[merrily]

1. IOW, you ran into a low info voter who never heard of NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagall,

welfare "reform," the Telecommunications Act, etc. Who does not get that the taxes increases of the Reagan and Bush administrations, combined with Clinton's having ended "welfare as we know it" had more to do with that "modest budget surplus" than any genius budget balancing sleight of hand.

Neat catch 22 there, too. If someone so much as fails to affirmatively negate a link between Hillary and her husband's administrations, they're sexist. But, if they say his administration gives her a halo effect, that's not sexist.

Gotta laugh or cry, one or the other. I've been laughing.

[DeSwiss]

2. +1000

[merrily]

3. Thanks.

Isn't odd, too, that a twenty something is more nostalgic about Bubba, than Obama?

I tell ya, if someone starts an America Laughs third party, I might just read their brochure.

[DonCoquixote]

41. because the curent estbalishment, including Hillary

has demonized Obama for not being Bill or Hillary, while the sad fact is the thing that kept Obama from being great is that he hired all of Hillary's people, including Hillary.

[joshcryer]

4. That changes things in any way how?

I really dislike the disdain for "low info voters." It's some sort of puritan criticism. A superiority complex.

A young man supporting the Democrat is a good thing. The Republicans have an unnatural hold on young men (particularly white young men). It is obscene.

[merrily]

10. Aww. look what you tried to do there.

My post was full of substance. Yet, you tried to pretend my post was about putting down some 20 something, real or invented, rather than about pointing out the fallacies implied in the OP.

I have no disdain for the 20 something young man described in the Op, whether real or invented.

I have posted many times that I paid little to no attention to politics until about 2004. I never even heard of DLC until after Obama was elected. I have no disdain for myself on that score. I, too was younger, had my hands full, and was relying greatly on my belief that just supporting Democrats and voting Democratic was doing my part to fix what was wrong with America. I too, labored until the delusion that all bad things in this country came from Republicans. I'm certainly not disdaining anyone, real or fictional for that.

Luckily, josh, your shameful tactics don't work with anyone but your choir, if at all. The rest of us see you.

Now, do you have anything at all that is true to say about my post? Anything at all factual or analytical? Anything that is not an ad hom that you derived from pretending my post was something other than it obviously was?

I'm guessing not. I am guessing your next post will be more of the same. Forgive me if I ignore it.

[joshcryer]

13. "IOW, you ran into a low info voter"

Those are literally your words. Dismissive at that.

As I said in another post, the bank teller could've been playing lip service. I have no idea. But if it's true I have not a damn iota of a problem with it.

You're forgiven.

[TreasonousBastard]

44. Full of substance, was it? You...

mentioned a few things you see as failures as though that was the sum of his administration. Hardly a balanced view.

My own view is that while I see a lot of voters as pretty much low information, I'll take anyone on our side. I'll also take heart that the young 'uns are viewing the Clintons favorably, even if a bit too favorably. Perhaps, in Clinton we're getting to our version of St. Ronnie.

Stranger things have happened. Worse ones, too.

[merrily]

47. "Substance" vs. ad hom. Yes, it was.

Very obviously I never claimed or implied that a post of a few lines was a full description of every event from Reagan through Clinton that bore on the economy. I also never claimed or implied that I was attempting to present a balanced. view. (How many posts here do any of those things?)

The OP provided one view, I provided some facts that countered the view presented in the OP. Josh attacked me personally with no mention of substance. That was obviously what I meant when I said I had posted substantively while Josh went ad hom.

My own view is that while I see a lot of voters as pretty much low information, I'll take anyone on our side. I'll also take heart that the young 'uns are viewing the Clintons favorably, even if a bit too favorably

While I won't take the vote of anyone on our side? (Do you or I even have the option of disqualifying anyone's vote?)

This is not the voting booth or a letter to any teller, real or fictional. It's a post on a discussion board for Democrats. And Bubba is not even running.

[leftofcool]

49. And yet, you called a 20 year old bank teller a "low info voter"

[merrily]

54. Did you have a point? Or did you just see an ad hom about me and decide to pile on?

I ask because it will make a difference in how I respond. So, if you had a point, please be more specific because it's far from obvious to me.

Especially since Josh used the term further down the thread himself later in the thread and also admitted he has no problem with use of the term. (I wonder: Will you be taking that up with josh down thread, since you apparently do seem to have a problem with it?)

Meanwhile, no, I did not call the young man anything. Never met him. I referred to him as a low info voter in a post on a discussion board that, if he exists, he will probably never see and in which he is totally anonymous.

And, as my Reply 10, the very post to which you are replying, said:

I have no disdain for the 20 something young man described in the Op, whether real or invented.

I have posted many times that I paid little to no attention to politics until about 2004. I never even heard of DLC until after Obama was elected. I have no disdain for myself on that score. I, too was younger, had my hands full, and was relying greatly on my belief that just supporting Democrats and voting Democratic was doing my part to fix what was wrong with America. I too, labored until the delusion that all bad things in this country came from Republicans. I'm certainly not disdaining anyone, real or fictional for that.

Luckily, josh, your shameful tactics don't work with anyone but your choir, if at all. The rest of us see you.

Now, do you have anything at all that is true to say about my post? Anything at all factual or analytical? Anything that is not an ad hom that you derived from pretending my post was something other than it obviously was?

[Scootaloo]

65. Do you believe that Hillary Clinton is the same as Bill clinton?

The fellow being spoken of apparently does.

"low-info voter" seems legit on that basis, at the least.

[DonCoquixote]

45. You might not have meant to do this but

seriously think about what these words say:

A young man supporting the Democrat is a good thing. The Republicans have an unnatural hold on young men (particularly white young men).

(particularly white young men).

Now, before you start saying "I'm not racist", I am NOT saying you are. But I am pointing out something that hides behind even the nicest thoughts of every American, something that, if light is not shined on it, will infect us like a parasite, the way most Lions die of worms.

What these words say is that we like Clinton because she can get white male voters. What we are saying is not we are so afraid that "unnatural hold" the enemy party has on those voters that we will choose someone because she will appeal to those voters, that admittedly, lean republican. In effect, we are saying that the votes of "young white men" still are more valuable, even though we are the party that claims to give equal time to voters that are not both white and male.

What is syays is that those of us who are neither white nor male do not count. How much of a "white young men" do we count for, 3/5? That sort of math worked in the 18th century, but not now.

And again, before you say "Don called me a racist" I repeat, no, you and I and everyone else is mired in the same cultural pool, and we all have traces of the toxic parts. And certainly, I do welcome voters that would not look like a stereotypical democrat, because it would show that the "obscene" grip the GOP has on the people they exploit is slipping. Let's be frank, the Right Wing has been exploiting "young white men" for years, long before the days where a bunch of rich cotton and sugar planter artistocrats made those white males dress up in gray uniforms and had them fight and die for the right to keep black slaves instead of paying a decent wage to anyone, including "young white men."

All I am saying is, we must not let the fact that we can lure "young white man" be the thing that gives good viobes about the Clintons, it has to be whatever she offers everyone.

[joshcryer]

46. I appreciate this reply, immensely.

This was by no means an attempt to say that certain votes are more valuable than others.

The statistics are, simply, that more young white men vote for Republicans that Democrats. So when I point out the opposite statistical potential I do not in any way intend to call out any race. I say it is important. I believe that Republicans have undue influence on white males. And yes, I used the race designation there, but it's in the statistics. I'm not just making it up or anything like that.

So to me it is potentially fortuitous that that certain demographic might vote for a democrat, particularly Clinton. It is not meant to be a "lure" as a "good vibe." It is just a potential statistical anomaly. I don't know if the OP's story is true or if the OP's teller was simply paying "lip service." All I can say is with all honesty I wouldn't care, and would be completely happy if it was a young white male, a demographic that Democrats have a hard time appealing to, saying such positive things.

I admit I potentially stepped out of bounds by referencing "particularly white males" but I stand by that because of the undue influence Republicans have had for so long. And it seems you don't wholly disagree on that count.

I meant no ill commentary and apologize for any inferences to those ends. We must win all the vote, male, female, white, black, hispaic, asian, combined. But I strongly believe that a certain segment is overwhelmingly voting against their own interests and I believe any indication that it is fighting it should be encouraged.

Not bemoaned as "low info voters."

[DonCoquixote]

56. To be honest, I did not think you meant it that way

I have gotten into shouting matches with some that DO, but I did not think you were one. The problem is, to quote Kipling, you will "hear the truth you've spoken and twisted, and made a trap for fools." There are those that would have clipped off your words, and used it for their nonsense, which i am certain would tick you off also

[merrily]

69. I thought the youth vote in general are most likely to vote Democratic and older white men

are most likely to vote Republican.

[joshcryer]

71. LOL

[JI7]

23. that doesn't change the fact that things were better under Clinton than under republicans

the halo effect has more to do with the view of democrats. just as Obama being viewed positively will help Hillary and negative views of Bush will hurt republicans .

[merrily]

28. The reasons they were better matter. Housing prices were great under Dimson--until

the mortgage derivative bubble made possible by repeal of Glass Steagall burst.

The economy seemed to have been improved magically, but it was on the back of ending welfare as we know it, leaving many with little to no safety net, combined with the tax and fee increases of Reagan and Poppy.

A low info voter does not know the reasons, but they MATTER to America, to other nations and to the 99%. That was my point.

A vigorous primary challenge from the left would bring out a lot of info of all kinds that the general will not. That is why we so desperately need one and also why we probably will not have one.

[joshcryer]

30. Do you agree Dodd-Frank fixed most of the issues?

See my post #29, we were posting at the same time, apparently.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are destroyed, of course, but they can be brought back.

And they damn sure won't be under a Republican.

All the "low info voter" needs to recognize is that things are better under Democrats. And that's what they recognize. And that's why they'll vote for Clinton.

[merrily]

31. LOL, anything CAN be brought back, including the entire New Deal.

Doesn't mean any Republican or Democrat is going to do that.

Such a statement by a member in good standing of The "Say Anything" Club!

As I said before about exactly such tactics as that, you either have to laugh or cry and I prefer to LOL.


BTW, I am not on "Supreme Court and say hello to President Cruz" terrorism "reasoning" yet. We don't even know yet who is running in the primary.

[joshcryer]

32. LOL

The Republicans destroyed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! ROFL! LOL! HAHA!



At least we agree the repeal of Glass–Steagall was a bad thing and Bill Clinton was wrong for it (in 1999, for no real political reason, at that). Hopefully you can recognize that Dodd-Frank would mostly fix things leaving "low information voters" thinking "Democrats are better than Republicans." But I doubt it.

I love those low info voters, and I'd never mock them or "laugh" or "cry", because they live their lives and the Bush years ruined their lives, but Obama's years and the Democrats didn't. They vote how they feel will improve their lives.

I'll leave it at that.

[merrily]

34. LOL! Gotta laugh or cry when josh tries so hard to twist. I prefer to LOL!

[joshcryer]

37. Yes, you do.

[joshcryer]

29. Bill Clinton made mistakes.

Repealing Glass–Steagall was the Republican method to destroy Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and it worked. It took 8 years for its effects to be felt but it worked. Bill Clinton fucked up. And he still doesn't admit he fucked up. Dodd-Frank fixed most of the issues but it didn't go far enough.

You can bet any Democrat, Hillary or otherwise, will fix it further, since under Obama things have improved.

[merrily]

33. Are you covering that bet? 'Cause I would have bet no Democratic President would have

signed that POS, let alone have linked arms with Greenspan and Summers to urge Democrats to pass it.

Bill Clinton fucked up. And he still doesn't admit he fucked up

Indeed.

Which totally belies a frequent claim often made on DU that it was only about an alleged veto-proof majority--a majority Bubba and his White House helped Greenspan and the Republican turds to create.

As if existence of a majority would be a valid reason not to even attempt a veto of something that potentially catastrophic anyway.

You can bet any Democrat, Hillary or otherwise, will fix it further,

Refrain:
In the sweet by and by,
We shall meet on that beautiful shore;
In the sweet by and by,
We shall meet on that beautiful shore.

I would not bet a dime on a New Democrat doing what we need, want or would like.

[joshcryer]

36. How much?

[merrily]

39. Big internet talk. May I bill your paypal account?

[joshcryer]

40. I prefer bitcoin.

Let's go.

Note: I said any Democrat, not just Clinton, so any Democrat winning the next election.

15FdcF5gVhcwirSt4VUZCpDEN8JZYo1mdf

How much?

[merrily]

42. By when?

[joshcryer]

43. Well, it's kinda obvious, no?

Republicans win, bet cancelled.

Democrat wins, it's until they are out of office (so in the first term or second term if they make a second term).

So at most 8 years in the event a Democrat wins (Clinton or otherwise) and wins reelection or bet cancelled if a Republican wins.

[merrily]

51. No, but since you answered my question, it became obvious.

So far, this seems way too loosey goosey to be real.

You've asked for a figure. Before I can come up with one, I have to know exactly what I am betting on.

But I don't want bitcoin if I win. I want cash via your paypal. Is that okay? And how do I know the account will even exist in 8 years?

If a New Democrat wins in 2016, he or she will fix repeal of Glass Steagall further. That's what we're betting on, per my reply 33.

However, since you and I seldom agree on anything with an element of subjectivity, "fix" and "further" are problematic terms; and I doubt we'll come to agreement. What you consider a fix, I might consider meaningless, or even a worsening.

Who gets to decide? Maybe you should pm because I don't think we should continue the discussion on this thread. It's been diverted enough.

[pnwmom]

58. The Reagan administration caused the whole mess with its gigantic budget deficits.

And yet you're giving it credit for the Clinton surplus.

Wow. Talk about low information voters!

Pot, meet kettle.

[merrily]

59. Gee, pwnmom, guess you missed that teensy bit about Clinton's having ended welfare "as we know it."

See, I did give Clinton the lion's share of the "credit" for that modest surplus.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017258528

[pnwmom]

60. That "teensy bit" doesn't cancel out the gigantic whopper about the Reagan "tax increases"

helping to bring about Clinton's budget surplus.

[merrily]

62. Reagan and Bush both increased taxes and fees. Is your claim that revenues are irrelevant?

cutting welfare, of course.

When it comes to gigantic whoppers, I would never even attempt to compete with certain posters here, so not to worry on that scord

[pnwmom]

64. The Reagan administration produced unprecedented, huge deficits despite whatever

small fee and tax increases it included in its budgets. Those "increases" had nothing to do with Clinton's fixing the Reagan deficits.

[merrily]

75. Ah, so you are actually claiming revenues are irrelevant. k.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

66. You pretty much said it all. Wonder what the "halo effect" will be when the skeletons in Bill's closet are dragged out for all to see.

[merrily]

68. Thank you.

Unless there's a real hard primary challenge from the left, how much of anything will really be dragged out?

Are Republicans likely to bemoan neoliberal policies? I can imagine the general becoming about who is going to be strong against ISIL or whatever group arises next.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-08-26-3886087604_x.htm

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

67. Good catch (22) btw.

[merrily]

70. Thank you. It kind of leapt out from the OP.

Please indulge me as I tell an anecdote:




Months ago, two male posters, one a critic of Hillary, one a fan,* were discussing on this board the Hillary airport story of 2008.

Though these are not his exact words, the Hillary fan claimed something like "Yes, but she cleared that story up as soon as she realized her error."

(LOL! How do you not realize that kind of error as its coming out of your mouth?)



I chimed in to say, no she did not correct it until the video of children (or was it only one child?) giving her flowers on the tarmac had aired on every network."

And the male fan claimed this female poster was sexist for posting that simple fact in response to his lie.

When I challenged his characterization of me as sexist, he retorted that anyone who even brings up that incident is sexist. !




*He claims not to be a fan of Hillary, just can't stand by during false "attacks." Apparently, in this case, remind anyone of what actually happened, after he's posted a blatant lie in Hillary's defense is an "attack," and a sexist one to boot.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

73. Thanks for sharing that. I seem to recall, when Hillary was first confronted with her lie, she doubled down...

whereupon, after repeating the whopper, she stated something to the effect: " Well anyway thats what happened..." I think you're right, it was the video tape that caught Hillary red-handed.

[merrily]

74. You're welcome.

Certain things are not earth shattering per se, but may send up a red flag about the kind of character with which you are dealing. That's how I feel about that airport thing. And there is no way Hillary did not know that she was telling a "gigantic whopper" as that was coming out of her mouth. Who honestly mistakes being handed flowers by a child with being under sniper fire?

So, the defense by Hillary by the male fan (or by the Hillary unfan, depending on whether you believe his disclaimer) was a lie to begin with. However, the real problem I had with that was his saying, not only that I was sexist for posting the truth in response to his lie, but that anyone who even brought up the subject was sexist.



Someone is running for President and it's sexist to bring up a "gigantic whopper" she told the last time she ran for President? We can point out a witness in a breaking and entering case has a history of lying in court and therefore might not be credible, but you cannot make a truthful statement about it to correct a lie on the board when someone is running for POTUS, unless there is something wrong with YOUR character?

Again



And, yes, my recollection was correct. The name caller never even disputed that. When confronted with the truth, he just went directly to ad hom.

I just googled it. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/clinton-misspoke-about-bosnia-trip-campaign-says/?_r=0

[BlueCaliDem]

76. This personal experience by the OP illustrates the power of perception, and how it can benefit

the United States. Younger voters, a-political voters, and even fence-sitting Independents will remember the good years of Democratic President Clinton and that will transfer over to Democratic Hillary Clinton. Not everyone is or wants to be as politically informed as we are, merrily. You need to come to terms with that. At this point, having seen the ignorance of the American people when it comes to elections, I'll take what I can get just as long as a Democrat wins the White House.

[davidn3600]

5. So in other words....

...he's voting for Hillary because he wants a 3rd Bill term, not a 1st Hillary term.

[merrily]

38. FWIW, if anything, Sanders has been mentioning a period of the last 35 or so years, as

the period when things really got much worse for the 99% (or the by now nearly mythical "middle class.).

That puts the start of that period during the Reagan administration but Sanders has not indicated an end. After Reagan, we had 12 years of other Republicans and 14 (and counting) of Democrats. So I don't get that Sanders has been saying it's one party or the other.

I don't think it's been one party or the other, either.

[joshcryer]

8. A bank teller is no more a banker than a secretary is a Senator.

edit: and we don't know Gloria's position, he could've been providing nice customer service and playing lip service (but I don't think people tend to do that, it can bite them in the butt). No offense Gloria!

[merrily]

12. josh would much rather focus on what we post about this young guy than on any inconvenient issue

about the Clinton administration.

[joshcryer]

15. Hi.

You mentioned me?

[merrily]

18. Yes. Obviously. And?

[joshcryer]

21. I have a fan club!

[JI7]

20. bank tellers are more on the level of fast food employees than wall st tycoons

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Yeah, that's a pretty silly statement.

Sort of like calling the guy who pumps your gas a "representative of the Exxon corporation"

[joshcryer]

7. My mom is uber conservative and has uber conservative friends on FB.

She said when Hillary announced that she was all sorts of things. A day later and she's supporting Hillary. I wonder what that is coming from. She hasn't voted since Bill Clinton's first term. She wants to go to Hillary's inaugural.

[lostnfound]

17. I think in the privacy of the voting booth, a lot of Republican women will cross the line.

The country will rise to it as a historic and meaningful occasion -- whether it's Hillary or some other viable female Democratic candidate.

I suspect that there are far more Republican women who would cross the political lines for it, than there are Democratic women who would cross over to vote for a Republican woman (if it came to that.)

Propensity for tribalism vs issues could work in our favor this time.

[joshcryer]

24. Polls suggest 35% of Republican women would do that.

That is an enormous amount of people switching sides. I think you're absolutely right. And I'd be shocked if the Republicans aren't astute enough to run a Republican women. Not that they have many legitimate candidates, but they have to know this.

Agree with your post.

[DCBob]

52. The Republicans know and fear this.

I suspect they will come up with some sort of purity voting scheme to pressure R women to vote 'correctly'.

[freshwest]

48. Hillary is bringing my batshit teabag sister back. It's about women and gay rights for her, the rest

of what she was afraid of from watching Faux about Obama never came to pass. She seems to have returned to sanity, even thinks Obamacare is good. The GOP showed their true colors and that was it for her.

[joshcryer]

50. It amazes me how many conservative women are becoming for gay rights.

I know of at least two of my moms uber conservative friends who are for it but are still anti-choice. Matthew Shepard seems to be a confluence of thought for them.

[freshwest]

55. We went to high school with and knew people who were openly gay in the sixties, worked with them,

did business, saw them as just normal people. So this is nothing new for us. Even when we were kids and went to a church, they never discussed abortion, gays, etc. And they respected the government's right to make the laws for everyone that they had to obey.

She worked professionally with gays in her advertising job, and their talents were great, and she couldn't bear to think of them being abused. There were many 'gay' neighborhoods, bars adn restaurants. It was just normal.

And we were both pro-choice. This is how we always were. When she started getting into the tea party I think she was going through a bout of mental problems. She was in a rage all the time, looking for something wrong. Watching Beck and Faux and gobbling up conservative infotainment swill.

Because she was pretty much housebound and felt oppressed for various reasons. Also she was being fed a full mental diet of FEAR. But Obama made her family's life much better. Now she feels freer.

[MattSh]

9. Somebody needs to explain to him...

that this is not the 1990's.

Cloning 1990's policies to problems of the late 2010's will not fix them, because it's 1990's policies that caused many of the late 2010's problems.

[merrily]

11. Hello! BOTH the 1980s Republican and the 1990s New Democrat.

[joshcryer]

14. Low info voters don't know that.

But Obama's post-2008 policies fix a lot of errors made from 1996-2000. And it's not like Clinton will turn them back.

[merrily]

16. Hello. YOU mentioned low info voters?

[joshcryer]

19. I don't have a problem with them.

[merrily]

22. Neither do I, yet you pretended my merely using that term was wrong.

Then again, why am I not used to that kind of thing from some parts of DU?

[joshcryer]

25. "Gotta laugh or cry, one or the other. I've been laughing."

Your words regarding "low info voters." Literally.

[merrily]

26. No, those were my words about the Catch 22 (& similar), as LITERALLY anyone can discern.

IOW, Josh, it obvioulsy had to do with the kind of stuff you and others try to get away with here and elsewhere.

As I said, we see you.

And now, I am done with you and your twisting my words on yet another thread.

[joshcryer]

27. "Neat catch 22 there, too." REFERRING to "low info voters."

No one is seeing through this.

I embrace the low info voter, because they've been disenfranchised by the system, they are the most valuable contributors to a system so out of wack controlled by MSM media that thinks logos and hair styles and pantsuits are more important than anything else (such as LGBT being prominently featured in the first campaign video of a top Presidential contender in history).

[Historic NY]

61. And explain to a chorus here that the policies of FDR....

won't work either. Its that whole red vs blue state creep that became more and more prominent after the 1964 Civil Rights Act that drove the segregationists Democrats to the GOP. Nostaliga sure does sell thou on both sides of the spectrum.

[TM99]

53. You do realize that even if you are telling the truth,

this young man at 25 was born in 1990. He wasn't even 10 when Clinton left office.

I seriously doubt he remembers the 'great economy' of Bill Clinton. As others have said, he is a low information voter easily swayed by the media. What happens when that media tears into Hillary Clinton in earnest?

[liberal N proud]

57. Our 28 year old daughter loved the Clinton's in the White House

Maybe this 25 year old was aware as thing went south once Clinton was out of office. And that memory was burned into his mind. Maybe that would be the experience of many younger voters, they saw the decline and how fast.

10 is a very impressionable age.

[merrily]

63. That's very different from knowing what the national economy was like at age 10

I have a friend whose kindergarten teacher showed the class a picture of Carter and a picture of Reagan. My friend decided he liked Carter's smile and has been a Democrat ever since.

[underpants]

72. Yep, Bill just being on screen will be a great positive effect