andym
andym's JournalVoters’ View of a Donald Trump Presidency: Big Risks and Rewards
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll.html?_r=0PATRICK HEALY and DALIA SUSSMAN SEPT. 15, 2016
"Most voters consider Donald J. Trump a risky choice for president, saying he lacks the right temperament and values, but he is seen as more transformative and better at handling the economy than Hillary Clinton, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Mrs. Clinton, despite being as disliked as Mr. Trump, is seen as a safer option. Majorities of voters say she has the temperament for the job and would better handle foreign policy. Only 36 percent of them, however, view her as an agent of change. That perception deeply worries some Clinton campaign advisers, who want the race to hinge on Mr. Trump’s character rather than voters’ desire to upend the status quo." ....
-----------
The rewards voters imagine for Trump are fool's gold, but that never stopped the American voter. The tendency to think there is little upside to Hillary Clinton ("rewards"
is a big problem. When Democrats win it is usually because people believe they bring a large upside: Clinton and the "economy, stupid" and Obama and the potential of "hope and change." The strongest example of a dangerous candidate whose upside won out was Reagan-- he had attacked SS and Medicare, claimed trees were a major source of pollution, but no matter he won in a landslide by promising an economic miracle and optimism.
Hillary Clinton is running on her competence and steadiness-- just like Al Gore and Mike Dukakis. She really needs more, especially with how well she has been painted by the GOP. What is her strongest campaign theme? A better question is what is her overarching campaign theme, besides not being the horrible Donald Trump?
Hillary Does What Democrats Should Do: Make Like FDR
Earl Ofari Hutchinson
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/hillary-does-what-democrats-should-do-make-like-fdr_b_11513460.html
Hillary Clinton is doing what Democrats should have been doing all along, and that’s looking and sounding — and, if given the chance, acting — like FDR. This means going big, big, big and fully using government to radically ramp up new programs and initiatives to tackle everything from the nation’s crumbling infrastructure to the chronic unemployment, especially among the urban poor.
Her FDR-like chorus was in full effect in her speech at a Michigan auto and aircraft parts manufacturing plant near Detroit. She promised a big spending spree to the tune of nearly $300 billion on a vast array of infrastructure building and repair projects; roads, bridges, airports schools, sewer systems and so on. The projects would create new jobs for thousands.
Clinton made it clear that she expects the rich to foot much of the bill by demanding hefty tax hikes on them. She added the final FDR touch to her big spending plan by promising to plop the legislation on Congress’ table within her first 100 days in office.
....
Clinton is doing the same. However, she also will have to fight the one thing that has kept Democrats since LBJ from making the fight against poverty, wealth and income inequality, and making the rich and corporations pay their fair share of taxes a party staple. That is the deep fear of being perennially branded, baited and reviled with the label and the perception that Democrats reflexively do tax and spend — that is spend at the expense of the middle class for programs that aid the poor and minorities. Democrats did lose elections in the 1980s to Reagan and Bush, and always the losses came with the tag that the Democrats were fixated on tilting to minorities. The race-tinged appeals did shell-shock the party. Bill Clinton was unabashed in basing his 1992 presidential campaign on courting the white middle class, and erasing the GOP-imposed stigma of the Democrats as solely the party of and for minorities. It worked. Clinton won and won again in 1996. This even more firmly implanted the notion and the fear that Democrats must run from big spending on jobs and infrastructure as being synonymous with pandering to minorities...... That’s a history that Clinton is largely rejecting. And well she should. FDR did and the country was the big winner for it.
Democrats are losing to Republicans at the state level, and badly. Here's why.
Alexander Hertel-Fernandez and Theda Skocpol on August 3, 2016, 1:30 p.m. ET
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12368070/democrats-losing-state-level
Koch network-backed groups, above all the huge advocacy federation called Americans for Prosperity, have scored major victories over the past decade — working closely with already established cross-state political networks like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network (SPN).
These conservative cross-state networks have blocked the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, challenged efforts by the Obama administration to deal with climate change, derailed proposals to increase the minimum wage and enact paid sick leave, and weakened union and voting rights. Unless liberals and progressives find ways to counter conservatives across most US states, both Obama’s legacies and future liberal gains are likely to remain limited.
How have right-wing political networks achieved such striking victories? Our ongoing research on the shifting US political terrain shows that the right’s subnational success relies on complementary and reinforcing efforts by three key cross-state networks. These networks end up setting public agendas and shaping legislative choices:
....
THE RIGHT-WING NETWORKS ARE A WELL-OILED MACHINE: ALEC PUSHES PROPOSALS WITHIN STATE LEGISLATURES; THE STATE POLICY NETWORK BUILDS THE INTELLECTUAL AND POLICY CASE FOR THOSE BILLS; AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY THEN GENERATES OUTSIDE POLITICAL PRESSURE, THROUGH ADS AND GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING
-----------------------
The article then goes on to explain that the two older progressive networks are weak, overlap, are generally not focused on economics, too many splinter issue specific groups, and are mostly in blue states. The consequences are that the GOP will control the state and local level and of course that will mean they get to keep Congress after the next Census. They call on the American left to organize in a serious coordinated way on the local level.
So perhaps, DUers can get involved with the progressive networks: State Innovation Exchange, State Priorities Partnership and the Economic Analysis and Research Network. Instead of just chatting about the Presidential election for example, there is a real opportunity to do something useful, especially if one has time for research, fundraising, or outreach. Or better yet running for office.
Another possibility is that Bernie Sander's new progressive Berniecrat network might provide new hope, but progressives still need to coordinate and put in some real effort.
Bernie Sander's email tonight: Next steps for Our Revolution.
Our campaign has always been about a grassroots movement of Americans standing up and saying: "Enough is enough. This country and our government belong to all of us, not just a handful of billionaires."
I just finished speaking at the Democratic National Convention, where I addressed the historic nature of our grassroots movement and what's next for our political revolution.
I hope that I made you proud. I know that Jane and I are very proud of you.
Our work will continue in the form of a new group called Our Revolution. The goal of this organization will be no different from the goal of our campaign: we must transform American politics to make our political and economic systems once again responsive to the needs of working families.
We cannot do this alone. All of us must be a part of Our Revolution.
Join Our Revolution and help continue our critical work to create a government which represents all of us, and not just the 1 percent – a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice. Add your name here.
When we started this campaign a little more than a year ago, the media and the political establishment considered us to be a "fringe" campaign. Well, we're not fringe anymore.
Thanks to your tireless work and generous contributions, we won 23 primaries and caucuses with more than 13 million votes, all of which led to the 1900 delegates we have on the floor this week at the Democratic convention.
What we have done together is absolutely unprecedented, but there is so much more to do. It starts with defeating Donald Trump in November, and then continuing to fight for every single one of our issues in order to transform America.
We are going to fight to make sure that the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party becomes law. This means working for a $15 federal minimum wage, fighting for a national fracking ban, and so many more progressive priorities.
The political revolution needs you in order to make all this happen and more.
Add your name to say that you will join Our Revolution and be part of the fight for our progressive vision for America.
Thank you for being a part of the continued political revolution.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
JOIN OUR REVOLUTION
Bad optics and unethical behavior. Wikileaks means DNC senior staff need to resign
ASAP to get this out of the news. I expect that to happen shortly, before the convention begins.
Unethical behavior such as feeding news stories, or even thinking about doing so, that favor one candidate over the other is unacceptable. The senior people at the DNC should know better.
If there is anything positive about the Wikileaks, it will be to quell the conspiracy theories related to vote switching, etc, since it's apparent that the DNC staffers were clueless about communications-- if such unlikely behavior was engaged in, it would be in the emails for sure. And there is not even a hint of it.
Update 8/2/16: Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned last week and today, DNC CEO Amy Dacey stepped down in addition to communications director Luis Miranda and CFO Brad Marshall.
Source:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-dnc-officials-wikileaks-email-release/story?id=41078429
The main attack on democratic candidates since the 90s has been their integrity.
1988 Dukakis .. Willie Horton, card carrying member of ACLU nonsense
90s the Clinton investigations/scandals
2000 Al Gore as an exaggerator.. Invented the Internet nonsense
2004 Kerry. Swift boated
2008 Obama .. Rev Wright, Saul Alinsky nonsense
2012 exception
2016 Benghazi and email server attacks prepared years in advance
Many of the attacked had squeaky clean images prior to the attacks, like Dukakis, Gore , Kerry and Obama.
The only way to fight them is for people of public standing with auras of integrity to take very public stances against the attacks. Outrage from ethical people of high standing is needed.
That's why having surrogates defend Mrs Clinton from the continual attacks is of the greatest importance at the moment. Especially when congress tries to get back into the act.
Which VP candidate has the highest public perception of integrity?
Because of the relentless attacks on Hillary Clinton's integrity by the GOP in Benghazi and then the FBI email server investigation, almost every poll shows the public is wary of Mrs Clinton's honesty. The reason this works is that it plays on the theme that the Clintons are not honest--which really derives more from Bill Clinton and the scandals from the 90's. That's the main reason she is not leading Trump by double digits.
The best way to counter this is to choose a vp perceived as having the utmost integrity. That's because voters understand that people with integrity don't trend to associate with their opposites. Bernie Sander's endorsement of Clinton should help, as he is justifiably perceived by the public as a man of integrity. The next step is the VP and the people she campaigns with. Every time the public sees Hillary campaign with someone with impeccable honesty, she will gain in the public's eye.
So which prospective VP would have the highest perceived integrity? Warren? Perez? Vilsack? Kaine? Hickenlooper? Castro? Becerra? Brown?
"Forever Forward" Bernie campaign email from this morning
I am writing you today to express my deep pride in the movement – the political revolution – you and I have created together over the last 15 months. When we began this historic campaign, we were considered fringe players by the political, economic and media establishment. Well, we proved them wrong.
We showed that the American people support a bold, progressive agenda that takes on the billionaire class, that fights for racial, social, economic and environmental justice and that seeks to create a government that works for all of us and not just the big campaign donors.
We mobilized over 13 million voters across the country. We won 23 Democratic primary and caucus contests. We had literally hundreds of thousands of volunteers across the country. And we showed – in a way that can change politics in America forever – that you can run a competitive national grassroots campaign without begging millionaires and billionaires for campaign contributions.
Most importantly, we elevated the critical issues facing our country – issues the establishment has pushed under the rug for too long. We focused attention on the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality in this country and the importance of breaking up the large banks who brought our economy to the brink of collapse. We exposed our horrendous trade policies, our broken criminal justice system, and our people's lack of access to affordable health care and higher education. We fought aggressively to address the crisis of climate change, the need for real comprehensive immigration reform, the importance of developing a foreign policy that values diplomacy over war, and so much more.
We have shown throughout this election that these are issues that are important to voters and that progressive solutions energize people in the fight for real change. What we have accomplished so far is historic – but our work is far from over.
This movement of ours – this political revolution – must continue. We cannot let all of the momentum we have achieved in the fight to transform America be lost. We will never stop fighting for what is right.
It is true that in terms of winning the Democratic nomination, we did come up short. But this election was never about me or any candidate. It was about the powerful coming together of millions of people to take their country back from the billionaire class. That was the strength of our campaign and it will be the strength of our movement going forward in the months and years ahead. In the coming weeks, I will be announcing the creation of successor organizations to carry on the struggle that we have been a part of these past 15 months. I hope you will continue to be involved in fighting to transform America. Our goal will be to advance the progressive agenda that we believe in and to elect like-minded candidates at the federal, state and local levels who are committed to accomplishing our goals.
In terms of the presidential election this November, there is no doubt that the election of Donald Trump as president would be a devastating blow to all that we are fighting for. His openly bigoted and pro-billionaire campaign could precipitate the same decades-long rightward shift in American politics that happened after the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. That rightward shift after Reagan’s election infected not just politics as a whole but led to the ascendancy of the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party – an era from which we are still recovering.
I cannot in good conscience let that happen.
To have all of the work we have done in elevating our progressive ideals be dashed away by a complete Republican takeover of Washington – a takeover headed by a candidate that demonizes Latinos, Muslims, women, African Americans, veterans, and others – would be unthinkable.
Today, I endorsed Hillary Clinton to be our next president. I know that some of you will be disappointed with that decision. But I believe that, at this moment, our country, our values, and our common vision for a transformed America, are best served by the defeat of Donald Trump and the election of Hillary Clinton.
You should know that in the weeks since the last primary, both campaigns have worked together in good faith to bridge some of the policy issues that divided us during the election. Did we come to agreement on everything? Of course not. But we made important steps forward.
Hillary Clinton released a debt free college plan that we developed together which now includes free tuition at public colleges and universities for working families. This was a major part of our campaign’s agenda and a proposal that, if enacted into law, would revolutionize higher education in this country.
Secretary Clinton has also publicly committed to massive investments in health care for communities across this country that will increase primary care, including mental health care, dental care, and low-cost prescription drug access for an additional 25 million people. Importantly, she has also endorsed the enactment of a so-called public option to allow everyone in this country to participate in a public insurance program. This idea was killed by the insurance industry during consideration of President Obama’s health care program.
During the Democratic platform proceedings in St. Louis and Orlando, we were victorious in including amendments to make it a clear priority of the Democratic Party to fight for a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, expand Social Security, abolish the death penalty, put a price on carbon, establish a path toward the legalization of marijuana, enact major criminal justice reforms, pass comprehensive immigration reform, end for-profit prisons and detention facilities, break up too-big-to-fail banks and create a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act, close loopholes that allow big companies to avoid taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens and use that revenue to rebuild America, approve the most expansive agenda ever for protecting Native American rights and so much more. All of these progressive policies were at the heart of our campaign. The truth is our movement is responsible for the most progressive Democratic platform in the history of our country. All of that is the direct result of the work that our members of the platform committee did in the meetings and that you have been doing over the last 15 months.
But none of these initiatives will happen if we do not elect a Democratic president in November. None! In fact, we will go backward. We must elect the Democratic nominee in November and progressive Democrats up and down the ballot so that we ensure that these policy commitments can advance.
It is extremely important that we keep our movement together, that we hold public officials accountable and that we elect progressive candidates to office at the federal, state, and local level who will stand with us.
As part of that effort, we still have a tremendous amount of work left to do in the Democratic Rules Committee that will be meeting in the coming weeks. We have to enact the kinds of reforms to the Democratic Party and to the electoral process that will provide us the tools to elect progressive candidates, to allow new voices and new energy into the Party, and to break up the excessive power that the economic and political elites in the Party currently have. As with our fights on the platform committee, that will only be possible if we stand together.
You should know that I intend to be actively campaigning throughout this election season to elect candidates who will stand by our agenda. I hope to see many of you at events from coast to coast.
In conclusion, I again want to express my pride in what we have accomplished together over the last year. But so much more must be done to make our vision a reality. Now more than ever our country needs our movement – our political revolution. As you have throughout this historic campaign, I ask for your ongoing support as we continue through the fall and beyond.
On a personal note, I cannot say with words how appreciative Jane and I are of the kindness, dedication and love we experienced from so many people across the country. We are deeply touched by it and will never, ever forget it.
Please let me know that you will stand with me to defeat Donald Trump, and to elect candidates who will stand by our agenda as part of the future of our political revolution. Add your name now.
Forever committed, forever fighting, forever forward,
Bernie Sanders
Bernie successfully used the nomination process to advocate for progressive ideas
Bernie successfully used the nomination process to advocate for progressive ideas, and the Democratic platform has been influenced by his policies, with even further modification possible at the convention. But Bernie actually wants these policies to become reality-- that's why he ran in the first place as a Democrat, and not as an Independent or third party. He knows the platform is only a guide, that can easily be forgotten in the heat of US politics. That's why he will continue to push for these policies, and those in his movement who are not too disappointed, who understand that progressive change is a long term goal will hopefully keep up the good fight, especially by running for local offices. He has pushed the needle leftwards in the Democratic party, and it is important that this continue. Bernie now more than ever needs the support of progressives to keep the pressure on.
Bernie understands that United States politics is dominated by a two party system. Given the poor results of third parties in the United States at the Presidential level-- even popular ex-President Teddy Roosevelt couldn't do it, Bernie chose the only way available to him to advance a progressive agenda. That he performed so well, greater than expected, is a testament to the man and his ideas. Not only that, but he knew that real change comes from the bottom up-- the most recent example being way the GOP changed after Goldwater lost in 1964 to result in Reagan and his conservative mind set dominating American politics. That's why he wants his followers to enter local politics. Progressives are still far from being a majority in this country, and the conservative Reagan ideas like continual tax cuts still resonate with too many citizens.
As President, Bernie's greatest contribution, beyond deep-sixing bad trade polices, would have been to have the bully pulpit. There was little chance that any his programs (or Hillary's) would have passed without an unlikely Democratic supermajority in the Senate and control of the House. That's why he wants Hillary Clinton, a more conventional politician, to appoint a progressive VP, and give him/her some access to the bully pulpit. The same way that Joe Biden has asked for a moonshot cancer effort, a VP can cast national attention on progressive issues.
Today's endorsement shows that Bernie obviously plans to work with Hillary Clinton to keep moving the Democratic Party leftward. But understand that he still needs the support of his supporters to help him reform the Democratic Party from within. Helping Hillary Clinton to be elected is critical to prevent the momentum from shifting backwards to the hacks of the Right. A Right wing President would try to do away with the federal government programs that help ordinary citizens, make progressive change impossible by destroying infrastructure, poison the citizenry through the bully pulpit, and appoint right wing justices to the supreme court who will make Citizens United look like a liberal policy. Bernie understands the consequences of this election all too well.
Modern history of free trade vs protectionism. Is protectionism really a progressive value?
I think the real answer is that trade policy has really been a nationalist value, in the best sense of that word-- used to promote national well-being for quite a long time.
Who were the biggest proponents of protectionism in the relatively modern era?:
Well in the late 19th century-- the GOP strongly believed in protectionism from before Grover Cleveland through Taft (and the early 20th century progressives largely went along) until Hoover. However, the protectionist policies helped build the American economy in that era.
But...
Herbert Hoover is thought to have worsened the world-wide depression by promoting protectionism and the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930. He was a strong supporter of strong nationalistic, protectionist trade laws. Herbert Hoover is the spiritual godfather of modern protectionism and the Great Depression that partially resulted from his policies are why so many very liberal Democrats were free traders.
Although FDR began the process of reducing tariffs, it wasn't until Truman that things really changed. The end of WW2 made the US the dominant world power and marked a shift to free trade. It has been argued that the strong free trade policies which were established by Harry Truman and favored by Democratic stalwarts such as JFK helped to rebuild the global economy AND was greatly in the US' interests, since the US dominated the world economy in the post-war period. The creation of the World Bank was strongly supported by Truman. So it's no surprise that even the most liberal of Democrats were mostly strong free traders like George McGovern. Although there was concern about the rise of multinationals in the 1970s (recognized by McGovern's platform) the connection to the consequences of free trade was not made.
Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama have continued the mid 20th century push for free trade. But the equation began to change in the 1980s (and even before) as greater global competition began to eat into America's economic dominance. By the 80's Japan had begun to be a serious competitor in cars and electronics, when earlier they had been known as best for creating junk. Believe it or not made in Japan once meant inferior quality (in the 50's and 60's). So free trade became more and more of a mixed bag-- some American industries continued to grow (high tech) while many traditional industries (eg steel) completely foundered. The economic changes have been consequential, and probably irreversible.
Now almost 70 years from Harry Truman and his colleagues strongly set the US and the world on a free trade course, there is talk of re-evaluating US free trade policies. This election cycle has finally brought needed light to be shined on the consequences of free trade. Bernie Sanders and Trump have both pushed for more protectionist polices (as did Ross Perot more than 20 years ago), and recently Hillary Clinton has decided that the TPP should not be supported. The pendulum may be shifting.
But if you look at the list of protectionists versus free-traders, i think that it is clear that neither free trade, nor protectionism is really a liberal/progressive or conservative policy per se, but really one that both parties tend to coalesce around when it becomes clear that the current policies are leading the country astray.
Summary:
Notable Protectionists: Grover Cleveland, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover
Free traders: Harry Truman, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter (helped push for NAFTA in 1993), Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama.
Note the absence of correlation with other economic political ideology.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Sep 26, 2003, 10:31 PMNumber of posts: 5,445