Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

Let’s finish the job.

After roe, women are no longer free.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

You cannot shame the shameless.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Hot air and ill-informed banter

Peak wingnut was a lie.

You are here: Home / Politics / Politicans / Bernie Sanders 2016 / Monday Morning Open Thread

Monday Morning Open Thread

by | 161 Comments

This post is in: , , , , ,

Reviews are in on that other epic battle in a galaxy far, far away — okay, New Hampshire — and the ones I’ve seen are pretty positive. John Cassidy, in the New Yorker:

The Democratic National Committee made a big mistake staging the third Presidential-primary debate, which was held at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, on a Saturday night, when millions of potential viewers wouldn’t be watching. The debate was lively, informative, and civil. Apart from a brief diversion into whether former President Bill Clinton, should he become the first First Gentleman of the United States, would be entrusted with selecting flowers and menus for official occasions—his wife said that he wouldn’t—it was also substantive. And excluding, for a moment, Martin O’Malley, it reaffirmed the choice facing Democratic voters: experience, moderate reformism, and vigorous engagement abroad (Hillary Clinton) versus passion, an assault on privilege, and an abiding skepticism about overseas military engagements (Bernie Sanders)…

Jamelle Bouie, at Slate:

… The Democratic Party is moving to the left. The Obama administration will end as the most liberal presidency since Lyndon Johnson’s. The Democratic grassroots has embraced figures like Elizabeth Warren, and now, Bernie Sanders, who call for class consciousness and a fundamental change to the balance of American politics. And even as she runs to the right of Sanders, Clinton’s second White House campaign is measurably more liberal than the one she ran in 2008.

What this means, in practice, is a Democratic Party that’s less hesitant—and in the case of Sanders, more forthright—about using national government to solve or ameliorate social problems, from income inequality and low wages to gun violence and health care access. It’s a Democratic Party that has put paid leave and child care at the top of its agenda, on top of strengthening programs like Obamacare and expanding others like Social Security.

But there’s a problem. The Democratic Party is still a coalition, and it’s not a coalition of liberals. Most Democrats, and people who vote for Democratic candidates, are moderates or even right-leaning. They don’t share the priorities of their liberal partners. And Democratic politicians have to represent them too, as we see in states like West Virginia and even Pennsylvania…

Bernie Sanders, like a growing cohort of liberals, wants a more social democratic America, and is willing to raise taxes to achieve it. And by injecting this stance into the Democratic primary, he’s forcing the party to contend with it. If it wants more and more expansive programs, then it will have to raise taxes on everyone, and make a case for doing so.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to make that case (neither does Martin O’Malley, for that matter). And so her sights are set on the center of the Democratic consensus—high taxes on the rich, new small programs for everyone else.

But, again, the Democratic Party is moving left. Democratic voters are becoming more liberal. And following that trend, Democratic policymakers, including lawmakers, are beginning to call for more (and more ambitious) progressive policy. Eventually, all of this will collide with the pledge to cut middle-class taxes. Arguably—looking at the scope of Clinton’s proposals—it already has…

Ed Kilgore, at NYMag‘s Daily Intelligencer:

… Every time he noted a difference of opinion between himself and Hillary Clinton, Sanders seemed to pull his punches–noting that a subject (Syria) was really complicated; that Clinton was very knowledgeable (health care); or that intra-Democratic differences were vastly less significant than the gap between donkeys and elephants. When the subject of Wall Street attitudes came up, he chose to emphasize how much the Gucci shoe crowd hates him rather that how much they like Hillary. He actually may have shown the most heat on an important but wonky policy distinction that most viewers likely didn’t get: that Clinton’s preference for means-testing benefits and avoiding middle-class tax burdens is out of line with the spirit and the substance of the New Deal with its universal benefits and universal cost-sharing.

Both Sanders and O’Malley made it abundantly and redundantly clear they disagree with Clinton on what to do with Assad, much as Ted Cruz and Donald Trump did with Marco Rubio in the last GOP debate (the smarter brand of pundit will probably be talking about that parallel in the days just ahead). But while Sanders was clever in suggesting HRC has a habit of supporting “regime changes” that began with her vote on Iraq (which of course cannot be brought up too often), the way he talked about it made the habit sound like it was on the order of an excessive taste for carbs or bad music…

All in all, the debate did nothing to change the dynamics of the Democratic contest, and much of what was said will soon be forgotten. There will be another debate in January, and then we will find out if Bernie Sanders really is counting on his field organization and an exceed-the-expectations strategy instead of any game-change-y debate moments to close the gap with Clinton. As for HRC, she’s already regained the “inevitability” factor she came into the Invisible Primary carrying. Even if Sanders somehow wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton still has a far more plausible path to the nomination, thanks to her standing in the many states that are not as honkified and activist-dominated as the first two. But the whole world will still be watching her for a stumble. It did not happen at St. Anselm’s College.

Much more good analysis at all three links. If you have other recaps/dissections you like, put a link in the comments.
***********
Apart from hashing over the weekend epics (I suspect someone ought to put up a spoilers-below-the-fold Star Wars discussion thread, but I’m not sure how soon), what’s on the agenda as we scramble towards the various year-end celebrations?

Reader Interactions

161Comments

  1. 1.

    Zinsky

    Didn’t watch the debates Saturday night but by all accounts, it was civil, intelligent and policy-focused, three adjectives that have not been applicable to any of the GOP debates so far. I’m proud that the political party I support has grown-ups with mature world views anyway.

  2. 2.

    OzarkHillbilly

    @Zinsky:

    I’m proud that the political party I support has grown-ups with mature world views anyway.

    And if we lose, that will be why. Sigh…

  15. 15.

    Althea

    Just anecdotally, people I know that normally don’t care much about politics, and consider themselves to be Dems are very interested in Sanders. These are people in their 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. So it’s not just millennials. Not saying they would vote for him, but still . . .

  17. 17.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    Oh, Hillary is in a bubble; cause she doesn’t do Morning Joe or the Sunday shows. This is inane, CLICK.

  19. 19.

    Mike J

    I saw on twitter that Rolling Stone has an article saying that Hillary was promoting that little known movie nobody had ever heard of as a payoff to supporter JJ Abrams. I hope somebody gives that kid a break someday and gives him a crack at something big.

  21. 21.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    @raven: But Hillary had nothing to do with it. Apparently, according to Joe of the Morning, she spent four years at state with her thumb up her ass.

  23. 23.

    NotMax

    Trying to figure out how a reorder of cigars placed at a company in Florida on Friday and sent by USPS got to my doorstep on Maui on Saturday.

    Not complaining, mind you.

  26. 26.

    Chris T.

    I think this is true:

    But there’s a problem. The Democratic Party is still a coalition, and it’s not a coalition of liberals. Most Democrats, and people who vote for Democratic candidates, are moderates or even right-leaning. They don’t share the priorities of their liberal partners. And Democratic politicians have to represent them too, as we see in states like West Virginia and even Pennsylvania…

    and, I think one way we could deal with this is to have the Republican Party implode and disappear, and then have the Democratic Party split and be our two sensible parties.

    Of course, this is way too neat, clean, and simple to actually ever happen….

  29. 29.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    @Baud: First they say she needs a competitive primary, and within 5 minutes, they say she may lose Iowa and NH!

    ETA: If you’re running for an office and someone is polling better than you are, it just might be a competitive race.

  30. 30.

    NotMax

    @OzarkHillbilly

    Well, the only way this particular company will ship to Hawaii is by USPS Priority Mail, so guess that’s a point in my favor.

    Usually takes from 3 – 5 days; overnight is astonishing.

  35. 35.

    OzarkHillbilly

    @NotMax: In another life I worked for a freight forwarding company and became well versed in the ways things got shipped. Of course, that was 35 years ago so YMMV, but USPS should still have priority placement of air freight so their stuff always catches the flight. If it usually takes 3-5 days, I can only think it is because of a pre Xmas lull in flying and a happy coincidence of timing. Still, I suspect in general USPS is still cheaper and more reliable than their competitors on overnight and priority.

  36. 36.

    SFAW

    (I suspect someone ought to put up a spoilers-below-the-fold Star Wars discussion thread, but I’m not sure how soon),

    How about two months from now?

    Seriously. I realize this issue is not the most important thing since … ever. But there are those of us — verily, even old farts like mineself — who are planning to see it before it leaves theaters, but who don’t exactly have time to see it now, and have no desire to find out (prematurely) that Kylo Ren is actually the love-child of Jabba the Hutt and Boba Fett. And that Rey is actually Finn’s twin brother, separated at birth, etc.

    On the other hand, I would support tons of spoilers being dropped onto Red State or Freeperland. Fuck ’em.

  39. 39.

    OzarkHillbilly

    @SFAW: Seeing as I refuse to see a movie in a theatre I have given up on spoiler free entertainment. Still, avoiding the biggie spoilers isn’t that hard and the little ones really don’t change my enjoyment much. I just finished watching seasons 1-4 of Game of Thrones and was constantly surprised by the twists and turns.

  41. 41.

    Satby

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    Still, I suspect in general USPS is still cheaper and more reliable than their competitors on overnight and priority

    They sure have been. I just checked all the holiday shipments I sent and they all look like they’ll be delivered in plenty of time, and the farther away the faster it seems to get there, which I assume is the difference between being put on a plane or a truck. My last shipment was to Seattle on Saturday morning, it’s already in the sorting facility there.

  42. 42.

    Baud

    @NotMax: Better than going to all of those stuffy inaugural balls. Maybe I’ll do an outdoor screening and invite the public. I am a man of the people.

  43. 43.

    Betty Cracker

    @David Koch: You had ONE job, Steve Harvey!

    @Chris T.: I’ve been thinking for the last 20 years or so that a scenario very much like that may eventually play out. It would be the best possible outcome under the circumstances.

  45. 45.

    Elizabelle

    @Baud: Visiting my sister. Turned “Today” off 4 minutes into the broadcast. Setup was “Hillary is a big liar because — as far as we know — ISIS is not specifically and verifiably using Donald Trump [‘s words] in their recruiting videos.” Then: analysis by DTrump and Chris Christie and CChristie is when the remote went *click*.

    Sister’s family watches NBC because it’s one of maybe 3 channels that come in well on their kitchen TV set. Satellite on other sets, but NBC rules the most-watched morning set. Alas.

    The GOP candidates out-poutrage each other, and it’s passed over — those guys! — and HRC and Democrats’ words are scrutinized like a coded message. We know it’s a lie. Let’s pore harder.

    I have not watched MSNBC or television news for many days now. ETA: meaning I have not turned it on. But do turn sets off, when others are not in the room.

  47. 47.

    MomSense

    I renewed my son’s membership to Sonic Junction. They’ve added harmonica and piano lessons. Have to do a few more things before Friday.

  53. 53.

    Betty Cracker

    @Iowa Old Lady: I agree about the base voters, but if they finally drag the party so far right that it is unelectable on a national level and starts to infuse the entire organization with loser stink that adversely affects down-ticket races, triggering an implosion, a reconstituted party might finally prevent that nasty little tail from wagging the dog.

  57. 57.

    Peale

    The “please don’t spoil it” contingent reminds me of the imperial storm troopers in the movie. I would say why, but I wouldn’t want to ruin a good analogy with supporting details.

  59. 59.

    Satby

    So over the past few days I’ve tortured the girls with classic Christmas movies or shows. I can predict with almost 100% certainty that Qunoot will fall asleep during anything in black and white, though Charlie Brown Christmas and the Grinch were enjoyed. Valentina watched all of them but found Clarence the angel bewildering. I’m still debating inflicting White Christmas on them.

  60. 60.

    SFAW

    @Baud:

    Better than going to all of those stuffy inaugural balls.

    I don’t know — if I could get Michelle to go with me to one, it wouldn’t be so bad.

    Of course, she’d have to dump that skinny guy, first. You know who I mean – the guy who’s in worse health than Donald Trump.

  67. 67.

    henqiguai

    @Satby (#59):

    I’m still debating inflicting White Christmas on them.

    Go with White Christmas. Fairly non-sectarian, inoffensive (bare in mind the era in which it was made), and decent music (and this said by someone not particularly enamored to musicals). Oh, and Holiday Inn (think that’s the name of it). I blame my wife for introducing those movies to me, ’cause I sure would not have watched them on my own.

  74. 74.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    I made it to Dec. 20th without hearing Wonderful Christmastime, it was on the radio when I drove up to pay my respects to Mr. Brand.

  75. 75.

    Elizabelle

    Meanwhile, President Obama interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, which airs today. NY Times front page:

    Obama Accuses Trump of Exploiting Working-Class Fears

    In an interview with NPR, President Obama said that Donald J. Trump is taking advantage of the frustrations of blue-collar men and that some of the scorn directed at him stemmed from the fact that he is the first black president.

    From the article:

    ….Demographic changes and economic stresses, including “flatlining” wages and incomes, have meant that “particularly blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck,” Mr. Obama said in the interview with National Public Radio.

    …. Mr. Obama has struggled to appeal to white voters who do not have a college education, carrying only 36 percent of them when he was re-elected in 2012. Republicans perform particularly well among that group, although it represents a shrinking share of the electorate.

    On the Islamic State, which is also called ISIS or ISIL, Mr. Obama pushed back against criticism of his approach and said he was “confident that we are going to prevail.”

    “This is a serious challenge — ISIS is a virulent, nasty organization that has gained a foothold in ungoverned spaces effectively in Syria and parts of western Iraq,” Mr. Obama said, referring to attacks the group organized in Paris and apparently inspired in San Bernardino. “But it is also important for us to keep things in perspective, and this is not an organization that can destroy the United States.”

    He also suggested that heavy coverage of the media-savvy extremist group by news outlets chasing viewership had contributed to the public anxiety that has dragged down his approval ratings on the issue.

    “If you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you,” Mr. Obama said. “And so I understand why people are concerned about it.”

    Asked whether news organizations had been manipulated by the Islamic State [because we know you Democrats love to stretch the truth, and no fair calling our MSM terrorism-exploiters], he added: “Look, the media is pursuing ratings. This is a legitimate news story.”

  76. 76.

    Bruuuuce

    @Iowa Old Lady: Maybe in Iowa, the theaters are empty at that time on Christmas, In New York, movies and Chinese food are a tradition, and theaters are well filled even in the early morning.

  77. 77.

    Satby

    @Yutsano: Done. Qunoot dozed through a part of it but never fell fully asleep. Seriously, it’s like I put a Qualude in her cocoa as soon as the black and white rolls.
    They both really liked Casablanca though.

  78. 78.

    AnonPhenom

    But there’s a problem. The Democratic Party is still a coalition, and it’s not a coalition of liberals. Most Democrats, and people who vote for Democratic candidates, are moderates or even right-leaning. They don’t share the priorities of their liberal partners.

    No one expects them to.
    What the Party’s liberals want is their seat at the table back. The one that got taken away when Bill Clinton declared that the era of big government was over. The Free Marketeers and Business Friendly ‘moderates’ had their go and they hollowed out the country’s economy and burned the fuckin place to the ground.
    Now they get a ‘Time Out’.

  80. 80.

    Satby

    @henqiguai: I love both of those and Christmas in Connecticut too. I may just tell them they’re on and let them watch or not.
    But I made them watch IAWL and Miracle on 34th. I told them they were important cultural touchstones.

  81. 81.

    debbie

    @NotMax:

    Maybe they anticipated additional business during the holidays and set up a distribution network to improve delivery times?

  83. 83.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    @debbie: Late June, it was just after my high school graduation.

    ETA: As the album title says, “from the Archives”.

  84. 84.

    debbie

    @Elizabelle:

    because — as far as we know — ISIS is not specifically and verifiably using Donald Trump [‘s words] in their recruiting videos.

    Because of course those people aren’t smart enough. Arghh!

  85. 85.

    Betty Cracker

    @Elizabelle: I’m glad PBO called out the media coverage, which has been excessive, but a more fruitful criticism might have been leveled at the GOP candidates, who talk about ISIS as if that relatively small, ragtag band of fanatical psychotics is an existential threat on par with the Nazis or Bug Army from Starship Troopers.

    It’s a fine line to walk, though. A lone wolf attack is laughably easy to pull off in the US since we’re so awash in assault-style weapons and high capacity magazines. A Paris or Mumbai-style attack in a US city could definitely throw the election to whichever hairball the GOP eventually horks up.

  86. 86.

    Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism

    @OzarkHillbilly: What’s confusing about it?

    Brother-sister marriages are rife in ancient royal lines. More recent, though not quite as close, is the very interwoven Hapsburg family tree. (Brother-sister, no. Uncle-niece, yes.)

  87. 87.

    OzarkHillbilly

    @debbie: They do work extra at sorting facilities during the holidays because of volume, but the real pinch point is airline flights. They have no control over the # of them, just priority placement.

  89. 89.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    @debbie: Late June, 1978.

    I didn’t get a picture of it, but there was still some snow on the top of Half Dome. The pictures were taken with an Olympus OM-1 using Kodachrome ASA 100.

  90. 90.

    PurpleGirl

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    Still trying to figure out how that got written.

    What is surprising or odd about that statement? The Egyptian royal family intermarried in order to keep their blood line pure. Modern DNA studies and CAT scans of mummies are divulging loads in information about various royals.

  92. 92.

    debbie

    @BillinGlendaleCA:

    They’re beautiful. My brother took his family there a couple years ago, in late June. None of his pictures are without other people in them. I kind of like those empty spaces. They’ve probably disappeared forever.

  93. 93.

    Frankensteinbeck

    vigorous engagement abroad (Hillary Clinton)

    The Narrative Must Flow. The difference between their positions was tiny, with whether or not Assad should be a priority dominating. Secondary was who they thought locally could be primary proxies, since neither wanted us to do the fighting. Sanders harped about Libya but voted for the intervention, and didn’t like the idea that America should ‘lead’, but their idea of our role was the same – support locals, convince regional powers to take care of it. There were no hawks and no doves in that disagreement. I liked that about both candidates.

    Media descriptions of Libya are really pissing me off. The fact that our role was to start a bombing campaign that Europe took over completely, because NATO and the Arab League asked us to, has gone down the memory hole.

  94. 94.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    @debbie: We hiked from Glacier Point to the Little Yosemite Valley, where we camped. The trip up Half Dome was a day trip. After 2 days, we hiked down the Yosemite Valley. Once you get out of the main valley floor, it’s much, much less crowded.

  95. 95.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    That was fascinating, and the photos are stunning. I shared it (on FB) with a friend of mine who was posted to Mongolia for several years and fell in love with the country and the people. Thank you for the link.

  96. 96.

    debbie

    @Elizabelle:

    I listened to the interview this morning. It was only the portion where Obama was defending his position on ISIS, of course. At least Inskeep was less belligerent than he was the last time he interviewed the president.

  98. 98.

    OzarkHillbilly

    @Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism:

    Brother-sister marriages

    Yeah, I finally connected those 2 dots after I hit post. I’d like to blame it on “not enuf coffee” but I’ve been up since 3:30, so that leaves me with “The cat walked across the key board.” Still, I think it was a really badly written sentence and somewhat sexist. Why not say his father was his uncle?

  100. 100.

    magurakurin

    @Iowa Old Lady: we watched Scrooged last night and a few nights before Elf. Of course those are just lead ups to the grande finale…Bad Santa on Christmas Eve. A long standing tradition in our house now.

  101. 101.

    HinTN

    @BillinGlendaleCA: Been up to the top of Half Dome once and that was an indelible experience. Out of shape sea level lungs made me slow and had to walk back to the valley in the full moon light. After a while, when the moon got up, the granite almost flowed from within and no flashlight was required. Magic!

  102. 102.

    WereBear

    @Chris T.: I think one way we could deal with this is to have the Republican Party implode and disappear, and then have the Democratic Party split and be our two sensible parties.

    Of course, this is way too neat, clean, and simple to actually ever happen….

    I disagree. It’s not going to happen tomorrow, or nearly soon enough to suit me, but that is what is going to happen.

    Right now, the Republican party is becoming the dustbin of history. They are handily gathering ALL the waning centers of influence; the racism, sexism, hippie-punching and Bircherism in the nation; into one handy package that the 1% owns outright. Their Presidential candidates are sponsored by their own crazy billionaires! This isn’t even debatable. It’s happening.

    It does all kinds of things, but functioning as a political party is less and less one of them. If 2016 is the spectacular failure which fractures the Coalition of Hate, it will be sooner.

  103. 103.

    gene108

    @AnonPhenom:

    It was not Bill Clinton that cost liberals lasting damage. It was Mondale getting face crushed by Reagan in 1984 and Dukakis getting face crushed Bush, Sr, in 1988.

    Clinton salvaged what he could of liberalism, but he was still way too far to the left of most of the country in 1993, as can be seen with the struggles he had implementing his liberal agenda: (1) Gay’s in the military, (2) universal healthcare, (3) family medical leave, and (4) gun control.

  104. 104.

    FlipYrWhig

    @AnonPhenom: The US Senate in 1996, which is when Clinton said “the era of big government is over,” included the following Democrats:

    Howell Heflin (D)
    Dale Bumpers (D)
    David Pryor (D)
    Ben Nighthorse Campbell (D, then R)
    Joseph I. Lieberman (D)
    Sam Nunn (D)
    Wendell H. Ford (D)
    J. Bennett Johnston (D)
    John B. Breaux (D)
    Max Baucus (D)
    Jim Exon (D)
    Bob Kerrey (D)
    Richard H. Bryan (D)
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D)
    Kent Conrad (D)
    John Glenn (D)
    Ernest F. Hollings (D)
    Charles S. Robb (D)
    Robert C. Byrd (D)

    Does that look like a group that, if not for Bill Clinton’s State of the Union rhetoric, was going to unleash a bold liberal ascendancy?

  106. 106.

    WereBear

    @Elizabelle: We went to the doctor and there was one of those morning shows on. It has been many years since I’ve seen one, and I was shocked; it made Sesame Street look as leisurely paced as an art film.

    All the fast talk and the screaming and the wild editing and the constant contradictory sound bites getting thrown at you like rotten tomatoes. I’m sure if a person has spent the last decade watching it all happened gradually and they don’t notice.

    But I thought it was just awful. Totally obnoxious and unwatchable.

  107. 107.

    Paul in KY

    @PurpleGirl: Whatever, Ms. Pendant ;-)

    I thought Ms. Columbia blew on the answer to the ‘Why should you be Ms. Universe’ question. She was honest, but should have had more ‘helping others’ stuff in there.

  108. 108.

    Betty Cracker

    @gene108: Agreed. I opposed much of Bill Clinton’s agenda and was appalled enough with some of it to become an idiot Naderite back in the day. But with the passage of time and perspective, it’s become clear to me that laying the Democratic Party’s rightward lurch at the feet of Bill Clinton ignores and lets off the hook the actual causes of it: Reaganism and its powerful coalition of Chamber of Commerce types and social conservatives. That coalition shows signs of weakening, and we should respond with a stake through its heart in the most expeditious possible manner, not with a purification of our own ascendant coalition.

  110. 110.

    FlipYrWhig

    @gene108: IMHO what caused liberals lasting damage was the cessation of Vietnam as a galvanizing cause, combined with Republicans’ success at claiming “law and order” (a polite way of saying keeping people of color and young people in their places) as their signature issue. Republicans have been running against welfare — i.e., goodies for surly ingrates — for 40 years. “New Democrats” came up with a strategy of talking up efficiency, deregulation, and high tech innovation, and managed to win over a big chunk of white suburbia. It all made sense at the time. They weren’t trying to spite traditional liberals, they were trying to build a majority. And even in the heady days of Democratic ascendancy there was tension between the pro- and anti-civil rights camps. Democrats have never been a lockstep liberal party. IOW, they can’t have sold out their liberal identity, because they didn’t _have_ a liberal identity in the first place.

  114. 114.

    rikyrah

    BECAUSE….

    that is who they are.

    Republicans grope for way to kill Paris climate agreement

    Republicans are running out of ways to undermine the Obama administration’s commitments as part of the Paris climate agreement.

    GOP lawmakers acknowledge that they won’t get a vote on the international accord, which they vehemently oppose. But Republicans and their allies are still pursuing channels in each branch of government, as they look to torpedo the agreement.

    Many hoped that the Green Climate Fund was their best chance to do just that.

    As negotiators were hashing out a final climate deal, Republicans vowed to block American contribution to the fund, an international pool of public and private money directed to help poorer nations prepare for climate change.

    But the omnibus spending deal passed this week allows Obama to find GCF funding elsewhere in the federal budget, effectively taking the matter out of Congress’ hands.

    “The prohibition about doing it was very outspoken,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a vocal Obama critic, told The Hill. “You heard me say that: ‘No you can’t do it.’ But then they say, ‘Well, we can do it within accounts.’ So, that’s where it is.”

    Even so, critics of the deal say there are ways to eventually disrupt his climate promises.

    2017 appropriations: While the White House, Democrats and greens expect Obama to be able to meet at least part of his current commitment to the Green Climate Fund, Republicans said they could challenge that in the 2017 appropriations process.

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/263780-gop-gropes-for-way-to-kill-paris-climate-deal

  116. 116.

    Sherparick

    @Elizabelle: I am afraid the President again comes across as condescending on the economic problems of the working class (a term I prefer to middle class since it refers to anyone who depends on their job to pay bills and keep a roof over their head, and does not receive substantial income from rent or capital investments.) It would be nice for both him and Hilary to say that they are disappointed that neoliberal Democratic policies have not produced stronger wage growth and economic prosperity that was distributed across the country. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2015/features/bloom_and_bust058470.php?page=all They both go to “more education” panacea and that is not the heart of the problem. I think that is what we miss, that for lots of people living in small towns and cities, there is a sense that the economic system on which the thrive is being destroyed.

  117. 117.

    rikyrah

    Latest GOP Polling:

    A Fox News poll, conducted entirely after last week’s debate,

    1. Donald Trump: 39% (up from 28% in November)

    2. Ted Cruz: 18% (up from 14%)

    3. Marco Rubio: 11% (down from 14%)

    4. Ben Carson: 9% (down from 18%)

    ……………….

    There’s also the latest survey from Public Policy Polling, which was also conducted entirely after last week’s debate:

    1. Donald Trump: 34% (up from 26% in November)

    2. Ted Cruz: 18% (up from 14%)

    3. Marco Rubio: 13% (unchanged)

    4. Jeb Bush: 7% (up from 5%)

    5. Ben Carson: 6% (down from 19%)

  118. 118.

    Sherparick

    @FlipYrWhig: yep, people keep forgetting that there is no “Green Lantern” ring that comes with the Presidency. Clinton tried to get a stimulus plan through Congress in 1993, when he had Democratic majorities, and it was killed. Likewise of course his famous health care initiatives. All he could get through was the something the Blue Dogs and Neoliberals loved, a deficit cutting bill that raised taxes and cut spending equally and NAFTA, with Republican votes. The resulting decline in Union participation and voting organization, along with culture war themes on affirmative action, gay rights, gun laws, etc. motivated the first huge lurch to the Republicans in 1994. After that Clinton was basically counterpunching.

  119. 119.

    Thoughtful Today

    “Clinton salvaged what he could of liberalism”

    No.

    Clinton redefined right-wing economic nonsense as the new ‘liberal’. He radically empowered the already rich while gutting programs that helped the poor.

    Clinton’s policies INCREASED wealth inequality, decreased social mobility, and gutted social programs for the least amongst us.

    Simultaneously Clinton’s corporate policies accelerated media consolidation, deregulated banks, and outsourced American jobs.

    Good jobs with decent wages, benefits and pensions disappeared to be replaced by lousy jobs with few or no benefits or pensions.

    But Walmart’s stock went up as did many international corporations who took advantage of NAFTA and the dictatorship of China’s horrific labor and environmental policies.

    Stocks owners won.

    The middle class was gutted.

  121. 121.

    SiubhanDuinne

    Not that anyone is likely to notice, but reportedly Lindsay Graham is dropping out of the race today.

  122. 122.

    D58826

    CNN is reporting that Lindsey Graham is dropping out of the race. Wonder who will pick up his .000001% of the GOP voters.

  123. 123.

    Chris

    @WereBear:

    I feel like if the Democrats were able to survive the Civil War and the Republicans were able to survive the Great Depression, they’re basically indestructible at this point. It’s become too ingrained in American political culture that those are the only two legitimate parties. They can change, they can do a complete 180 from what they used to be, but they’ll remain.

    We can hope the GOP will be confined to minority party status for a good long while, maybe long enough for them to have to grow a moderate wing again, I don’t think that’s implausible. The actual end of the GOP is, though. At least I think so.

  125. 125.

    David Koch

    Wait a minute, you guys are trying to tell me Lindsay Graham was in race?

    No. That not true. He was never in the race, that just a rumor.

  127. 127.

    rikyrah

    From Steve Benen over at Maddow Blog, with his observations about the latest GOP Polling:

    Based on the latest, overall national averages, Trump isn’t just the leading Republican candidate, he’s actually dominating by more than 20 points. These same overall averages show the frontrunner, at least for now, with more support than Cruz and Rubio combined.

    When was the last time a Republican presidential candidate led by more than 20 points in late December and failed to win his party’s nomination? Never. It just hasn’t happened.

    Now, some caveats are probably in order. When I say “never,” I’m referring to the modern era: election cycles in which polling existed and in which Republican primary and caucus voters chose the GOP nominee in contested races.

    In other words, we’re basically looking at 40 years’ worth of presidential elections (for Democrats, it’s 44 years, but since Nixon ran effectively unopposed in 1972, it’s 40 for the GOP). In that time, no Republican had a national lead this big and ended up losing.

  130. 130.

    gene108

    @FlipYrWhig:

    One thing we fail to appreciate is how totally ascendant liberalism has been on social issues, with the exception of abortion rights.

    I remember when Ellen came out as gay, in the 1990’s, and people wondered if ABC would just cancel her show because of it. They did not and that was considered bold.

    Now the mainstream tries to be inclusive. Interracial couples are no big deal and the bigots, who used to call the shots on such issues are an angry rump with ever declining power over what we see and hear.

    @Thoughtful Today:

    Facts not in evidence.

    The late 1990’s was the only time we had real wage growth in this country in the last 40 years.

    Inequality actually narrowed a bit during Clinton’s second term.

    The roots of manufacturing’s decline in the U.S. is a trend that started before Clinton and continued after Clinton, so I’m guessing the reasons are a bit more complicated than NAFTA and Favored Nation status with China.

    The glut of illegal immigration in the 1990’s hurting construction trades and the lack of an effective response is something Ckinton failed to handle properly.

  131. 131.

    AnonPhenom

    @FlipYrWhig: @gene108:
    Not saying Bill was the cause of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party’s downfall. That was accomplished by a combination of determined and organized wealthy conservatives (see Powell memo) and their own lead footed inability to adapt to the conservatives’ sophisticated marketing strategy (see Mondale and Dukakis). But it was Bill and the DLC who, when they took over the party, decided that the liberals didn’t need to be paid any attention other than when it was necessary to triangulate.
    Thanks Bill, for gutting Glass-Steagall.

  132. 132.

    Chris

    @Betty Cracker:
    @FlipYrWhig:

    Yeah, and blaming the “New Democrats” annoys me too because it lets the voters off the hook. That Reagan coalition of Chamber of Commerce types and social conservatives came with a ton of voters who were ex-Democrats – not just white Southerners but a significant chunk of those “white ethnic,” “blue collar,” “union” voters. This isn’t news to anyone – liberal blogs mention the Southern Strategy almost daily, as well as the fact that it wasn’t just Southern. If a bunch of the Democrats’ traditional voter base is going to defect and/or become increasingly unreliable, the party establishment is going to react by paying less attention to their needs and trying to find support elsewhere. The Democratic Party didn’t just wake up one day and decide they were bored with the New Deal system and were now going to start selling out union voters just because.

  133. 133.

    Chris

    @D58826:

    My news alert just now: “Breaking News: Lindsey Graham Drops Out Of Republican Presidential Race.”
    Me: “Lindsey Graham was running?”

  134. 134.

    Amir Khalid

    @dmsilev:
    Jim Gilmore is to the Republican presidential race what Baud is to the Democratic race.

    No, strike that. Gilmore’s been far less active than Baud.

  137. 137.

    Thoughtful Today

    gene108

    I get that you’ve either bought or are cynically selling the right-wing economic nonsense that Clinton pushed, it’s the preferred fictions pushed by the neoliberal/DLC/Third-way/Blue-dogs.

    That doesn’t change the facts:

    Clinton’s _choices_ INCREASED INEQUALITY and decreased social mobility.

    You can claim that the two lousy low wage, no benefit, no union protection jobs that were ‘created’ during the Clinton years are somehow better than the decent wage, full benefits, and union protected job _destroyed_ during the Clinton years is a Good Thing [tm] all you want. It just insults those of us who were paying attention.

    But hey, Hillary’s Billionaire Heir Walton employers stock exploded, so it’s all good, right?

  138. 138.

    Betty Cracker

    @gene108: You’re right. Life would be so much easier if there were one-dimensional villains, pure heroes and simple, linear narratives. But the world we live in is more complex. I try to keep that in mind, but it’s difficult sometimes, especially when the villains are particularly cartoonish…

  141. 141.

    AnonPhenom

    @Chris:
    Yep. Unions and their members started walking away from the ‘Liberal’ Democratic Party in the late 60’s and early 70’s because of reforms made to the primary process that took power out of the hands of the Guys in The Smoke Filled Back Rooms (and unfortunately let Guys With Big Wallets in) and because of the Liberal’s support for Civil Rights for African Americans and Women.
    It changed the party. It was the price that had to be paid.
    So the New Democrats (and DLC, and Blue Dogs) got their chance at the wheel. And where are we?
    With a bunch of ‘New Liberals’ who aren’t happy with the results.
    They deserve their seat at the table. The party has to stop treating them like the red-headed step-child.

  142. 142.

    Amir Khalid

    @Thoughtful Today:
    I don’t expect it will do any good to tell you this, but saying things like

    I get that you’ve either bought or are cynically selling the right-wing economic nonsense that Clinton pushed, it’s the preferred fictions pushed by the neoliberal/DLC/Third-way/Blue-dogs.

    doesn’t persuade people to listen to you; in fact, it does quite the opposite. Sometimes I wonder if you’re even trying to convince anyone.

  143. 143.

    WereBear

    @Chris: Yes, the impetus behind them will be the same. We’ve always had racism, the city/country tension, the Gatsbys and the Babbitts and the Joads.

    One thing I think will stick is the bank regulation that moderates economic swings. This was only tangentially touched upon in any of my history classes, but the US used to be at the mercy of “Panics” that happened so regularly they were simply marked by their year. The middle class, such as it was, became continually preyed upon and wiped out in these market crashes.

    I hope that much has sunk in. As I always say, “Republicans. Those marvelous folks that brought you the Great Depression.”

  146. 146.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Chris:

    The Democratic Party didn’t just wake up one day and decide they were bored with the New Deal system and were now going to start selling out union voters just because.

    This. And it’s obnoxious that there’s a cohort of progressives/lefties who are so hellbent on finding backstabbers and sellouts to blame. The Democratic Party went through a whole process of soul-searching because they were getting whomped in presidential elections and the erstwhile “Solid South” was turning Republican because of race. The New Deal era party was as progressive as it was racist (some have called it “socialism for white people”); the Kennedy/LBJ party willingly chose racial justice even when they knew it would cost them elections; the Hart/Gore/Clinton party embraced efficiency and technocracy; and Obama was the first to try something else in 20-25 years, and did it by tickling the fancy of young and irregular voters who, as was predicted in 2007, weren’t all that interested in the Democratic Party as compared to Barack Obama. The fate of 20th-c. American liberalism is inscribed in that trajectory. And the thing to keep in mind is that _there still aren’t that many liberals in America_, so it ain’t surprising that the left-of-center party isn’t that far left.

  148. 148.

    Thoughtful Today

    Again:

    Clinton sold a right-wing economic agenda that increased wealth inequality and enriched the already rich.

    Hillary’s Billionaire Walton heirs were able to take advantage of Bill’s outsourcing to foreign dictatorships like China as well as his indifference to Unions. Low, low wages for cheap dictatorship made goods.

    Hillary’s continued support for trade abominations like the TPP, which essentially codifies the slavery in countries like Malaysia, isn’t tempered by her _temporary_ withdrawal of support. I remember 1993’s NAFTA push by the Clintons. Fool me once….

  149. 149.

    henqiguai

    @Paul in KY (#107):

    @PurpleGirl: Whatever, Ms. Pendant

    I believe that’s “pedant”. Not sure, just walked in from the gym, still a little tuckered out.

  150. 150.

    Eolirin

    @Thoughtful Today: Presidents don’t unilaterally set policy, or even party planks, ffs. Politics doesn’t fucking work on the basis of magical thinking and Great Men making Great Decisions. Especially not in the US.

    And your counterfactual for a non-Clinton world is a second Bush term or 90s era Jerry Brown, not a different more liberal democrat. Do you honestly believe we’d be in a better place right now if we had had another round of Bush or if Jerry Brown had been in office with a majority republican legislature and was willing to sign off on his campaign promises of eliminating the department of education or instituting a flat tax? Or do you believe there was some perfect paragon of progressivism that would’ve been not only electable, but would’ve moved the entire democratic party dramatically further to the left overnight and the only reason why they didn’t run is because Clinton did? We don’t get to live in a different world. People are not perfect. You *have* to start from the basis of what the actual, real, alternatives are; they were all *worse*.

    And jesus that last paragraph is mind bogglingly incoherent. There’s a way to say what you’re trying to say there that doesn’t sound completely stupid, but that isn’t it.

    Really, please, please, try harder. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of specific tactical mistakes within the context of *reality* regarding Clinton to complain about! I realize you’d have to actually understand wtf was going on in the 90s to do that, and that might require actual investigation and thinking, rather than the comfort of black and white assertions, so I can understand why you might not want to do it, but please, for the love of god, either stop picking completely indefensible lines of attack or stop talking. It’s getting extremely old.

  151. 151.

    gwangung

    @Thoughtful Today: Again: You’re assuming your conclusion. The data doesn’t fit.

    And you still have an authoritarian mindset that contradicts the conclusions you want to make.

  154. 154.

    PurpleGirl

    @Paul in KY:

    Whatever, Ms. Pendant

    No, it’s important to get the names of other countries correct, as it is important to get people’s names and locations correct. Or can I call you whatever I want.

    And your second misspelling of the name must be intentional or just shows you to be an ignorant, ugly American.

    And, as henqiguai points out, the word you wanted was pedant</emt.

  155. 155.

    Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    Why not say his father was his uncle?

    Because we know who his father was. The speculation that his mother was one of his father’s sisters is the topic of the sentence.

  157. 157.

    Thoughtful Today

    Neoliberals are trying to distort history.

    The facts aren’t changed:

    Clinton’s economic policies increased wealth inequality.

    Bill’s extension of China’s Most Favored trade status directly led to the outsourcing of good American jobs and his indifference to Unions led to the gutting of worker’s pay for the lousy jobs that remained.

    Hillary’s Walmart employers were enriched by both of Bill’s policies. Walmart’s Made in China merchandise is now sold in America by non-union workers who are paid so poorly that they often qualify for Welfare.

    Clinton handed the Billionaire’s America’s middle class’s lunch.

    And the Clinton’s and their Democratic partisans celebrate that the middle class got crumbs.

  158. 158.

    Elie

    @Thoughtful Today:

    I think that the jury is out whether you are for real or just trolling….

    I gotta say, you have some of the more elliptical reasoning that I have seen without being either stupid (which I don’t think you are), or just strolling for trolling — a worthy self-entertainment goal that hurts no one and can provide hours of entertainment posing various strawmen while getting JB’ers to go nuts trying to engage in a real discussion with you…

    Hey — have fun. Thanks though, I will pass on playing…

  159. 159.

    Rob in CT

    Clinton’s economic policies increased wealth inequality.

    …he says, chanting it like a Mantra.

    Income inequality began widening in the mid-1970s and has continued since. You can certainly point out that Bill Clinton failed to arrest the trend, and that specific policy choices (agreeing to lower the capital gains tax rate, signing the Securities Modernization Act of 2000, NAFTA, etc) fit in with the trend. What you cannot do is blame the trend on Bill Clinton or DLC Democrats. It started under Nixon or Ford, continued under Carter, accelerated under Reagan & Bush, continued under Clinton, Bush the Lesser and Obama.

    By the time Bill Clinton was elected President the Democrats had gotten shellacked repeatedly in Presidential elections. Nixon, Nixon/Ford, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush the Elder. That’s a serious ass-kicking, and it resulted in the Party trying to figure out how to win again. The initial response to the Conservative backlash was a failure, man.

    You can blame Clinton for a variety of things, but one think you need to understand is that American voters ultimately chose supply-side fairy tales + fucking over Those People, repeatedly. It sucks, but it’s true, and it’s not because of the Demon Clinton.

    There was a fairly brief period of time when this country managed both robust economic growth and also reduced inequality (not that it was all peaches & cream: the growth came with a lot of pollution and no discussion of inequality is really complete unless you consider race). Roughly from WWII through the mid-1970s. Many people look at that and figure it’s the norm, from which we’ve deviated. It is not: that was the deviation. Replicating that (minus the egregious racism, sexism, pollution, etc) is unlikely to be easy and certainly won’t be accomplished by defeating the evildoer Clinton in the primary. I say this as someone who will be voting Bernie in the primary.

    Put another way: we need more Bernies congress more than we need Bernie in the WH.

Comments are closed.