Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Yves Smith On Voting For Hillary

by ARGeezer Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 02:43:40 PM EST

Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary   Yves Smith in Politico Magazine

Why do progressives reject Hillary Clinton? The highly educated, high-income, finance-literate readers of my website, Naked Capitalism, don't just overwhelmingly favor Bernie Sanders. They also say "Hell no!" to Hillary Clinton to the degree that many say they would even vote for Donald Trump over her.

And they don't come by these views casually. Their conclusions are the result of careful study of her record and her policy proposals. They believe the country can no longer endure the status quo that Clinton represents--one of crushing inequality, and an economy that is literally killing off the less fortunate--and any change will be better. One reader writes:


"If Clinton is the nominee 9 out of 10 friends I polled will [do one of three things]:

A. Not vote for president in November.
B. Vote for Trump.
C. Write in Bernie as a protest vote.

"We are all fifty-somethings with money and college educations. Oh, and we are all registered Democrats."

Frontpaged - Frank Schnittger


I have been reading Naked Capitalism since 2008 and have come to have great respect for 'Yves Smith'. She has worked at the executive level in many top financial sector corporations and seen from the inside that about which she writes. And she has a wide circle of friends and acquaintances who are very knowledgeable about economics and finance in the USA and the world. More from Yves:

To be sure, not all of my Sanders-supporting readers would vote for Trump. But only a minority would ever vote for Clinton, and I'd guess that a lot of them would just stay home if she were the nominee. Many of my readers tend to be very progressive, and they have been driven even further in that direction by their sophisticated understanding of the inequities of Wall Street, especially in the run-up to and the aftermath of the financial crisis, when no senior executives went to jail, the biggest banks got bigger, and Hillary paid homage to Goldman Sachs. True progressives, as opposed to the Vichy Left, recognize that the Clintons only helped these inequities along. They recognize that, both in the 1990s and now, the Clintons do not and have never represented them. They believe the most powerful move they can take to foster change is to withhold their support.
The problem is that so many in the DNC and the media have seen similar statements before. Thus it becomes important to find if there are sound reasons why this time is different. If it is and yet there is no response from the DNC and/or the delegates at the convention, we could end up with a President Trump. Some have argued that he is the less effective evil. It is hard to know.

Politico started with several journalists who left WaPo and has been accused both of left and right bias.

Display:
Some Progressives are never going to vote for Clinton and wouldn't have voted for her whether Sanders was in the race or not.  

Some Progressives will vote against Trump.

Some Progressives will hold their noses and vote for Clinton.

Some Progressives will work and vote for Clinton.

That's as much as can be said unless someone pays to do some polling on the question.  What Smith's friends and readership of Naked Capitalism will or won't do is the epitome of anecdotal evidence.  

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 03:30:58 PM EST
Fortunately for Clinton, Yves' friends are a HIGHLY select group. But Sanders' followers not so much. I REALLY would like to see some serious national polling on this subject this month.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 04:17:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Undoubtedly Hillary's high negatives are made up of opponents from both left and right. She cannot move in either direction without further alienating those on the other side. Many have already made up their minds and are not for persuading regardless of what she does, seeing her as simply untrustworthy, or not one of them.

However we have to keep some perspective here.  It is normal for there to be intra-party tensions during the primary season, and I have seen comments to the effect that the divisions within the Dem party now are less than they were at the same stage in 2008. What's seems incontestable, however, is that divisions in the GOP are off the scale by comparison.

A lot of wooing and making up and cooling of passions will take place between now and the Dem convention. After that we will start seeing a truer picture of where the land lies.  However what I find difficult to take is Yves' description of her friends as progressives:
European Tribune - Yves Smith On Voting For Hillary

The highly educated, high-income, finance-literate readers of my website, Naked Capitalism, don't just overwhelmingly favor Bernie Sanders. They also say "Hell no!" to Hillary Clinton to the degree that many say they would even vote for Donald Trump over her.

In what universe do they think Trump is committed to reducing income inequality?  Intelligent is not an adjective that comes to mind. Spoiled brats seems closer to the mark...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 04:48:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some say that a Trump Presidency might be worth derailing the Clinton Third Way railroad. Others see Trump as the less competent evil. The more clearly one sees the necessity for change in our system, the damage that loss of the rule of law in ANY sense for criminal offenses as it applies to the financial sector, the urgency of mobilizing to deal with climate change, etc. the more frustrating becomes the box into which the Clintons have put the Democratic Party. If Hillary manages to complete two terms she might just take the Democratic Party with her when she leaves office - NOT INTENTIONALLY.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 07:46:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The way things are going, I expect the Democratic Party to be in the same place in 2020 as the US Whig Party was in 1856: a zombie party already relegated to the dustbin of history.
by rifek on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 07:18:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For what I recently read of the early US history, partisanship and party stability were amusing right from the 1790s. Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were better organized on all levels, somewhat contrary to their local political philosophy. Their blanket support for the French Revolution turned embarrassing, yet the Federalists showed more talent for self-destruction with the Alien and Sedition Acts, friction between Adams and Hamilton. The fatal Burr-Hamilton duel, then Hartford Convention gradually pushed the Federalists into oblivion - except in the highest courts, where they redefined the judiciary as the arbitrator of contracts.

The tragicomedy of Whigs was largely in their refusal to nominate "looser" Henry Clay in their most promising years, 1840 and 1848. Clay sabotaged himself by impulsively declaring "I had rather be right than president" in 1839. The Whigs ran with "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" in 1840, that is, a war hero Harrison and (for the Vice-President) Tyler. Harrison died after just a month in the office, and Tyler turned out to be very obstructionist towards Congress Whigs. In 1848, another war hero Zachary Taylor was nominated - and he suddenly passed away in the office as well. The ascended president Fillmore was not effective in preventing deepening divisions between the North and the South, and within the Whigs.

During the Bill Clinton presidency, I found the Republicans ridiculous with their impeachment. But then Gore, Kerry were effectively careful not to win. If Hilary Clinton will turn out to be a fraud candidate, the Democratic Party might indeed dust away in the next years.

by das monde on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 01:46:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In what universe do they think Trump is committed to reducing income inequality?

Given that the simile used was "gnawing off your leg to escape a trap", I'd say your characterisation is a bit  uncharitable.

by generic on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 10:26:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm one of the Naked Capitalism readers Yves is referring to (albeit well below the median income).  I shall not be voting for Trump; I leave that to my parents and sister.  But I shall not be voting for Clinton either.  I've dutifully held my nose and voted for the corporate tools the DLC/DNC has selected for us, and I shall do so no more.
by rifek on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 07:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What state are you not voting for Clinton in? I probably won't vote former  either, but she's leading (Trump, not Sanders) by such a large margin that it's unlikely to matter.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 06:58:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm in Utah.  If you don't vote R here, you're throwing your vote away anyway, so I'm sticking with my conscience.  I'm voting down-ticket, but not the top.
by rifek on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 11:22:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was struck that this was in Politico and have to wonder if Yves might be interviewed on some higher profile cable channel. MSNBC and Fox Cable leap to mind.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 04:20:58 PM EST
I find the idea that "withholding support is a show of strength" or that "not voting will show them!" to be incredibly annoying.  Voting in the primaries is a show of strength.  Next to nobody votes in primaries, so showing up there in numbers matters.

For the general, staying home just lumps you in with the undifferentiated mass of non-voters, most of whom don't vote for all kinds of random reasons - such as total apathy.

The crazy Republican base has so much power over the business and financier wing of the party because they show up for every election, rain or shine.  Leftists?  Not so much.

by Zwackus on Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 06:42:56 PM EST
These folks don't feel like they have a party. The one thing Yves might demonstrate is that there are more than enough well to do individuals in the USA to make a Progressive Socialist Party viable. Sanders has already demonstrated that there are enough voters to available to make it a major factor in elections - even if not enough to overpower the built in barriers in the Democratic Party primary process.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 07:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"even if not enough to overpower the built in barriers in the Democratic Party primary process. " You mean those outrageous barriers which by and large ensure that the candidate who gets the most votes is most likely to win the nomination? :-)

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 08:52:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, what I am referring to is that, repeatedly, Sanders has to get at least 55% of the popular vote to even break even on the elected delegates. Some states were worse. This doesn't, as best as I can tell, even involve the 'super-delegates'. Then there is the anything but evenhanded approach of the DNC, the debate schedule. DNC failure to contest any Republican manipulations that disproportionately affected Sanders, as in Arizona, etc. Then there is the fact that CA registered independents had to know to ask for a Democratic absentee ballot in order to get a ballot that included the presidential race, even though independents are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, and the same thing probably applies if they vote in person on Tuesday. Newly registered Sanders voters, especially those who register independent, just somehow face an obstacle course not there for Clinton voters.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 11:34:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is a bit harsh, but, the biggest reason they don't have a party is that they can't be bothered to really get involved in local electoral politics.  Batshit crazy idiots get together to frequently overturn the will of the Republican party in local elections through organization, persistance, and attendance - and they own Louis Gohmert, Alan West, and the other members of the crazy caucus.  

Yes, getting involved is hard, but that's what makes a party "yours."  If one sits on the sidelines, doing nothing more than voting and occasionally writing a check, than you have to take what you can get.

One does not just waltz into the party and expect it to do your bidding or support your positions, no matter how "correct" they may be.  That is not how groups work.

by Zwackus on Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 08:53:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but these wealthy individuals have a sense of entitlement that the Democratic Party exists only to do their bidding despite the fact that they only bother to vote once every four years and do nothing else to build up the party. To call these elitists "progressives" devalues the term, whatever their policy preferences.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 08:59:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I expect this to change and probably starting soon. The people about whom Yves is writing are busy professionals, but they are very likely to see that now they do have to take the time and effort to become effective in the political arena. And, if Hillary gets the nomination, they will have available a cadre of experienced people from whom to draw - those who supported Bernie this cycle. Every presidential candidate has to build his own machine and it then becomes part of his political capital.

Plus, I expect Sanders to keep his volunteer organization active. One thing the people Yves is discussing can and almost certainly will do is to support financially Sander's efforts to have a continuous campaign and to focus on electing progressives to Congress and the Senate. I hope they have the wisdom to extend those efforts to local politics as well. I expect an alternative to the DNC to emerge by Jan. '17 - whether is identifies as a group within the Democratic Party or as a new party. How thing go at the convention concerning the platform, the rules by which future primaries will be conducted, etc. will have a role to play in determining if and how enthusiastically current primary opponents of Clinton support her in the fall.

Given what a disaster Trump appears to be creating the DNC could well decide that, once more, progressives don't matter and they don't have to concede anything. I hope this is not the case. I would like to see the Democratic Party turn more progressive and become the instrument for fundamental change as it was in the '30s.    

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Jun 2nd, 2016 at 11:54:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I hope to be positively surprised, but do not expect it.  I've known a fair number of American far-left sorts, and far too many of them are content to sit on the sidelines and let things burn.  Both sides are the same, the system is rigged, don't bother, etc.

Seeing this attitude creeping into the Bernie crew drove me nuts, because for the first time in a while there was a real campaign for a moderate leftist with actual supporters showing up and campaigning and voting.  Unfortunately, for far too many of them, I think it's much more likely that the will end up in the "why bother, the system is corrupt" camp, rather than the "we need to keep fighting" camp.

by Zwackus on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 06:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obviously I have no privileged viewpoint from half the world away but I'm pretty sure this time is different. Anger is a powerful motivator if it is directed and not accompanied with a feeling of powerlessness. And nothing helps against feelings of powerlessness like numbers. So I don't get the calls for everyone to calm down. Everyone should stay angry, especially at local party elites and throw them out if they don't fall in line.
by generic on Tue Jun 7th, 2016 at 04:45:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And, we do not know the extent to which some of these very 'highly knowledgeable financial insiders' have already supported Sanders or how active they have been. I don't always follow her blog and certainly nave not been following the comments section. I do know that here in Mountain Home AR attorneys who support Clinton have, in the past lent the use of their offices and telephone system to, for instance, Democratic organizers who supported former US Senator Mark Prior in 2014, as I was one of the volunteers phone banking. Though Prior was hardly my ideal candidate he certainly was vastly better than odious Tom Cotton.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 12:01:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not exactly true.  The DLC and its Blue Dog DINOs hijacked the party in 1986, turning it into the GOP with a smiley-face button.  We progressives have been trying to get back to the table ever since but have been blocked by piles of money and by procedural rules that are increasingly hostile to any grass-roots activity.  Everything has come from on high as dictated to the DNC by its corporate owners.  Nothing is allowed to come up from the ranks.  It's the main reason the Democratic Party is laughably short of local candidates.
by rifek on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 06:59:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A rare self-retrospection by the media:

How New York Has Covered Hillary Clinton Over 24 Years

by das monde on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 03:25:03 AM EST
Some Sanders supporters hate HC so much they will vote Trump to spite her. Conversely some HC supporters hate democratic socialism and the influx of millions of idealistic, discerning voters so much they would throw the election to Trump rather than give Bernie his due.

Add those to the maroons who actually think Trump would make America great again and what do you get? A Trump landslide?

The real battle is between intelligent and stupid, Bernie and Donald. Hill's stuck in the middle like an armadillo on the highway, useless to both sides willing for different kinds of change, but change at any cost because both camps have nothing left to lose, with so many in McJobs they can't survive on, many living month to month, one illness away from destitution, on high interest payday loans.

People fear Trump less than Hillary partly because he's such a classic example of Dunning-Kruger syndrome he's bound to come unglued and will have so little support in congress for his braindead ideas and he gets walloped by a reality check that he can't run government like a reality show, or he'll insult so many influential people he'll get impeached for being a dolt and a clueless boor with no talent but chest-thumping.
America will get its lesson that money can't buy brains after all, and tourists will start to pretend they're Canadians again.
Brits will elect Brexit Boris so Trump doesn't feel too alone. Boris will have pictures hugging Donald, who will shortly afterwards deny ever having met him.
Melania Trump will pose naked on the White House bed as Bernie's March on Washington pulls in bigger crowds than MLK and Pink Floyd combined, and Hillary cools her jets getting ready for 2020's third fail.
Obama is elected to the Supreme Court or head of the UN, and Trump implodes messily saying the whole of the media is against him, after they have done nothing but carry his radioactive water since he thought up the bigly idea of becoming Planetary-Plutocrat-in-chief.
And so it goes...  

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 09:30:11 AM EST
Hillary will almost certainly win the presidency in 2016.  If she continues on her merry Third Way I'm not as confident she'll win in 2020 or even be the Democratic Party candidate.  As both Trump and Sanders have shown a sizable minority of people are Fed Up and angry with a system that is actively screwing them.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 10:47:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My biggest problem with HRC is that FBI investigation hanging over her head. That could be a very short leash she's on, incentive to keep her on program, whose one might ask but not be permitted to know.
Even aside from that she defines beholden to the PTB in every way.

Philly is going to look like Camp Lejeune come convention day, likewise for the Republicans.

I believe what we are witnessing is no less than the status quo tearing itself apart. Much less messy than when others have to do it from the outside, better just wait and prepare to pick up the pieces after the storm has blown out.

If general electiono are cancelled at the tail end of a second term, does leadership become automatically extended?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Jun 12th, 2016 at 09:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It has become a commonplace that this election is like no other in US history. This inherently makes events more unpredictable. While some factors from the past remain relevant, they now apply in different ways.

Mr. and Mrs. Unpopular  NBC News

Trump and Clinton are currently the two most unpopular likely presidential nominees in the history of the NBC/WSJ poll. Thirty four percent of registered voters have a positive opinion of Clinton, versus 54 percent who have a negative opinion (-20) -- a slight uptick from her minus-24 score last month. Trump's rating is even worse than Clinton's: Twenty nine percent have a positive opinion of him, while 58 percent have a negative opinion (-29) -- an improvement from his minus-41 score in April.

"This has never been matched, or even close to being matched," Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, says of these negative ratings for Trump and Clinton.

By contrast, Sanders is in positive territory. Forty-three percent have a positive view of the Vermont senator, versus 36 percent who have a negative view (+7). One difference Clinton and Sanders: Clinton's rating among Democratic voters supporting Sanders is 38 percent positive, 41 percent negative (-3); Sanders' rating among Clinton supporters is 54 percent positive, 23 percent negative(+31)



"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 11:07:10 AM EST
Such bi-partisan unpopularity has consequences. The DNC and RNC may have driven their reality creation machines into overload - with unpredictable results:

Forty Seven Percent Would Consider a Third-Party Candidate  NBC News

Asked if they would consider a third-party candidate if Clinton and Trump were the major party nominees, 47 percent of registered voters say yes -- a higher percentage than those who said yes on a similar question in 2008 and 2012.

Fifty percent of voters say they would not consider a third-party candidate.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted May 15-19 of 1,000 registered voters, including 450 cell phone-only respondents and another 46 reached on a cell but who also have a landline. The overall margin of error is plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.



"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 11:12:11 AM EST
The problem is that there is a third-party candidate. And a fourth. And probably more. How many of those would pick each of them?
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 11:48:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is hard to know. In the current situation or a future one like it we might see more votes for a new left and a new right party than go to either of the present dominant parties. People want real problems addressed. Instead they are getting bipartisan support for the status quo and defense of the existing financial system that has created these problems. If Democratic and Republican party leadership continues in this same path both parties could become marginalized.

In this campaign I don't see the Greens, the Libertarians or any new candidate such as Bill Crystol's David French getting much more that 2-3% with all such parties together probably getting less than 5%. By 2016 that could change and even more so by 2020. A lot depends on what happens in this election and during the next four years.

This election could do long term damage to the Republicans from which existing elites and their paymasters may or may not be able to significantly recover. A Republican meltdown and breakdown combined with the failure of a new Democratic President to addresss adequately the existing problems could create the space for a new left party and lead to a lasting split at some point in the Democratic Party.

By 2021 we could find both of the now major parties shadows of their former selves composed mostly of their respective patron bases and some of the elites who now serve those patrons with neither party having much more that 10% of the electorate as registered members. Even now there are more independents than Republicans or Democrats and possibly than Republicans and Democrats combined. Even in 2014 there was one poll that showed 50% of the electorate being independent - though that is not likely the case now.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh Jesus Fucking Christ on a pogo stick, that crazy moron.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 11:30:00 PM EST
<block quote>"we are all fifty-somethings with money and college educations. Oh, and we are all registered Democrats."</block quote>

"My anecdotes from fellow old, rich, paranoid, buffoonish white people who think the paranoid hypocrite is their last chance at Revolution(TM) or whatever-Dylan-was-talking-about aren't voting for Hillary because they're morons."

Yves in a nutshell.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Jun 3rd, 2016 at 11:38:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Am I right in thinking that the "progressives" Yves is raising to near heroic status are largely male, almost exclusively white, (and of course wealthy to boot)?  Given the demographic changes in the USA they are on a path to electoral irrelevance anyway.  Are there equivalent holier than thou, purer than the driven snow lobbies in the African American and Latino communities as well?  And if so, have they any electoral relevance?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 06:47:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They are the demographic you and she both describe. I don't know any even by 'nic' as it has been years since I have followed the comment section of NC. But there were some very insightful and positive people there also. I would expect them to vote and donate in numbers well exceeding their usual behavior given a successful candidate with a feasible message and a real chance to win. Taking their marbles and going home has been a sane policy for decades, though many, IIRCC, were initial supporters of Obama. But then he was a closet Third Way candidate cleverly implying he was a progressive with his marvelously vague 'hope and change' routine. This time IS different and Sanders has shown the way forward.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 10:36:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Clinton opens up double-digit lead over Trump  - and this poll was taken before her San Diego speech which I thought was very effective.  I hadn't expected her to open up such a commanding lead before tying up the nomination, but then this is only one poll.  Interestingly it shows that 19% of the electorate are still up for grabs.  How many of these are Sander's supporters, and how many disaffected Republicans?  How many will ultimately not vote one way or the other anyway?  Either way, we may be witnessing the beginning of the long awaited Trump implosion... which would let everyone off the hook and allow Yves and her friends to vote for Nader or whoever and feel really good about it.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 06:57:08 AM EST
Well that's one single poll, but RealClearPolitics's poll aggregate also has Clinton up 1.5 points over Trump. Note that 19% of the electorate is not up for grabs but said they won't vote for either.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 07:38:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I should add that Sanders is 10.4 points above Trump...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 07:57:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what they say now, before the GE campaign has really started, and maybe that's what they will end up doing, in which case they don't matter either way. Many have simply not given the matter much thought yet.  However the "undecided" % tends to decrease as November approaches.  Voter participation, thanks in part to voter suppression, is very low in the US anyway, so you tend to get elections decided by those with some skin in the game.

Republicans have been relying on a "base election" strategy for years now: get your base really riled up so they will vote in large numbers... Don't worry to much about the independents and undecideds because they are much less likely to vote anyway. Their problem is that their base has been shrinking so much that they now need an unrealistically high voter turnout by their (largely white) base to have any hope of success.

Trump is making great play of his claim that he is bringing millions of new voters into the game and so can add to the traditional GOP base.  I haven't seen any hard evidence to support this claim.  Certainly GOP primary turnout was much higher than normal (off a v. low base), but you would expect those voters to be regular GE voters in any case.

Overall, I would expect Hillary to have greater scope for expanding her base, as more Sanders supporters become reconciled to the fact that she is the Nominee, possibly having extracted some concessions on Policy and positions in Government in return. It's hard to see how Trump can expand his base much further. If you don't support him now, what would cause you to support him in November?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 08:02:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Adding - until this Reuters poll Clinton's numbers have been trending down. Two or three more polls will tell the tale.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 11:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope, the RealClearPolitics poll aggregate didn't include the latest Reuters poll. Their uptick is due to the newest Rasmussen and Quinnipac polls.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 06:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in a tight race in California  LAT June 4 (Poll from June 2)

Hillary Clinton's popularity has slumped in California under an unrelenting challenge from Bernie Sanders, who has succeeded in breaching the demographic wall Clinton had counted on to protect her in the state's presidential primary, a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll has found.

As he has done across the country this primary season, Sanders commands the support of younger voters by huge margins in advance of Tuesday's primary -- even among Latinos and Asians, voter groups that Clinton easily won when she ran eight years ago. Many of his backers come from a large pool of voters who have registered for the first time in the weeks before the election.

Yet, Tuesday's outcome remains difficult to predict, precisely because of the untested nature of Sanders' following. That portends an intense fight in the final days of the campaign.

And: Dem Race Tightens in California as Clinton Barely Leads Sanders 49% to 47%:  NBC News June 2, Poll:June NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll.

Sanders edging Clinton out in California The Hill, June 2, Poll: USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll released Thursday evening.

Both of these polls have differing sets of results depending on which exact group is included. And the results appear different depending on who published them. Looks like a nail biter.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:18:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think these poll movements (Trump's up-tick after he clinched his nomination and the effect wearing off now) don't matter much. What I'm currently most interested in is the California Democratic primary. This is the last chance for a come-from-behind Sanders victory, or at least for forcing Clinton to take Sanders voters more seriously after winning the nomination. For now, I'm not too hopeful. In these state polls, even the poll aggregate may not be a good indicator of trends due to the irregularity of polls and their increasing frequency before the actual vote, so I concentrate on the trend of each pollster that doesn't just poll in the last few weeks. I see that only Field shows a strong trend towards Sanders closing the gap in California. Add to that Sanders' problem throughout the campaign that a sizeable portion of voters only heard of him during the last weeks of the campaign, yet many mail voters will have voted by that time.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 07:28:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders won California - and Clinton won New Jersey.  The thing is Sanders needs to win both by massive margins to make up for his deficit in overall votes and delegates, and I don't think that is going to happen.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Jun 5th, 2016 at 05:19:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I no longer think Sanders will win a majority of pledged delegates. It is down to the question of the relative strengths of Clinton and Sanders vs Trump, and it might well turn out that even that doesn't matter. That depends on how the public mood changes between now and July and then until November. I think either would win against Trump but that the future of the USA would much better be served by a Sanders presidency. We don't need four more years of the same policy we have had for the last eight years, or the last 36. There have been far to many continuities of damaging policies between Democratic and Republican administrations, and sometimes the Democrats have been the worst actors - from a progressive perspective.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jun 5th, 2016 at 09:55:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with all of the above, and agree also that Bill's past history of triangulation casts a dark shadow over the prospect of a Hillary Presidency.

But I see both Bill and Hillary as "Realists" (rather than ideological neo-liberals) in the political philosophy sense of that term.  That is they work within the parameters of what is doable given the nature of the system, the positions of the major actors, and the state of the electorate at any given time.  Given Citizen's United and the total domination of the US by corporate interests, that means that the range of possibilities is pretty dire at this time.  Things have come to a sorry pass when we praise Obama for not actually starting a major war during his terms.

Given my "systemic" perspective, I don't see that Sander's could do much different from Clinton, whether he wanted to or not. In fact Clinton could probably achieve more in a practical sense because she has more of the major players on her side, and they would probably accept more change if it was coming from her.

But the main challenge for progressives is to move the Overton window of what is deemed to be doable as far to the left as possible. This means taking over congress and as many state houses and legislatures as possible, reversing the gerrymandering and voter suppression, and building an organisation which can produce better candidates and policies for the long haul.  I see this as an exhausting and exhaustive long term process building a political organisation from the grass roots up.  I hope Sander' partisans are up for that fight, because I think one of Obama's major mistakes was to effectively disband his OFA organisation once he took office.

If Yves' "progressives" really wanted to make themselves useful, they would use their collective financial clout to take over as many media organisations as possible to mitigate the GOP's advantage there, and to reduce the influence of corporate USA in general.  But that, too, would require hard work, financial muscle, and perhaps some real sacrifice.  No political organisation that ever achieved anything did so without a lot of hard work and sacrifice by a lot of people.  (I have a lot of friends who sacrificed a lot for the anti-Apartheid movement in SA and abroad). Yves' friends whingeing and weeping into their cocktails on a Friday night doesn't cut it.

Whatever else you might say about the Clintons, they have demonstrated a capacity for hard work and staying power against some formidable obstacles. They have had to be pretty ruthless on occasion, but anybody who thinks they can become POTUS by being nice all the time is deluding themselves.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:20:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...I see both Bill and Hillary as "Realists" (rather than ideological neo-liberals) in the political philosophy sense of that term.

Well, you are certainly generous in your view. I would say that they both have been pragmatists and self-serving in their views.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jun 5th, 2016 at 01:06:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am generous by nature! :-)

Realism, in politics, analyses situations in term of the interests the major actors serve, and whether they have the means to realize those interests. A degree of self interest is assumed and not considered pejorative.  Indeed those who claim to be acting entirely altruistically are treated with a degree of suspicion. (Who are they really working for?).

As in any battle, the first rule is to survive to fight another day if at all possible. The second rule is to avoid battles you know you are going to lose.  In realism, there are no moral victors. Only stupid losers. And the really stupid ones make things even worse for their own side.  In realism you start from what you have and seek to build on that.  Any improvement is a win even if it falls far short of what you intended or wished for, provided it doesn't preclude the possibility of renewing the fight on another day.

JFK famously said: "The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by sceptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were and ask "why not?".  The job of a progressive is to put new ideas onto the mainstream agenda. Sanders has succeeded in putting rising income inequality onto the mainstream political agenda.  The question now is who can most effectively reduce it. My suggestion is that if the Democratic party and anybody who seeks to lead it fails to address that issue effectively, they will lose their electoral relevance. But that means they need to win both houses of Congress.

Lose that battle, and the Democrats are toast, because Republicans don't need to win that battle, their support is anchored to maintaining inequality, and so far, they have succeeded admirably in doing so.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Jun 5th, 2016 at 01:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A good time to build a communications company here in the US.  iHeartRadio - formerly Clear Channel Communications - home of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and etc. is going bankrupt which will throw approximately 800 stations on the market.  Approximately 100 of which are worth owning and the rest are in media areas too small to be worth owning.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Mon Jun 6th, 2016 at 11:29:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Attention Nick Hanauer!

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Jun 6th, 2016 at 11:43:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Buying a major mainstream media outlet is a task for billionaires. This would be something great for Nick Hanauer to do. He might even figure out how to make money while strengthening the news coverage and moving the Overton Window. Yves' friends might better be able to have significant influence on state and local politics in New York and surrounding states, especially in smaller market areas with candidate recruitment and support.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jun 5th, 2016 at 01:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm nitpicking: I don't know "Yves Smith", but isn't Yves a male name?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 07:39:14 AM EST
Her real name is Susan....
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 08:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome knows her.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 10:49:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe Yves is the French for Eve, as in Adam and... In fact, that was her joke originally. She was Yves to Adam Smith - even if out of synch temporally by two centuries.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 10:53:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The female name would be Yvette.

Yves (given name) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yves (French pronunciation: ​[iv]) is a common French male given name that is derived from the Indo-European root "iwa" which gave "uvos" in Gaulish (it is found also in the Welsh "ywen", Irish "ēo" and in Old English īw, all of these meaning yew).[1][2] Related names include Erwan, Evette, Ives, Ivet, Iveta, Ivette, Ivo, Iwo, Yve, Yvette (the feminine form of Yves), Yvo, Yvon, Yvonne, and many other diminutives (mainly from Brittany).[3]

The two most famous Yveses I know are oceanographer Jacques-Yves Cousteau and designer Yves Saint Laurent.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 06:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I had performed a translation check before I made the post but now I get the same results you did. I must have screwed it up somehow. (:-/)

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jun 4th, 2016 at 11:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Dave Neiwert via Booman (h/t Frank):
But if you can't understand that a Donald Trump presidency would be an extinction-level event for American democracy -- and especially if you are so fanatically blinkered that you think that Clinton and Trump are actually comparable or similar -- then you have neither paid any attention to the matters that I've spent the past 14 years focused on, and/or you simply have no respect for it. You are, on a very deep level, no friend of mine.
by Bernard on Sun Jun 5th, 2016 at 04:16:42 AM EST
I agree about a Trump Presidency. Possibly more dangerous than the nuclear suitcase is his powers of appointment, not just to SCOTUS but also to Justice. He could permanently degrade remaining aspects of the US system. And Clinton is not Trump, not close. But she is bad enough as it is and, at the very least, will not have her heart in most of the progressive agenda Sanders is pushing, especially anything that challenges the neo-liberal status quo. And it certainly is not a case of 'unless Clinton is the Democratic nominee Trump will win the Presidency. The danger that Trump will win is probably significantly greater with Clinton as the nominee, but, unfortunately, we cannot run the election ten times and take an average to get a better idea.

I was not familiar with Dave Neiwert until now. From his Wiki bio and his quoted post on Booman it appears he has devoted his journalism chiefly to the activities of the far right, especially in Idaho and the US northwest. And they are very concerning. But I have to wonder how closely he has kept his eye on what passes for 'the mainstream' in US politics. Perhaps he hasn't noticed that 'mainstream' activities have a lot to do with the rise of these crazies and that mainstream US politics are currently represented by the two dominant US political parties.

Overblown.

   

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jun 5th, 2016 at 09:45:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ARGeezer:
it appears he has devoted his journalism chiefly to the activities of the far right, especially in Idaho and the US northwest.
I have read his blog occasionally over the past ten years, and yes, this is exactly what he does. He's also writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center and covering issues closer to your home (example).
by Bernard on Sun Jun 5th, 2016 at 10:59:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It has been >50 years since we had a lynching around here. My former neighbor told me about it. Poor guy was a victim of a 'sundowner' law. A hill west of downtown now called Wallace Knob was called 'Nigger Knob' back then in honor of their 'accomplishment'.

But the Klan and other White Supremacists fell victim to local business development. With two lakes and three rivers in the area they wanted tourists. The Klan and White Supremacists were scaring them away, so they encouraged the FBI and others to come in and clean house, which they did.

More recently Arkansas has beefed up its police powers as well. My neighbor told me of high school seniors having regularly gone on rampages after graduation and described some of the stunts. I asked him how they got away with it. His answer: "There wasn't enough law to stop us." Now we have a new Sheriff's Office and County Jail that can hold around 70 people and a helicopter that flies daily. (One of the things I had hoped to get away from when we left LA.)

BTW, I have contributed to Southern Poverty Law Center amd recieve their newsletter. An excellent organization. In several places they have used civil law to take away the property of local white supremacist groups, seizing property and giving it to organizations that serve the victims of that violence.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Jun 7th, 2016 at 12:12:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps the most significant indicator of a Dem Presidential victory (regardless of who is on the ticket) is the way Obama's approval numbers have been trending upwards.  He's now up to approve +10% in the latest Gallup Poll.  It also gives the lie to the dominant media narrative that "America" is in the midst of a crisis in political leadership, and that Trump's surge represents widespread voter dissatisfaction with the establishment.  Yes of course there is widespread dissatisfaction on both left and right, but not enough to elect Trump (even with Yves' "progressives" support...)

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Jun 5th, 2016 at 05:31:32 AM EST
I am mostly concerned about self-dealing and self enrichment when it is not adequately compensated by actions in the public interest. The Clinton's endorsement of Reagan's framing of welfare and their uncritical embrace of neo-liberal trade policies are just two examples of the damage they have done. That is inadequately compensated by their advocacy of social isues such as defense of abortion, gay marriage and non-economic amelioration of the wrongs done to various minority groups. If the economic and systemic problems with the role of money are not effectively addressed all of those gains likely, eventually will be lost anyway.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jun 5th, 2016 at 02:55:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The DLC line, thus the Bill and Hill line, was social tolerance if it didn't cost them any votes, Neo-liberal in economics, and Interventionist in foreign policy.  The first is pretty much a Done Deal with the RW losing its self-declared Kulturkampf.  I expect her to continue Obama's weak-tea economic policies.  And she is already making noises she will run a more "more muscular" foreign policy -- meaning BOMB THE BROWN PEOPLE! and, I suppose, putting more troops in Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS.

In other words: Business as Usual

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Mon Jun 6th, 2016 at 11:39:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Agree with the above unless she can win congress - Obama did pass the Stimulus act, ACA, some minimal financial re-regulation, allowed tax cuts for the wealthy to lapse and enabled the US car industry to survive in the two years he could act effectively on the economy. There is no reason to suppose he wouldn't have done a lot more had he had a congressional majority for longer - unless you are positing - as some progressives do, that he was more comfortable not having that majority.  Which I think is a bulsh1t post hoc rationalisation...

Overall, it wasn't enough to change the 40 year trend in the Gini index, although I can't find an up to date graph which kind of speaks for itself:



Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Jun 6th, 2016 at 01:28:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As for her foreign policy proclivities, she is simply following the standard Dem line of not allowing themselves to be outflanked by the Republicans on the right.  Obama did that by promising to escalate Afghanistan to compensate for withdrawing from Iraq.  It didn't stop him from being considerably less hawkish than Bush or McCain would have been in practice.  

It's a fool's errand expecting the US to be anything but hawkish in world affairs so long as it has untrammelled military superiority, is effectively above international law, and has a lot of multi-national companies interests to protect. That's the price you pay for a unipolar world, arguably preferable to the threat of Mutually assured destruction in a bipolar one, and less likely to lead to a world war than the multi-polar ones we had which resulted in two world wars.

In international relations everything is relative and the bar is set pretty low. In the late 1980's we had a brief period led by Gorbachev which resulted in a de-escalation of tensions and a winding down of a lot of colonial wars with only Israel a major blot on the horizon and some largely internally generated genocides in "developing countries". The more usual pattern is for there to be several major wars at the same time, a "normality" the US has been eager to reassert in more recent times. Syria is unique only insofar it is too close for European comfort...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Jun 6th, 2016 at 01:54:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just when I was thinking either Hillary or Bernie could beat Trump --- uh oh.

Gaius Publius: Comparing Debate Styles -- Trump, Clinton, Sanders

So let's look at debate styles. Trump has a style, as does Clinton, as does Sanders. What can be said about the various combinations? For an answer, let's turn to Nathan Robinson, editor at Current Affairs magazine. He writes (my bolded emphasis throughout):

   Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, A Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency

    ... If Democrats honestly believe, as they say they do, that Trump poses a serious threat to the wellbeing of the country and the lives of minority citizens, that means doing everything possible to keep him out of office. To do that will require them to very quickly unite around a single goal, albeit a counterintuitive one: they must make absolutely sure that Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee for President....



As if that is likely to happen! Sure hope he is wrong - Even though I agree that Sanders is the better candidate against Trump.

Again, all of Clinton's weaknesses play to Trump's strength, and all of Trump's weaknesses play to Sander's strengths. He then looks more closely at the paired match-ups, starting with Trump and Clinton.

Trump's Strengths versus Clinton's Weaknesses

His first point is that Trump is uniquely able to give Clinton fits, both on the campaign trail and in debates. The campaign trail first:

 Trump's political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities (He/she's a "loser," "phony," "nervous," "hypocrite," "incompetent.") If Trump does have to speak about the issues, he makes himself sound foolish, because he doesn't know very much. Thus he requires the media not to ask him difficult questions, and depends on his opponents' having personal weaknesses and scandals that he can merrily, mercilessly exploit.

    This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump's dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, "We were broke when we left the White House," Goldman Sachs... There is enough material in Hillary Clinton's background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.

    The defense offered by Clinton supporters is that none of these issues actually amount to anything once you look at them carefully. But this is completely irrelevant; all that matters is the fodder they would provide for the Trump machine. Who is going to be looking carefully? In the time you spend trying to clear up the basic facts of Whitewater, Trump will have made five more allegations.

As I noted a week ago with a Trump sympathizer, Bill Root, on The Bill Maher Show. Root steamrollered the show and the best Maher and could do was give us a facepalm!? And his other guest panelests were not slouches either.

Well, maybe the debates won't matter...

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Jun 6th, 2016 at 12:08:14 AM EST
I have to agree with you on this.  Trump is a professional TV entertainer who knows how to entertain. Facts don't matter.  Policies are for wonks. Details are for the little people.  If Hilary tries to play him at his own game she will lose, and humiliatingly so.  If she tries to "be herself" and talk policy earnestly and seriously, she will be perceived by the media/public to have lost the "debate", regardless of the fact that she will have won every argument.  

But that I don't think will matter, because most people realise a President needs to have other qualities than a TV entertainer.  Manners matter as well, and Trump hasn't got any. The moderator and rules of engagement will be key, and if I were a Hillary advisor I would refuse to attend the "debates" unless they rules were framed to my liking - e.g. no interrupting when the other speaker has the floor.

Insist beforehand that the moderator must end the debate if Trump repeatedly breaks the rules - as he will.  Trump thrives because he can break any rules he likes with impunity. Now he will lose his platform if he breaks the rules and he simply won't know how to handle that. She can do without the debates proceeding.  He can't.

My advice to Hillary would be to simply to ignore the presence of Trump in the room, other than a polite acknowledgement every now an again. Speak slowly and distinctly directly to the American people.  Answer every question asked on the merits getting in as many of her own talking points as possible. Ignore Trump's personalised counter attacks as you would an unruly teenager.  Quietly correct any factual errors he makes, but acknowledge why (some) people might feel that way. Demonstrate you know where people are coming from and address their concerns without being patronising or talking down to them. Honour people by paying due respect to their feelings but also by respecting their intelligence. People like to think their opinions matter. Make sure you quote them every time.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Jun 6th, 2016 at 06:55:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I hope the DNC follows your advice! But, if the DNC and Hillary's campaign hold firm on the format Trump will accuse her of refusing to debate - oh, twenty times a day. I just hope that his poll numbers quickly drop into the low 40 with a downward trajectory. That is really the only way to silence him. He doesn't deal well with rejection. I would laugh my ass off if he dropped out AFTER winning the nomination - once his numbers drop below 40% and all Republicans are in a panic.

Turmp simply denies the reality of any criticism of his person or performance. I have noted before that denial is the strongest of all psychic defenses - until it fails. The problem is that, when it fails, it fails catastrophically. I would prefer that he not be the president when that happens. We are much more likely to elect a crazy president than to be able to survive that presidency.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Jun 6th, 2016 at 09:33:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks to all who responded to this diary. I have learned a lot from the exercise.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Jun 10th, 2016 at 07:38:35 PM EST
That's why we keep the place alive :)
(or try to...)
by Bernard on Sun Jun 12th, 2016 at 08:34:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]