Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
"their fetish for bipartisanship and compromise" is really just the camouflage of their neo-liberal adoration of wealth and power. Were Hillary to actually win and have a Democratic House I would expect her to do all in her power to stall and delay any real progressive agenda that threatened the financial sector and simultaneously demonize and demoralize the progressives until she could shed the burden of having both Houses Democratic, as Obama did between 2008 and 2010.

I will feast on my own words should I be proven wrong. Come the day!  

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

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed May 11th, 2016 at 11:40:56 AM EST
Clinton is the BAU candidate in this election and toss that in as another reason for her winning.  My guess is she will be a total cock-up as President since this really isn't a BAU era.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Wed May 11th, 2016 at 11:54:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A lot of the commentators here are noting that, yes, Trump could win, or at least that it could be very tight.  And of course that is very true.  However I also believe it to be equally likely that Hillary could win in a landslide, and then your theory that she is really a neo-con in liberal clothing would be put to the test.

Obama, at least, put a lot of effort into passing Obama care, which, while it isn't single payer, has at least reduced the uninsured population by a good deal while keeping health care costs down.

It is difficult to divine from her campaign what her real legislative priorities would be, and how much political capital she would be prepared to spend to achieve them.  Running an anybody but Trump campaign may be sufficient to win, but doesn't really provide a mandate for a dramatic change of direction of US policy.

So what does she really want to achieve in office besides running the show more competently and sanely that Trump would?. Electoral reform?  Trade deals? Health care reform?  Education and student loan reform?

We could do with a diary on her policy priorities.  Are you up for the job?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed May 11th, 2016 at 06:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think a landslide Hillary win is not enough to see what she really wants: taking House and Senate would also be needed for that.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 05:25:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hillary's top priority: getting re-elected in 2020.
Hillary's second priority: getting re-elected in 2020.
Hillary's third priority: getting re-elected in 2020.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 10:38:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, so does that mean that given the demographics we have all been highlighting, that she has to become progressively more progressive all the time?  She has already had to resile from some of Bill's 1990's policies...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 11:08:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If she wins this year and doesn't have a disaster between now and 2020, she'll have effectively a free pass for the nomination and won't have to budge one jot from her triangulating, neolib self.
by rifek on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 06:21:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Name me a major-party nominee whose top three priorities wouldn't be those too.

And don't do the St Bernie thing.  He's a politician just as she is, and any politician who says his/her priority isn't re-election is either lying or an idiot.

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

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 03:44:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bernie is a better politician playing from a much weaker position. His priorities would be:

  1. Bring law to Wall Street and rein in fraud - something he could make a good start on even with opposition from Congress - do everything possible administratively to improve the economy and beginning the process through surrogates, like Stephany Kelton and others of the same school, of changing the popular perception of economics and monetary possibilities while presenting the reasons for his legislative agenda;

  2. Continue and build the campaign that got him elected so as to increase his support in Congress and by the public in the 2018 by election; then use that to push through more of his agenda, most likely much greater infrastructure spending to more quickly transition to renewable energy and stimulate consumption;

  3. Use that momentum to push through the rest of his agenda, while continuing all of the above, win reelection and complete a political transition with a reformulated, DLC free Democratic Party fit for the rest of the 21st Century.

Were he to get the chance.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 05:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If Bernie is the Democratic candidate against Trump he is much more likely than Hillary both to win and to bring in a Democratic House. Strong leadership from election eve forward could build momentum to push through legislation that seems inconceivable presently, including some form of single payer or Medicare For All, even if it starts with only those over 50 being able to join. Broad and strong popular support, coupled with fear of being targeted for replacement in 2018 primaries, could result in more legislative accomplishments that we might expect. Bernie has been very good at getting legislation he sponsors adopted and could be a factor in lobbying Congress for his agenda.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 05:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 08:04:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
About to the same degree that an H. Clinton presidency will be - i.e. not even as good as Obama's. And there aren't even straws long enough to reach the surface as it is.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 08:33:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you sure that you don't suffer cynicism poisoning? You really think that every non idiot politician at 74 years will have his employment prospects at 80 as his highest priority?
Because that sounds silly to me.
by generic on Fri May 13th, 2016 at 05:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I'm quite sure I don't suffer cynicism poisoning.  He'd, in the scenario in which he managed to win the primary and then the general, have such prospects.

Is there an element of "I'm not running for re-election, so I'll do what I want"?  Sure.  But that's not generally the case, and it isn't present here.

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

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun May 22nd, 2016 at 11:33:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He's a politician just as she is, and any politician who says his/her priority isn't re-election is either lying or an idiot.

WOW !!!

So there's a main reason why people don't vote. Top priority ... get yourself reelected or you're an idiot.

That rings a bell. Every place I've worked ... Quaker Oats, Spawn Mate, PCP. The first priority of the people surrounding me WASN'T "do the best job possible", it was "cover your ass at all costs and don't get fired for your obvious incompetence". 😁

So politicians are like most folks and we wonder why the system is so fucked.

Thank you. It all makes sense now.

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 06:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Another revelation:

So we should all be thankful that every politician isn't constantly roiled in some scandal and if one actually does something positive, it's either a miracle or an accident. Is this what the folks during the decline of the Roman Empire saw? Is this the way it is ... coded into human DNA?

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 07:04:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If the notion that a politician's first priority is to get re-elected is controversial, then people are even more delusional than I thought and they deserve that Orange Nazi.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 08:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not all have that priority, as David Axelrod noted during his interview of Jon Stewart. He cited the significant number of House Members who voted for the Affordable Care Act, notwithstanding knowing that it would likely make them lose their next election, but voted for it anyway. This DOES happen. It is called 'rising to the occasion' - more than I recall Obama ever doing.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 08:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would say that there is a sliding scale from issue politicians to career politicians. All politicians care about getting elected - those that campaign in order to change their opponents positions or raise an issue but dont really want to get elected are perhaps called by another term. But the issue politicians has primarily an agenda that getting elected would serve, while career politicians adopt an agenda that will get them elected.

Even though it is a sliding scale, Sanders consistency in his core issues would have me place him far to the "issue politician" side, while Clinton is farther to the "career politician" side. Trump is in these terms a "career politician", while Cruz is more of an "issue politician".

by fjallstrom on Fri May 13th, 2016 at 03:55:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Y'all think much more highly of Bernie in terms of consistency than I do.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun May 22nd, 2016 at 11:35:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just as it is advisable to align your intuitive-emotional "fast" thinking with your conscious "slow" intentions, it is perfectly acceptable to rely on shamelessly selfish motivation to deliver notable service. The real questions are: How far does the ultimate aspiration go? How bravely is the commitment followed?
by das monde on Fri May 13th, 2016 at 03:39:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm a Democrat in California, basic lefty, voted for Obama, in my third year of Obamacare. And I'll definitely be voting for Trump because of it, assuming Sanders doesn't win. I think it's horrible in all ways, couldn't loathe it more. Don't want the people responsible for it in charge of anything under any conditions. And I fear I have a lot of company. It's really bad, really bad, and my understanding is that it's much better in CA than in most other places. And there will be very significant premium increases next year, right before the election, as well as a jump in the penalty for not signing up. Everyone keeps ignoring this, ignoring six years of polls showing how unpopular it is.
by mikep on Mon May 16th, 2016 at 02:48:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is surely worse than a proper full coverage system, but could you go into details on what makes it horrible, especially in comparison to no insurance at all?

The only point you made is the Republican talking point about polls, which is a red herring: what would count here is not the views of the general public (which is heavily coloured by party politics), but the views of those directly affected. When 43% of voters believe the unemployment rate has increased while Obama was President, it's no wonder if a similar percentage takes its view of Obamacare from Fox News.

I also wonder how your distaste for Obamacare can trump all other issues and make you vote for a misogynist racist warmonger scam artist trust fund baby. He may take semi-progressive views on health care or tariffs on the campaign trail, but his only real economic policy is tax cuts.

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

by DoDo on Wed May 18th, 2016 at 05:12:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here is an interesting in-depth analysis of the meaning of Obamacare polls from last year (unfortunately, but typpically for Third Millennium USA, mostly an analysis of delusions).
Also, even in the general population, just how unpopular is Obamacare?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed May 18th, 2016 at 05:23:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You will never be able to determine her priorities because they are dictated by the latest poll.  New poll, new priorities.  It's a bug in her programming, and she calls it a feature.
by rifek on Mon May 16th, 2016 at 05:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's not fair. Polls usually show that Americans want a single-payer healthcare system, but she hasn't come out for one. She usually sticks firmly to her principles, which are to do whatever Wall Street wants.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue May 17th, 2016 at 06:30:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have her pegged.
by rifek on Tue May 17th, 2016 at 09:59:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series