Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Your reasoning here is certainly plausible. At any rate, I wouldn't count on a "wave election" supporting Hillary's political agenda nor her Supreme Court appointments because--

As I posted earlier on the thread "Obama's Legacy, So Far," Mara Liasson of NPR has recently pointed out:

Every president sees his party lose hundreds of positions — it's the price a party holding the White House pays — but no president has come close to Obama. During Obama's eight years in office, the Democrats have lost more House, Senate, state legislative and governors seats than under any other president.

When Obama took office, there were 60 Democratic senators; now there are 46. The number of House seats held by Democrats has shrunk from 257 to 188.
There are now nine fewer Democratic governors than in 2009. Democrats currently hold fewer elected offices nationwide than at any time since the 1920s.

And as Chris Hedges alluded to in his Truthdig column today:

The Republicans, energized by America’s reality-star version of Il Duce, Donald Trump, have been pulling in voters, especially new voters, while the Democrats are well below the voter turnouts for 2008. In the voting Tuesday, 5.6 million votes were cast for the Democrats while 8.3 million went to the Republicans. Those numbers were virtually reversed in 2008—8.2 million for the Democrats and about 5 million for the Republicans.

Hillary may trounce Trump in the general election, but she will hardly have "the wind at her back." At best, she'll be fighting a rearguard action to preserve hard-won progress on Obamacare and a variety of social issues. And quite frankly, I'm not interested in a status quo or rearguard candidate. I will support a vanguard candidate who seeks to overturn corporate power and give power back to whom it belongs--ordinary people.

Hillary is a neoliberal candidate through and through. She personifies, as did her husband--the old civic order that must be replaced by a radical new policy framework. Bernie Sanders is the only serious candidate who speaks to that aspiration.

That happened because the inner narcissistic adolescent dwelling within the '08 Obamatrons took over their brains and they stayed home instead of voting in the 2010 mid-term election. Poor babies, their savior didn't get them their promised magic ponies that poop single payer and other Progressive goodies. You would think that what came next would have been a "teachable moment," but being a teacher, yourself, you probable understand how difficult adolescence can be.

And exactly what is your definition of "neoliberal?" In a capitalist system, there is always a balance point between private and public control of the economy - where exactly do you put that fulcrum point for neoliberal and why do believe Hillary Clinton fulfills that definition?

As to your vanguard candidate, exactly how do you believe he'll actually get anything done for the vanguard? Or is a vanguard for you just someone willing to throw out platitudes and appear really really red in the face?

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

I am a radical (more on that in a subsequent thread--maybe). A Thomas Paine radical. I see no real countervailing power to neoliberalism (corporate politics) in this country. Certainly not the Democratic Party.

As Chris Hedges has maintained in one of his books, liberalism, whatever it meant in the beginning and whatever good it once did for our country, has failed ordinary Americans on so many levels. And neoliberalism and liberalism have little--if anything--in common as ideologies.

You're absolutely right about the difference between Hillary and the GOP candidates on offer, though. But I see that choice as center-right versus far right, and that's a poor choice for me.

These labels are absolutely meaningless.

Just exactly what is it that has you believing Hillary Clinton is anywhere near the positions that the GOP takes on critical macro and micro economic policies and related social consequences?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Right; it will not be pretty if the Republicans keep control of the other offices, and if they defeat Clinton because liberals don't like her, that will be really ugly. I think more and more people realize the need for this civics lesson. It needs to be a concerted effort at education. Apparently they don't teach it in school. Millennials and the new adaptives need to learn how our government works. They don't know, apparently.

I'd almost be ready to support 4 years of GOP government controlled terror (e.g. invasions, tanking economy, human rights down the toilet) to provide the teachable moment. It didn't work so much in 2000 or in 2010, but maybe the third time would do the trick?

The problem is the SCOTUS. The next President is going to pick 2-3 Justices. Our children and grandchildren are going to be living with the consequences of that.

For that reason alone, I see anyone who calls themselves a Progressive but decides to stay home on election day or vote 3rd party as nothing but a narcissistic adolescent ass.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yup. Folks have no sense of proportion. You have far higher odds of getting killed by lightning than a terror attack. So what do we do? We forfeit our constitutional rights due to scare mongering media reports that some terrorist attack happened. Said fear is enabled by the Deep State to further its featherbedding via increased powers and budgets. I see no reason to even have an NSA or Department of Homeland Security. Those 2 things can go. The FBI can go back to its traditional role of fighting interstate crime and the CIA can go back to snooping on foreign threats.

Absolutely in agreement here. Tim Weiner, winner of the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award, wrote one of the best books (Legacy of Ashes) detailing the horrible record of the CIA dating back to its inception shortly after World War II. His book goes beyond a critique of its nefarious activities ("black ops") to show the sheer ineptitude of the whole intelligence enterprise.

Originally Posted by playwrite

These labels are absolutely meaningless.

Just exactly what is it that has you believing Hillary Clinton is anywhere near the positions that the GOP takes on critical macro and micro economic policies and related social consequences?

There is a faction on The Left that is a Leftist mirror image of the JBS. They have all sorts of conspiracy theories involving secret societies, hidden mechanisms of power, etc. I recall at Uni, when I hung with lots of Leftists, many of the "truther" type notions, fear of Bilderberg Group, the CFR, etc, definitely held some sway amongst a certain element.

Here is one space I was at the outskirts of, ye olde "Christic Institute:"

http://christicarchive.org/?gclid=CL...FUEeaAod6jEOzw

Originally Posted by playwrite

These labels are absolutely meaningless.

Just exactly what is it that has you believing Hillary Clinton is anywhere near the positions that the GOP takes on critical macro and micro economic policies and related social consequences?

While Hillary's positions aren't what one would call close to the GOP, they are close enough on bedrock issues (free trade, military intervention, highest tax rate below 50%, keeping the Big Banks big) to form an orthodoxy and a consensus. It is that consensus that both Trump and Sanders are questioning and asking what is on most people's minds: How does this consensus benefit the American People?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

There is a faction on The Left that is a Leftist mirror image of the JBS. They have all sorts of conspiracy theories involving secret societies, hidden mechanisms of power, etc. I recall at Uni, when I hung with lots of Leftists, many of the "truther" type notions, fear of Bilderberg Group, the CFR, etc, definitely held some sway amongst a certain element.

Here is one space I was at the outskirts of, ye olde "Christic Institute:"

http://christicarchive.org/?gclid=CL...FUEeaAod6jEOzw

Oh definitely! Some Marxists can be very conspiratorial in their thinking. Some even engage in conspiracy themselves.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Absolutely in agreement here. Tim Weiner, winner of the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award, wrote one of the best books (Legacy of Ashes) detailing the horrible record of the CIA dating back to its inception shortly after World War II. His book goes beyond a critique of its nefarious activities ("black ops") to show the sheer ineptitude of the whole intelligence enterprise.

As Ian Fleming had one of his characters (TIger Tanaka in "You Only Live Twice") said about the CIA. "You can't get good spies for money. Only bad spies".

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'd almost be ready to support 4 years of GOP government controlled terror (e.g. invasions, tanking economy, human rights down the toilet) to provide the teachable moment. It didn't work so much in 2000 or in 2010, but maybe the third time would do the trick?

The problem is the SCOTUS. The next President is going to pick 2-3 Justices. Our children and grandchildren are going to be living with the consequences of that.

For that reason alone, I see anyone who calls themselves a Progressive but decides to stay home on election day or vote 3rd party as nothing but a narcissistic adolescent ass.

The next President can pick 2-3 Supreme Court justices. But unless he gets a Senate willing to confirm those justices he or she will be appointing them to one year recess terms until a President either gets Senate that can break a filibuster on confirmation or a constitutional amendment that ends federal court appointments for life. It could be a very long wait. The longer Supreme Court appointments are blocked the more acceptable blocking Supreme Court appointments becomes and the more attractive short term recess Supreme Court appointments that do not outlast current Administrations by more than a year become. For both Dems and Republicans. We have been seeing dueling confirmation filibusters since the Bush II.lAdministration.
So maybe the Supreme Court isn't the bugbear we think it is.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

While Hillary's positions aren't what one would call close to the GOP, they are close enough on bedrock issues (free trade, military intervention, highest tax rate below 50%, keeping the Big Banks big) to form an orthodoxy and a consensus. It is that consensus that both Trump and Sanders are questioning and asking what is on most people's minds: How does this consensus benefit the American People?

My point exactly. The benefits of another Clinton presidency will be marginal at best. She is a far sight better than Trump, but that's not saying much. The times ("crisis without end") call for a Gray Champion who pushes for a radical new policy framework. I don't hear anything of the sort in her stump speeches so far. "Make America Whole Again," she proclaims at her rallies. Is that what the people flocking to the banner of Sanders and Trump are clamoring for? A political healing of some sort? I don't think so. Sounds like refried Obama rhetoric to me. Hillary personifies the concept of realpolitik, which is precisely the opposite of what populists on the Right and Left are crying out for. Democrats ignore the growing populism in the land at their own risk. (Assuming a Clinton-Trump ticket in the fall, the Republicans by default would actually be closer to tapping that populism, as dangerous as Trumpism is) A vote for Hillary in the general election would be a vote for the Deep State, as the author Mike Lofgren has described it, and a vote for neoliberal and quasi-neoconservative policies. In short, a vote for institutional sclerosis.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That happened because the inner narcissistic adolescent dwelling within the '08 Obamatrons took over their brains and they stayed home instead of voting in the 2010 mid-term election. Poor babies, their savior didn't get them their promised magic ponies that poop single payer and other Progressive goodies. You would think that what came next would have been a "teachable moment," but being a teacher, yourself, you probable understand how difficult adolescence can be...

The children of '08 lost enthusiasm. OK. Now, what's to be done about it next time, assuming there is a next time? Because wagging you finger will be ignored. They didn't feel motivated to go the extra mile, but were they asked? I don't think they were. Next time, the enthusiasm needs to be pumped hard and often. They need a reason to believe, because it doesn't seem to come to them on its own. A lot of that is due to how they were raised, but that's in the past now. How do we go forward from here?

FWIW, success breeds success, as it always has. Succeed and point higher. We know what failure looks like. Avoid that.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

While Hillary's positions aren't what one would call close to the GOP, they are close enough on bedrock issues (free trade, military intervention, highest tax rate below 50%, keeping the Big Banks big) to form an orthodoxy and a consensus. It is that consensus that both Trump and Sanders are questioning and asking what is on most people's minds: How does this consensus benefit the American People?

Those are still just labels; they're not getting down to the point of showing any difference.

And let's get real about those differences; don't come back with crap that as 1st Lady, 20 years ago, she dutifully supported her husband's legislative agenda (e.g., NAFTA) unless you put that in the context of everything that was achieved during her time as 1st Lady (e.g., booming economy, low unemployment) - she gets credit for that if she also has to bear her husband's ancient debits.

Also, let's try to put on the table those differences that have at least a shred of likelihood of coming to fruition in the next 4 years. I like shooting magic ponies in the head, but even I get bored with the apparently endless supply you all seem to conjured up.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The children of '08 lost enthusiasm. OK. Now, what's to be done about it next time, assuming there is a next time? Because wagging you finger will be ignored. They didn't feel motivated to go the extra mile, but were they asked? I don't think they were. Next time, the enthusiasm needs to be pumped hard and often. They need a reason to believe, because it doesn't seem to come to them on its own. A lot of that is due to how they were raised, but that's in the past now. How do we go forward from here?

FWIW, success breeds success, as it always has. Succeed and point higher. We know what failure looks like. Avoid that.

Well, you just sit back and watch them once again get sold on the promise of magic ponies that poop out potions for all the ails, and just wait for the disappoint. That can be when their magic pony-promising candidate loses the nomination so they stay home in the general and we get invasions, economic distress and human rights crushed. Or their candidate makes it all the way to the White House but can only deliver non-magical ponies that poop the usual; they stay home for the mid-terms and we get government shutdowns, debt crisis, and a go nowhere economy and country. Either way, you hope a few of them come around with that teachable moment and you move on. Maybe a third time will be the charm for this generation.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Your reasoning here is certainly plausible. At any rate, I wouldn't count on a "wave election" supporting Hillary's political agenda nor her Supreme Court appointments because--

As I posted earlier on the thread "Obama's Legacy, So Far," Mara Liasson of NPR has recently pointed out:

Every president sees his party lose hundreds of positions — it's the price a party holding the White House pays — but no president has come close to Obama. During Obama's eight years in office, the Democrats have lost more House, Senate, state legislative and governors seats than under any other president.

When Obama took office, there were 60 Democratic senators; now there are 46. The number of House seats held by Democrats has shrunk from 257 to 188.
There are now nine fewer Democratic governors than in 2009. Democrats currently hold fewer elected offices nationwide than at any time since the 1920s.

And as Chris Hedges alluded to in his Truthdig column today:

The Republicans, energized by America’s reality-star version of Il Duce, Donald Trump, have been pulling in voters, especially new voters, while the Democrats are well below the voter turnouts for 2008. In the voting Tuesday, 5.6 million votes were cast for the Democrats while 8.3 million went to the Republicans. Those numbers were virtually reversed in 2008—8.2 million for the Democrats and about 5 million for the Republicans.

Hillary may trounce Trump in the general election, but she will hardly have "the wind at her back." At best, she'll be fighting a rearguard action to preserve hard-won progress on Obamacare and a variety of social issues. And quite frankly, I'm not interested in a status quo or rearguard candidate. I will support a vanguard candidate who seeks to overturn corporate power and give power back to whom it belongs--ordinary people.

Hillary is a neoliberal candidate through and through. She personifies, as did her husband--the old civic order that must be replaced by a radical new policy framework. Bernie Sanders is the only serious candidate who speaks to that aspiration.

We can of course cast blame on people who deluded themselves in believing that the 2008 elections settled everything. The Economic Royalists of our time
could accept an end to the economic meltdown in return for electing Obama. But once they started to make money again, the Economic Royalists sought to impose their ways again. To them, no human suffering is in excess so long as it turns a profit. These are the sorts of people who believe that their hangnail is a greater tragedy than some child being mauled to death by a bear.

Great wealth means the ability to buy access through the media and the cleverest propaganda of PR firms, the intellectual mercenaries capable of speaking of "safe cigarettes" and "humane slaughtering". They want everything for themselves, and do not care how much human suffering or even death such implies. They are no better than the German plutocrats who backed Hitler because he promised to destroy the trade unions and bring profits through rearmament. They found what knobs they could turn, and those knobs turned on the Tea Party movement. They had no qualms exploiting religious and ethnic bigotry.

This Crisis Era, at least in America, looks much like what America would be like if the Business Coup had succeeded. FDR might still be President as someone who occasionally got his way, but all in all, the sixty-hour workweek would still be necessary for a workingman's survival because wages would be halved. Stock markets would have recovered faster because there would be little else to spend on.

Republicans have the 'hotter' primaries for President. How often does one get a chance to vote for a foul-talking candidate who calls for the roughing up of people who carry placards that say "BLACK LIVES MATTER" ?

NO THANKS!

Michigan may turn against Trump - most recent poll had him deflecting downward and Cruz deflecting upward. Idaho is a wild card, lots of LDS. Hawaii is anyone's guess. Mississippi may or may not repeat what's been seen in other Southern states.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That happened because the inner narcissistic adolescent dwelling within the '08 Obamatrons took over their brains and they stayed home instead of voting in the 2010 mid-term election. Poor babies, their savior didn't get them their promised magic ponies that poop single payer and other Progressive goodies. You would think that what came next would have been a "teachable moment," but being a teacher, yourself, you probable understand how difficult adolescence can be.

And exactly what is your definition of "neoliberal?" In a capitalist system, there is always a balance point between private and public control of the economy - where exactly do you put that fulcrum point for neoliberal and why do believe Hillary Clinton fulfills that definition?

As to your vanguard candidate, exactly how do you believe he'll actually get anything done for the vanguard? Or is a vanguard for you just someone willing to throw out platitudes and appear really really red in the face?

Of course there's a balance point between public and private control of the economy. We were at that sweet spot in the early 1960s. 56% highest tax rate. CEOs making only 30 times the median income of their employees and mostly living what we would call upper middle class today. A third of the workforce unionised. Able to afford to extend civil rights to African-Americans.
We lost that sweet spot because a) Kennedy and Johnson could not resist pressure from conservatives philosophically opposed to the New Deal and got the US into the Vietnam War and b) more fundamentally, because Baby Boomers did not appreciate this sweet spot, took it for granted and could see only it's inequities and impositions on individuality, as Prophet Generations are wont to do. So now in this 4T there is a need to strike a new balance.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Michigan may turn against Trump - most recent poll had him deflecting downward and Cruz deflecting upward. Idaho is a wild card, lots of LDS. Hawaii is anyone's guess. Mississippi may or may not repeat what's been seen in other Southern states.

Kasich has been advertising heavily in Michigan.

...In the general election, should Mitt Romney run on a Third Party or independent campaign against Trump and Clinton, I can see him winning at the least Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and all of Nebraska but its Second Congressional District. He would be the first nominee since George Wallace to win any electoral votes, and the first since LaFollette to win electoral votes by any third-Party nominee not running on a racist platform. That is 19 electoral votes that the Republican nominee cannot afford to lose. That is more electoral votes than either Georgia, North Carolina, or Ohio, whole states in that category.

Watch Michigan. If Kasich can do reasonably well in Michigan, then he can also do well in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Maybe New York and Pennsylvania as well.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We can of course cast blame on people who deluded themselves in believing that the 2008 elections settled everything. The Economic Royalists of our time
could accept an end to the economic meltdown in return for electing Obama. But once they started to make money again, the Economic Royalists sought to impose their ways again. To them, no human suffering is in excess so long as it turns a profit. These are the sorts of people who believe that their hangnail is a greater tragedy than some child being mauled to death by a bear.

Great wealth means the ability to buy access through the media and the cleverest propaganda of PR firms, the intellectual mercenaries capable of speaking of "safe cigarettes" and "humane slaughtering". They want everything for themselves, and do not care how much human suffering or even death such implies. They are no better than the German plutocrats who backed Hitler because he promised to destroy the trade unions and bring profits through rearmament. They found what knobs they could turn, and those knobs turned on the Tea Party movement. They had no qualms exploiting religious and ethnic bigotry.

This Crisis Era, at least in America, looks much like what America would be like if the Business Coup had succeeded. FDR might still be President as someone who occasionally got his way, but all in all, the sixty-hour workweek would still be necessary for a workingman's survival because wages would be halved. Stock markets would have recovered faster because there would be little else to spend on.

Republicans have the 'hotter' primaries for President. How often does one get a chance to vote for a foul-talking candidate who calls for the roughing up of people who carry placards that say "BLACK LIVES MATTER" ?

NO THANKS!

I think about the Business Coup succeeding and then I think about what might have happened if Zangara had killed Roosevelt before he even took office instead of Cermak, leaving "Cactus Jack" Garner in the White House. Same deal, I suppose. And no real reason for the US to oppose Hitler across the ocean.
I'd like to know how high the GI voter turnout when young was in the 30s and 40s. I suspect that it was quite high given that youth voter turnout in 1964 (Silent Generation, early Boom) was over 50% compared to 38% in 2014 https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf. This does not look like a voting rate that is likely to outweigh Trump's alarmed authoritarians swelled by a 4T economic crisis. It is something that can be built upon by Sanders (and Warren and others) who are directly hurt by a Trump Administration. Which may be Sander's long game from the start.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Kasich has been advertising heavily in Michigan.

...In the general election, should Mitt Romney run on a Third Party or independent campaign against Trump and Clinton, I can see him winning at the least Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and all of Nebraska but its Second Congressional District. He would be the first nominee since George Wallace to win any electoral votes, and the first since LaFollette to win electoral votes by any third-Party nominee not running on a racist platform. That is 19 electoral votes that the Republican nominee cannot afford to lose. That is more electoral votes than either Georgia, North Carolina, or Ohio, whole states in that category.

Watch Michigan. If Kasich can do reasonably well in Michigan, then he can also do well in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Maybe New York and Pennsylvania as well.

Kasich would be Hillary's best chance. She can bash him over the head with a corroded lead pipe. Kasich has been ignoring Ohio's lead poisoning problem as much as Rick Snyder in Michigan has. Kasich is lead poisoned. He just dosen't know it yet.

The South was very much a pro-New Deal area. Of course whites were to get the New Deal and blacks were to get the old Raw Deal.

The South has become the most reactionary part of America in recent years. It has not always been so. In the 1970s it may have been more liberal on economics than the North and looked as if it had given up on race-driven politics.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I think about the Business Coup succeeding and then I think about what might have happened if Zangara had killed Roosevelt before he even took office instead of Cermak, leaving "Cactus Jack" Garner in the White House. Same deal, I suppose. And no real reason for the US to oppose Hitler across the ocean.
I'd like to know how high the GI voter turnout when young was in the 30s and 40s. I suspect that it was quite high given that youth voter turnout in 1964 (Silent Generation, early Boom) was over 50% compared to 38% in 2014 https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf. This does not look like a voting rate that is likely to outweigh Trump's alarmed authoritarians swelled by a 4T economic crisis. It is something that can be built upon by Sanders (and Warren and others) who are directly hurt by a Trump Administration. Which may be Sander's long game from the start.

I don't see the youth turnout being high at all in this election. Especially if it ends up being Hillary vs Trump for the election. Young voters hate both candidates and a lot of Bernie voters refuse to ever cast a vote for Hillary.

Polls closing or closed in MI. Getting results from precincts in Wayne and Oakland Counties now. Seeing some archetypes. In inner to outer ring suburban, educated, and somewhat Jewish Oakland, Kasich is in front. Wayne (where there are probably only a few thousand Republicans left) Trump is ahead. Now some additional counties are starting to report. Trump leading by a slim margin, ~1K votes. It's going to be a long night in "Michigrim."

Up in "Little Texas" (aka Kalkaska County - where they have fracking and bobbing Lufkin pumps) Trump is way out ahead. However that does not count for much - the coyotes and black bears outnumber the people.

Trump is now ahead overall. In no county is Kasich in the lead. Cruz leads in some SW counties (maybe including Brower's). The only counties where Kasich is in 2nd are the Detroit metro area ones plus a couple of odd rural ones. In all other counties where Trump leads Cruz is in 2nd. MI is not winner take all, correct?

Meanwhile, MI is feeling the Bern. The only reason he's not way out in front is due to Oakland having lots of Clinton voters. Most other counties he's in a decisively lead. Interestingly, Clinton does not lead in majority black Wayne. Granted there are only a couple percent of precincts reporting there.