Curb Your Authoritarianism? The 2016 Conventional Wisdom Thread (Elections, Part 6)

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948#ixzz4BD9qQkXN

People of color, like their white Democratic counterparts, may also want a revolution and more rapid progress than the halting kind that comes with pragmatism, but they’ve time and again seen incremental change improve their lives. That’s why they embrace Martin Luther King Jr. without question while revering Malcolm X from a distance. That’s why they are much more enthusiastic about the Affordable Care Act—which has helped minority Americans the most— than white progressives who have either been lukewarm or, in some cases, even hostile to health reform because they don’t believe it was radical enough.

Minority voters are more likely than white Democratic voters to giddily give Obama credit for an economic recovery that has shaved the unemployment rate in half, produced the lowest level of jobless claims since the ‘70s, and an unprecedented monthly job creation streak that has lasted more than six years, all coming on the heels of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. And he got Osama bin Laden, saved the domestic auto industry, ushered through the largest economic stimulus in history—one derisively dismissed as too small by many liberals—and the first significant Wall Street reform in a generation, while advancing gay rights like no president before him despite the initial reluctance by his numerous religious black voters to embrace same sex marriage.

Why? Because many white Democratic voters missed the sentiment shared among black Obama voters in 2008 that, once again, the “first black” was being handed a seemingly impossible task—two ground wars, a collapsing economy, a record deficit—and if he wasn’t able to perform a miracle, it would not only be his failure, but that of black people in general. To downplay what he has been able to achieve despite the obstacles, which also included an unprecedented level of obstruction from the GOP, confirms a fear shared by many people of color—Democratic or otherwise—that no matter what they achieve, it will never be enough. Sanders and Susan Sarandon may sincerely believe things are so awful only a revolution can heal the country’s ills. But their overwrought rhetoric, and no more than lukewarm support of Obama’s accomplishments, taps into that deeply-held frustration among minorities.

I think some of us were saying the same thing six years ago, and you didn't seem to want to hear it.

are you talking to me?

I want to quote Taxi Driver here, but yes. It's also more of a general comment. If I say it, especially in 2010, 2011, I'm a starry-eyed Obama acolyte. If Charles Pierce or Ta-Nehisi Coates or some other ILX-approved columnist says it, let's link to it.

I've written many times here and elsewhere that Obama, caveats noted many times, has been the most successful lib president of my lifetime, and my family and I have benefited from his presidency.

I may have benefitted indirectly, not personally, but I agree. Is it fair to say you weren't quite so high on him around 2009/10 (at least as reflected in your posts here)?

Nope. I didn't vote for him in 2008 (I voted in local races though) and adopted a wait-and-see attitude. The nadir for me was summer '11 during the Grand Bargain Era. But enough had happened for me to vote for him in 2012 -- and Florida was very much a swing state.

Okay. It'd be an undertaking to check, but my recollection is that you were very quick to jump on me when I posted positively about Obama roundabout 2010. (And I'm not sure your previous post is incompatible with that if you're talking about a nadir in 2011 and not voting for him until 2012.)

Oh, I did jump on you -- I clearly remember it. At the time I didn't understand anyone's instinct to defend him.

take it to the pauline kael thread or something, you guys are putting me to sleep

Not that I want start relitigating such stuff in 2016, but I think the instinct was for some of the exact seem reasons spelled out in what you quoted at length just above, beginning with the seemingly impossible task he'd been handed. I think that was as clear as could be by 2010.

"same reasons"

take it to the pauline kael thread or something, you guys are putting me to sleep

― riverine (map),

curb your authoritarianism

Damn hillary campaign interns back at it again
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/741409978376957952

Hillary interns for President!

why did I read the replies

"idk if we discussed the recent poll that showed that most native americans did not care about the washington football team's name but the 538 guys seemed to think the poll was pretty well done and reliable. idk if that means anything - you can obv still think it's racist as heck and refuse to use the name."

where was that analysis on that poll? it didn't jibe with any natives' feelings that I know; like, not a single one.

I read that the sample skewed older, while young people are the largest demographic among Indians, and that Indians are a challenging group to poll accurately. Anyhow, even if eg "only" 33% of Indians are bothered by racist team names and 66% don't care, that doesn't make it a non-issue.

when a poll gives entirely unexpected results that cannot be explained by any known factors (just how often does racism 'not bother' the group being denigrated?) I think you have to question its methodology in depth.

xxp it was on their podcast a few weeks ago I don't remember which one

That’s why they are much more enthusiastic about the Affordable Care Act—which has helped minority Americans the most— than white progressives who have either been lukewarm or, in some cases, even hostile to health reform because they don’t believe it was radical enough.

The first time Obama was on Daily Show as president, Stewart said, to his face, that his actions were "timid."

At the time, I remember sitting there like What The Actual Fuck, Jon. There's a whole cottage industry devoted to demonizing this man's every initiative, questioning his parentage, and linking him to terrorism. Nigh on half the government declares openly that they hope he fails, and that their main goal is to make everything he proposes dead on arrival.

Meanwhile the problem for a significant number of (mostly white) liberals is that he hasn't already gotten single-payer health care in place, closed Guantanamo, and replaced the Pledge of Allegiance with the Internationale?

failing to close guantanamo is pretty bad tbh

Agreed! But Obama's alleged "timidity," apparently considered without the context of the forces arrayed against him, is a specific type of blindness.

yes, blind to the fact that he didnt wanna do what Stewart wanted him to, cuz he's not a liberal

I think - and it already feels like a million years ago - that there was frustration at how he appeared to make concessions and compromises to the ACA before the negotiations even began, thus weakening his position and making it seem like he got less than he could have by giving away to much at the start.

puffin otm

Yup

really doublin' down on Never Criticize a Democrat Ever huh

State Dept insisted on adding a stock trader (and top Clinton Foundation donor) to an intel advisory panel -- an old story revived by more emails "relayed to ABC News via the conservative political group Citizens United."

““Raj was not on the list sent to [the Secretary of State]; he was added at their insistence” reads one 2011 email from Wade Boese, Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, to a press aide.

Fernando’s appointment even confused some staffers, the emails reveal. One press aide wrote internally, “it appears there is much more to this story that we’re unaware of,” and “it’s natural to ask how he got onto the board when compared to the rest of the esteemed list of members.”"

http://time.com/4364109/state-dept-emails-clinton-rajiv-fernando/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

Nice how suddenly John Stewart is a liberal when you need him as a cudgel to beat Democrats. Why don't you stick to movies and baseball and other things you actually understand, or at least pretend to?

Its true i have never criticized a democrat. Good catch!

Xp

Also love TRUE PROGRESSIVES willing to be stalking horses and useful idiots for the right wing. Well done! I admire your purity!

Nice how suddenly John Stewart is a liberal

OK... (adds Phil D to brainless list)

Clintonistas here really do have a lil bit of Stalinist in them, i find

lil bit

Love to hear Warren ripping into Trump on my Facebook feed, but I worry that she's not being heard outside the liberal echo chamber. I'm coming around to the idea that she'd make a great VP pick. It would be nice to have her on the national stage.

Her Trump speech the other day got a ton of play on CNN, which is pretty middle of the road.

Glad to hear it. I don't watch cable or TV news. My news diet consists mainly of the NY Times so I'm not sure what is getting covered in the mainstream.

is there even a mainstream anymore? I understand people are still watching the network evening news. What's that like?

It seems to me that Dr Jill Stein has gotten little attention here, so i'll just leave this

“Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and, you know, ignoring the climate,” Stein said in an interview with Democracy Now, according to a transcript. “Well, Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things."

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/9/green_partys_jill_stein_what_we

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283037-green-party-candidate-draws-parallels-between-clinton

Lol who is criticizing trump for massive militarism

always good to remind myself that jill stein is not an option bc she's an extraordinarily confused person who makes bad arguments and seems to have gaping holes in her understanding of the world, and not just bc in a first past the post system only one of 2 candidates are going to win and she's not one of them.

the democrats are as bad as the republicans. except they're worse bc bill clinton and nafta bred extremism which is what makes people vote republican who are actually worse. therefore we shouldn't be afraid to vote third party bc fear of republicans just leads to voting for democrats which naturally just leads to voting for republicans so let's just skip right ahead to the electing republicans part. also we should switch over to ranked voting and it will apparently only require the signing of a pen. whose pen can independently change our electoral system idk but maybe this is inside information she doesn't want to share until after she's elected. oh, and bernie should join the green party but she thinks his many many years of being a loyal democrat (???) might not let him.

When Jill Stein compares Trump and Clinton on deportations, it's probably worth quoting that politico piece from upthread:

Minority voters have been watching in horror as millions of Republican voters choose Trump either because of, or despite, his open bigotry. The Sanders supporters who toy with the idea of shunning Clinton in November and allowing Trump to become president to force a revolution that Sanders couldn’t deliver are playing with fire. To minority voters, Trump’s candidacy feels like an existential threat. It’s one thing for Republicans to either ignore or embrace his racism; the party already seems unwilling or incapable of making the kinds of adjustments it must to attract more non-white voters. It’s quite another for white Democrats to not appreciate how liberal minorities feel about the possibility of a Trump presidency and what that would say about the state of racial progress in America. It would be a slap in the face, the latest sign that a kind of white privilege—throwing a temper tantrum because they don’t get their way despite how much it hurts people of color—is deeply rooted within liberal, Democratic ranks as well.

Yeah I mean immigrant advocates have been plenty unhappy and outspoken about Obama's deportations, but they're not going to say there's no difference between him and Trump (or the GOP in general).

Dont worry morbz is here to do it for them

excellent! where did i do that? just show me, genius.

I voted for Stein last time and don't see the point of doing it again even though she endorsed BDS last week. Lupe Fiasco all the way.

Dude u just linked to a jill stein post directly equating hillary's immigration policies w trump's like 5 posts up

LINKED you sodding fool

Oh so were trying to draw "attention" to her cuz u disagree? Clear as mud.

And after Donald Trump’s somewhat more polished performance Thursday night, even Democrats who had been pushing for a flashier choice like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker were sobered by the challenging four months ahead. “After last night, she needs to make the safest choice possible,” said a former senior White House aide.

good Christ

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-vp-pick-tim-kaine-226013#ixzz4F9Ahnigg

yeah, carne, i got it. no harm no foul

Remember when we all thought W was so bad; simpler times

now that dems are voting for his policies again the cognitive dissonance must be terrifying

Kaine sucks but I'm relieved it isn't Vilsack

I'll be surprised if Chuck Todd turns out to be right

now that dems are voting for his policies again the cognitive dissonance must be terrifying

― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Friday, July 22, 2016 10:20 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol this is... untrue

i guess if Trump had been "unpolished" it mighta been Franken!

but this is encouraging - Richmond Times-Dispatch, reposted by Reason (http://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/bart-hinkle/article_16adc43f-8fca-5ca5-b727-4c8dcadbd273.html)

But the public should not be seduced by efforts to put Kaine in the center of the political spectrum when he is so far from it. Think of it this way: Suppose Kaine had a mirror image in the GOP—a Republican former head of the RNC who repeatedly tried to cut taxes, who sought to restrict abortion, who got high marks from the NRA and low marks from environmentalists, who wanted to cut social programs, who supported privatizing Social Security, and who was, in all visible respects, a down-the-line soldier for the political right.

Would the press term such a politician—no matter how genial and friendly—a "cautious centrist" and a "pragmatist"? Or would he be labeled an "arch-conservative" and an "ideologue"?

Exactly.

i'm voting for clinton because i want harriet miers on the supreme court!

Remember when we all thought W was so bad; simpler times

Indeed, I remember when we thought his father was bad.

i still think theyre bad :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Sos3q6ASo

mp’s somewhat more polished performance Thursday night, even Democrats who had been pushing for a flashier choice like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker were sobered by the challenging four months ahead. “After last night, she needs to make the safest choice possible,” said a former senior White House aide.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-vp-pick-tim-kaine-226013#ixzz4F9ISD2m0
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Richard M. Nixon ‏@dick_nixon 4h4 hours ago
'68 brought people in. Trump locked the door and threw away the key. If you can't see the difference, the hell with you.

Trump's speech was sort of not the worst -- ok -- but it was in the midst of a circuslike convention

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/manafort-fbi-crime-statistics-cant-be-trusted.html

Trump's speech was the worst because his was the only one promised to show the potential to pivot in time for the general. It didn't, he didn't, he can't.

only trump brand stats will give you the luxury info you crave

here's a thread

http://ilxor.com/ILX/NewAnswersControllerServlet?boardid=40

oh fuck lol

HIRALLY CLIMPS FOR PRESIDETN • US presidential elections part VII