Third Party & Independents Archives

Who Will Hillary Turn to?

A southern firewall is what Hillary will have to count on to contain Sander’s growing popularity. That seems to be the current thinking around Black voters that tilt overwhelmingly for Hillary versus most if not all GOP candidates. Assuming Sanders upsets her campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary’s relation to Black voters - especially in key southern states like South Carolina and Florida - will be of crucial importance if Hillary is to somehow take back the nomination from Sanders. Will Obama endorse Hillary at some point? Or does Joe Biden enter the race and get the approving nod from his boss?

Will either event - a no-Biden combined with a reluctant Obama endorsement, or an Obama-endorsed Biden run - matter to Black voters? Perhaps, but to what extent is hard to say at this point. There has been so much focus on immigration and it's natural corollary, Latino voters, that Black voters have not had the same attention paid to them, despite Ferguson and Baltimore and Black Lives Matter's theatrics. While analysts point out the crucial importance of Black votes to Hillary's nomination and to her election - should she win the nomination - the sometimes tense relationship with Latino Americans and especially illegals adds complexity and unpredictability to the mix. In the 2012 elections, Black voters turned out in higher percentages than non-Hispanic White voters, and they vote overwhelmingly Democratic: recent polls show over 90% of African-Americans would vote for Hillary over Bush or Trump, while Sanders would get just under 80% of their votes.

Will Hillary's campaign promise a sort of updated Greater-even-than-Obama-Society? A dour mix of Welfare-State interventionism blended with Wall Street cronyism? And where will unions fit into her schemes? Will Bernie Sanders end up with the White Working-Class and aged Tie-Dye vote while she cobbles together the rest of the Democratic pillars? Identity Politics and Big East & West Coast Money? The Democratic Party is about to start having some of the fun enjoyed by the GOP and it's rebellious voters.

Posted by AllardK at September 14, 2015 7:51 PM
Comments
Comment #398537

Can’t wait for more fun from the Dems Allard.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 14, 2015 8:00 PM
Comment #398541

Allardk, IMO, the voting public has pretty much had it with the Corpocracy. They feel, as I do, and as Trump Says, that the banks, corporations, monopolies/conglomerates/Hamptonites and so on = = = are pretty much in control of what gets done , or not done, in gov’t.

Still, we are a year away from the election and that is plenty of time for front runners to insert their foot into their pie hole - recall Romney.

At this time there is an anti-establishment move afoot that may wane over time. Like, ‘Biggly’ is a new word for most folks and while they might be enamored with it now, they may find it boring near election time.

Who would ever have thought Bernie could come out ‘biggly’ as a potential nominee? But, he is out there with his shirt open and speaking with ‘biggly energy’ which Hillary can’t seem to do. Also, during the silly season I think women, and men, like to be entertained with the political message. Note that women have dropped Hillary and are trending to Bernie and Trump who stump with more ‘energy’.

This affection is so powerful as to render insults, misspeaks as water off a ducks back. May not be the case six months from now.

I was fairly well worried when President Obama won the election. While he has been basically ineffective the world hasn’t come to an end. And, should Bernie or Trump make the cut their brand of governing won’t change things to any significant degree.

Corpocracy can’t be contained by just one, or even a few individuals. It will take a grass roots movement of the voting public and the formation of a new 3rd party with a different political attitude, founded in some rules to shunt special interest to bring real reform to gov’t.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: roy ellis at September 14, 2015 9:43 PM
Comment #398552

First, it would be mistake to underestimate Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, for the same reason: both have already raised a very large amount of money, both have control of a large nationwide political network, and both have about 1/5 of the super delegates committed to them.

On the Democratic side, Sanders may very well win IA and NH because both states are friendly to an insurgency campaign like the one Sanders is running. But there is no way- no way- Sanders can compete in 50 states with HRC. If Biden ever announces he might have a better chance of competing on a national basis with HRC, but he will start at a severe disadvantage by delaying a possible announcement so late in the campaigning season.

And one more time, Obama will not endorse HRC or Biden until one of them win the nomination. It makes no sense whatsoever to endorse one at the expense of the other. Doing that risks Obama being on the wrong side and backing a losing nominee. There is simply no need to take that chance. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination needs the Obama coalition, including the black vote, and they need Obama to be an effective supporter.

Citizens United is giving the GOP field fits. Marginal candidates have the option of continuing their campaign. The money Jeb! raised would have been enough to seal the deal up front in the old days, but now some billionaires (and Trump) can keep their candidates in the field as long as they want.

Looks like the Koch Brothers gave Walker his marching orders. Walker may remain in the low single digits in the polls, but he can still do the Koch Brothers bidding and advertise one of their favorite causes by attacking unions. Hey, buying a presidential candidate isn’t cheap, and a billionaire deserves something for his money. Oh, snap. Am I right?!

Posted by: phx8 at September 15, 2015 12:38 AM
Comment #398650

Hillary’s problem is not Sanders, Hillary’s problem is the Democratic Party. The same as the last election.

Posted by: Blaine at September 15, 2015 10:50 PM
Comment #398651

Once again, phx8 has managed to morph the discussion away from the subject of Hillary’s election problems to the Republican candidates. The subject is Hillary and not republicans.

Posted by: Blaine at September 16, 2015 8:49 AM
Comment #398653

We’ve never taken well to commenters telling us what direction their comment should be directed to here on WB. I don’t see that changing just because someone doesn’t approve. If the Democratic Party is perceived as the problem then there should be an explanation of the last two Presidential elections and their outcomes (please something other than “they stole it”). Once the Democratic convention is held and a candidate comes forth there will be a concerted effort by any Democrat that I have contact with to support that candidate. It is premature to suppose that Hillary will be that candidate but that doesn’t stop the fear mongering that her opposition from conservatives portrays.

President Obama was elected and re-elected (that’s for you RF) and were it possible would most likely be elected for a third term despite your pleas of “he’s the worst”. That’s really funny, in a weird sorta way.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 16, 2015 9:47 AM
Comment #398654

Hillary has already “turned to” who she needs: moderates. She and her campaign know that all the liberal created special interest groups vote in lockstep or who they are told to vote for, so they are using the extremist nut Sanders to make her look like the moderate choice.

Posted by: kctim at September 16, 2015 12:09 PM
Comment #398655


We’ve never taken well to commenters telling us what direction their comment should be directed to here on WB.

Speak4all, I know Democratics don’t give a flying f-word for rules, but, for you amusement, I want to enlighten you with the third rule of participation.


Comments are permitted only on the topic of the article

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/rules.html

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 16, 2015 1:31 PM
Comment #398658

In the posting previous to this one the topic is Bernie Sanders and yet we have a comment stating:

“Let’s talk more about Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.”

Posted by: Speak4all at September 16, 2015 2:24 PM
Comment #398659

Touche’

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 16, 2015 3:44 PM
Comment #398660

You got me there!

I’ll see if the WatchBlog administrator will remove that stipulation so everyone can change the subject without getting criticized.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 16, 2015 3:47 PM
Comment #398662

In my memory, I think I am the only person to have ever removed off-topic comments from a thread. I prefer that people stay on-topic on articles that I write. If people wish to discuss other issues, I would gladly create new threads for them to do so.

I would oppose any changes to the current rules.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 16, 2015 4:08 PM
Comment #398664

My earlier comment was not off topic in the first place. About 2/3 of it discussed HRC and her similarity to another establishment candidate, Jeb Bush; it also pointed out once again that Obama will not endorse HRC or Biden before one or the other has won the nomination, since it would be common sense for that the nominee be the one with Obama’s endorsement, and best positioned to recreate the Obama majority. If anyone cares to respond, they are welcome to do so. As a general rule, I believe I stay on topic more than most, and if the thread wanders to a new topic, which often happens, I am fine with that too.

As for HRC, once again, I will point out the obvious- it is only September, and the common sense approach is to keep a low profile while the GOP creates a three ring circus spectacle. Her opponents are busy destroying themselves, so there is no reason for her to demand the spotlight be taken off them and focused on her.

The e-mail scandal died the other day. The DOJ said there was nothing improper about the server or its use, no compromise of security, and nothing inappropriate about e-mail deletions. Rather humorously, there is a drive to go after the head of the committee, Congressman Gowdy, for wasting $4 million of the taxpayers dollars and coming up with nothing. They are demanding Gowdy release his private e-mails. Heh.

Posted by: phx8 at September 16, 2015 5:52 PM
Comment #398665

I have noticed with some on the left (phx8) that if we are discussing the faults of Hillary or Obama, he changes the subject to Republicans. As I posted in the red column to speaks; I think he makes up the rules as we go. I’m fairly new here, but is speaks the WB manager?

Posted by: Blaine at September 16, 2015 5:59 PM
Comment #398667

The DOJ said there is nothing wrong with having classified government information on a personal server? Wow.

Posted by: kctim at September 17, 2015 9:23 AM
Comment #398668

phx8, thank you for clarifying your earlier comment in regards to being off topic. I was going to comment that same thing but thought you would make the point better than I could, which you did.

I agree that Hillary seems to have weathered the email “non-scandal” well. I do have a feeling that her campaign may have been damaged but it is so early in this campaign to make assumptions based on something that was proven to be a “non-scandal”. I want to watch what happens and decide. I do believe she is handling the adversarial nature of the campaign well by attempting to stay above the fray. At some point the gloves will come off and that is when I expect we will see her real political skills but I could be wrong.

Bernie Sanders had some great comments about the debate last night:

What Bernie Sanders Thinks

I watched some of the debate last night but missed the part I meant to try to get. Trump’s take on shutting down the government. I know back in early August he sided with Cruz on this but that was before his poll numbers took off and I wonder if he still is promoting a “government shutdown”?

Posted by: Speak4all at September 17, 2015 9:27 AM
Comment #398669

Speak,
Based on his past comments, Trump seems to favor a shutdown. Most of the GOP candidates favor it- Cruz, Fiorina, Carson, and more. Kasich and Graham oppose it.

Oh. And just to stay on topic, Hillary Clinton opposes a government shutdown over Planned Parenthood.

The other day WP said the GOP had not become more extreme in its positions, just its tactics. I’m still pondering that. Shutting down the government is certainly extreme. But is that a position- that shutting down the government of ‘We the People’ is a good thing to do- or is it a tactic?

Posted by: phx8 at September 17, 2015 10:11 AM
Comment #398671

Are we talking a government shutdown for the sake of shutting it down, or are we talking about cutting taxpayer money to the PP organization who is cutting up live infants for the sale of body parts? I noticed CNN allowed discussion on PP last night; I wonder if it will be talked about with the democratic debate.

Posted by: Blaine at September 17, 2015 10:51 AM
Comment #398672

Blaine,
No one is cutting up live infants and no one is selling body parts. And no, no one will be discussing fake GOP scandals at the Democratic debates. They will be coming out in support of PP and women’s health issues, and they will be shining a spotlight on the GOP War on Women.

Posted by: phx8 at September 17, 2015 11:06 AM
Comment #398674

phx8, that is what I was afraid of, Trump favoring a “shutdown”. I liked hearing Graham and Kasich speak about that last night, although it meant watching both debates. I believe it is a tactic but I am uncertain what the desired end result of the tactic is meant to be. We know the opposition to PP, however misguided that is, but using the “shutdown” as a tactic would not seem to stop funding of PP. Just as the last time the “shutdown” was done to stop funding of the PPACA and did not work, I expect the same outcome if the tactic is redeployed this time towards PP funding.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 17, 2015 11:23 AM
Comment #398676

Speak,
That is why anyone with a shred of common sense opposes a shutdown. Unfortunately, the GOP is caught in an elaborate ideological fantasy. Why they would imagine this would work in their favor is just mystifying. It’s like someone saying they are going to shoot themselves in the foot if you don’t give them what they want. You ask them not to shoot themselves in the foot, but then they do it anyway, and imagine they have accomplished something.

Posted by: phx8 at September 17, 2015 11:28 AM
Comment #398677

phx8, agreed but the impact of that type of action will definitely affect the campaign strategies of both parties. If the government begins the slow “shutdown” on October 1st it just might give someone like Kasich the ability to stress his opinion to oppose that and that may appeal to the sensibility of the Republican electorate. The Democratic candidates would have a field day with it.

Just to stay on topic I believe you are correct that Hillary does not favor any government “shutdown” for any reason. If there is one I believe the title of this posting will come into play. She can turn to the Republican candidates who have come out in favor of the “shutdown” and ask them Why? What advantage is gained? And when will the next “shutdown” occur and for what?

Posted by: Speak4all at September 17, 2015 11:46 AM
Comment #398681

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States

Read carefully the Carter era shutdowns. Standing up for what you believe in with the constitutional authority to do so is why our country is what it is, and why it is worth fighting for.
In my opinion, the Dems fighting Dems over Abortion is on par with the Planned Parenthood Defunding.

Posted by: Observer at September 17, 2015 1:23 PM
Comment #398682

It’s nothing but the typical hypocritical blather, Observer. They all know dang well that they would cheer a shutdown to keep their abortions, licenses and government freebies.

Posted by: kctim at September 17, 2015 1:30 PM
Comment #398684

“…I wonder if he still is promoting a “government shutdown”?
Posted by: Speak4all at September 17, 2015 9:27 AM

I have asked before of my leftie friends. What exactly is a “government shutdown”.

If congress approves a budget and sends it to a president who vetoes it…who shuts down what?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 17, 2015 1:46 PM
Comment #398686

Remember Fiorina’s impassioned speech about the PP video? There is no such video. It didn’t happen.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/17/carly-fiorina/cnn-debate-carly-fiorina-urges-others-watch-planne/

Government shutdown:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States

A president can veto legislation, but ultimately only the Congress can actually pass legislation, including a budget, and the Congress can override a veto. For this reason, Congress is usually held responsible for a shutdown. If it wanted to keep the government open, it could. Democrats very much want to keep the government funded and functioning. Republicans do not, and have even passed legislation to prevent the Democrats from using parliamentary procedures to re-open the House.

Posted by: phx8 at September 17, 2015 4:25 PM
Comment #398687

“For this reason, Congress is usually held responsible for a shutdown.”

Silly logic.

Congress passes an operating budget to fund government. If congress didn’t pass a budget then it could be said they shut down government.

A president can veto a budget. A veto is a presidents way of shutting down government.

Imagine a baseball scheme that allows a batter to pass on as many pitches as he wishes until he get the pitch he likes.

Who is stalling the game?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 17, 2015 5:19 PM
Comment #398688

Isn’t there a single leftie that can tell us exactly what a “government shutdown” is?

No military?

No law enforcement?

No congress?

No president?

No courts?

NO ????

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 17, 2015 5:25 PM
Comment #398689

Read the Wikipedia link. This is pretty straightforward.

Posted by: phx8 at September 17, 2015 5:50 PM
Comment #398690

Yup phx8, sure is. Certainly is no reason for lefties to run around with their hair on fire shouting it’s the end of the world.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 17, 2015 6:10 PM
Comment #398691
Blaine, No one is cutting up live infants and no one is selling body parts. And no, no one will be discussing fake GOP scandals at the Democratic debates. They will be coming out in support of PP and women’s health issues, and they will be shining a spotlight on the GOP War on Women.Posted by:

phx8 at September 17, 2015 11:06 AM


phx8, I will not get involved in a back and forth with you on the subject of aborted babies being cut up and sold for profit; but since I made the statement, I will provide the links here and here.

If you want to continue to deny the truth, then be my guest. phx8 provides a link that affirms what Fiorina said; there was a witness who saw the baby on the table, with it’s heart beating, and was told the brain was to be harvested. So, it really happened. Whether the video is correct or not, is simply semantics.

It’s nothing but the typical hypocritical blather, Observer. They all know dang well that they would cheer a shutdown to keep their abortions, licenses and government freebies.

Posted by: kctim at September 17, 2015 1:30 PM

Yes, the left would love a shutdown, but the shutdown would be initiated by Obama. But it will never happen. McConnell does his best to assure the democrats and Obama that HE would NEVER have a vote to shut down the government…hence, the hatred of conservatives for the useless McConnell and Boehner. This is the reason non-political types are ahead in the Republican primary.

Posted by: Blaine at September 17, 2015 6:37 PM
Comment #398692

…hatred of conservatives for the useless McConnell and Boehner. This is the reason non-political types are ahead in the Republican primary.
Posted by: Blaine at September 17, 2015 6:37 PM

Right on Blaine. I don’t hate people, but I sure as hell hate what they are doing to this country.

I have narrowed my choices for the Rep nomination to:

Rubio
Cruz
Huckabee
Fiorina
Christie
Trump

Not necessarily in that order.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 17, 2015 6:52 PM
Comment #398693

Not a fan of Kasich or Paul?

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 17, 2015 7:17 PM
Comment #398694

Warren, both Paul and Kasich are fine men. I wanted to narrow my list and have done so.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 17, 2015 7:24 PM
Comment #398695

Fair enough.

I’m still at a loss about which party to vote for. I’m definitely not going to support Sanders or Clinton and Martin O’Malley’s candidacy probably won’t last much longer. I am drawn towards the independent candidacy of Lawrence Lessig, but if a Republican can make his or her case I may vote for him or her. Trump, Rubio, Kasich, Paul, Fiorina and Christie are the ones who I’d potentially consider. Huckabee, Cruz, Carson, Walker and Bush have already lost my vote.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 17, 2015 8:06 PM
Comment #398696

If we were to refer to government spending as “Bill to fund X” instead of the all encompassing “Budget” we would never have a shutdown.

One bill at a time, yes or no vote. 60 grand to study what babies think of their food? Yes or No. You have 30 seconds to vote. Absent/Present votes count as no interest/no funding.

At present we have one item to vote on. It’s called the Budget. Everything the government funds is in that budget. It’s all or nothing. Democratics made it that way and here’s why:

If funding of PP was considered on it’s own it would fail miserably. No one is going to fund infanticide and be on record as doing so. Including it in the budget guarantees it will be funded and how that guarantee is assured is the threat of a government shutdown.

It doesn’t matter what issue gets put up as the red meat. The majority of politicians have constituents who get government money. They vote the politician in to get the money. If the politician votes to stop their money they vote him out. The amount of people paid by the government will sway any election.

It seems Democratics are always the ones screaming about shutting down the governemnt. When Republicans are not in power they are blamed for shutting down the government. When Democratics are not in power the Republicans still get blamed for shutting down the government. Have you ever noticed, out of anytime there is a budget fight, it never is lead by a group of Democratics?

Shutting down the government is a tactic created by the Democratic party. All it takes is one Democratic (Reid) to say grandma won’t get her SS check and the media starts their relentless poking of the forehead of the American people claiming the Republicans are to blame.

The easiest way to get government under control is to changes the rules to say one bill, one page, one vote.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 17, 2015 8:27 PM
Comment #398697

It takes two to tango. Likewise, the government shuts down when both the executive and legislative branches cannot agree on a budget. Who gets blamed for the shutdown has more to do with public perception than anything else. Because the public does not think eliminating Planned Parenthood’s Title X funding is a terribly important issue, the upcoming government shutdown exposes the GOP as a party of pettiness.

As I said already, the HOR has the power of the purse, the power to screw up this nation’s economy, which is a very potent weapon that ought to be wielded carefully. I would support a HOR effort to defund the government if they were doing so for a worthwhile cause, something more important than all the non-defense discretionary spending that would be halted. For instance, I would support a government shutdown that attempted to prevent or end an unpopular war.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 17, 2015 8:45 PM
Comment #398698

Correct me if I’m wrong (I’m sure someone will), but I don’t think there ever was a budget passed under Reid’s leadership.

Posted by: Blaine at September 17, 2015 8:54 PM
Comment #398699

Why have even the threat possible? Eliminate the problem by funding individual programs. Start making them do their job. Maybe they should be able to read it before voting on it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 17, 2015 9:00 PM
Comment #398702

Blaine,

There were no issues passing budgets in the Senate when Democrats also controlled the House from 2007-2009. In 2010, Republicans filibustered the Democrats’ budget. It was not until 2013 that Reid was able to overcome the Republican fillibuster threats and pass a budget.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 18, 2015 7:40 AM
Post a comment