Hillary’s Campaign in Crisis, Again

After having been dismissed and ignored by the media, Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders is surging in the polls. He appears to have New Hampshire in the bag. He has a new lead in Iowa. And some national polls show him as a genuine threat to Hillary across the nation. What went wrong, again?

28 thoughts on “Hillary’s Campaign in Crisis, Again

  1. You know, it’s kind of amazing, sometimes the American public actually gets it. Not often, almost never really, but wow, in this case boy do they have the right impression. I sometimes think back to Bill and Hillary meeting at Yale, the alarm bells going off, “wow, someone who is as shallow and ambitious as I am!” Thing is, Bill is a GIFTED con man, he could sell anything to anyone, but Hillary the fake shows through, big time. I have a friend who has this thing called the hello test, as in there are some people you just say hello to, and you start backing up, since it’s immediately obvious you don’t want to get to close. Hillary fails the hello test, soon as that smile comes up, all you want to do is start backing up…

  2. Trump v. Sanders – what a dream come true.

    I’m not sure that O’bummer got to the White House on his own merits: he had help from the GOP nominating unpalatable idjits. (McCain/Palin? Romney/Dog Carrier??!) Otherwise, this country would have never elected a black man.

    This country isn’t ready to elect a socialist yet, either. BUT if he was running against a Reality TV Show Host with a personality disorder? Oh, heck yeah. Hillary’s supporters are old and/or unenthused; while Bernie’s tend towards young and/or fired up. The young’uns didn’t have the decades of anti-socialist advertising shoved down their throats. Upshot: even if it’s 42% to 40% – a lot larger portion of that 40% will actually turn out.


    • Bernie comes across like McCain–a crotchety, angry old guy except wimpier. He nearly makes Clitlery seem likeable.

      Regardless, I continue to be entertained by your and your compatriots’ belief that the only people who would prefer economic freedom over government mandate are either super rich or mislead by the super rich.

      Sadly you will never stop believing that you are the rebel. You will never accept that the elite is Leftist. It’s why, for example, they always talk about how diversity is our strength, America is a nation of immigrants, and what we really need are more women leaders. It’s why we have a massive welfare state. It’s why you can be fired for a politically incorrect joke. It’s why the media when reporting on a Muslim mass shooter deflect attention from his religion, but when a shooter is a white male they can’t point out enough how he is white and male. It’s why we export war just to invite refugees in. It’s why there is no effort to control the borders. And do believe me, I could go on.

      • Yeah, sure Jack, that’s why the democrats keep talking about cutting taxes for the rich, lowering the capital gains tax, eliminating the estate tax, breaking up unions, deregulating industry, destroying social security, dismantling the ACA and disenfranchising the poor.


      • – Massive welfare state?
        – Media deflecting attention away from the fact that San Bernardino shooters were Muslim?
        – White males are oppressed?
        – American imperialist wars abroad a conspiracy to enable and encourage refugees to flood the country?

        You are frighteningly delusional and insane!!

      • prolecenter,

        I can only surmise you do not know what a welfare state is.

        By the Left’s own definition of oppression, yes. White men face not only systemic but codified discrimination. How this can be seen otherwise reveals profound hatred, disregard for justice, disingenuousness, or detachment from reality on the part of the seer.

        You should rejoice, comrade! The elites are inviting in barbarians to collapse the West, which you so fervently despise!

        Both delusional AND insane, you say? You’ll have to excuse me for being unable to take that seriously from one who adores China and N. Korea.

      • @ Jack Hart
        We are dealing with a clash of perspectives (again).

        I think the points you are making have some merit, but you are making them in a way that really makes you come across as a loon with an attitude here. I’ll try to translate, feel free to correct any mistakes or misconceptions on my part.

        “The elite is leftist” translates to -> “Many in the elite hold liberal values (and even at times act on them beyond paying lip service)”

        As all strands of organized left-wing politics have long ago been broken up or marginalized in the U.S, with a U.S. centric framework, liberalism may indeed appear as left wing for now, relatively speaking. Therefore you are correct on your terms. However, how many Marxists, Communists, Anarchists, or even Social Democrats do you think really are there among the ruling elite? (This is probably what many here would think of as the meaning of the statement “the elite is leftist”).

        (Incidentally, Bernie Sanders may address that to a tiny extent. Or he may provide yet another social democratic fig leaf for the liberals. Therefore the left is split on Bernie, but tentatively optimistic about the general direction.)

        Values like diversity, gender, racial and ethnic equality, are indeed often held up and there is a certain sense of political correctness that sometimes is used as a bludgeon.

        I think we can mostly agree on this.

        Again you take this as evidence that the values of the ruling class are leftist. However, these are again really liberal values, and more importantly, talk is cheap. Women’s wages (let alone those of blacks) are nowhere near parity. Raising them would be expensive. Most stuff is tested on (white) males still – i.e. the world you enter is made with (young) men as templates, starting from the medications we take to seatbelt design, etc. To change this would be expensive. It is far cheaper to decree that everyone should now use gendered pronouns. While this does reflect the gains made by feminists who do care about language to a certain extent, it is quite limited in that it maintains the domesticated version of liberation: the boss decides in his wisdom to bestow (limited) emancipation on the downtrodden.

        I think we could almost agree on the points about exporting war. Not so much about refugees being “invited in”, this time (unlike Vietnam) the U.S. is taking in about as many Syrians as Sweden and about 1/100 of the number now residing in tiny countries like Lebanon and Jordan. Undocumented immigration from Latin America has been going strong (but less so since the crash) – as are record numbers of deportations also under Obama.

        You may see this as a reflection of (left-)liberal values and are certainly correct to an extent. However, from a left perspective, if the elites were swayed by actual left-wing values, they would set a decent minimum wage (like comparable countries in Europe) and enforce that instead of breaking unions and using immigration in the service of wage dumping (as is also happening in Europe). Indeed we would see this kind of thing as an anti-working class policy, even though those with an international bent would definitely be open to immigration, but not driving down wages.

        I think the general point is that white males being victimised – as many of us increasingly are in this brave new world. The actual left has a basic narrative (coming in different versions, nothing splits like the left 😉 of how we ended up here. It is mainstream narratives which can’t handle exploitation of white men (“man up!”). For example, I can rally not see anything whining or “wimpy” about Bernie Sanders, and neither would most women and “minorities” who are used to seeing themselves as oppressed without losing face. Indeed, they have been oppressed far longer and to a greater extent that we have. Indeed, maybe we can use our newfound victimisation to empathise and understand their position better, show solidarity, and learn from them to help us in our common struggle.

        Crucially, the recent losses of (many) white males were not the price to pay for lifting up women and people of color, or reducing our ecological footprint. Then this would have been perhaps accepted temporarily by many of us on the left. But as things are merely getting shittier for all of us but an increasingly narrow top-tier, we have your back unconditionally.

        So see you on the barricades? 😉

      • I like you andreas. This time I’ll keep it brief though there is much more that could be said.

        I am a liberal in the true sense of the word; that is to say what it originally meant: belief in economic freedom, limited government, property rights, individual liberty, and natural law. A right-wing liberal. Leftists did what they do best and co-opted the term in the first half of the 20th century, becoming “social” liberals.

        You see, you’re still stuck way in the past, believing that Marxism is still just about economics. (And I believe it never was. It was about envy, greed, spite, and failure. Oh, and of course, the acquisition of power.) The new Marxists no longer call themselves that because people found out how bad they are. Now Marxism is about culture. Anything to divide. The goal of destroying the West is the same. Only the means have changed. Instead of overt violence it is cultural infiltration. Marxists are the greatest propagandists there ever were. They know it is much more effective to bring down an enemy from within. They have systematically eroded every factor that once gave Americans a sense of belonging and without unity, there can be no resistance. For instance, they used to have (regardless of our personal belief in their value) homogeneous communities, national pride, and religion. People are SUPPOSED to feel disconnected and purposeless today. It was designed.

        For further study:

        Frankfurt School
        Saul Alinsky
        Critical Theory
        Cloward-Piven Strategy

      • For example, the very fact that the gender wage gap MYTH is so often believed and discussed is a clue to the success of Leftist propaganda. It has been debunked countless times. Women work less hours at less demanding work, take more time off, and have lower paying degrees, but then have the gall to demand equivalent compensation?!

        And much more broadly, the entire narrative is bunk. Most men did not have it better than women and did not oppress them. In truth, it was a sign of the success of the West that women had the *privilege* of not working! Women did not have to die in factories or trenches. And the majority did not want suffrage at the time they gained it in the US. Try to grasp the irony there. Women voted against getting to vote! It was the elite who picked up, as you put it, “left-liberal” politics, in order to put women to work to depress wages!

        I mean for fuck’s sake. One of the first objectives of the USSR was to break apart families and send women to work. And what’s been happening for the past half century in America?

      • And regardless of the gender wage gap, women still account for upwards of 70% !!! of consumer spending because, in short, women, unlike men, get to spend other people’s money on top of their own.

  3. CrazyH: “I’m about 95% certain “he” works for Putin, but it could just as easily be the RNC or even the HRC campaign.”

    What a vivid imagination.

    Jack Heart: “. . . I don’t see how it benefits Putin. For one, Putin isn’t a leftist, and for two, his best shot at working with the West (which I am convinced is what he prefers) is Trump.”

    Jack, you are talking sense now. And I also agree with you that voting is futile in the US (esp. the Presidential elections). We need to help people see that. Also, on Putin and Trump: Putin may perceive that Trump is his best bet, but if he thinks that then I believe that he is wrong on that score. However, he may know something I don’t.

    • Trump and Putin are both reasonable men able to recognize common interests and who believe in negotiation. I think Trump also understands it is impossible to intimidate someone like Putin unlike nearly ever other US pol who just wants to “teach him a lesson.”

    • Up to your old tricks, eh, Trolecenter? Move the discussion to the top of the column in order to improve visibility? That’s gotta be on page one of the manual they gave you when you accepted the job.

      But let’s pretend I believe you. What are you hoping to accomplish? You are turning people away from the altar with your continued references to China, NK & the USSR. You’ve even held up Stalin as a fucking hero. You are simply reinforcing the US propaganda that idiots like Jack and Fleming already believe. Why would you do that?

      You want to hold up models of socialism, you could try talking about Sweden or New Zealand’s socialized medicine. Why don’t you do that?

      Lying about Sanders? Seriously? WTF do you hope to accomplish there? There’s a comment from yesterday awaiting moderation because of the links. The quotes are below, minus the links. Notice the words “working class” ? Now why in the world would you say he never uses that magic phrase when you’ve got so many other links readily at hand? Why would you repeat it over & over? He doesn’t use the word ‘proletariat, either – but that doesn’t change his message one whit. The Communist Manifesto was written in German – do you expect Sanders to speak German to an audience that speaks English?

      The conclusion is inescapable, you’re either trying to discredit socialism or you’re trying to improve Russia’s image. It doesn’t matter which, either way your posts contain so much bullshit they’d be better used to fertilize crops than to waste bandwidth.

      Real, live Bernie Sanders quotes with the words “Working class” (hint – it’s right there where he says “working class”):

      “reach out to working-class and middle-class Republicans who continue to vote against their own best interests,”

      “Look, many of Trump’s supporters are working-class people and they’re angry, and they’re angry because they’re working longer hours for lower wages,”

      “the fact of the matter is there has been class warfare for the last thirty years. It’s a handful of billionaires taking on the entire middle-class and working-class of this country.”

  4. Tempting as it may be to discuss Ms Clinton’s «ti» factor -my name for her opposite to the «it» factor, which makes one like a person simply because he or she is likable – I wonder if we’d not be better off discussing her politics – after all, she is running to become a candidate for a major political office (although as prolecenter points out above, perhaps not as major as commonly supposed), not for the most beautiful baby of 1947….

    But since politics in the US seems to have become a spectator sport, I must confess that I’d like to see a Sanders – Drumpf contest – perhaps then we’d get an answer to the question which has been bothering the politically interested at least since Eisenhower’s time – does it really make any difference who becomes the US president ?…


Leave a Reply