Progressives: Between Hillary and a Hard Place

[DonViejo]

David Freedlander

Between Hillary and a Hard Place

Elizabeth says she’s a no. Bernie is a fighter, but he is also, you know, Bernie. O’Malley doesn’t excite, Webb used to be a Republican, and Hillary is, well, a Clinton.

The 2016 presidential primaries are fast approaching. What is a good progressive to do?

At a moment when a handful of issues that liberal activists have campaigned on for years, from raising the minimum wage to the growth of corporate power to climate change to criminal justice reform, are entering the mainstream debate—even within the Republican Party—progressives are facing the prospect of being rendered voiceless just as the nation is tuning in to the 2016 presidential primary.

“What progressives are saying is, how are we going to get people out of bed to vote if we don’t stand up on the issues that people care about,” said Ed Ott, a longtime New York labor leader and a professor of labor studies at the City University of New York. “There is a lot of anger at the Democratic Party. People want to know where they stand.”

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/13/progressives-between-hillary-and-a-hard-place.html

[Proud Public Servant]

1. This quote is the crux

“What progressives are saying is, how are we going to get people out of bed to vote if we don’t stand up on the issues that people care about.”

I confess I occasionally lose patience with the GOTV crowd on this point. Just chanting GOTV like a mantra assumes that people just need a nudge, a reminder, maybe a lift to the polls. That may well be true in some districts. But in many places, non-voters need a reason to vote -- and a positive reason, not the usual we've-got-to-stop-them-because-they're-worse stuff. There's a sizable portion of the electorate whose core political position is "a plague on both their houses"; breaking through that kind of resistance takes way more than GOTV tactics -- it takes a politics that speaks to them, and "we're saner and slightly less corporate" isn't enough.

[Thinkingabout]

4. A good reason to vote is to stop future Roberts, Scalia and Thomas Supreme Court nominees.

Don't like decisions like Citizens United, you can thank a republican for nominating this group. Another nominee will turn lots of things against any liberal ideas.

[Proud Public Servant]

9. That's why you need a candidate

who can credibly take on the issue. Watching a Clinton, of all people, disparage Citizen's United and the role of money in politics will be very hard to do without rolling my eyes and smirking, and I plan to vote for her in the general. You can imagine how a more alienated voter would react.

[brooklynite]

11. Because she accepts Super Pac involvement?

Guess what: Bernie Sanders would accept Super Pac involvement if he was the nominee. You don't unilaterally disarm during the campaign. You work to change things AFTER the campaign.

[Proud Public Servant]

13. Because she will be running on

scads of corporate donations and dark money. To be sure, I'd rather she did that than lost to a Republican. But it'll be a little like she's promoting energy conservation while driving around the country in a Hummer. And if what we're talking about is pulling in disaffected non-voters -- and that is what we're talking about -- nobody who's convinced that both parties are corrupt beyond redemption is going to have their mind changed when Hillary rides through the election on a Rose Parade float made of million-dollar bills.

[Thinkingabout]

15. What would be the difference if Sanders, Warren, Biden, Caine, Webb or anyone else?

It is going to be money, lots of money for a presidential campaign, there are tv ads, staff to pay, travel expense for the candidate and aides to travel, it takes lots of money. I don't see posts about other possible candidates on the same lines. Yes there is corruption in both parties but we need to focus on electing democrats, this is our only salvation. Some candidates may make you feel good about certain subjects, say like a Rand Paul but I sure would not like to see him as president.

[Proud Public Servant]

17. Look at Obama in 2008

Sure, there was corporate money behind him. But his people also did a great job of raising, and showcasing, authentic small, grassroots donations. Part of what made his message of change credible is that he himself seemed to be doing things differently, and more democratically, than other candidates.

Look, when you say, "we need to focus on electing democrats, this is our only salvation," you don't have to convince me. I'm resigned to Hillary as our candidate; I'll almost certainly vote against her in the primary, but then hold my nose and vote for her in the general -- a pattern that seems to repeat for me in most presidential elections (2008 was the only exception I recall). But I'm a lifelong third-generation Democrat.

On the other hand, only about half of all Americans can be counted on to vote in a presidential year, less that a third of Americans are Democrats. The only way either party wins is by selling themselves to teh kinds of voters who have given up on the two parties, if not the electoral process as a whole. I have a lot of trouble -- a lot of trouble -- imagining Hillary pulling in the kinds of disaffected voters Obama captured in 2008, and the reason is that, while every candidate needs to play the game, Hillary is practically the poster child for the Washington Establishment. It is very, very difficult to imagine alienated voters rising up in support of a consummate DC insider. It is very, very difficult to imagine that people who have checked out of politics will look at a child of lifelong privilege, a former Walmart board member, a millionaire admirer of Henry Kissinger, a friend of Goldman Sachs, and think, "she speaks for me." And if you can't win over those disaffected voters the way Obama did in 2008, the path to the White House is trickier.

[brooklynite]

18. Obama in 2007 was before Citizens United

In 2012 did Obama stand on principle and dissuade Super PACS from supporting him?

[Proud Public Servant]

19. It's not about rejecting SuperPAC support

It's about credibly appearing to be something other than a bought-and-paid-for candidate. I don't think Hillary can do that, and as a result the kinds of people who perceive both parties as corrupt may very well not vote.

Maybe that's no big deal. Maybe that's the future of American politics -- like the pre-Vatican II Catholic mass, it'll be something the congregation just watches rather than participates in.

But my original point was, simply: Hillary is not a credible spokesperson for changing this system. She's a creature of it -- and, if she wins the nomination, I sure hope she uses it to take the White House. But if the Democratic party is counting on voters who want change, they'll have there work cut out for them selling Hillary to that constituency.

[Thinkingabout]

24. Name one of the people I names which is not a part of the Washington establishment.

My point is Hillary's name comes up and the others gets a by.

[MADem]

36. During his Senate campaign, Bernie Sanders took money from .... HillPAC ...

And yes, that Hill stands for Hillary. And that's not all: http://socialistworker.org/2006-2/610/610_11_BernieSanders.shtml

In the 2006 Senate election, he didn't even really run as an independent. The Democrats cut a deal with Sanders--they wouldn't run a candidate against him, in exchange for him supporting Democrats in other races.

The Democrats backed up their word by nominating Sanders in their primary, which he refused to accept to preserve his nominal independence. But Sanders did accept support from national Democrats like Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer. He also accepted a large donation from Hillary Clinton's Political Action Committee, HILLPAC, which featured him as one of its most important candidates.

Sanders in turn backed Democrats against third-party alternatives. In the election to fill his House seat, he and his supporters helped dissuade Progressive Party hopeful David Zuckerman from running, and went on to support the Democrat Peter Welch, who eventually won.

Sanders' endorsement of the Democrats no doubt helped him build his war chest of about $5 million, over 80 percent of which came from out of state.

No one has the ability to win without taking that "dark money." And no one will try to actually win without it--sure, a few Don Quixotes will tilt at windmills and serve as an amusing distraction, but the Big Show will be all about the Big Money.

We need campaign finance reform, certainly, our democracy would be better for it, but it's just not going to happen in the next national cycle.

[randys1]

26. You and I know that...but do enough others?

Quite frankly I am relying on excitement from the idea of the first Woman elected, whether that be Hillary or Liz.


Average Americans simply dont understand they are in a war for their literal survival with rightwing american Taliban terrorists aka teapaarty

[demigoddess]

35. And she may draw a bunch of female republicans to vote for her

just to see a woman in the white house.

[guillaumeb]

6. Thank you

for making this point. It needs to be repeated over and over.

When only 34% of people voted in 2014, part of the reason may be that these apathetic voters do not see either party as the solution. Or do not see any of the candidates as offering the solution. Or do not hear any candidates talking about issues that matter.

We know that gerrymandering has given the GOP a huge edge in the House, but if the Democrats had offered a real alternative in 2010 the GOP would not have taken over so many State governments. The gerrymandering would not have taken place.

Perhaps if the electoral game was not totally a money game things would be different.

[emulatorloo]

7. We have good candidates. EX: Bruce Braley (liberal Dem) vs Joni Ernst (koch puppet)

You may be tiring of Democratic activists, but I'm tiring of the DU 'conventional wisdom' that we're not offering positive reasons for people to vote for Democrats.

Putting HRC aside for the moment, just going to use Iowa as an example

This is what we have to deal with, a massive disinformation campaign aimed at voters

- Braley's messages were drowned out by massive Koch Bros spending
- Ernst bio slickly presented while her policy positions were hidden:
----she did not talk to the press
----the press didn't do their job and actually report on the candidates positions
- a concurrent Koch Bros campaign to lie about Braley and drive his negatives up

So if you're a voter and you're not a political junky then you aren't going to get much info about the facts about Braley vs Ernst

Similar situation in Colorado, where voters rejected the concept of "personhood" and then turned around and elected the highly packaged Cory "personhood" Gardner.

We don't have a Koch Bros
We don't have a media that actually reports on candidates

About all we have is GOTV to cut thru the massive disinformation campaign. Knocking doors and talking to people about the candidate and his/her positions.

Dem voters tend to have lives and voting seems to siip thru the cracks for them sometimes. OTOH the Republican/tea party crazies will never miss an Election Day.

-----
Yeah HRC, definitely not great. I keep hoping someone will take her on. There are strong liberals/progressives out there but other than Sanders none of them have stepped up.

[Proud Public Servant]

10. So are you saying there was no Iowa GOTV

effort in 2014? That would surprise me (I lived there for a while, albeit in Iowa City).

[emulatorloo]

29. Yes there was Iowa GOTV

But apparently it was not as effective as it should have been. For what it is worth, in general I don't think Dem voters think midterm elections are that important.

However I'm ashamed to say that I personally didn't do as much GOTV as I usually do this past election.

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. I learned that it was a responsibility to vote.

For me, a responsible citizen looks at the available options and makes the best choice. For that reason I never hold my nose to vote and think when people make that statement they are tell People why the fuck should we vote.

I do not need the right candidate seducing me to vote.

But I also understand that the President is just one part of our government. He can not legislate new programs into existence. If we don't have control of the House and Senate, we do not control the agenda and we can not legislate better programs or improvements to programs. The President appoints Judges, and if we don't have a Democrat then no fair judges will be appointed.

I motivate myself to vote, and I think we have failed miserably in not teaching younger voters that the drive to make a better government must come form inside rather than from some charismatic leader.

If we want a better government we have to vote every time to get one.

[LynneSin]

2. I'm so tired of this 'Divide and Conquer' mentality

IF Hillary gets the nomination (and she has not) this is how the GOP is going to try to drive the win home by making Hillary seem like she is totally unelectable to many people in her own party.

Yes I know there will be people here in DU who will swear up and down 'I will not vote for Hillary' ok, that is fine with you. But I think that IF Hillary is the nominee and when it gets down to to election day, people will see a clear choice between Hillary and whatever numnut the GOP nominates.

I'm hoping that IF Hillary (or whomever) gets the nomination that she uses this opportunity to select a great choice for her VP that can counterpoint some of the areas where she does come across a bit conservative to help bring home the win. Putting a real progressive on the ticket not only could make her truly a solid win but could setup a solid election for the democrats in 2024.

[JayhawkSD]

5. The GOP doesn't need to do that.

She actually is unelectable to a large portion of her own party.

[emulatorloo]

8. Let's not confuse DU members with real world Democrats

We're a pretty small self-selected slice of Dem voters. That doesn't mean our criticisms of HRC aren't correct.

But my impression is a lot of Dems in the real world have favorable impressions of HRC

- they liked Bill, they like Hilary
- they like that she stepped up to be SEc of State in spite of losing to Obama
- they are impressed w what she did as Sec of State
- they like her record on social issues

Personally I hope she is not the nominee, and I still believe she's in no way 'inevitable'

[cheapdate]

12. I'm convinced you're right.

My dear old mum, for instance, is a retired public servant in Florida. She'll vote for Hillary and so will most all of her gaggle of Democratic friends. She doesn't live and breathe politics. She just votes Democrat.

[Agschmid]

20. Yup.

[MADem]

37. It's kind of odd how some folks think DU is representative of the Big Tent Democratic Party.

They'd run Jon Tester out on a rail if he ever showed up here! That said, he's won his seat twice so far, so...whatever. All Politics Is Local, and all that.

I think she'll probably be the nominee, but I don't think she's "inevitable" either--she'll have to make her case. I think if she does run (and it looks like she will, based on the hiring she is doing) she will do just that.

[LynneSin]

14. And you are basing that on what?

You do realize the the party is more than just the folks that post here on internet forums. And I'm not saying that because I'm on team Hillary. I'm saying that from years of seeing how online polls never seem to end up matching what RL election results tend to be.

But you know, if you keep convincing the world she is unelectable then maybe you can do your best to help get someone from the GOP elected and for that the GOP thanks you.

I for one have said time and again like many people I am keeping an open mind throughout the primaries but come the main election I'm on board with the candidate. So unless the Democrats manage to elect the exhume the body of Adolph Hitler reincarnated, I know I can get behind the candidate that is decided by all of the democratic voters.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. I guess that depends on how one defines "a large portion" ...

and who one defines "her own party" ...

On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton continues to be dominant, polling at 54% to 18% for Joe Biden, 12% for Elizabeth Warren, 3% for Bernie Sanders, and 2% each for Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb. Everyone is within 2 points of where they were on our December poll with the exception of Warren, who's gained 5 points. Clinton is over 50% with liberals, moderates, women, whites, African Americans, and voters within every age group falling short of that mark only with men.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/hillary-clinton/

If you are talking about less than 50%, with no one else rating above 18%, as "a large portion" and if her own party excludes liberals, moderates, women, whites, and African Americans ... you might have a point.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Watch: Hillary will present her best impression of Warren, and it will sink like a stone.

Or she might stay true to her values and just throw us under the bus-- that would probably get more votes but either way I think if she runs, we'll lose.

Run these two against each other in an equally funded campaign and see what happens.

[Thinkingabout]

16. Since Warren was a republican at one time you can say she followed Hillary left, Hillary did not

follow Warren left, she was there first. So if Hillary is going to sink like a stone then Warren will sink like a stone. Running these two against each other and you just may find Warren has her weaknesses, she is smart enough to recognize these weaknesses, knows she does not want to make some of the decisions needed by a president, don't discount Warren's continuous "I'm not running".

[INdemo]

21. Hillary was a Republican at one time also.

Hillary is still a Republican lite and Elizabeth Warren is a pure liberal Democrat

[Thinkingabout]

23. Was she a republican in 1980 backing Reagan who created trickle down economics?

The answer is no. Who was on the left side first, the answer to this question is Hillary, Warren was still a Republican in 1980, so who followed who, another was answer, Warren followed Hillary. When was the last information on Hillary working for Republican?

[INdemo]

33. Go for it. Jump on Hillary's band wagon and shout it out

"Hillary is a Liberal" Then see how many liberal Democrats are following.
Wall St contributors don't usually write checks to liberals..just saying

I wish her well

[Thinkingabout]

34. Do you consider Warren to be a liberal?

[INdemo]

39. Yes I do

she represent the interests of working class America. She represents the parents of students trying to find a way to get the best education possible.She represents the college grad that is harnessed with college loan debt that charges more interest than corporations and banks that were part of the great swindle of 2007-08-and 2009
She is fighting for consumer protection laws from banks and other corporate practices.

She represents those that are fighting for a higher minimum wage and for the union worker that is fighting to keep their bargaining rights and wage scale. For those that fight for a health care system that doesn't bankrupt families when a health disaster strikes.
And the list goes on and on

So Yes Elizabeth Warren is a liberal

[Thinkingabout]

40. You have described Hillary, who co-sponsored the last federal increase in

Minimum wages, who presented healthcare to Congress in the 90's. Hillary like Warren was in the working class, and both are rated on the chart in the same place. Hillary has fought for women to be promoted, women and children's rights, Civil Rights and against violence against women and children worldwide. Yes, Hillary is very liberal.

[INdemo]

42. Well I guess for those that support Hillary most have tunnel vision and

just wont admit that she is a corporatist candidate. Hillary will have to return the favors to her corporate sponsors so how then can she really be a candidate that represents working class America.
I wont be posting any more about Hillary just to make this statement and of course you will come back with some..whatever
Hillary will not win if she is the Democratic nominee because liberal Democrats will not support her.
She is trying to buy the Democratic nomination with corporatize dollars and many Democrats can see through this and just wont show up to vote for her.

[Thinkingabout]

43. Tunnel vision like in disregarding Warren's statement she took funds from Wall Street?

I don't deny Hillary is connected to corporations, can you admit Warren's statement she also has corporate connections, can you admit even Bernie has corporate connections, now who has tunnel vision.

Your statement of liberals Democrat will not show up to vote for Hillary, you never ask this liberal if I am going to show up. BTW there are lots of liberals who will show up to vote for Hillary.

Yes, I will continue to post the truths about Hillary, Warren and Bernie. Politicians who are running for national offices has lots of corporate connections, the 90% does not have the funds to fund a national campaign, we have to get funds from corporations. No tunnel vision here.

[MADem]

38. That's a pretty weak argument, you'd be better off not even going there.

Being a Republican as a teenager because your parents are, and being a Republican in "educated, with advanced degrees" middle age are two very different things.

That said, I can get over Warren's former fondness for Saint Ronnie of Reagan and his "better" (cough) approach to markets, just as I can get over a teenager pleasing her dad by being a Goldwater girl. People make mistakes. Some are more significant than others, but once they're corrected, the smart thing to do is not carp about them, but instead, move on smartly.

[blkmusclmachine]

22. I guess we can always vote down-ballot, cuz HRC is a no go in this household.

[bigwillq]

27. Same for me.

If HRC wins the nomination, she will likely will my state (CT) so I am free to vote for another candidate for prez. I normally have some decent DEM candidates on the ticket in the other races in my state so I will vote for them. But HRC? No way.

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. If progressives choose not to vote for the Democratic nominee,

then they will deserve the Republican President the rest of us must suffer through. They deserve to lose health care, they deserve to lose social security, they deserve Justices who will repeal Roe V. Wade, and make marriage equality impossible.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

31. "how are we going to get people out of bed to vote if we don’t stand up on the issues?"

Well, the answer sure isn't to let more Republicans get elected. In the meantime, instead of insisting on finding and electing "The One True Progressive" to the WH and giving up and staying home if he/she doesn't run or get nominated, focus on organizing from the ground up and helping more progressives get elected to local, state, and federal offices, which will help build a new "pool" of talent for higher office and help pressure the Democrats in Congress (and/or WH) to support their issues. It also seems frustrating to hear about progressives being "angry" with the Democratic Party when I look at where we were in 2008 and where we are now, much of it accomplished with President Obama and Democrats in Congress with one (or sometimes two) hand(s) tied behind their backs. Some progressives just want to complain more about what hasn't been done while ignoring what HAS been done and, in the meantime, the Republicans at the local, state, and federal levels have been busy organizing and getting themselves elected to office where they can enact their regressive policies. They would do well to remember that progress is a (long-term) process.

[Persondem]

32. HRC has plenty of progressive positions

From a recent NYT article ...

"... she is expected to embrace several principles. They include standard Democratic initiatives like raising the minimum wage, investing in infrastructure, closing corporate tax loopholes and cutting taxes for the middle class. Other ideas are newer, such as providing incentives to corporations to increase profit-sharing with employees and changing labor laws to give workers more collective bargaining power."

"... she went door to door while working for the Children’s Defense Fund, leaving her a committed advocate for early childhood education, equal pay for women and paid leave."

"... She was more skeptical about the North American Free Trade Agreement."

"... proposed legislation similar to a New Deal-era program that would allow the government to help homeowners refinance their mortgages."

"... Last month, Mrs. Clinton reiterated her support for the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulation law. “Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong,” she wrote on Twitter."

[davidpdx]

41. The challenge will be getting someone interesting to run who is viable and will excite progressives

Webb is not a progressive, he is a conservative Democrat. Bernie Sanders has said he might run, but who knows.

As I've said before the entire field is going to remain locked until Hillary Clinton decides one way or the other. If I were a betting man I would say she will run. Given that there is no viable alternative, that is a big problem. The longer she sits on the sidelines the less likely there will be any viable alternative.