Except we're starting to see Clinton open up a decent lead over Trump without Sanders endorsing. Granted it's a long way to November and I'm sure Clinton will feel better having Sanders's voters but fear of Trump might do that for her.
Interesting, though in places not convincing. Some stuff to think about though. One thing I'd point out about the idea that her favorability goes down when she's seeking power and then recovers once she's in office: it could be the campaigning against her during those stretches that impacts her favorability instead of (or in addition to) sexism.
Or even worse, I was thinking: that when running for office she's simply in the public eye and people remember they don't like her. LOL That column was mainly interesting in terms of her reputed mendacity, I think.
Maybe because I already buy into the idea that she's untrustworthy, I didn't find that bit very compelling. I feel like he's conflating the ideas of honesty and trustworthiness so that he can point to evidence to say she's honest and therefore you should trust her. I don't think they're the same. I don't think her values are in the right place.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/guccifer-20-claims-responsibility-for-dnc-hack-releases-documents? https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/
. Defenders of the status and the DNC quo can only hope. Your analysis is consistent with that from the mainstream pundits as usual. However, it seems increasingly possible that the public opinion re such issues as national health and income redistribution has shifted faster than the mianstream corporate media and the conventional politicians like the Clintons the media are in bed with. Sanders leverage against Clinton and the status quo is due to this change among especially Dems. The traditional horse trading Hillary might be accustomed to will not suffice. There is really no position in the Clinton Presidency that Bernie probably aspires to and he is not interested in any personal money she can turn him on to. It is very different than when Obama could offer Hillary the State Department and agreed to help pay off her campaign debts. Of course there were virtually no policy differences between those two. Left to her own devices Hillary will do what Hillary does. She will try to please her Wall Street/corporate funders while employing some progressive rhetoric so not to antagonize too much the average Dems and many independents who are now to the left of her -- at least from shortly after her college graduation speech or perhaps her initial defeat on healthcare which seems to have beaten her down. Hillary will be content with any minor concessions she can get from the Republican Congress. Trying to be optimistic, though HIllary's cautious centricism normally would have few coat tails, hopefully because Trump is so historically horrrible, the Dems might pick up few more seats than a typical uninspiring cautious campaign would lead to. Again I urge all possible voters in swing states to vote for Hillary i.e, against Trump who is the worst candidate in many decades.
Yeah, if this is the "worst" they can come up with, I'm impressed, if anything, by how nice and squeaky clean the DNC is... well, I might even say disappointed. Politics is a very dirty business, and what's come out so far is like city or county level politics. Meh.
I'd rather see a highlighted list of recommended places to locate bugs and canceled checks to hookers and drug dealers.
Right? It's gotta be in there somewhere. Maybe just in code. Maybe every time it says "hair appointment" for Hillary it is like a hotel room full of coke and gigolos for her.
???. It's not a government organization. It is like a club. If you want them to be neutral, okay. If they give the aura of being neutral, I agree they usually try to do that. But make no mistake, these political clubs (parties) are not "neutral" by any means, especially when a candidate joins the club just to run for president within their infrastructure. (I'm not complaining and am actually glad Bernie did join, but I'm just saying there are logical consequences when a new member of a club is challenging a lifelong member of a club.)
Short of something totally unexpected, is there anyone in this country that didn't really think Clinton would be the nominee?
It's a planning memo on strategies for the most likely candidate to be going up against the GOP. Seems prudent. You don't wing it until the nomination process is done. They do have a vested interest in beating the republican candidate I'd hope there's planning going back much further than this. FWIW, Sander's didn't announce his candidacy until late May so she was the most likely candidate at that point. (and really....since about 2008 if anyone had been paying attention). Find me a memo from the DNC on how to make Hillary prevail against other Democrats (or soon to be Democrats) and then you have something.
