To all those that support Hillary and the Democratic Establishment

These restaurants and gyms are being subjected to federal regulations?

I have a small business. I have found the regulatory and tax environment to be challenging for a small operation. But, the rulemakers that cause us grief are the State of Texas and the City of Houston, not Obama's small-business-kill-squad.

 

You get taxed because you're uninsured. If you happen to get sick and need expensive pills or continued Doctor/hospital visits, you could sign up anytime without insurers denying you of pre-existing conditions.

That "fine" is much cheaper than signing up for a health plan on day 1, and was designed to discourage free riding.

Frankly, I'd rather have single payer, but my employer gives me a pretty good ppo so I'm not involved with a day to day where I can't afford healthcare.

 

I'm guessing you're in Texas. If you're in Minnesota might be interested in talking.

 

Much of my work is in the commercial and hospitality (restaurants, bars, hotels) and athletic fields. A lot of the work we've been doing is for small businesses such as restaurants and microbreweries that employ under 50 people.

Of course all of that is anecdotal but job statistics show pretty steady growth in the last few years in private sector job gains.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewbd.t01.htm

 

Well I'm struck by a couple of things here.

1. Those aren't really liberal sources. I'm a liberal, I should know.

2. There are better ways in evaluating sources than by just ignoring ones you consider liberal. You might want to look at the sources within the article. Who did the writers of the piece get their information from? Do they include studies, transcripts, interviews, statistics etc?

That is a little better criteria than just dismissing anything supposedly liberal.

So far you haven't provided anything except for disproven propaganda. If you have some backup for what you've posted, then go ahead. But before posting it, make sure that it hasn't already been disproven by the other posts made.

 

Our government is forcing the citizens of this country to buy a third party product. The Democratic party is the party of the establishment and big money... they are the 1%.

 

I'm not really happy with the Dems, believe it or not. I'll choose them over Republicans, who go all out with big money. Democrats are sneakier with their riders...

The "first party product" here would be something like Medicaid/Medicare, something Conservatives have fought tooth and nail not to expand or model off of.

Unless you think people should choose to walk around uninsured, then hope avoiding to beg emergency rooms not to dump them on the streets like trash when they can't pony up the upfront costs for being sick or injured.

 

Well Bernie has shown how the Dems can attract millions and millions of new voters. This is not just a theory. He has done it. You have to provide these voters with the types of benefits that other advanced countries provide for their citizens. Sorry, but talk about how it would be the end of the world if we get another Scalia or two won't get them out as has also been shown.

The young students and some of their elders have snapped to this immediately, but the flow of new voters will even bigger once the older crowd start having more hope than the Hillary wing of the Dem party wants them to to have. If Americans actually feel that elections will lead them to national health care, $15/hr minimum wage, larger social security benefits, paid parental leave etc. Watch out conservatives and corporate Dems.

Hillary and other status quo Dems sort of want these potential new voters sort of not. These new voters will present a problem for the status quo politicians both Repubs and Dems who are basically fairly content with being reelected over and over backed by the same small number of large corporations and contributors.

 

You keep saying this like it's your silver bullet of an argument. I know the law is forcing citizens to buy a third party product. I don't have a problem with it.

 

Can the status quo Democrats supporting Hillary and the DLC please explain if these folks are so realty based and smart why the Clinton Dems have lost so badly in the last thirty years except for a couple of triangulating presidents.
***********
fact, aside from re-electing President Obama in 2012, Democrats have been losing badly across the nation for six consecutive years. There are only 18 Democratic governors currently in office, the fewest in over a century. Only 43 percent of all state legislators across the United States are Democrats while 56 percent are Republicans — a trend of waning Democratic power at the state level continuing unabated since 2012. If anything, Democrats should be welcoming Sanders’ supporters and their ideas into the party if they’re interested in having any hope for future elections.

Current Democratic Party leaders are fresh out of ideas


Even if Hillary Clinton, who is running as a “progressive who likes to get things done” is elected, how does she plan to get things done with Republican majorities in the House and Senate? And if the Democratic Party’s leader in the House is already scheming against a Democratic president, how does Clinton plan to even rally her own party to pass meaningful legislation?

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has brought new blood and new ideas to the Democratic Party, and manages to fill arenas full of supporters and break voter turnout records in many of the states he’s won. Sanders is the first Democrat to bring New Deal policies back to the Democratic Party since the Clinton-led corporate takeover of the Democratic Party in the nineties.

These policies — like tuition-free public universities, universal healthcare as a human right, and a massive investment in millions of new public sector jobs — motivate young people and independent voters to register as Democrats and vote for Sanders. If Democrats want to keep the White House in November, they should push Hillary Clinton to adopt as many as possible.


http://usuncut.com/politics/democrats-dnc-bullying-sanders/

 

Realty based? Glynch, why are you bringing up whitewater?

 

Glynch, in '08 both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton brought "millions of new voters" to rallies and to the voting booth. To the astonishment of many, Democrats took both the House and the Senate, with a good majority in the Senate after picking up 8 seats, and took command of the House with 257 seats to the GOP's 178, a loss for the GOP of 21 seats. It was a slaughter of the Republican Party by the Democratic Party, a far better result than what was generally assumed prior to the election. An astonishing result if one returns to the beginning of the primary season for that election cycle. You talk as if what Senator Sanders is doing is some "revolutionary" event with regard to younger voters. Well, check this out from 2008:

About 131 million people reported voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, an increase of 5 million from 2004, according to a new table package released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The increase included about 2 million more black voters, 2 million more Hispanic voters and about 600,000 more Asian voters, while the number of non-Hispanic white voters remained statistically unchanged.
............

Additionally, voters 18 to 24 were the only age group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout, reaching 49 percent in 2008 compared with 47 percent in 2004. Blacks had the highest turnout rate among 18- to 24-year-old voters -- 55 percent, an 8 percent increase from 2004. The increased turnout among certain demographic groups was offset by stagnant or decreased turnout among other groups, causing overall 2008 voter turnout to remain statistically unchanged -- at 64 percent -- from 2004.

"The 2008 presidential election saw a significant increase in voter turnout among young people, blacks and Hispanics," said Thom File, a voting analyst with the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. "But as turnout among some other demographic groups either decreased or remained unchanged, the overall 2008 voter turnout rate was not statistically different from 2004."

www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/voting/cb09-110.html

There's a lot of information available from the old US Census following that election. One nugget is that female voted in significantly higher numbers than male voters.

By sex, women had a higher voting rate (66 percent) than males (62 percent). Neither was statistically different from 2004.

The overall voting age (18 and older) citizen population in the United States in 2008 was 206 million compared with 197 million in 2004. Of that total, 146 million, or 71 percent, reported being registered to vote. That's slightly lower than the 72 percent who reported being registered to vote in the 2004 presidential election, but does represent an increase of approximately 4 million registered voters. The percentage of those registered to vote that actually did so was slightly higher in the 2008 election (90 percent) than in 2004 (89 percent).

While that's nothing new (women tend to have more sense than we do, in my humble opinion - more of them vote, for example), it doesn't hurt Hillary Clinton's prospects in the general.

My main point, glynch, is that we saw a big bump in voter participation by young voters and by minorities in '08. I don't see that changing in '16, whether Senator Sanders actively campaigns for Hillary or not. Younger voters tend to be more interested in presidential elections, with increased turnout, regardless of who's running. With someone giving them a new, exciting reason to be involved in the political process in '08, Obama making a strong push in the primaries and potentially being the first Black candidate of a major party, and Hillary Clinton making an equally strong run as potentially the first woman to be elected President, there was a definite impact on voter turnout. Being the first woman nominee of a major party to run for the highest office is a huge deal. In my opinion, women will turn out in big numbers for her, as will minorities. Younger voters will also turn out in large numbers for her. Having Senator Sanders campaigning for her would be a big help, and as I said quite a while back and again here, I expect him to campaign for her, unless he decides to take his ball and go home. I just don't see him doing that. I also think that far more of his supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton than folks like you expect. After all, the odds are overwhelming that the Republican candidate will be Donald Trump or, increasingly unlikely, Ted Cruz. Against either one, I like her chances. I like her chances a hell of a lot.

I just wish that younger voters had more of a political attention span. It would be nice if they voted in off-year elections as well. If they did, the political map in the United States would be far more progressive. In my humble opinion.

 

Such a weird post. In the first paragraph, you talk about Dems losing so badly for 30 (!!) years. And then your "evidence" of all that is that Dems have been losing for "six consecutive years" and "unabated since 2012". What about the rest of the 30 years? If the DLC strategy was so bad for so long, why is it that Dems in 2008 had a bigger House and Senate majority than the GOP does today?

The reason Dems lose power so easily is that every time they get power, they enact big, progressive policy things - gun control and tax hikes (1994), health care and financial reform (2009). And then they lose power as a result. The GOP does nothing when they get into office, so they don't piss anyone off too much and manage to hold onto their majorities longer. So you go through cycles of Dems getting power, making big changes, being kicked out, people getting tired of crappy GOP leadership, and repeating.

If Dems decided not to make major changes, they could hold power longer. If the GOP actually enacted the policies they run on, they'd be booted out of power much quicker. It's a different philosophy for each party. Dems want power to accomplish things. GOP wants power for the sake of having power (and stopping the Dems from doing things).

 

I always vote for the most neo-liberal candidate

Hillary> Trump and Sanders

 

To paraphrase Swift, when a true leader appears in the world, you may know her by this sign, that the conservative dunces are all in confederacy against her.

 

Not really on the Dem Party as being purely the Party of the Establishment and big money. The corporate wing of the Dem Party dominated has taken control of the party, but as we can see from the Bernie challenge it is being contested. Same with Trump show although many of his followers are confused as to who is screwing them, the .1% Trump types or ordinary African Americans and Latinos.

I agree there is something obnoxious about the government forcing folks to buy products from a private for profit company. It leads so easily to graft and the revolving door. Forcing citizens to buy the products of big pharma with its lobbyists and campaign bundlers is not right.

 

Well let me reply to both Major and Deckard in one post. I had a more detailed response to Deckard, a more point by point response which got lost with a bad keystroke.

My essential point is that taking a longer term horizon the Dems had control of the US House from the 1930's through the 1990's when Bill Clinton was president. They now have only 7 governorships which I don't think was true in much of the 1930's through the 1990's. For the most part the Dems had control of the US Senate also. I really don't this was addressed by Deckard with his long paragraphs about voter turnout.

I and many other progressives blame this on the Dem Party abandoning the non college educated poor and working class who now vote in a slight majority for the GOP based mainly on social issues, which is what for the most part is now the primary liberalism of the Dem Party. (During the 2008 Presidential election, 51% of white voters who earned less than $50,000
a year voted for John McCain. The Pew Research Center reported that, during the 2012 election, the GOP held a 54 percent to 37 per cent advantage over Democrats among whites without a college degree)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/why-does-the-white-lower-_b_8442162.html

Major wants to nitpick about the last 6 years. He has what I think is the bizarre theory that the Dems have been losing because they are so bold in seeking major change.

Deckard points out an exception to the 30 plus year trend that Obama brought in lots of younger and black and minority and young voters and took back the Congress which was promptly lost two years later.. Deckard then blames these voters for not turning out in the midterms. Hopefully unlike Major Deckard does not blame this on Obama being so bold.

Deckard points out that all Bernie has done so far is bring out large numbers of voters like Obama did. This is true and it remains to be seen what Bernie does with his Political Revolution and what is obviously a fight to take back the Dems as a people's party and not just for say the top 10% at most.

Deckard thinks that Hillary with Bernie's help can increase voter turnout again like Obama did. Bernie has said from before he started he will not be a spoiler so he will help. Hillary is already saying she will fight Bernie on major concessions in her platform and policies. The more Hillary talks like this the more she hurts the chances of Bernie being able to help her. To be fair to Hillary her big money funders and her personal identification with the upper class make it hard to move to much.

Deckard and I both agree that Hillary will beat Trump who with his misogynism, catering to racists is the worst GOP candidate in 50 years or so. The horrible Trump will help Democratic turnout.

WRT to turnout Hillary has the tough act not only of being the very embodiment of the status quo for 25 years, but succeeding the hip young black guy. Many Americans thought their vote for Obama was for some major change, not just a different colored person in the Whitehouse, but Obama turned out to be a cautious status quo type . Little has been done to bring back the lower 90% from the great recession of 2008. Many of this lower 90% are mad much to the consternation of the contented leaders of both parties.

 

From the post above I keep on hearing two conflicting assertions from Sanders supporters.
1. That Sanders has brought in millions of new voters.
2. That this election the primaries have had far fewer voters than in 2008.

The argument of both of these assertions is that Sanders is actually a more popular candidate while Hillary Clinton is a flawed candidate. The problem though is that if the Sanders argument is that he brings in more voters and as such is a better choice for the Democrats how then are there fewer votes this year than the last time the Clinton ran?

The other problem is if the argument is that Sanders brings in more votes and so is a better candidate how is it then that Hillary Clinton actually has 3 million more actual votes than Sanders?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Granted Sanders has brought in many first time voters that said if he is such a revolutionary candidate he is both trailing substantially to Clinton in actual votes while also failing to attract a larger vote turnout than the last time the Democrats had a contested primary.

If we go by this argument that we should judge a candidate by how many voters they are bringing in then clearly Clinton is the superior candidate numerically.