Bernie's massive miscalculations

[Prism]

And let me say upfront, I am guilty of these two massive miscalculations myself. I misread everything. So did the media. So did the Clinton campaign.

Miscalculation #1 - Bernie's candidacy is a long shot.

I thought this. The Establishment thought this. The media thought this. They basically ignored the man for eight months. And while I still think his nomination is improbable, I no longer believe it unthinkable. He has risen as Hillary self-destructed, much like 2008. Everyone and their step-sister is scrambling to prop her up from herself. If he can make a significant dent in the early states, he has a chance. I'm cynical, and I don't put anything past the absolute ratfucking we've witnessed from our own party in the last month or so. They're scared. They're ramping up. If Sanders takes Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, be prepared. The Party will come down with the fury of hell. But the full-fledged crazy coming out is a sign that the Party now sees him as a viable threat.

Miscalculation #2 - Bernie's candidacy would pull Hillary to the left.

I thought this also. He would engage enough where Clinton would feel the need to sound vaguely progressive when she is traditionally anything but. And we got a lot of early hints of this when she disavowed the TPP and muttered about Keystone. (Oh, don't get me wrong, I fully believe a President Clinton would sign TPP without blinking while declaring, "Oh, no, we totally fixed it. Promise!&quot

And yet the total opposite has happened. Clinton and the party have gone full-fledged Republican in their opposition. As soon as Sanders posed even a vague threat from the Left, rather than move left, Clinton, her surrogates, her campaign, and too many of her supporters all decided jagging wildly to the Right was the best path forward.

I did not see this coming. At all. I don't think many people did. The general belief, from my perception, was that many of us thought Clinton would just pretend to be much more liberal than she is. But newp. She went whole hog conservative.

Tax cuts are all that matters. The Democratic belief, the plank belief, the foundational belief, that tax increases are fine if they are in service to strengthening the social safety net? Out the window. "Taxes!" is now a battle cry to instill fear in the masses. Just as a Republican would do.

Single payer is terrible. Forget that Sanders would never end Obamacare unless he had something better in the offing. Forget that Democrats have been fighting for single payer for 80 years. It now deserves denigration for even thinking about it. And if you can throw your daughter out there to sell this in the most hilariously awful manner possible, all the better.

Iran is the enemy. Even though President Obama bent over fucking backwards and wielded every diplomatic tool imaginable to find peace with the Republicans' current target of war boner salivation, Hillary is having none of it. She's a full on, neo-con hawk. And that's ok! It's other people's kids who will die. No big whoop.

Wall Street's money is corrupting our political process? Laugh disdainfully when asked. Don't address it. Don't do anything about it. Just dismiss the peons who point out, "Uhm, maybe taking millions from the banks that fucked us isn't awesome?" Stupid idiot simpletons. Don't they know Wall Street money is awesome, this time? Just like this last hit of heroin will be amazing. But just this last hit. After that, no more. I swear!

We love LGBT people! Well, now. Not before. They just wouldn't shut the fuck up before. But now? Awesome! Totally supported them the entire time. BFFs practically (personal note: you're terrible people, and I remember each and every one of your insincere asses on this message board).

Racial policies. Last time, she was all about white people. This time, she's totally for whatever accent that her campaign manager decided she needed to adopt this week. And btw, her opponent, whoever he is, is totally racist. For reasons. Private prisons, war on drugs, cutting welfare to the bone because they're all lazy shits. Totally fine. But, she totally cares and shit. Also, she busted out a Spanish-English dictionary and figured out there's a word for grandparent. How do you not feel the care?

Yeah.

I miscalculated. I did not think we, as Democrats, would be spending all this time being Republicans.

Whoops.

[Bonobo]

1. As usual, a great post from Prism!

You have a knack for seeing things clearly.

Kicked and recced.

[RobertEarl]

28. +1000

Most righteous.

Do ya get the feeling the PTB of the party are planning a way to smack us down? Again.

[draa]

3. BAM!!! Tell us how you really feel.

Excellent takedown Prism.

[roguevalley]

25. Great post, Prism. I do however have a calmness about Bernie

winning that I can't explain. It has nothing to do with wishful thinking or a need to want it. It is just a rock solid unshakable conviction that he will. Usually, I am at the brink of death's door during primary season I want change so much. This time, nothing but a still calm assurance that this is going to happen.

[draa]

27. I'm surprisingly calm myself.

I think it has more to do with Clinton's incompetence coupled with her greed. Her attacks on Bernie added with the incredibly stupid decision to take money from crooks just makes her look corrupt and on the take. It's not a good optic for mad voters.

Her inability to read a pissed off electorate will be her downfall. People are mad. Not just a little mad but torches and pitchforks mad and Bernie is exploiting that anger brilliantly. He's pushed her into positions that are not popular with most people and without a clear message she just won't win the nomination. I don't believe "more of the same" will cut it this election.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

59. Like I have said before.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

[Divernan]

64. It's not "making her look corrupt and on the take"

it is revealing her as corrupt and on the take.

Going from whining about being dead broke when they left the White House to a personal wealth of some $70 million, more than documents that revelation.

I just read today that even CHELSEA is charging $2700 to have one's picture taken with her.

The level of chutzpah is simultaneously stunning and clueless.

[draa]

66. Hey, you get no argument from me

but many people refuse to believe our government and our party is corrupt. Even some Bernie supporters still doubt it, though after what we've witnessed I don't know why.

I will say though, when my 70yo mom says "she seems corrupt," Clinton isn't hiding it very well.

Either the election is rigged and no matter what she does she'll win. Or she the dumbest motherfucker I've ever seen in politics. The question is, which one is it?

[840high]

92. .^that

[cui bono]

68. I have a giddy excitement about Bernie winning.

I'm working on 3 people I work with. They are coming around.

.

[Cal33]

76. Good for you, and for the Democratic Party. You're doing more than your share!

[beam me up scottie]

4. Brilliant.

Off to the greatest.

[Kalidurga]

5. Guilty of the second one.

I don't really believe it's a long shot. Well, I did for a couple of weeks in June. I went to his first rally in Minnesota and I thought, I was wrong he isn't a long shot he's gonna win.

[Skwmom]

6. Do you really think big money backers put all their eggs in one basket? n/t

[Hiraeth]

72. Eaxctly, what is it you are implying with that remark? Care to clarify yourself.

[DhhD]

81. Apparently some lady sold them a basket but can't sell it to the American people. She has no

idea of what it is to work for minimum wage. She even thinks that $10/hour part time work will get an intelligent student through college in 5 years.

Big money is willing to cover for their mistake by making a second one, running a second 1%er as an independent. That would be the IOP-Independent Oligarch Party for Bloomberg.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Prism, I believe you nailed it.

[Recursion]

8. Serious question: why did you think #2?

I usually assume that when somebody loses support on the left they will move solidify their right; my assumption once Sanders announced and showed traction was that Clinton had to make up whatever she was losing on the left by appealing to the Webb, etc. voters.

[Prism]

10. It's tangled with #1

I think, when Sanders wasn't perceived as a serious threat, Clinton could use the opportunity to say, "No, no, I'm liberal, too." Just to shore up the base, give out the usual reassurances, and hit up some general liberal talking points. Just for the sake of a primary she figured would be a breeze. She's spent the last eight years glad-handing the entire party. She figured she had it all locked up.

Once Sanders became both a threat and a bona fide advocate for liberal policy, Clinton couldn't get away or differentiate with empty talk. There's no point in saying, "I agree," with a candidate who is eating into you. She had to explain why she wasn't just better, but different. And the only difference she could manage was on her right, where she's more comfortable.

Don't get me wrong, I think Sanders has done the opposite of what I figured he would. Rather than making her spout dishonesty as I assumed, he's forced her into being vaguely honest.

I don't like honest Hillary Clinton. Not even a little bit.

[Recursion]

11. Ah, that makes sense.

Great points, btw

[Armstead]

46. Speaking of irony read my post below

Without reading your response, I said the opposite. (Even though I agree with your OP 100 percent)

[Samantha]

84. You may be right but when people started saying Sanders would get a chunk of Republicans

voting for him, I think from the obvious moves she had been making as a progressive, she suddenly turned to pivot towards issues likely to attract Republicans thinking of making a move to Sanders. It was about that time when a prominent Republican (whose name I cannot remember) when asked which Republican candidate he would support responded (words to the effect): "None of them. They are all crazy."

That was the first time in a very long time that I have agreed with a Republican.

Sam

[Armstead]

45. How about actually having beliefs?

How about campaigning on what she actually believes in and would actually try to do?

Whatever that might be, it be a lot easier for as lot of people to at least respect her honesty, even if they disagree. Her shifting political opportunism is the reason so many do not trust anything she ever says.

[Juicy_Bellows]

9. Spot on. Nt.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

65. Sounds like a theater directive.

Now, move Stage Left. Spot on. Watch Hillarians freak out. Spot off.
I do agree, tho.

[nikto]

12. Yes

[flor-de-jasmim]

13. Yep, nailed it! Eom

[JonLeibowitz]

14. Brilliantly done, Prism. Excellent OP. K&R. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. They were faking being on the left to begin with so you're seeing them being themselves.

[lastone]

16. Very well said

[joshcryer]

17. TPP was the only thing I got wrong about Clinton.

I assumed, wrongly, she'd embrace it as part of her fulfilling Obama's legacy approach (which, unlike Gore, I think was a good move, embrace the former Democratic President, don't shy away). I suppose she calculated that since it had already passed (she did not come out against it until it was done) that it'd be a weak gimmie. She's hardly spoken out "against" it in her rhetoric since.

The Wall Street rhetoric is not very controversial to me, the banks really are too risky at the moment, and Warren even argued that they're undervalued because of that. If you break them up they become more valuable, so Clinton's threats to push a fee and break them up (yes, Clinton came out for breaking them up on her Colbert interview) is not controversial and Wall Street likely backs some kind of restructuring so that they're more robust. Equal pay, etc, is a given, it's been part of the platform forever.

[Prism]

18. I really think TPP was an edit in progress

I was a little surprised she came out against it, but then I realized it could easily be no lose.

Come out and say, "I hate this as is." Liberal base thinks she hates it as much as they do.

Watch a bit of minor haggling, some arguing, a little political scuffling, and then observe the inevitable Congressional approval.

Declare, "Nah, we fixed it. It's fine now." Sign away.

She's not tied down by objecting to it as is. She benefits. She just needs even the tiniest bit of rearranging to declare it just fine. Just for the show of it.

I believe a President Clinton will sign it without too much trouble.

The bank stuff you've mentioned is a little beyond my knowledge. I'd have to read more about what you've said to agree or disagree. But it's given me avenues of query to be sure. So, thanks for that.

[Bernblu]

21. She backed away from TPP for the time being to give the labor union bigs cover

to endorse her. It's just kabuki. Even the union leaders know that

[joshcryer]

22. Here's where Warren says the banks are undervalued:

1:57 here: http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?id=84abcfc3-9dd8-49ec-b5c0-2f75c618f075

But, yeah, TPP is a gimmie, she could've come out against it before it passed or before it had the votes (can't recall which but it was a foregone conclusion at the time she came out against it), at least that would've been credible. In a way, if she gets the nod and so does Trump, the "being against it thing" would be beneficial, since Trump is anti-TPP. Won't stop him from hitting her on NAFTA though.

Oh, and, yeah I predicted Keystone XL would be shot down (and Clinton coming out against it was not surprising at all to me, we've built 10x Keystone XL's since it broke ground, it was more of a distraction than anything; had Obama signed off on it another pipeline would've been the focus, so it was the big baddie).

[Prism]

24. But it cuts to the core of my point

She says what she can easily get away with saying to satisfy liberals based on political exigencies , when she has no control or say in the outcome. But when the chips are down, and her judgement matters, well, we haven't a ton to go on. What we do is not assuring.

Thanks for the link. I'll definitely read up on that. I never saw Warren's comments on bank valuation before.

[joshcryer]

26. I agree about Clinton.

I think she says whatever she thinks she can. I'm not one to cling to insults like "weathervane" because I think a lot of politicians do flip on issues and shift as time goes on in order to appeal to their constituents, though. As far as I'm concerned you have to take them at their word, and see what happens. What a lot of people don't like about my admiration for Obama is that I think he's been damn freakishly consistent throughout his administration. A lot of the crappy stuff that us liberals hated, such as putting Social Security on the table, was a campaign promise.

That's the thing about Hillary Clinton, I think she'd just continue the mediocre policies where the left gets a win only rarely, and she'd appoint weak administrators that do nothing controversial, her judge picks would be middle of the road, etc. Really 8 years of meh. Sanders would appoint more liberal people, definitely pick more liberal judges, and he'd be on top of the crisis that we're going to be facing with regards to automation and he'd be leaving office in 8 years with a basic income on the table.

And yeah, I read Warren's book and then started watching her committee hearings, a lot of people just watch the sound bytes posted to YouTube... she's actually half a high spirited populist, half a realist (which a lot of her fans don't know). Her argument about bank valuation and breaking them up making them more valuable (implied) is very clever from a political point of view.

But I digress, I'm all over the place here. It's a good video. Skip back to 1:52 to Warren calling for agencies to put people on trial (unfortunately that was bluster in my estimation, since only the SEC on the panel can do that, and they're often shot down by Bush's crony judges).

[Doctor_J]

86. The TPP opposition was a lie

She supported it forty times before opposing it "in its current form". If she wins the nomination she will be for it again.

[SamKnause]

19. You pulled a Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Drop the mic.

[artislife]

20. Terrific OP! nt

[bbgrunt]

23. spot on lucid analysis. big k and r

[Tortmaster]

29. If Senator Sanders loses, you can ...

... chalk it up to his having run away from a very popular Democratic President. That will be his biggest miscalculation.

[jtuck004]

30. having run away< No, President Sanders is just going on, can't wait for her to play catch up. n/t

[Tortmaster]

31. Thanks! Now my post is ...

... perfect!

[Betty Karlson]

32. Miscalculation # 3: we expected a semblance of impartiality from the DNC.

And then Debbie showed us what she had got: BIAS to the n-th degree.

[Paper Roses]

33. Well said, Prism. n/t

[CharlotteVale]

34. K&R

[GeorgeGist]

35. I feel your pain.

[LWolf]

36. Full-fledged Republican.

The "faux liberal" camouflage is off and they've "come out" of their neo-liberal closet for everyone to see.

This has to be a good thing.

Even better? When their full frontal attacks don't work.

Here's to electing a real leader for the party and the nation.

[Jefferson23]

37. When Clinton states you're not being realistic, she is telling you the lobbyists have

more power than she does.

She does not explain why she can't run a campaign without their money but Sanders can.


Why would anyone who does not directly benefit from the influence of lobbyists
vote for Clinton? It is perfectly legal for her to take the money but that is the
problem we must confront.

[QC]

38. K&R!

[Odin2005]

39. I am sick of all the Hillary supporters who sound like REPUBLICANS.

[Lorien]

48. They don't just sound like them

they are full blown neocons how have cynically stamped a (D) behind their name. They're like a GMO chemical laden processed food item labeled "Natural"; no regulatory agency (honest journalism) is calling them out on their bullshit.

[VulgarPoet]

40. "I did not think we, as Democrats, would be spending all this time being Republicans." *mic drop*

k/r, keep being a badass.

[Punkingal]

41. Outstanding OP!

[QC]

42. Kick again!

[beam me up scottie]

43. Kick!

[DemocraticWing]

44. They think Wall Street is good, and taxes and healthcare are bad.

Sound like Republican philosophy to me.

Of course 5 years ago these people were quite literally demanding silence from LGBTQ people, telling us to stop demanding rights because it might cost them their chance to win elections. It's amazing how they go from cynically saying bad things about LGBTQ people to turning around and claiming full support in such a short time. At least when Bernie took his position to not push beyond Civil Unions for a time, he just came right out and said he didn't think it could get done. Hillary? She and her supporters gave us some completely awful shit about how marriage was a bond for straight people, and how gay people should demand less and be grateful for the scraps we get.

I'm about to throw up again.

[Lorien]

47. Excellent analysis

I was really *hoping* that Bernie would pull her towards the Left. Or at least to the center. I'm appalled at how far right the party has lurched. We didn't leave the party, it's left us to fill the void created by Republicans as they wade knee deep into Fascist Authoritarianism. Yesterday a Hillary supporter was singing the glories of Monsanto to me, and telling me how Walmart selflessly serves underprivileged communities, and how fracking makes America secure and energy independent, how unrealistic and bad for the economy single payer would be, and that Bernie has been cribbing from Hillary and has no new ideas. They sounded like a full blown neocon from 2004, and were completely unaware of it. Reagan era Republicans aren't the only ones feeling like their party has gone off the rails!

[Kip Humphrey]

52. adding to an excellent OP, ^THIS^

[Lorien]

90. Thanks Kip!

[retrowire]

49. Massive KnR. Well put!

DINO's GTFO

[closeupready]

50. She will likely lose in the general. But let's say she wins - she will have zero coattails,

and I predict Democrats as a share of Congress will decline precipitously. Voter turnout will be record low.

[cui bono]

71. She won't be in the general to lose it though. n/t

[virtualobserver]

51. Astonishing post.

[randys1]

53. Most have made up their minds, those that will vote in primaries. All criticism

from the Dems of Dems at this point only serves to weaken our candidates.

[Orsino]

54. I don't think these are necessarily miscalculations. Nor were they Bernie's.

Sanders really was a long shot, and may still be. He needed to run a terrific campaign to overcome Clinton's household-name recognition and enormous bankroll. I think he has done amazingly well so far, but there are miles to go yet.

As to your second point, it's Sanders who has shifted Clinton's rhetoric leftward. We don't know yet what sort of liberal concessions Sanders supporters might extract from a Clinton Administration.

[Yupy]

55. Methods of persuasion used by the media to make us believe something that is not. Bernie 2016!

[m-lekktor]

56. Great read. Thanks for cogently listing all the reasons why I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton!nt

[Ivan Kaputski]

57. I miscalculated how excellent this OP is.

[geardaddy]

58. K and R!

[99Forever]

60. Awesome rant.

[WillyT]

61. Most Excellent Post !!! - K & R !!!

[dorkzilla]

62. Excellent - i just added it to my twitter feed

Great, well-thought-out post, thank you!

[Enthusiast]

63. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations! I was 199!

[azmom]

67. Kick

[emsimon33]

69. Well articulated! Great read!

Thank you.

But have we miscalculated in believing that our votes would be counted? Without verifiable voting, elections can be stolen.

[Unknown Beatle]

70. A Clinton presidency would do great harm to this country and

the 1% will be doing great. The rest of us should be prepared for more wars and less of everything else, e.g., social safety nets.

HRC gets a big thrill from people dying, laughing even. I don't care if the person getting killed is a dictator, death should never be funny.

[chervilant]

75. I'm glad I'm not the only one posting

my disgust about her LAUGHING about killing bin Laden. I agree that death should never be funny.

Also, I have noticed a "trending" OP in "that" group, asking members (ONLY, since so many of us have been banned...) to "k & r" if they think "she" will win. There are only 36 recs and a handful of responses.

Contrast this to ANY posts about Bernie, which--like this one--rack up close to 300 recs and significantly more responses than you'll see on a Hi11ary OP. I have to suspect that this is a reflection of his support throughout the nation!

Feeling the BERN!!!

[hedda_foil]

79. Do you have many of the swarm on ignore?

I have quite a few so I don't know how many of them are active in this right wing codswallop. I'm asking this of anyone who has a handle on them

[chervilant]

87. I have almost all of them

on my IL. Makes my visits here much more pleasant.

[Utopian Leftist]

73. "the Republicans' current target of war boner salivation"

LOL!

Very clever turn of phrase. To America's chagrin, that it's probably literally true, too.

[PatrickforO]

74. Your post blew me away! Awesome!

And you know what???

Bernie is gonna WIN this thing. And when he does, we all are gonna be behind him to back his play and put massive social pressure on these turds in Congress to make the change we want.

Because for once, just ONCE, we need to use OUR tax dollars that WE pay in to this government, which is supposed to be OF, BY and FOR the people (that would be US), for things that actually make our lives better instead of some bullshit forever war.

The rats are gonna be out trying to fuck Bernie big time! But they aren't gonna win...not THIS time.

[Babel_17]

77. Miscalculation #2 - Bernie's candidacy would pull Hillary to the left.

It could have, but as it turns out I don't think such a move looked like it could generate the cash and support to justify what it would cost. And then there's electability, with its implied need to appeal to Independents and voters from either party who are always iffy. Things get squishy when you have to look at the whole picture, and the electoral numbers any winner must generate.

The Sanders campaign looking so exciting and appealing is hurting the campaigns held up to it in comparison. This wasn't allowed for, and anyone running against Senator Sanders will have to adjust their campaign to make its appeals more authentic. Just hammering the drum won't work.

[immoderate]

85. Good point.

If Hillary were pulled to the left, she would find herself over the abyss financially, Wile E. Coyote style.

--imm

[Iwillnevergiveup]

78. 293 recs

What else would we do with such an excellent post?

[SoapBox]

80. K & R!

[Paka]

82. K&R

[amborin]

83. K&R

[morningfog]

88. Excellent post.

[Autumn]

89. May I just say that this OP is without a doubt ,

FUCKING AWESOME!!!!! OMG Whoops

[840high]

91. Exscellent post.