2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI wish Hillary was trustworthy. I wish Hillary was a progressive.
Unfortunately, she's neither, and it's hurting the Democratic Party big time.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,585 posts)laserhaas
(7,805 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)We do seem to be trading off after two terms lately.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)RKP5637
(67,104 posts)gets the presidency, she'll be like a 60's radical left. I am so afraid the masses of this country well might vote in Trump. The US is known for often being totally stupid in how many vote.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Don't kid yourself.
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)She voted with Sanders on 93% of their common votes in the Senate.
She's more of a Hawk, obviously, but she's not Right-Wing. Fucking Ted Cruz is Right-Wing. She's supported GUN CONTROL, for Christ's sake.
Be realistic.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)He's a scary individual.
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)There is hope for DU.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)
Baobab
(4,667 posts)She is not "with us". Quite the opposite.
SCantiGOP
(13,869 posts)If Clinton is a right-winger, and she and Sanders voted together 93% of the time, does that make Sanders 93% right wing?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)the hyperbolic naivete regarding this election stuns me daily.
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)Or Inequality will continue to grow (which is what I expect will happen no matter who is elected)?
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Clinton is the wife of the man who is credited globally with starting the WTO.
Electing her is basically endorsing the WTO and its programme.
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)and you responded with a non-sequitur.
I'll check with my wife and see if she concurs that Women are responsible for their Husband's actions. I suspect she might not.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)to the developing world. With their jobs!
As the very rich have been getting rich for 20 years while stringing the developing countries along on empty promises of 'services liberalisation'.
See the problem? the developing countries, just like us, have been conned by the same tricksters.
That is why they want Hillary to win SO much.
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)and 10,000x on DU. Its been going on for decades now, so I think I've already seen the results.
Are you contending that Clinton leads in the Democratic Primary due to a conspiracy by International Trade "Tricksters"? 
Baobab
(4,667 posts)- Would they spend all that money over more than 15 years, hold at least a half dozen international Ministerial events - etc, for nothing?
No.
Would hundreds of stories have been written in the news in other countries for nothing, no.
The US media hides these deals for some reason but those reasons are not holding back the media in other countries, you just need to learn about the negotiations from them.
Don't say I didn't warn you, inform yourself.
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)But hey, what else would you expect from "Right-Wing" Hillary... 
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Hillary ran to the right of Obama on guns and catered the NRA vote. Do you forget the whole Annie Oakley thing?
Hillary recently held a fundraiser which was co-hosted by an NRA lobbyist.
This is why people distrust Hillary.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)and as far as that 93% thing, it's that 7% which makes the world of difference and some of those are huge liberal issues.
Here, check out the senate votes which divide Bernie and Hillary from when they both served. You might be rather shocked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html
As far as gun control goes, she also ran to the right of Obama and chased the NRA vote. Hell, she just recently held a fundraiser which included NRA lobbyists. https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser/
Is it any wonder why people don't trust Hillary?
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)Trump/Not Trump is how I'm choosing. We're about to put a Used Car Salesman in charge with this internecine sniping.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)Ivanka and Chelsea are best friends, literally.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)But not materially different.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)frequently compared to slavery.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Neither does vacationing with Kissinger.
Try to think of it this way: If Republicans really believed America was a center-right country, they'd want everyone to vote.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)She's also untrustworthy.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Your wishing it otherwise doesn't change the facts.
She supports Dodd/Frank, the emasculated version of Glass-Steagall.
She supports health coverage for all, not health care for all.
She supports a minimum wage that is $3.00 / hour below a living wage.
She supports the death penalty.
She supports military adventures whenever she gets the chance.
She's untrustworthy.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Sanders: Famously filibustered the 2010 extension of Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans.
His fellow Americans: In a February poll, 68 percent of likely voters said wealthy households pay too little in federal taxes.
...
Sanders: The big banks "are too powerful to be reformed," Sanders says on his website. "They must be broken up."
His fellow Americans: A recent poll by the Progressive Change Institute found that 58 percent of likely voters support "breaking up big banks like Citigroup."
...
Sanders: Supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour "over the next few years."
His fellow Americans: Sixty-three percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Besides, the left being more popular doesn't shift the center. The center is the ground between the left and the right. Bernie is out on the left. That's fine. But it doesn't mean anyone to his right is right of center. There is room to be left of center and still right of Bernie.
Besides,
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html
Statistics can prove anything you want them to.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)And she's not trustworthy.
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)are you going to loan her your bike or something?
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)That bothers me most. You just can't believe she would actually be the slightest bit progressive.she can say some progressive things but once in office I can't believe anything would actually be implemented.
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)nothing any democratic president wants will be implemented. "trust" is moot.
see: the current situation.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)one of the reasons I've always liked him.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)That's her plan, I am sure.
She's laughing at us.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)And worked for it behind the scenes.
While Bernie wants wages elsewhere to rise.
That is a key difference to the 1%.
As you can imagine. Under Bernie's approach CEO pay and total concentration of wealth would slow somewhat. Under Hillary it would skyrocket.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Find me a statement from this cycle, where she's running for President, to 'prove' what you just allege. I know you can't. You're projecting your own hatred on her.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)This chart is BS though - why would a single person, or even a couple, ever need to rent a 2 BR?
Imo, a baseline for fair housing prices should be "a single BR apartment should cost no more than 30% of the income of a minimum wage worker". And we can work from there.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)If that's OK with you.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)whether via child support or by subsidies or other programs.
In any case, the principle of '30% of the income of a minimum wage worker" as a starting point is not good enough for you? That would be a rent of somewhere in the neighborhood of 500-600 dollars a month for a person making 12 dollars an hour.
As much as I'd like to actually get wages to track with economic growth (because that is stolen wealth), it's just not going to happen with any degree of timeliness no matter how much we want it to happen.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)This "globalism" goes back to her college days. Its an asserted goal of many of the advocates for the WTO, however, the role of the WTO has been shown to be more the continuation of extreme concentration of wealth -
They are doing this through liberalisation of the movement of natural persons to provide services within multinational corporations.
Like trade in goods, labor mobility can create losers as
well as winners. In the overall balance, gains usually
exceed losses by a wide margin, but political sensitivities
focus on those who lose. In simple theoretical terms,
migration can be modeled as an increase of supply in the
labor markets of developed countries and a decrease of
supply in developing countries. Here, we use that frame-
work to examine the effects of those supply changes on
the incomes of capitalists and workers, in both the send-
ing and the host countries, and on the incomes of the
migrants themselves.
Effect in developed countries. Given the restrictions on
labor mobility, the equilibrium in the labor market is at
point A in figure 13.2. After liberalization, the equilibrium
moves to point B, reflecting an increase in the number of
hours worked and a decrease in the wage per hour. The loss
for native workers is shown by area ACDE. The gain for
capitalists is shown by area EABD, with most of this gain
coming from the loss for native workers. Since the gain for
capitalists is larger than the loss for native workers, the lib-
eralization of mode 4 leads to an overall gain, shown by
area ABC.
Effect on developing countries. The effect of the liberal-
ization of mode 4 on developing countries is the exact
opposite to that for developed countries. With restrictions
on mode 4, the equilibrium in the labor market is at point
B in figure 13.3. After liberalization, the equilibrium point
moves to point A, reflecting an increase in the wage per
hour and a decrease in the number of hours worked.
As will be apparent later, the gains for migrants in
developed countries are much larger than the loss that
their departure inflicts on developing countries. Nonmi-
grant workers also experience gains, shown by area ACDE
in figure 13.3, since the wage rate has increased in devel-
oping countries. But nonmigrant capitalists experience a
very large loss, shown by area ABDE (most of the loss cor-
responds to the wage gain for nonmigrant workers).
Because the loss for nonmigrant capitalists is larger than
the gain for nonmigrant workers, the group of nonmi-
grants as a whole experiences an overall loss of income,
shown by area ABC. In other words, the effect on total
welfare of liberalizing mode 4 is negative for nonmigrants
in developing countries. Income per capita, however, is
likely (although not guaranteed) to rise as marginal pro-
ductivity increases.
Overall outcome. Migrants lose their erstwhile wages in
developing countries but enjoy larger wages in developed
countries. They therefore experience a gain, measured by
the wage difference between the destination and source
countries.
According to the theoretical model, the liberalization of
mode 4 has the following distributional consequences:
• In developed countries, most of the gains for capitalists
are balanced by losses to native workers.
• In developing countries, most of the losses to capitalists
are mirrored by gains to nonmigrant workers.
• In developed countries, the gains for capitalists are
larger than the losses for native workers. Therefore, total
income in developed countries rises.
• In developing countries, the losses for capitalists are
larger than the gains for nonmigrant workers. There-
fore, total income in developing countries falls.
Distributional Effects of Mode 4 Liberalization
The theoretical and empirical prediction of large gains
from full or partial liberalization of mode 4 outlined in
box 13.2 do not hide the fact that labor mobility will have
distributional consequences. Migrants are the main win-
ners; the results for natives in both the sending and the host
countries are mixed.
Gains for migrants. Walmsley and Winters (2002) calcu-
late that benefits to migrants (US$171 billion) actually
account for more than the total gain from increased labor
mobility (US$156 billion). Total gains are smaller than the
gains to migrants because of the losses to the sending
countries, discussed below.
Losses for developing countries, before remittances. The
departure of migrants reduces the number of workers in
the sending countries, which increases hourly wages of
nonmigrant workers but diminishes total output. Walms-
ley and Winters (2002) calculate that Brazil would see its
welfare reduced by US$7 billion if the workforce going to
developed countries increased by 3 percent, and China
would experience a decline of US$2 billion, notwith-
standing the compensation received from remittances.
The authors’ calculations suggest that unskilled workers
in India would see a wage increase of 0.7 percent and that
skilled workers in Mexico would enjoy an increase of
4.5 percent. Returns to capital would, however, decrease
by, for example, 0.4 percent in Mexico. Exploring a more
extreme scenario, Moses and Letnes (2004) arrive at simi-
lar results. In their calculations, a 10 percent elimination
of wage inequality leads to an 11.4 percent increase in the
wages of nonmigrant workers in the poorest countries in
1998, while the return to capital in those countries falls
like a stone, by 21 percent.
The importance of remittances for developing countries.
If the gains to migrants themselves are included in the
overall balance sheet for developing countries, the pic-
ture changes completely. (Pritchett 2006 makes this
point.) When the gains to migrants are combined with
the national income losses to the sending countries, the
developing countries experience a significant gain in
plausible scenarios—the equivalent of 1.8 percent of their
gross domestic product (GDP), according to the World
Bank’s Global Economic Prospects 2006, which explores
the “3 percent scenario.”
World Bank estimates of global remittances show that
globally, compensation and remittances increased sixfold
between 1990 and 2008, rising from US$69 billion to
US$397 billion (adjusted for inflation). In 2007, migrant
compensation and remittances accounted for around
0.7 percent of world GDP, but for developing countries,
the relative importance of remittances in GDP in 2007 was
much higher. Remittances were 2.1 percent of the GDP of
developing countries as a whole, but 1.9 percent of the
GDP of middle-income countries and 5.8 percent of the
GDP of the least-developed countries (a UN category).
An increasing share of remittances goes to developing
countries, which accounted for 46 percent of this flow in
1990 but for 76 percent by 2007. It is estimated that remit-
tances touch 1 in 10 people worldwide. Dependence on
remittances is especially high in certain countries. The
main receiving countries in absolute terms are India
(US$27 billion), China (US$26 billion), Mexico (US$25
billion), and the Philippines (US$17 billion). For many
smaller countries, remittances represent a very large frac-
tion of GDP, accounting for more than 36 percent of the
GDPs of Moldova and Tajikistan and about 25 percent of
the GDPs of Guyana, Honduras, and Lesotho.
Mixed picture in developed countries. Outcomes of
migration for the developed countries are mixed, although
slightly positive. Workers, especially unskilled ones, face
increased competition from migrants and see their wages
decline. For example, Hatton and Williamson (1998) esti-
mate that in 1910, American wages would have been 11 to
14 percent higher in the absence of the immigration wave
that set in after 1870. Borjas (1999) calculates that immi-
gration to the United States between 1980 and 1998
resulted in a decrease in native wages amounting to
1.9 percent of GDP and that the losses were concentrated
among low-skilled U.S. workers, whereas skilled workers
actually benefited from immigration. Immigration
reduced the wages of native high-school dropouts in the
United States by 8.9 percent between 1980 and 2000 but
increased the return to capital by 2 percent of GDP. The
net gain from the 1980–98 migration wave for all U.S.
natives is the difference between the decrease in wages
and the increase in returns to capital, or 0.1 percent of
U.S. GDP per year over the period. This net gain repre-
sents about US$10 billion a year, accounting for about
5 percent of U.S. economic growth over a 20-year period.
Moses and Letnes (2004) find the same pattern in the
case of a 10 percent elimination of wage inequality. They
calculate that liberalization of this magnitude would
reduce wages in developed countries by 3.1 percent,
while increasing the return to capital by 7.2 percent.
Walmsley and Winters (2002) reach similar results in the
case of a 3 percent increase in the workforce of devel-
oped countries: that scenario leads to a 0.8 percent
decrease in U.S. and European wages and a 0.8 percent
increase in return to capital in the United States. The World
Bank’s Global Economic Prospects 2006 study shows that in
the 3 percent scenario, the incomes of all natives combined
in developed countries would rise by 0.4 percent (World
Bank 2006).
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)When one does that with unbiased criticality, Hillary is outed as a liar, Bernie as a truth-teller.
LiberalFighter
(50,888 posts)From Jill Abramson
I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.
Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)The services deal signed then basically successfully hijacked our world's - all the WTO members, ability to have any new services if they were non-compliant, the standstill began in 1998- which includes all state owned public services- blocking affordable health care. She concealed that with a healthcare scheme proposal that we now know could never have worked (however, it is WTO-compliant.) That led to the current impasse..
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Problem is that here at DU (probably other places too) the definitions of "Progressive" and "Liberal" are being Orwellian-ized to fit her right wing corporatist conservative ideology.
I've had arguments here with Clinton people supporting ALL of those issues and pretending, some how 
that they were being progressing and liberal
BootinUp
(47,141 posts)really since Mondale.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)A 40% increase in the minimum wage, tougher Wall Street regulations, expanding the ACA even further, demanding equal pay, etc.
In 2008, those positions would have been the cranky Bernie-style far left challenger's platform. Now they're going to be the actual policies of the nominee.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)That was the whole point of the stuff they did back in the 1990s.
They don't even need the three new FTAs, they are just for "legitmacy's" sake.
Why do you think our health care and education are so screwed up, BTW?
Noticed how everything was privatized starting around 1995?
BootinUp
(47,141 posts)All of the bad things I see many Sanders supporters use as talking points are things that resulted from a shift in public opinion on economics in the 70's and 80's. Look at Bernie, while his message is timely even overdue, its his political strategy that doesn't work. You can't limit RW damage without political power. You can't move back reverse RW policies if you don't have political power. Its like Bill C tried to explain to the young Bernie supporter in NM. At the end all he could say was "I am on your side".
But every now and then someone like Bernie comes along who never before has shown the ability to build a political movement nationally before, he makes huge promises, attacks the Democrats and yeah gets some traction. More this time than we have seen in a long time. That says something good. That this IS a time to reverse RW policy. But he is not the politician to work the system. If he couldn't win a Democratic primary from the left, he can't win a GE. He was never enough of a threat that Clinton had to attack him from the right thank god.
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)This is GD-P for God's sake!
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Progressive political economy was Southern Strategied into lazy n***** welfare queen economics by Nixon and Reagan and the Clintons had to deal with that reality. People don't understand how powerful the RW propaganda is. Imo, the right-wing propaganda apparatus starting in the 70s is the most onerous, insidious propaganda campaign in modern history, excepting that of North Korea and certain periods like the Cultural Revolution. Even the Nazis couldn't fully brainwash the German population, many of them really were following orders, on pain of a bullet in the brain, but "obey or i shoot you in the head" isn't an example of the propaganda working. Stalinism only worked on a minority of hardcore tankies and bureaucrats. I'm not being hyperbolic, right-wing ideology is that mind-warping. And with so many of this country's voters warped by this, they had to make concessions or risk a total defeat.
Like you said, we are AT a point where we can finally put Reagan in his coffin and nail the lid shut forever. But it's not going to happen without a massive, grassroots, intersectional movement, and Bernie couldn't do it. I actually don't think he's *personally* unelectable (certainly not against Trump, I don't think he's stronger than Hillary but if Hillary has a 95% chance of beating Trump, Bernie has an 85% chance) but he's not the right guy to build the movement to push and cement that progressive change.
progressoid
(49,978 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)in the 1950-1970s she would be a mainstream Republican. Not even an exaggeration.
The problem is the right is so far off right now, it makes Hillary look left.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)No one would use that label now, because the facts on the ground have changed. When you look at TODAY'S center, Hillary is clearly left of it. Ignoring history doesn't help make a point.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Turns out, your intuition does not accurately measure where "the center" is.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Personally, I wish you realised that, and stopped actively helping put Trump in the White House, but I suspect I'm unlikely to get mine.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Her many lies will be repeated over and over and over again. She's killing us, figuratively and literally.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)National Security problem is not going away. She is a flawed candidate and if she don't drop out now, I fear Trump may have a real chance of winning this election. This whole Democratic primary has been a sham from the get--go all thanks to Hillary and the DNC oligarchy.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Where is the link to the site claiming this bogus horseshit?
Nowhere but in your head.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)RKP5637
(67,104 posts)that will vote for him. For one example ... I was driving behind a guy in a beat up truck that looked like it was held together with duct tape, with Trump stickers all over the back, so this guy likely thinks Trump is going to give/help him to a better financial life. Hell, Trump will call him a loser, as well as the rest of the losers voting him in. He works them well, he's an artist at it. About half of this country is in the land of Idiocracy, and then they vote, generally for the wrong ones for all the wrong reasons. At this stage I just want a democrat in the WH 2016, I don't care who it is.
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)because it includes her stated positions since she started parroting Sanders last Fall. The recalibrated chart leeroysphitz shows below looks like it matches her actual record.
So, which Hillary? And why should we believe it's that one?
progressoid
(49,978 posts)
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)RKP5637
(67,104 posts)BootinUp
(47,141 posts)Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)
conscience, I get that.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)You can't be a real progressive and be on the side of Wall Street bankers, which she most definitely is.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts) seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
PufPuf23
(8,767 posts)Hillary Clinton lies more than most politicians and there is abundant video clips as evidence.
In policy and act, I perceive Hillary Clinton as a DINO that resembles Nixon or Reagan or the neo-liberalism of Bill Clinton rather than a progressive liberal.
I am anti war / anti global military empire but not pacifist and am repelled by Clinton's time as SOS and those she considers valued advisors.
The DNC aided and abetted by Hillary Clinton have harmed and confused the Democratic brand. A major error was made in 2015 and 2016 to treat Hillary Clinton like and incumbent and presumptive Democratic nominee for POTUS. The DNC failed to provide a slate of viable candidates. If not for Sanders, discourse would have been very limited. At times I can believe that the neo-liberals want the anti-war liberals to quit the Democratic party. Never did I expect to see neo-conservatism to be the plan for USA foreign policy offered by the Democratic party. This is especially troubling as I still think that the Democratic party is more competent than the GOP.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)voted for massively bloated military spending, intervention on Kosovo, and a Donal Rumsfeld written declaration that regime change in Iraq was the official stated policy of the Unites States? Bernie has plenty to answer for on that front too, but he seems to get a pass, now doesn't he?
PufPuf23
(8,767 posts)Hillary Clinton has the votes after all.
Please ignore me.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Autumn
(45,056 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)time and no one, least of all corporations or third wayers, are going to step up. We're done, folks.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)I think she is a right leaning centrist. I am a progressive. This election cycle has shown me that. Interesting. I thought I was a moderate Dem. What a hoot!
LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)Can't come SOON enough.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)eom
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)You'll believe it eventually. The rest of us, not so much.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)show me how trustworthy she is. 25%, 35%?
Certainly no more.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)the number one threat to public education and healthcare's very existence to this day.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)
rock
(13,218 posts)Just stop listening to the GOP and BSers who constantly spew that crap.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)
VOX
(22,976 posts)But he is. And he must be beaten; anything else is dangerously diverting.
HRC has the best chance of beating Trump. She's more progressive than is actually perceived in some corners.
I will not aid & abet a Trump candidacy by not voting for Hillary in the GE. And that's not a wish, it's actually occurring in measurable reality.
glinda
(14,807 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)True, Scuba, true.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)