2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFireworks!
Make no mistake about it, Andrew Sullivan is a conservative but he's also moderate on many issues or for a Republican even liberal/progressive.
Sullivan describes himself as a conservative and is the author of The Conservative Soul. He has supported a number of traditional libertarian positions. He favours limited government and opposes interventionist measures such as affirmative action.[31] However, on a number of controversial public issues, including same-sex marriage, social security, progressive taxation, anti-discrimination law, Obamacare, the US government's use of torture, and capital punishment, he takes a position not typically shared by conservatives in the United States.[31] In July 2012 Sullivan said that "...the catastrophe of the Bush-Cheney years... all but exploded the logic of neoconservatism and its domestic partner-in-crime, supply-side economics."[32]
(snip)
From 1980 through 2002 he supported the Republican presidential candidate in the United States.[24] In 2004, he supported John Kerry's presidential campaign after losing faith in George W. Bush after the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal and what he saw as incompetent management of the occupation of Iraq.[24]
Sullivan endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 US Presidential Election, and Rep. Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. He eventually endorsed Obama for President largely because he believed that he would restore "the rule of law and Constitutional balance," as well as representing a more realistic prospect for "bringing America back to fiscal reason" and a hope that Obama would be able to "get us past the culture war."[34] He has continued to maintain that Obama is in fact the best choice for president from a conservative point of view. During the 2012 election campaign he wrote, "Against a radical right, reckless, populist insurgency, Obama is the conservative option, dealing with emergent problems with pragmatic calm and modest innovation. He seeks as a good Oakeshottian would to reform the country's policies in order to regain the country's past virtues. What could possibly be more conservative than that?"[35]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan
Despite supporting Kerry and Obama, Sullivan vehemently criticized Hillary having an emotional major disagreement with Maher, both men were losing their tempers.
Sullivan's primary criticisms against Hillary were no-talent, little actual accomplishment, poor judgment and a lack of integrity or core convictions.
You can hear the studio audience mostly applaud when Maher makes a counter-point or joke but keep in mind this was Maher's program and the audience would naturally feel an affinity for him.
The point I'm trying to make from this OP is, that as a more middle of the road conservative can be so adamantly/passionately against Hillary, this is a surefire sign that should Hillary win the nomination, Republicans of all stripes along with many Independents will turn out in force come election day.
To my way of thinking this a major strike against electability.
randome
(34,845 posts)But then the overwhelming majority of candidates for public office don't, either. But she is most likely our next President so we may as well face reality.
The alternative is to descend into a lazy indulgence of unhappiness that helps the situation not a whit.
The office of the Presidency often changes a person. I'm betting Clinton will be a much better President than we expect.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and I find him nearly always worth reading or listening to. He makes some irrebutable points - "terrible campaigner" and "hack" being particularly spot-on.
He's a "conservative" perhaps but not in any modern Repig sense of the word.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)good find uncle joe!!
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Not sure how that might work since we are so different as a Dem Party from the time of Andrew Sullivan. Might work for older who remember that time...just not sure if it works today when Revolution is in the Air...like it was aways back in the 1960s.
But, thanks for the post. "Opinion Makers" may still have some sway with Mid-Range to Right Voters.
Some of the rest of us moved beyond that and are "going for broke" with Bernie. But, to see Pundits evolve in their views is a good sign that things might be changing. Maybe not for Election 2016...but, after and moving Forward in a REAL SENSE....not Obama's View of what that meant.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)I'm not suggesting that just because Andrew Sullivan expressed a point of view as an "opinion maker" would sway Republican or Independent masses but more that his feelings would naturally be shared.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251657540
I'm going for broke for Bernie as well, I believe he can cross the partisan divide and win whereas Hillary can't
MBS
(9,688 posts)I admit that I even mostly agree with Andrew's take on her.
The only difference is that I would definitely vote for her if she is the Dem nominee.
But, barring more surprises (which seem to be coming daily), I probably will vote for another candidate in the primary. And, if she is to be the Dem nominee, I have growing worries about her viability in the GE.
It's going to be a long, wild and crazy 12 1/2 months.
Paka
(2,760 posts)Even in the early days of his campaign I knew he was the best candidate to go against the GOP. His bigest problem is surmounting all the DNC/DLC/DWS roadblocks and dirty tricks getting to be the nominee. Increase his visibility and he has that one locked up as well.
His message rings true cross all demographics, political, social, or any other. Publicize the message and the votes will come.
GO BERNIE!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Stop the presses.
senz
(11,945 posts)Perfect.