tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post8060513721638020648..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The Politics of DivisivenessDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger126125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56670799259326925832016-05-05T13:15:46.798-07:002016-05-05T13:15:46.798-07:00You can order a pizza which doesn't exist, I g...You can order a pizza which doesn't exist, I guess.<br />Now for the next thing!Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83413593578353762362016-05-05T12:55:49.199-07:002016-05-05T12:55:49.199-07:00Jumper:
If my only choices in nearby restaurants a...Jumper:<br />If my only choices in nearby restaurants are McDonalds and Burger King, if I elect to stay home and cook my own dinner, is that considered "having a snit"?Zepp Jamiesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03024670772812706971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5481228434821212862016-05-05T12:51:27.687-07:002016-05-05T12:51:27.687-07:00oops, posted before I saw the...
onward
onwardoops, posted before I saw the...<br /><br />onward<br /><br /><br />onwardLarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45468826112893243252016-05-05T12:35:38.222-07:002016-05-05T12:35:38.222-07:00Deuxglass:
You said "I'm not going to di...Deuxglass:<br /><i><br />You said "I'm not going to disagree with you there. In fact, one reason I think Hillary makes the stronger Democratic candidate is that she does better among people who actually vote."<br /><br />That is an extraordinary statement to make considering they turned out in mass to vote in the primary and to attend his rallies. <br /></i><br /><br />I was agreeing with Robert (I do that sometimes) after he pointed out the distinction. In fact, this is what I was agreeing with:<br /><i><b><br />That is a Bernie Bro. The vocal armchair political warrior who doesn't have anything positive to add, who probably didn't donate, who didn't vote, and whose primary participation is reposting social media posts attacking Hillary and making her look bad.<br /></b></i><br /><br />I have no idea how old you are. I'm closer to 60 than to 50, so I've seen plenty of US elections, including Ronald Reagan's. If enthusiasm on the left translated into votes when they count, history would have been different.<br /><br /><i><br />If Clinton cannot capture their enthusiasm then are you saying it is their fault and not Clinton's.<br /></i><br /><br />I think Clinton <b>will</b> capture some of it. The ones who insist that Hillary is no better than Trump, and are willing to punish the Democratic Party by throwing the election? Yeah, that is their fault and not Clinton's.<br /><br />But for the rest, the liberals such as myself who would have preferred Bernie as president, but are ok with Hillary too, and see much more space between the Democrats and the Republicans than between two Democrats? Yes, I would hope that Hillary's campaign will work to get such people fired up to vote (and registered to vote as well). I hope they'll also make clear that congress and the Supreme Court are at stake, and the presidency actually pales beside them. I hope Bernie will join in that campaign, and convince his followers that their best path to eventual victory lies with not replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg and "to be named later" with 30 year old clones of Scalia.<br /><br />You're conflating enthusiasm for one Democrat over another with enthusiasm for Democrats over Republicans, assuming that only the one leads to the other. That's the same fallacy which forecast that the states Obama lost to Hillary in 08 would go for McCain in November. It doesn't work that way.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71157372946447718502016-05-05T12:27:46.509-07:002016-05-05T12:27:46.509-07:00How I weep for the plight of the over-privileged c...How I weep for the plight of the over-privileged cheater caste...so oppressed! That is, in locum's bizarro world.<br /><br />onward<br /><br />onward<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13417848625372280122016-05-05T10:39:46.899-07:002016-05-05T10:39:46.899-07:00This has some additional details:
https://en.wikip...This has some additional details:<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electorJumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58937212082691133572016-05-05T10:37:15.314-07:002016-05-05T10:37:15.314-07:00I suppose by some people's logic, I should dec...I suppose by some people's logic, I should decide that since Al Franken isn't on the ballot I should stay home in a snit.<br /><br />On the Sullivan piece, another issue he didn't mention is the number of fairly new laws states have passed <i>requiring</i> electors to vote the popular choice. Love 'em or hate 'em, the Electoral College was put in place just for situations like this. <br />http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967<br />Of course they failed completely to stop the '00 Bush travesty.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17233491355509902062016-05-05T10:31:43.022-07:002016-05-05T10:31:43.022-07:00Yep, FDR was a great guy as far as Mussolini-lovin...<br />Yep, FDR was a great guy as far as Mussolini-loving, non-incremental, anti-semitic Aristocrats go.<br /><br />Then again, Aristocrats have been given a bad reputation as 'Do Nothing Parasites', much in the same way that even the most beneficent Jeffersonian Slave Owner has been so thoroughly 'Uncle Tom's Cabined' even though (by & large) he displayed ownership, responsibility and treated his wards with the care, kindness & respect that other human beings deserved, and we can expect no less as history is written by the survivors.<br /><br />WW1 so thoroughly depleted the ranks of those 'Do Nothing' Aristocrats (a Casualty Rate approaching 20%; almost double that of the Enlisted Man) that one can only assume that those Evil Aristocrats were little more than irresponsible cigar-munching parasites, much in the same way we tend to stereotype our current male professional & labour class as evil patriarchal rapists (unless we like them for whatever reason).<br /><br />That's why we need to elect Hillary for Prez, so she may continue to 'protect the rights of Oppressed Women & Children' by the further villainisation & slaughter of those vile Aristocratic Patriarchal Male oppressors (rapists all) who deserve to be excluded from University Level education (at a ratio exceeding 2:1) as punishment for their Collective Guilt.<br /><br />Of course, it's kind of funny -- funny 'hypocritical' rather than 'ha ha' -- how we still expect those g-damned parasites to display OWNERSHIP in our culture when we need them to, despite our constant repudiations.<br /><br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17903040572689924672016-05-05T10:18:34.598-07:002016-05-05T10:18:34.598-07:00LarryHart,
You said "I'm not going to di...LarryHart,<br /><br />You said "I'm not going to disagree with you there. In fact, one reason I think Hillary makes the stronger Democratic candidate is that she does better among people who actually vote."<br /><br />That is an extraordinary statement to make considering they turned out in mass to vote in the primary and to attend his rallies. If Clinton cannot capture their enthusiasm then are you saying it is their fault and not Clinton's. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12484769428801848342016-05-05T07:45:50.965-07:002016-05-05T07:45:50.965-07:00Robert:
Locu? You continue to miss the target ent...Robert:<br /><i><br />Locu? You continue to miss the target entirely. Try again.<br /></i><br /><br />I'm glad you're the one who said that. I have been biting my tongue to keep from quoting Captain Kirk, "But like a bad marksman, you keep missing the target!"LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21656623444192269492016-05-05T07:37:08.559-07:002016-05-05T07:37:08.559-07:00Robert:
Hating someone means you see them and eit...Robert:<br /><i><br />Hating someone means you see them and either grit your teeth or spit at their extended hand. Hating someone means if their life was in danger you would smile and walk the other way and let them find their own way out (if they can). Hate means passion.<br /></i><br /><br />Well, there are degrees of hate. I don't think you have to be willing to spare no effort to destroy someone in order to feel hatred. But in a milder form, I do agree in the sense that I think "hate-crime" is a badly misused term. White supremacists (for example) do not necessarily <b>hate</b> black people. More likely, they find black people to be beneath their notice, and don't think about them enough to bother hating. It's the <b>victims</b> of discrimination who <b>hate</b> the oppressors, admittedly with good reason, but let's not confuse the terms.<br /><br /><i><br />And there is a core of people who "support" Bernie Sanders online but won't be bothered to vote. They attack Hillary, smear her name, they put out memes about how she and Bill Clinton murdered dozens of people (ah, Snopes, you have been put into overdrive use in fighting that accusation!), and even more ridiculous claims. But when the primaries came around? They didn't vote. They come out with all sorts of excuses... but they. didn't. vote.<br /><br />They didn't bother checking voting registration. They didn't find out about where to vote. They didn't want to change party registration. They didn't want to be bothered.<br /><br />That is a Bernie Bro. The vocal armchair political warrior who doesn't have anything positive to add, who probably didn't donate, who didn't vote, and whose primary participation is reposting social media posts attacking Hillary and making her look bad.<br /></i><br /><br />I'm not going to disagree with you there. In fact, one reason I think Hillary makes the stronger Democratic candidate is that she does better among people who actually vote. Bernie does better among people who <b>don't</b> vote. I'd rather go into November with the former on my side than the latter.<br /><br /><i><br />He wants to create a revolution. Revolutions that succeed start small. His did. But in order to continue that success it needs to water those roots and make sure they flourish. And that means new voters. Hell, he can even encourage those young voters who were so for him and want their voices heard through them to ENTER LOCAL POLITICS. To start running for local government positions and force out the entrenched interests that look out only for themselves. And police each other! If one of them starts acting like those old interests? Do an intervention and remind that person of what they were fighting for... and if necessary, find a new voice to run against that person. <br /></i><br /><br />If you don't already, you should listen to Norman Goldman's radio show. He's singing your song. It's available on line if not on a local radio station.<br /><br /><br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19610310480683063542016-05-05T07:25:06.127-07:002016-05-05T07:25:06.127-07:00Deuxglass:
Trump would find it hard to find an ea...Deuxglass:<br /><i><br />Trump would find it hard to find an easy handle on him. He might actually be forced to debate on the details of the issues rather than using his usual bombast style.<br /></i><br /><br />Or he could just come up with a funny nickname for Bernie that played off of the "socialist" card, and keep repeating it for six months.<br /><br />You really think Trump's campaign will <b>convince</b> people to hate or distrust Hillary (those who don't already do so), but that he's powerless against someone who has embraced the term "socialist" for himself for 40 years?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8904684477274434122016-05-05T07:19:46.226-07:002016-05-05T07:19:46.226-07:00Deuxglass:
If we take Universal Health Care as an...Deuxglass:<br /><i><br />If we take Universal Health Care as an example, if it is implemented, insurance and drug companies, some doctors and medical clerks will lose in a big way. There is no way around this but the population will benefit from improved health, administrative simplicity and be free of the worry of the financial consequences of illness.<br /></i><br /><br />Back when the Berlin Wall was about to come down, I saw a CNN interview with some East German border guards who said that the end of communist control over East Germany would be a terrible thing because they would lose their jobs. I remember thinking "Well, yeah, I can understand why you feel that way, but really dude, that's just too bad."LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36501046512679425332016-05-05T07:15:50.581-07:002016-05-05T07:15:50.581-07:00Larry Hart:
I'm quite sure Doctor Brin was spe...Larry Hart:<br />I'm quite sure Doctor Brin was speaking to us, and not Bernie. <br />My point was that the 100 Days was not an incremental process, and I would add that it almost certainly saved the United States from collapse. Whether you favour incrementalism or not, it just isn't a term applicable to FDR in his first term. <br />There were areas where FDR was incremental, and they stand out as some of the weakest aspects of his presidency: civil rights for black people (he resisted strong pressure from his wife to improve the lot of African Americans); deficit spending (he let Republicans in Congress pressure him to try to balance the budget in 1937, which led to a fairly serious, if brief recession. Standing up to Hitler, where he ignored two years of deliberate Nazi provocation which cost thousands of American lives and millions of tonnes of shipping. There was a famous cartoon from the era, "Great Western Leaders". Churchill with his V-for-Victory gesture, Stalin striking a heroic pose, De Gaulle looking very French, and FDR crouched, tentative finger timidly testing the wind. <br />The main problem with Hillary is she is the epitome of the incrementalism that has paralyzed the Democratic Party since 1988. Thomas Frank wrote an article this week, (Why must the Trump Alternative be Self-Satisfied Complacent Democrats http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/04/democrats-acting-elitist-not-progressive-thomas-frankand two weeks ago in "The soft bigotry of low expectations" http://inthesetimes.com/article/19068/hillary-clinton-and-the-soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations.<br />I recommend both to you and Doctor Brin.Zepp Jamiesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03024670772812706971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51386053363029431332016-05-05T07:03:08.031-07:002016-05-05T07:03:08.031-07:00I would not say I hate Hillary.
Hating someone me...I would not say I hate Hillary.<br /><br />Hating someone means you see them and either grit your teeth or spit at their extended hand. Hating someone means if their life was in danger you would smile and walk the other way and let them find their own way out (if they can). Hate means passion.<br /><br />I lack that hate-passion these days for her. Oh, there are small spurts of it, but they fade rather quickly. No. I dislike Hillary. But if I were to meet her, I'd probably shake her hand. If my vote was to decide either Hillary or Trump, then I'd swallow my pride and vote Hillary. And I don't hate Trump so it's not a matter of the Lesser Evil.<br /><br />It is 90% likely that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee. It is 100% likely I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate EVEN IF SANDERS GETS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION. <br /><br />---------<br /><br />Bernie Bros. are real, btw. Bernie Bros. are the people who insist they will not vote for Hillary at all no matter what. When you have that level of insistence that they will cut off their noses to spite their face, despite the fact the Republican candidates make Atilla the Hun seem reasonable? Then you have to look at the voting behavior of that person.<br /><br />And there is a core of people who "support" Bernie Sanders online but won't be bothered to vote. They attack Hillary, smear her name, they put out memes about how she and Bill Clinton murdered dozens of people (ah, Snopes, you have been put into overdrive use in fighting that accusation!), and even more ridiculous claims. But when the primaries came around? They didn't vote. They come out with all sorts of excuses... but they. didn't. vote.<br /><br />They didn't bother checking voting registration. They didn't find out about where to vote. They didn't want to change party registration. They didn't want to be bothered.<br /><br />That is a Bernie Bro. The vocal armchair political warrior who doesn't have anything positive to add, who probably didn't donate, who didn't vote, and whose primary participation is reposting social media posts attacking Hillary and making her look bad.<br /><br />Now, do you know what I'd like to see Sanders do? Take all those donations and start building a network of Get Out The Vote groups across the nation. Get small organizations developed, maybe link them through social media, do NOT make it a large organized nonprofit or the like that Republicans can attack and shut down. Have it be private citizens working together to educate people how to register, how to ensure they remain registered, and help them vote.<br /><br />He wants to create a revolution. Revolutions that succeed start small. His did. But in order to continue that success it needs to water those roots and make sure they flourish. And that means new voters. Hell, he can even encourage those young voters who were so for him and want their voices heard through them to ENTER LOCAL POLITICS. To start running for local government positions and force out the entrenched interests that look out only for themselves. And police each other! If one of them starts acting like those old interests? Do an intervention and remind that person of what they were fighting for... and if necessary, find a new voice to run against that person. <br /><br />These voices need not be Democrat or Republican. They can just be the voice of the people. And it will take a lot of hard work... but no revolution was ever won by people sitting on their asses in their armchairs grousing and writing about it. Even the newspaper editors of the 1700s also got out into public and worked among the people to put out the effort.<br /><br />-----------<br /><br />Locu? You continue to miss the target entirely. Try again.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63473150360263742932016-05-05T06:53:07.488-07:002016-05-05T06:53:07.488-07:00Zepp Jamieson:
Dr. Brin says: "(Yes, I know ...Zepp Jamieson:<br /><i><br />Dr. Brin says: "(Yes, I know that angers some of you Sandersites, out there. But history shows incrementalism can lead to more incrementalism. Look up a fellow named Franklin Delano Roosevelt.)"<br /><br />Hmmm. There's nothing Sanders is proposing that is anywhere near as radical as the legislation passed during the first 100 Days of FDR's first term.<br /></i><br /><br />I don't think Dr Brin was speaking to Bernie himself when he referred to "some of you Sandersites." A few posts below yours is Robert condemning incrementalism, insisting on having it all right now, making the perfect the enemy of the good, and implicitly asserting that if we don't get everything we need right this minute, there is no point in accomplishing anything yet. He doesn't put it quite that way (heh), but that's the logical outcome of his position and of the "Bernie or Bust" faction.<br /><br />That's who (IMHO) Dr Brin was addressing.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91130783290432177102016-05-05T06:48:59.671-07:002016-05-05T06:48:59.671-07:00Alfred Differ:
Look for idleness and a desire to ...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />Look for idleness and a desire to ensure the people below them maintain their idleness. It is the latter part of that test that is most dangerous<br /></i><br /><br />The would-be aristocrats who use Ayn Rand for support insist they must never be required to live for the sake of another, while conveniently leaving out the part about not expecting another to live for their sake.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89364584060880011872016-05-05T06:25:45.936-07:002016-05-05T06:25:45.936-07:00Now that Trump (a man reviled by most Republicans)...<br />Now that Trump (a man reviled by most Republicans) appears to be the sole Republican nominee and Clinton continues to alienate everyone under 30, it becomes likely that we are witnessing the balkanisation of the US two-party political system, so much so that many left-leaning progressives will find that their tired 'Us vs Them' tactics no longer work and, much like the Cold War Right, will become nostalgic for a cohesive Right-wing Super Villain analogous to the failed USSR, for without an Axis-of-Evil to fight there will be no way to distinguish the 'Good' Democratic Oligarchy from the Evil Republican one, bringing us ever closer to the tumbrels.<br /><br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31467383906981497272016-05-05T04:22:21.418-07:002016-05-05T04:22:21.418-07:00LarryHart (or is it Robert?),
"The Bernie Bro...<br />LarryHart (or is it Robert?),<br /><i>"The Bernie Bros'"</i><br /><br />Again, you repeat memes created for political purpose.<br /><br />The Clinton campaign has always had a problem with young women preferring Sanders. So the whispers ("briefings" and "backgrounders" to journalists) were that these were stupid little girls fawning over the boys. Unimportant. "Real women" supported Clinton.<br /><br />Unfortunately, a couple of older name-brand feminists actually said that in public, making Clinton even more loathed by young women. So the campaign changed tactic to attacking Sanders' male supporters. Trying to brand them as a bunch of idiot, misogynous, college "Bros", backed up by a few Twitter-anecdotes. Thus "Bernie Bros" was born.<br /><br />By pretending that all Sanders supporters are basically Trump-supporters who bought the wrong t-shirt, the Clinton campaign is trying to cleave away young women, without again insulting those young women directly.<br /><br />Pro-Clinton journalists duly regurgitated the meme, and people like you followed.<br /><br />But it's an example of the sort of crap that has been thrown at Sanders. Its very existence disproves your idea that Sanders hasn't faced a tough campaign (but somehow Clinton has.)<br /><br />[Oh, and for the record, the Clinton campaign did exactly the same thing over Obama supporters in 2008. The meme then was "cult-like".]<br /><br /><i>"My preference for Hillary at this point comes down to her experience and savvy in the knife-fight required to get a Democrat elected in the first place."</i><br /><br />She has the second highest "unfavourable" rating of any nominee in the history of modern US Presidential elections. (The highest being Trump.)<br /><br />She lost in 2008 to an inexperienced junior Senator from Illinois, in spite of being the presumptive nominee with support from most of the DNC leadership.<br /><br />She is struggling in this Primary against someone who isn't even a Democrat, an old hunchbacked shouting Jewish socialist from a small New England state who has no major financial backing, no media support, and is hated by the DNC leadership.<br /><br />Yeah, she's a fucking genius.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52976486275753510892016-05-05T04:21:45.331-07:002016-05-05T04:21:45.331-07:00David,
Re: Incrementalism.
I'm not bothered b...David,<br />Re: Incrementalism.<br /><br />I'm not bothered by compromise. Two honest sides forging an acceptable middle ground. My objection to modern Democrats is that their response to a dishonest opposition is to begin negotiating from what they think would have been an honest opponent's starting point. Then compromise from there. All they do is ratchet further and further to the right.<br /><br />Hillary is cut from that mould. Her starting point will be the centre-right to right. (With the exception of a few liberal tropes.)<br /><br />Sanders will do deals. His voting record shows that. But he will start negotiating from his actual position. Yes he will concede, but will make his opponents earn every concession.<br /><br />The danger with "incrementalism" today is that is isn't incremental progress. It's incremental backsliding. Apologising to implacable opponents for daring to exist. Hoping that if you let them kick you enough, they'll start to respect you.<br /><br />Modern "incrementalism" is Pres. Clinton signing DoMA. Ten years later, it's Sen. Clinton standing on the floor of the Senate denouncing gay marriage and pledging her support for "traditional" marriage. Their starting point was to adopt their opponent's position.<br /><br />The other side will never accept a deal, so why offer one? At some point you just have to do what you want and stop apologising for it. <br /><br />In a tug-a-war, you can't win by standing in the centre.<br /><br /><i>"it's true that Bernie has experienced ZERO directly personal attacks of the nature HC has endured for 30 years."</i><br /><br /><a href="https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/01/antisemitism.png" rel="nofollow">You sure?</a>Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51260611005323043372016-05-05T03:08:46.016-07:002016-05-05T03:08:46.016-07:00I prefer the 13th Amendment to incremental change,...I prefer the 13th Amendment to incremental change, but lacking that, incremental change over no change whatever. Also, I consider ACA unfinished and we are in the midst of incremental moves towards better health care. The perfect is enemy of the good. Don't mistake a draw for a loss. I won't do it in chess; I'll keep struggling for a draw rather than just weep and concede a drawn game.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89666307696784681402016-05-05T02:19:50.545-07:002016-05-05T02:19:50.545-07:00Dr. Brin,
Everyone has dirt in their past but som...Dr. Brin,<br /><br />Everyone has dirt in their past but some have more than others. Sanders looks to have less than most politicians and his political opponents apparently have not been able to use his “dirt” against him. This tells me that he is not an easy mark for whatever reasons and is not because he wasn’t in the limelight as was Clinton. In local elections finding dirt on your adversary is the name of the game. In a Trump-Sanders election, Trump would have some problems. First they agree on trade and the Iraq War. Sander’s voting record on both these issues couldn’t be attacked so Trump would have to find something else. They both believe in a strong military. Sanders is not a pacifist and his record shows it. Trump can’t attack him on these core issues because they basically agree. With health care they do have differences but they are closer than you think. Trump is for a single bidder and Sanders is for a single payer but they both are for a deep reform. They agree on limiting the power of the banks and outsized corporate lobbying. He may call him Socialist Bernie but that word has less impact now than before. He cannot attack him as being inconsistent, showing bad judgement or beholden to big business and big donors. He has no foundation or emails. <br /><br />Trump would find it hard to find an easy handle on him. He might actually be forced to debate on the details of the issues rather than using his usual bombast style. When you come down to it, if Trump and Sanders are close on the important issues, enough of Sanders supporters could abandon Clinton to make the election unless Clinton seriously gets her act together and bring in the Sanders supporters at the convention by giving them what they want.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47006883790461714522016-05-05T01:07:47.449-07:002016-05-05T01:07:47.449-07:00Incrementalism can work for some things and not fo...Incrementalism can work for some things and not for others. Sometimes you can get a win-win situation and other times somebody has to lose for the greater good. All laws have loopholes and Incrementalism is useful in closing them off or in adding a new measure to an existing law in order to correct or add measures. It should work well for that. However incrementalism fails when a wide sweeping change is necessary. It just takes too long and is open to the creation of new loopholes. If we take Universal Health Care as an example, if it is implemented, insurance and drug companies, some doctors and medical clerks will lose in a big way. There is no way around this but the population will benefit from improved health, administrative simplicity and be free of the worry of the financial consequences of illness. Every developed country had to make this step and they did it and their populations now enjoy better health at a cheaper price than the US. We can do this too but it can’t come about with incrementalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80524086615352526342016-05-05T00:35:48.371-07:002016-05-05T00:35:48.371-07:00Dr. Brin,
If Clinton wins the nomination, Sanders...Dr. Brin,<br /><br />If Clinton wins the nomination, Sanders will give her his support. He is a democrat after all but how warm that support would be depends on how many of his ideas are adopted in the party platform. If he gets important things in, then that support will be wholehearted and he would have convincing arguments to give to his followers as to why they should support Clinton. He would not have to say to them to hold their noses but will be able to say that since these measures are in the party platform Clinton is committed to working toward them. Sanders does not own his supporters. He needs ammunition to get his people who had rejected Clinton before to now vote for her and to do that he has to show that they did not vote for him in vain. If few of his ideas are in the platform then he will be bereft of influence in the election. Against Trump, Clinton needs every vote and if she has any political instincts at all, then she should realize that just an endorsement by Sanders is not enough. Above all she needs his supporters on board.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58951327897679829652016-05-04T21:18:55.424-07:002016-05-04T21:18:55.424-07:00Rob perceives 'incrementalism' as the grin...Rob perceives 'incrementalism' as the grinding pace of civil rights from 1865 to the election of Barack Obama. Fair enough. Well-said. But I see it as FDR wheeling and dealing and saving and spectacularly expanding the American middle class while also preserving and spectacularly enhancing competitive enterprise. Of course we need both parables in mind. <br /><br />Still, it’s true that Bernie has experienced ZERO directly personal attacks of the nature HC has endured for 30 years. Show me dirt from his time as mayor. You’re telling me there aren’t even some petty grudges from then, to exaggerate? Of course HC could have done that. She did not. Nor did he. Angry Bernites miss the point! Watch them hug at the convention. Read… Bernie’s… lips. David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.com