"If you laid all of the (PhD) economists end to end, to tell you which way to go, they would look like the spokes of a wheel."
I know, I know, sophisticated progressives (both men and women) would say that they would not do that. But what they mean is that they wouldn’t CONSCIOUSLY do that. But I wonder to what degree progressives SUBconsciously still feel the need to help break “the glass ceiling” which has always kept women from rising to positions of real power. We don’t use the glass ceiling analogy when talking about Blacks, Hispanics, or Jews, etc., but it’s no different.
So if you have a tendency to want to vote for her to break the ceiling, please think about the fact that the ceiling has already been broken, never to be reconstructed. It was shattered in 2007, when a black AND a woman were the top candidates for president. There never had been a woman or a black person elevated to that status. So in a way, it should not matter whether Obama or Hillary won the primary, they both came so close to winning that in so doing broke the glass ceiling for minorities and women forever.
Furthermore, now we have a Jew and several Hispanic candidates having again broken the ceiling. Surveys show that the younger generation of Americans are even less prejudiced towards minorities and women that ever before. More and more women are now the CEO’s of large corporations.
So let’s forget about breaking the ceiling and just focus on who the the best candidate is regardless of gender, race, religion etc. It would be just as big a mistake to vote FOR a woman just because she’s a woman as it was in the past to vote AGAINST a woman just because she was a woman.
I just got back from a 3 month vacation in Mexico. I do that every winter and although I could have written some posts from there, I decided once there, to have a real vacation and do nothing except watch the palm trees grow.
For my first post of this season, I would like for you to read an email sent to me by a good friend, Mr. Phil Young, a retired banker living in the S.F. bay area. I thought it was well said and would be of interest to all.
Is Hillary really the strongest candidate to oppose Trump in the general election?
“Conventional thinking” by the political establishment & punditry has persistently underestimated
the potential for Trump to become the GOP nominee. Is it possible that similar “group think” could be
underestimating his potential to win the presidency and overestimating HRC (Hillary Rodham
Clinton) as the best candidate to defeat him in the general election?
Now let’s for a moment consider the following 2 possible general elections scenarios: 1: Trump vs. Clinton. or
2: Trump vs. Sanders. Recent polls show HRC leading Trump by a mere 2.8%, a statistical tie
within the margin of error and actually losing to Cruz or Rubio. On the flip side,
the same polls show Bernie beating Trump by a more significant 6% points.
There are a number of factors that could weaken HRC in a contest with Trump.
Hillary’s vulnerabilities include her higher unfavorable ratings, meaning that
her upside is limited compared to Bernie who has higher
favorables & lower unfavorables. HRC is dragging a lot of baggage including the following:
1. Her close ties to Wall St. highlighted by her $650,000+ Goldman Sachs fees.
Requests for her speech transcripts will not go away.
2. Her on-going classified vs. unclassified email server controversy will be a favorite GOP target.
3. Her reliance on Super Pac funding compared to Bernie & Trump who accepts
no money from SuperPacs.
4. The Clinton (Bill & Hillary) affinity for now out of favor trade pacts (NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, etc.,
a potential vulnerability with working class voters.
5. Hillary made the huge miscalculation of voting for the Iraq, the worst foreign policy error
in decades that has led to the current ISIS mess.
6. She has wrapped herself so closely to Obama’s policy that it could be a challenge for her
to differentiate herself from him in the general election.
7. HRC has an on-going trust issue with many voters who find her untrustworthy in polls,
unlike Sanders who scores high on “authenticity”
8. The Clinton legacy is a metaphor for establishment politics and the past ….not progressive change.
2016 is shaping up as a general election campaign about real “CHANGE” vs. the “Status Quo”.
Trump is running a xenophobic populist campaign vs. the status quo.
HRC could be the perfect Trump target.
He already eviscerated the Bush family legacy and will have a field day doing the same to the
Clintons. Trump will attack her on the Iraq war vote blunder.
He will attack her on the international trade pact issues. He will attack her
for being in bed with Wall St. & Goldman Sachs. He will attack her about her SuperPac &
being beholden to lobbyist money. In an election about “Change” vs the “Status Quo”,
it will be easy for Trump to label her the epitome of an “Establishment” candidate.
In the initial 3 Democratic campaign states, HRC significantly underperformed expectations vs. the
inspirational, progressive Sanders drawing more votes than any candidate in the the history
of NH primary by winning in every category of voters, male or female, under age 65.
The Clinton rationalization is that he came from a neighboring state does not jive with the fact
that popular VT Gov. Dean drew only (59.649) or 20.6% of the NH and lost to Kerry in NH,
the primary where HRC beat Obama in 2008. The stronger appeal
of Bernie in NH could be explained by the current hunger among voters under 45 for an
“outside the box” populist candidate in a state that allows Independent & Republicans
to vote in the Democratic primary.
Ironically, the consummate insider, Sen. Harry Reid, is being given a large share of the credit
for putting his “thumb on the scales” to ensure Hillary’s narrow victory over Sanders
in the messy NV caucus.
Reid’s NV political machine is reported to have pulled out the casino & culinary voters
as a “firewall” against a Sanders populist upset. Nevertheless, Bernie did well with Latinos
and the younger voters 45 and under. HRC drew heavily from the African American &
older voters as she will in the South.
In a general election, Sanders could attract the minority voters and a broad cross section of
white working class voters who sometimes support the GOP. Bernie draws huge crowds
of young people & new voters that Democrats will need to win in the general election.
Sanders could attack Trump from a position of strength
since he opposed the Iraq War, trade deals, Citizens United, the Wall St./ Goldman Sachs
Hillary’s message is not inspiring much enthusiasm, nor drawing new voters nor is it appealing to
independents. In the general election, many of the new young Sanders supporters will be
unlikely to come out for HRC.