23rd July 2016, 11:16 PM
I read it, or at least enough of it, and don't agree with much there. The general tone of the article discounts the Democratic Party and its policy positions, and that's wrong. If Bernie and his "message above policy" focus was oh so great, Bernie would be the nominee now, not Hillary. He isn't. And as someone who cares a lot about policy myself, I want to see people who care about policy in office! So yeah, I strongly disagree with that part of the article. Hillary does not need to turn into Bernie to win in November; she beat him as she is. And the vast majority of Bernie supporters now support Hillary, a very important point this long article totally fails to mention. This article reads like it's still March or something, not July! Come on.
And beyond that, we won't win this election by trying to win West Virginia, that state is gone. Yes, the economy is important and people are struggling, but Hillary and Obama's message, that things are actually getting better, is the right one. Focus on optimism, not fear! People like optimism, particularly when the message is true. The economy IS better than the Republicans say, and pointing that out is a good way to start pushing back against Trump's lies. And on that note, yes, publicly fact-checking Trump's lies is similarly important and must be done. And returning to the policy-wonk issue from earlier, I presume this guy says bad things about them because Hillary is one and Bernie isn't, but we need people who actually understand the issues.
And on that note, while I do agree that Kaine may not be the best, he is liberal on most issues and has very good scores from liberal ranking groups. His selection also emphasizes how Hillary is focusing a lot on gun control, as Kaine also strongly supports that very important issue. And for another positive about Kaine, he has already drawn good statements from some Republican senators, a good sign for Hillary getting things done in the Senate, importantly!
The author is also wrong on racism, it isn't "pointless" to "scoff at" "Leave" voters for being racists. Yes, you need to argue against policy too, but it is incredibly important to take on the racism as well. People are not only supporting Trump for economic reasons, but for explicitly racist ones because he is running a racist campaign. Making a big point of this helps the Democrats as there are more people in this nation who oppose such racism as there are who support it. Trump's extreme racist campaign must lose.
Etc, etc. I agree with a few things there, sure -- yes, we need a strong economic message to help convince people to vote Democratic as the economy is always the most important issue, and progressive policies must be advanced, but this article, is it legitimate, or just bitter Bernie-fan concern-trolling aimed the Clinton campaign? She's doing much better than this article suggests, as we will see next week in Philly.
Meanwhile, in the world outside of articles by bitter Bernie fans:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trum...ly-a-thing This somewhat scary article points out Trump's financial ties to people close to Vladmir Putin. Trump doesn't just say nice things about Putin, he takes a lot of money from Russia since American banks won't give him money thanks to some of his bankruptcies in the past. And I didn't know this, but his current acting campaign chair Paul Manafort was for years a top campaign adviser for Victor Yanukovich, the ex-president of the Ukraine who is very strongly pro-Putin, did stuff that helped set off the Ukraine crisis, his top foreign policy adviser on Europe is a guy with deep ties to Gazprom, the Kremlin-controlled Russian energy company, and more! It's amusing seeing a Republican with such deep pro-Russia ties, given their party's history of Russia-hating through the Cold War, but it's scary stuff -- this explains why he says "we wouldn't necessarily defend the Baltic States [against Russia] even though we have a NATO obligation to do that", etc.
No, just "be scared of Trump" is not a campaign, but it needs to be one part of it. Two focuses, then -- 'oppose Trump because he is uniquely dangerous for America', and 'vote for Hillary because she will make America better'.
And beyond that, we won't win this election by trying to win West Virginia, that state is gone. Yes, the economy is important and people are struggling, but Hillary and Obama's message, that things are actually getting better, is the right one. Focus on optimism, not fear! People like optimism, particularly when the message is true. The economy IS better than the Republicans say, and pointing that out is a good way to start pushing back against Trump's lies. And on that note, yes, publicly fact-checking Trump's lies is similarly important and must be done. And returning to the policy-wonk issue from earlier, I presume this guy says bad things about them because Hillary is one and Bernie isn't, but we need people who actually understand the issues.
And on that note, while I do agree that Kaine may not be the best, he is liberal on most issues and has very good scores from liberal ranking groups. His selection also emphasizes how Hillary is focusing a lot on gun control, as Kaine also strongly supports that very important issue. And for another positive about Kaine, he has already drawn good statements from some Republican senators, a good sign for Hillary getting things done in the Senate, importantly!
The author is also wrong on racism, it isn't "pointless" to "scoff at" "Leave" voters for being racists. Yes, you need to argue against policy too, but it is incredibly important to take on the racism as well. People are not only supporting Trump for economic reasons, but for explicitly racist ones because he is running a racist campaign. Making a big point of this helps the Democrats as there are more people in this nation who oppose such racism as there are who support it. Trump's extreme racist campaign must lose.
Etc, etc. I agree with a few things there, sure -- yes, we need a strong economic message to help convince people to vote Democratic as the economy is always the most important issue, and progressive policies must be advanced, but this article, is it legitimate, or just bitter Bernie-fan concern-trolling aimed the Clinton campaign? She's doing much better than this article suggests, as we will see next week in Philly.
Meanwhile, in the world outside of articles by bitter Bernie fans:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trum...ly-a-thing This somewhat scary article points out Trump's financial ties to people close to Vladmir Putin. Trump doesn't just say nice things about Putin, he takes a lot of money from Russia since American banks won't give him money thanks to some of his bankruptcies in the past. And I didn't know this, but his current acting campaign chair Paul Manafort was for years a top campaign adviser for Victor Yanukovich, the ex-president of the Ukraine who is very strongly pro-Putin, did stuff that helped set off the Ukraine crisis, his top foreign policy adviser on Europe is a guy with deep ties to Gazprom, the Kremlin-controlled Russian energy company, and more! It's amusing seeing a Republican with such deep pro-Russia ties, given their party's history of Russia-hating through the Cold War, but it's scary stuff -- this explains why he says "we wouldn't necessarily defend the Baltic States [against Russia] even though we have a NATO obligation to do that", etc.
No, just "be scared of Trump" is not a campaign, but it needs to be one part of it. Two focuses, then -- 'oppose Trump because he is uniquely dangerous for America', and 'vote for Hillary because she will make America better'.