Maybe, just maybe, it's not about emails

[Tom Rinaldo]

Maybe it's just the times that are a changing. Maybe the public has grown increasingly tired of politics as usual and a tipping point has finally been reached. Maybe being an establishment backed candidate has become the virtual kiss of death. People just might be as mad as hell and they aren't going to take it anymore, at least while there is any other option available.

I know we are sometimes loath to give the Republican base credit for having any fundamentally sane instincts. And yes the Republican "outsider" candidates who are doing so well this year really are "out there' in more ways than one. But they decidedly are not establishment backed, and that may ultimately prove to be a far more important attribute than any particular rant they may be capable of spewing.

A few months back almost everyone believed that Hillary Clinton would almost certainly win the Democratic nomination for President, but that certainty is no longer apparent. And while Jeb Bush might never have been as prohibitive a favorite on the Republican side as Hillary was on the Democratic, virtually no one could have predicted that he would be mired in the second tier of Republican candidates at this stage, typically polling in single digits. Meanwhile Scott Walker, the fresh new Republican face pre-positioned to pick up all the pieces should Jeb Bush falter, is already out of the race.

Something seems to be at work here far larger than any combination of gaffes, poorly managed press conference or debate performances, or even media fanned whiffs of scandals can explain. And that may be why the once impending Clinton Bush 2016 match up may be anything but that when the election finally comes around.

[djean111]

1. I don't think it is about emails at all, at least not for Democrats.

It is about issues, records, and deeds.
Nowadays, we can (inconveniently, I guess, for some) look up everything, and use that to make our decisions.
It is not about gender or personality.

And I sincerely doubt whether hectoring anyone on a message board - no matter how well the sentences are parsed, no matter vastly superior a writer informs us that they are - changes anyone's mind about who they support. And some do not consider for a second that others' life experiences and issues might not be contemptuously swept aside with rhetoric.

What I see the most of seems to be real white-hot anger that we are not all doing as we are told, or as we were expected to do. Like being mad that a house of cards is getting wobbly, without blaming the architect. I am starting to think that an awful lot of people do not understand what "due diligence" is.

[artislife]

37. I know one topic that changed my mind by reading message boards

In 2008, what I finally understood was the difference between civil unions and marriage equality. Being an atheist, I don't have a lot of emotion wrapped up in "marriage" so I couldn't see the difference. But by reading posts, I understood it to be about " separate but equal" kind of thinking. It really changed my mind. It also showed me how few rights single people have in comparison to married people.

Now, I can't help but see how marriage equality is a right and that my thinking was just as bad as being totally against it.

So I saw, tap away at the key boards!

[libdem4life]

2. just one more distrust nail in her political coffin

JMO

[Bonobo]

3. People KNOW it's a dynasty. We feel it. And they can give the dictionary definition all you want...

But us regular folk are not as dumb as some think.

And as I have said over and over, the area where our senses are more refined than the 1% are in bullshit detection.

We know bullshitters and we know who is bullshitting ON us.

AND we know what a fucking dynasty is. And we do not want to continue politics as usual.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. There is the dynasty thing, but there is much more than that

That doesn't explain why many grassroots Democrats are overwhelmingly turning to a man like Sanders over an ex Governor like O'Malley with a more traditional liberal profile. Or why Scott Walker was so highly rated by the Koch brothers machine but ended up at 0% in the polls. Or why a Senator like Ted Cruz who is willing to throw any bomb that the right wing wants thrown gets eclipsed by three non politicians running against him.

[antigop]

18. actually, if you look at the definition of "dynasty"...

Merriam-Webster

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynasty



: a family of rulers who rule over a country for a long period of time; also : the period of time when a particular dynasty is in power

: a family, team, etc., that is very powerful or successful for a long period of time

[pocoloco]

20. For many

4 years is a hell of a long time!!

[magical thyme]

4. issues, judgement, character, democracy not dynasty...in no particular order

bottom line for me.

Issues revealed by track record
Judgement is revealed by track record and personal history
Character is revealed by track record and personal history

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Did Ms. Clinton lose the primary?

eom

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Are you confusd about the primary dates? eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. No, and neither I am confused about your patronizing attitude

Are you confusd about the primary dates? eom

No, and neither I am confused about your patronizing attitude.

The assertion embodied in your original posting:

Something seems to be at work here far larger than any combination of gaffes, poorly managed press conference or debate performances, or even media fanned whiffs of scandals can explain. And that may be why the once impending Clinton Bush 2016 match up may be anything but that when the election finally comes around.

is that she will likely lose the primary and that was what I responded to.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. OK, I'll back off from sarcasm

Had you written a post more like this one initially I would have responded more like this...

I don't think that was my implication, certainly not my assertion, because I still think it most likely that Hillary will win the nomination. What I said was that the air of almost certainty regarding that is gone now. And in the quote you highlight above I literally used the words "impending Clinton Bush 2016 match up MAY be anything but that". I chose my words carefully. I didn't say she was likely to lose anywhere in what I wrote. I did speculate about that possibility, yes. If anything I was saying that maybe current trend lines with Hillary's approval ratings, while not helped by media fixation on her emails, speak to a larger picture regarding how the public is reactiing to anyone associated with politics as usual, which Hillary is associated with because she has been a fixture, for better or worse, in American politics for a long time now.

[artislife]

38. Too measured.

P.S.
I hope you are wrong about her securing the nomination.

[madfloridian]

11. Tom is nowhere near patronizing.

He's a serious thoughtful poster who should come here more often....like he used to do.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Thank you Mad...

...I've been happy to see your posts here more often when I do drop in.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I was addressing his remarks to me. Tom even admitted as much.

And since he was gracious I will be gracious too... I should have been less salty in my response.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Fairly and nicely stated

[AlbertCat]

28. she will likely lose the primary

So you use the conditional future tense....after asking:

"Did Ms. Clinton lose the primary?"

Talk about patronizing! Even the statement you are being so snarky about (while complaining about snark)

"And that may be .... may be anything but " is conditional future as well.


what a fail!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. "she will likely lose the primary."

"she will likely lose the primary."

If you believe that to be the case then you should be willing to wager on it...

Now, I will grant that challenging your internet interlocutors to wagers to test their fidelity to the propositions they assert can be perceived as gauche or declasse and the last thing DemocratSinceBirth would want to be seen as is gauche and declasse, lol. So given all that we can wager and the proceeds to go to the charity of the winner's choosing so there is no pecuniary gain or filthy lucre for the winner.

If your candidate wins I donate $500.00 to the charity of your choice.

If my candidate wins you donate $500.00 to the charity of my choice.

Deal?

P.S.

"what a fail''

[AlbertCat]

42. you should be willing to wager on it...

What ARE you going on about?

I don't gamble.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Oh, so you don't really believe what you wrote:

Oh, so you don't really believe what you wrote:

she will likely lose the primary

So you use the conditional future tense....after asking:

"Did Ms. Clinton lose the primary?"

Talk about patronizing! Even the statement you are being so snarky about (while complaining about snark)

"And that may be .... may be anything but " is conditional future as well.


what a fail!

You just took what you thought was an opportunity to gratuitously insult me, got it!

[AlbertCat]

62. Listen Dr Freud...

.... I do believe what I wrote.... regardless of your silly games.

Stop putting words in people's mouths and reading things that aren't there between the lines.

Betting on who wins..... grow up. Especially when I'm talking about grammar and the fact you cannot seem to understand what people write..... obviously.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. My dear Mr. Albert Cat

My dear Mr. Albert Cat, my feline friend:

.... I do believe what I wrote.... regardless of your silly games.

Stop putting words in people's mouths and reading things that aren't there between the lines.

Betting on who wins..... grow up. Especially when I'm talking about grammar and the fact you cannot seem to understand what people write..... obviously.

All the obscurantism in the world you can muster can not obscure the fact that I believe everything that I write and you obviously don't.

[aidbo]

10. My support for Sanders has nothing to do with HRC

[DanTex]

13. Interesting hypothesis, but the huge number of email threads on DU are a data point against it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I think we are the hard core political junkies

We actually notice all the trees but sometimes we mistake some for a forest. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that we have a more focused and sometimes more specific agenda here than the public at large.

[Hortensis]

25. Oh, for sure. If THIS was a representative slice of society,

there would be no such thing. We'd still be living in caves heaving rocks across the river at each other.

[Scootaloo]

53. You don't have to hang out here if you don't like it, you know

[elleng]

33. We sure ARE hard core, Tom,

STILL are!!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Yes some things never do change

[elleng]

47. P.S.,

Wes in Great Neck, LI, NY soon!

Temple Emanuel releases program series featuring high profile speakers
Rabbi Robert Widom said he has wanted to develop strong local community ties since he became senior rabbi of Temple Emanuel of...
THE ISLAND NOW

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. I grew up on Long Island but it would take more than that to get me back there now lol n/t

[elleng]

50. So did I, Tom,

and did return for 50th high school reunion. The place looked good,as the friends, but I only stayed for the weekend.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. HRC started with such lofty numbers her descent from those lofty numbers...

HRC started with such lofty numbers her descent from those lofty numbers should have been predictable. That being said the e-mail brouhaha has exacerbated it.

[artislife]

39. I love your choice of words

Everything put aside, you write beautifully.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. I could be a much better writer.

When I was in public school I liked history, social studies, and current events. I was indifferent to other subjects including English and math.

[artislife]

44. Still you always take the time when posting.

I love the humanities. I think that is the gift of being human, the enjoyment of the arts.

[SoapBox]

15. It's the Political Revolution.

Go Bernie!

And...Ms. Inevitable cannot and will not win...there is TONS of Hillary burnout in America.

She's been virtually unseen by the general public so far, holding her private fundraisers and invitation only meetings. When the debates finally start, all those "reasons" that people have for not liking her will come roaring back like a tidal wave. DWS certainly did her best to try and limit debates and keeping her from being seen but it won't work.

She will not win the Presidency.

[Ino]

51. ^^ THIS ^^

[hifiguy]

64. Her Royal Inevitability will be "inevitable"

right up to the moment she is not. And that day is coming.

[Duval]

19. K&R eom

[Indepatriot]

22. Not about emails. HRC was a bad candidate

in 08' and she's worse now. She's the literal embodiment of Third Way triangulation that helped bring this nation's Middle Class to it's knees. Thank goodness we have a choice this time. FEELIN THE BERN!

[Uncle Joe]

23. The Internet is changing the rules of the game, not just from a financial, name recognition,

message amplifying, mobilization, motivation, vast information resource, communications point of view but from the sum of all those parts and more which in creating a synergy or higher group mind for the American People, our awareness on all manner of subjects are increasing as a result.

This doesn't just affect people at political sites like D.U. or social ones as in Facebook but as pollen in the wind spreads not only across the Internet but via word of mouth, friends and family to the people at large.

The old political platitudes aren't working anymore and money put into those effects will only serve to have diminishing returns.

There is an adage that a beast is most dangerous when it's wounded or cornered and in that respect I believe "Citizens United" was an irrational attack against the American People by the old guard and a sign of their desperation.

They saw the writing on the wall years ago.

Thanks for the thread, Tom Rinaldo.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. There is also the old guard attack against Net Neutrality

That fits perfectly into the picture you are painting also. Thanks for your kind words.

[Uncle Joe]

54. Excellent point, Tom that's what the attack against Net Neutrality

is all about, anything and everything they can do to contain or control the people.

[brooklynite]

56. So then, no need for debates on those "old fashioned" networks?

[Uncle Joe]

58. "Changing" was the keyword in my post regarding your point, not "changed."

The Internet is changing the rules of the game, not just from a financial, name recognition, message amplifying, mobilization, motivation, vast information resource, communications point of view but from the sum of all those parts and more which in creating a synergy or higher group mind for the American People, our awareness on all manner of subjects are increasing as a result.

Debates are still important and the corporate media still has great power and influence, having said that the debates could still be improved, as the Commission on Presidential Debates have greatly deteriorated them from the days of when The League of Women Voters sponsored it.

[randys1]

26. BASH BASH BASH Hillary, BASH BASH BASH

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Why are you bashing Hillary? I didn't n/t

[AlbertCat]

30. I didn't

You forget that any criticism of Sanders is met with outrageous bashing of Clinton.... even if there was no criticism of Sanders.... loony fringe far lefties.... or something.


I read it here on DU!

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. I try to avoid that dynamic from EITHER side

Hence I have no further comment to make here now.

[ChiciB1]

29. My Support For Bernie Is MORE About His Message AND

the fact that it's been a message he's always espoused and not one he has to "think" about BEFORE he answers a direct question is the WHY I support him.

Do I agree with everything single thing he says, no that would be too close to "worship" of any person and make me sound a bit nutty. My reasons are many, not the least of which that I don't KNOW this Democratic Party we have now. Yes we have some who still fight the fight, but far too many sound and vote like a Repuke that hurts me deeply.

Could this really be the time so many of us have wished for that will restore our faith in so much that has gone off the rails with the Party we were proud to stand with?? As a person who has been an activist before many here were even born, I've worked in the trenches and didn't sit on the side lines and complain. I DID get off my butt during the in between times when there was no National election. I know many here have done the same, but I also know that so many people have NEVER done anything more than stick a bumper sticker on a car or somewhere. Even some who have told me they don't want to mess of their vehicle by putting a sticker on it, or putting one anywhere!!!

"We The People" must also point the finger at ourselves for DOING NOTHING more than complain! I also need to say I'm not sure if my vote is always counted because I vote absentee, I am trying to find answers to my consternation.

[elleng]

31. So pleased to see you here, Tom,

and with one of your usual "right on point" essays. Some things NEVER change!

[BeyondGeography]

34. Hillary will coast to the nomination

I agree with everything else you say. Which makes me less than cheerful about our prospects next Nov.

[dougolat]

35. EMAILS! the Bush administration hid MILLIONS

It reminds me of the voter fraud vs election fraud nonsense.

[uponit7771]

40. Wingerish attacks on Clinton lead some to ignore them outright, there are some decent crticisms

.. as there should be with any human but if the criticisms are going to lean towards the overtly subjective and stupid why care?

tia

[brooklynite]

46. ...and maybe not

Nationally, Donald Trump is at about 25-30% and Bernie Sanders is about the same. That means two-thirds of the voters haven't joined the revolution.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. You left out Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson

That gets you to 50% support for candidates who never held any electoral office, and in current polls, they often rank numbers 1, 2 and 3. Meanwhile Sanders hasn't gotten anywhere near the national attention that Trump has gotten, and Trump already had very high name recognition going into this.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. 30 + 30 = 60.

Which means that only 40% are happy with politics-as-usual.

[Vincardog]

55. I say Sanders v Trump is the race for 2016

[WillyT]

57. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!!

[Jesus Malverde]

59. Nailed it

People are sick of fake progressives who are for empire and corporations.



Jesus

[Dems to Win]

60. Most support for Sanders has nothing to do with Clinton's emails

It's strong support for his straightforward message of raising the minimum wage and creating millions of jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure, etc. It is support for a candidate wise enough to vote against the Iraq War.

Some of the establishment is getting cold feet over Clinton's emails -- they are calling for Biden to get in and be the establishment candidate.

Even before Hillary, or anyone, had entered the race, there was a fair bit of Anyone But Hillary sentiment. A lot of those people have jumped on the email story with a vengeance.

There does seem to be a widespread anti-establishment mood in the country, as you identify. We'll see if it really plays out at the ballot box.

[kenfrequed]

61. To a lot of progressives it was NEVER about her emails

It is about policy and who her donors are.

We never cared about Benghazi, or any of the bullshit fake scandals that the GOP has been inventing for the last twenty years.

[Jesus Malverde]

63. I think a large part of it is alternative and social media

Pretty much only the elderly get their news from the television. Most people have dropped the boob tube as their primary sources of information. Top down media propaganda that worked in the past is ineffective in this era.

Hillary is actually running an old style campaign while Bernie is aware of the changes in messaging and the power of real grass roots.

Bernie supporters don't care what they say on the Sunday TV shows. The old media lost its credibility sometime around 2003 when the reality of the Iraq war set in. What the professional pundit class thinks is largely irrelevant.