|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 21 2016 09:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 08:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton is having a harder time beating Donald Trump than she bargained for. According to a recent poll, a staggering 44% of millennials say they’ll be voting for either Green party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson. The chief reason for Clinton’s dip in these polls is not – as Barack Obama claimed on Sunday – that she’s a woman (though sexism does have a lot to answer for). It’s because Clinton has assumed a third of the electorate – millennials – would vote for her out of fear of her opponent.
Simply put, we want more.
Millennials are the generation that has occupied Wall Street, shut down bridges for black lives and chained ourselves to the White House fence to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Disillusioned by Obama’s embrace of war and austerity alike – especially after knocking on doors to get him elected – we know better than to put blind faith in any candidate for the Oval Office.
What Clinton can do now is prove that she’s listening. Doing so could bear fruit in the polls, but only if she shows she’s willing to part ways with her billionaire friends and push for policies that are in line with what millennials really want.
Since the Democratic national convention, Clinton and Trump have peddled their own politics of fear. Hers: of an ascendant far-right. His: of immigrants and the prospect of a truly multi-racial democracy. If Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign showed anything, though, it’s that young Americans are eager to vote for something – not against it.
Laying out plans for single-payer healthcare and a $15 minimum wage, Sanders beat Clinton among millennials in each one of the 27 states where they faced off in the primaries. And he might still be the most popular politician in the US today.
At a time when Americans across the political spectrum are turning against the status quo, Clinton seems to be embracing it. She spent weeks in August wooing millionaire donors in Silicon Valley and Martha’s Vineyard, and has chased endorsements from Bush-era official and war criminals like Henry Kissinger. It’s out of frustration that millennials will register protest votes, not ignorance.
Make no mistake: a vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in a swing state is a vote for Trump, and could land the US in a situation more dangerous and unstable than any it has known yet. Clinton is this country’s best hope right now. Especially if we want to avoid a future defined by hostility towards immigrants and people of color, the near certainty of catastrophic global warming and a disastrous economic plan ripped straight from the Tea Party’s playbook.
But making sure that painful, hate-filled future never comes to pass is up to the Clinton campaign now, and its ability to make an earnest and heartfelt appeal to the future of the Democratic party.
So what is it that millennials actually want? Around 70% favor wealth redistribution, one Gallup poll found, and many are eager to avoid six-figure debt for things like education and routine visits to the doctor’s office. The Movement for Black Lives released a detailed policy agenda this summer with plenty of ideas for senior Clinton staffers, and round-the-clock protests against the Dakota Access pipeline should give them a sense for where young Americans stand on new fossil fuel infrastructure and violations of indigenous rights. Source + Show Spoiler [short rant] +The more I read these self-righteous, I'm-so-idealistic posts the less faith I have in my generation. Do these people not know that Clinton has pushed for most of the things they want in some for another her entire career? And maybe that some of the things they want are actually pretty stupid or unimplementable, and there's a reason a politician who is by most reasonable standards somewhere between very and pretty liberal doesn't support some particular initiatives like banning fracking or Medicare for all? Do they not understand how the incredibly flawed world we live in works?
I don't think they are aware of that at all, or clearly don't care. Heck, even Bernie has said this- that his supporters should get behind Hillary because of similar philosophies and policies- and way too many of them just don't give a shit. Anecdotally speaking, every Trump supporter I know is voting for him because he's "not Hillary", and every Stein or Johnson supporter I know is voting for them because Hillary "stole" the election from Bernie, who they had originally wanted to vote for. They'd rather screw over the country with their temper tantrum, and cut off their nose (and cut out their brain?) just to spite their face.
The Trump and Stein/Johnson supporters aren't comparable at all. "Not Hillary" is a stance that's taken because people think she'd be a genuine disaster. It's a nod to the fact that it's not the choice they'd prefer, but it's one they have to make anyway. It's not "cutting off your nose to spite your face" at all.
|
On September 21 2016 09:51 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 09:17 Nevuk wrote:
The smug, condescending, "we don't need your vote anyways" attitude that Hillary's supporters took after the primary was near the end really didn't help. My position as a Clinton supporter has always been "we think there's a lot you here could be comfortable getting behind and would appreciate your vote and support, but if you're going to refuse to meet us halfway or listen then I'm not gonna bother." It actually wasn't really this thread I was referring to, rather the comments I've seen from Clinton supporters on a wide variety of a sites whenever Bernie did something they didn't agree with. I know some prominent dem politicians said something very close to this effect back in May/June, I'll track it down a bit later. The closest this thread has come is pretty well epitomized by how a lot of you treated GH as a bit of a joke, which was about the first thing I noticed when I started reading this thread and my comment was something like "This is no way to gain a vote from someone that probably agrees with you." Yes, he's probably overly committed to his candidate, but he has valid grievances. While his groups may not have expressed them in the best possible manner at all times (some of the convention stuff missed the mark, but it may have been more of a success than was apparent, it was an early warning sign to the Clinton camp that they had a problem) it doesn't change the fact that it existed and that he pretty clearly wasn't some lone lunatic crying at the moon in the woods. Sanders was the closest any mainstream US politician has come to my beliefs, so I was pretty excited about it. I wasn't hugely into it like others were, but I didn't particularly like any of the other 23 candidates running. My being willing to vote for Clinton this year is because she ceded so much of the democratic platform to him - she did listen, but it's not really being widely communicated. Partially that's the press, partially that's her campaign, partially that's Trump being much better at this than she is. I will say that the only reason she didn't lose my vote from hiring DWS to a position in her campaign immediately after being accused of collusion was that Stein proved to be extremely inept politically (pandered to anti-science crowds that have no interest in accomplishing anything) and Trump was even worse than he had appeared in the past (mainly, he chose Pence for VP).
Frankly, I'm pretty tired of GH and I'm sure he'd say something similar about me. We both have our reasons.
Plus AFAIK he still hasn't held up his end of our bet, though I've written it off at this point.
|
On September 21 2016 08:30 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 08:23 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 08:13 biology]major wrote:
Trump has played everyone to the highest extent, perhaps unintentionally because of the extreme circumstances, but the end result is the same. In the debates all he has to do is not be a complete buffoon and he will get an A+, meanwhile HRC will have to impress with some new and effective policies we haven't heard before to get the same effect. The expectations are drastically different, yet the polls are even which means trump is heavily favored before the debates even begin.
Just for good measure, he will discredit the moderators/mainstream media to cover in case he appears poorly in any of the debates. I don't see him being negatively impacted unless he really screws it up.
Case in point: Trump goes to mexico, stands there and smiles, poll numbers go up. Yeah the Trump standard is that while his opponent is treated like a potential president of the USA, in a effort to appear unbiased the media takes it wayyy too easy on him I would say it is more due to the fact that the media is simply unable to do anything. He says or tweets something everyday that in previous elections would be campaign ending. The media had so much control then, they could drag a story and put someone in the dirt for sending out the wrong tweet or having a slip up. With trump, it doesn't matter anymore. Everyone is so desensitized to his outlandish comments, the media can't affect the opinion of the populace. On top of that he has utterly destroyed the trust of the people in the media, which has been shown in recent polls to be the lowest it has ever been in history.
Ten years ago, I spent an year in the US. I could not believe what was supposed to be a "news station" there. Listening to any of the Republican supporting radio stations gave me a headache due to manipulative and misleading "shows" shoving party agendas down people's throats. Fox News was basically a 24/7 add for the Rupublican party that had 0 journalism integrity and at best trace amounts of half-truths sprinkled in. Ever since I returned to Europe I have considered Fox News the epitome of a propaganda network.
During the current presidential race, every site I visit seems to have an absurd amount of material on the Trump-Clinton battle including video material from all the major US "news" outlets. While Fox News is as terrible as ever CNN has obviously caught up completely. Both are using the same manipulative tactics to sway viewers into voting for their supporting party. Video material is cut and edited in a way completely botchering the original meaning, in debates "experts" are cut off mid-sentence and shouted over to undermine them and prevent any statements that could hurt the party line, "news" segments are always spinned and twisted to such a degree that they only ever discredit the opposing side and support one's own, and so on, and so forth. There is every reason in the world to never trust any media the US. Of course, in all over Europe media outlets also often support a certain party in some of their articles in a subtle manner (and sometimes in a not-so-subtle way), but they are still completely incomparable to what, you guys, get to "enjoy" on the other side of the pond. The difference is not just a thin line, it is rather the size of the Atlantic Ocean. What goes on with the media in the US can only be described as propaganda. Truth and discourse are irrelevant and normally plain absent in your media coverage.
Trump himself is certainly not the first one to spew "outlandish comments". Claiming this fails to give enough credit to many more of your politicians in the recent past. The only difference is that Trump has made this his trademark by never missing an opportunity to make such comments, while his predecessors only sprinkled them in every now and then. So far, it seems like he has chosen a winning strategy...
"the media can't affect the opinion of the populace"
This could not be any more wrong...
On September 21 2016 08:36 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 08:30 biology]major wrote:On September 21 2016 08:23 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 08:13 biology]major wrote:
Trump has played everyone to the highest extent, perhaps unintentionally because of the extreme circumstances, but the end result is the same. In the debates all he has to do is not be a complete buffoon and he will get an A+, meanwhile HRC will have to impress with some new and effective policies we haven't heard before to get the same effect. The expectations are drastically different, yet the polls are even which means trump is heavily favored before the debates even begin.
Just for good measure, he will discredit the moderators/mainstream media to cover in case he appears poorly in any of the debates. I don't see him being negatively impacted unless he really screws it up.
Case in point: Trump goes to mexico, stands there and smiles, poll numbers go up. Yeah the Trump standard is that while his opponent is treated like a potential president of the USA, in a effort to appear unbiased the media takes it wayyy too easy on him I would say it is more due to the fact that the media is simply unable to do anything. He says or tweets something everyday that in previous elections would be campaign ending. The media had so much control then, they could drag a story and put someone in the dirt for sending out the wrong tweet or having a slip up. With trump, it doesn't matter anymore. Everyone is so desensitized to his outlandish comments, the media can't affect the opinion of the populace. On top of that he has utterly destroyed the trust of the people in the media, which has been shown in recent polls to be the lowest it has ever been in history. minor quibble, it wasn't trump who destroyed people's trust in the media; waht did that is an ongoing thing republicans have been doing for quite some time now.
I disagree. The Republicans were not trying to destroy people's trust in the media. They were the first to abuse the media's credibility in such an extreme manner to manipulate the masses for their own interests. Now, the Democrats caught up and have established their own absurd propaganda network. When the country's whole media landscape is filled with competing "news" outlets that would make Goebbels question his own "achievements", you cannot be surprised that the trust in the media will erode.
|
|
|
On September 21 2016 09:37 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 09:17 Nevuk wrote:
The smug, condescending, "we don't need your vote anyways" attitude that Hillary's supporters took after the primary was near the end really didn't help. My position as a Clinton supporter has always been "we think there's a lot you here could be comfortable getting behind and would appreciate your vote and support, but if you're going to refuse to meet us halfway or listen then I'm not gonna bother." Personally, for me, it had a lot to do with simply not trusting her to do what she says she will do. Still it's hardly more than "well, there's nothing better...".
My working assumption has been that neither Trump nor Hillary will actually do what they say they will do, and in that scenario, Hillary doing nothing is preferable to Trump doing nothing because Hillary and a Republican congress not getting anything done is a somewhat better outcome than Trump letting Pence take the reins and letting a Republican congress pass whatever they want.
|
The fact that bernie supporters were awful for months saying things like people only supported HIllary becuase they were CTR (although Benie spent way more money on that shit than she did) lead to the haha we don't need your votes anyways stuff. What comes around goes around.
|
On September 21 2016 10:01 Barrin wrote:
@Plansix & ticklish
Oh I think she'll be relatively effective at what she does try to do. Trust however is something she has a lot to do to earn. I do appreciate the utility of lying/misleading to get what you want, but I donno..
And for anyone who still thinks that any of the 4 sides have a monopoly on truth and/or lack of deceit in its many forms, I don't know what to say except that you are definitely wrong. You just don't get this far by being honest. Which is why I find what Clinton's done to be maybe forgivable.
I agree trust is something to be earned. How does she earn yours, and what reservations do you have about giving it? What lies or omissions of hers make you hesitant to support her?
|
On September 21 2016 09:53 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 08:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton is having a harder time beating Donald Trump than she bargained for. According to a recent poll, a staggering 44% of millennials say they’ll be voting for either Green party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson. The chief reason for Clinton’s dip in these polls is not – as Barack Obama claimed on Sunday – that she’s a woman (though sexism does have a lot to answer for). It’s because Clinton has assumed a third of the electorate – millennials – would vote for her out of fear of her opponent.
Simply put, we want more.
Millennials are the generation that has occupied Wall Street, shut down bridges for black lives and chained ourselves to the White House fence to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Disillusioned by Obama’s embrace of war and austerity alike – especially after knocking on doors to get him elected – we know better than to put blind faith in any candidate for the Oval Office.
What Clinton can do now is prove that she’s listening. Doing so could bear fruit in the polls, but only if she shows she’s willing to part ways with her billionaire friends and push for policies that are in line with what millennials really want.
Since the Democratic national convention, Clinton and Trump have peddled their own politics of fear. Hers: of an ascendant far-right. His: of immigrants and the prospect of a truly multi-racial democracy. If Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign showed anything, though, it’s that young Americans are eager to vote for something – not against it.
Laying out plans for single-payer healthcare and a $15 minimum wage, Sanders beat Clinton among millennials in each one of the 27 states where they faced off in the primaries. And he might still be the most popular politician in the US today.
At a time when Americans across the political spectrum are turning against the status quo, Clinton seems to be embracing it. She spent weeks in August wooing millionaire donors in Silicon Valley and Martha’s Vineyard, and has chased endorsements from Bush-era official and war criminals like Henry Kissinger. It’s out of frustration that millennials will register protest votes, not ignorance.
Make no mistake: a vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in a swing state is a vote for Trump, and could land the US in a situation more dangerous and unstable than any it has known yet. Clinton is this country’s best hope right now. Especially if we want to avoid a future defined by hostility towards immigrants and people of color, the near certainty of catastrophic global warming and a disastrous economic plan ripped straight from the Tea Party’s playbook.
But making sure that painful, hate-filled future never comes to pass is up to the Clinton campaign now, and its ability to make an earnest and heartfelt appeal to the future of the Democratic party.
So what is it that millennials actually want? Around 70% favor wealth redistribution, one Gallup poll found, and many are eager to avoid six-figure debt for things like education and routine visits to the doctor’s office. The Movement for Black Lives released a detailed policy agenda this summer with plenty of ideas for senior Clinton staffers, and round-the-clock protests against the Dakota Access pipeline should give them a sense for where young Americans stand on new fossil fuel infrastructure and violations of indigenous rights. Source + Show Spoiler [short rant] +The more I read these self-righteous, I'm-so-idealistic posts the less faith I have in my generation. Do these people not know that Clinton has pushed for most of the things they want in some for another her entire career? And maybe that some of the things they want are actually pretty stupid or unimplementable, and there's a reason a politician who is by most reasonable standards somewhere between very and pretty liberal doesn't support some particular initiatives like banning fracking or Medicare for all? Do they not understand how the incredibly flawed world we live in works?
I don't think they are aware of that at all, or clearly don't care. Heck, even Bernie has said this- that his supporters should get behind Hillary because of similar philosophies and policies- and way too many of them just don't give a shit. Anecdotally speaking, every Trump supporter I know is voting for him because he's "not Hillary", and every Stein or Johnson supporter I know is voting for them because Hillary "stole" the election from Bernie, who they had originally wanted to vote for. They'd rather screw over the country with their temper tantrum, and cut off their nose (and cut out their brain?) just to spite their face. The Trump and Stein/Johnson supporters aren't comparable at all. "Not Hillary" is a stance that's taken because people think she'd be a genuine disaster. It's a nod to the fact that it's not the choice they'd prefer, but it's one they have to make anyway. It's not "cutting off your nose to spite your face" at all.
The people who wanted Bernie but are now "sticking it to the Democrats" by not voting for Hillary- when she's the better of the only two candidates who could become president- are absolutely cutting off their nose to spite their face. They wanted, say, 20 things from Bernie; they can only get 10 of them with Hillary; they're helping Trump beat Hillary and so they'll get 0 of those things. That's what I was referring to... sorry if it wasn't clear.
|
This is the anti-establishment year. Hillary is about as establishment as one can get, and a lot of Bernie supporters don't want her because they would see voting for her as giving up on the revolution.
For me personally, I don't want anyone named Clinton, Bush, or Roosevelt for that matter to be president again for maybe 100 years or so. This to me is like hereditary succession of the British Crown all over again. I am leaning towards her only because Trump's policies and ideas are insane and scare me, but I still might throw out a protest vote to the Green party or Libertarians because, not living in a swing state, my vote doesn't count anyway.
Probably sounds pretty nuts to most of you, but this is the kind of thinking a lot of people are having right now.
|
|
|
I think it really all comes down to people not thinking much can go wrong if Trump is president. I think people are convinced that even if we elected an actual donkey, it would still be pretty much business as usual because of the senate and congress and other things. People don't think they are at risk of personally suffering as a result of whoever is president. As such, they have no problem letting their own ego dictate who they vote for. They'll put their nose in the air and pat themselves on the back for being principled, as if it means anything.
|
On September 21 2016 10:09 Mohdoo wrote:
I think it really all comes down to people not thinking much can go wrong if Trump is president. I think people are convinced that even if we elected an actual donkey, it would still be pretty much business as usual because of the senate and congress and other things. People don't think they are at risk of personally suffering as a result of whoever is president. As such, they have no problem letting their own ego dictate who they vote for. They'll put their nose in the air and pat themselves on the back for being principled, as if it means anything.
This is the part that scares the fuck out of me. That they assume that nothing will happen or he will improve a few things, but congress will keep him in check with the crazy stuff. If he wins, the Republicans will have control of both houses and the democrats will be powerless to do anything. The GOP will run the show for 4 years and the guy backed by Briebart will be picking our next supreme court justice, in control of the FBI and CIA. Pence will be running the show like Cheney did for Bush and we will see a huge push for social conservatism. Hell, they may try to undo or limit gay marriage. Trump has said he wants to remove all caps on campaign donations and just let the money flow freely. Apathy is how terrible things happen to countries.
|
On September 21 2016 10:05 TheFish7 wrote:
This is the anti-establishment year. Hillary is about as establishment as one can get, and a lot of Bernie supporters don't want her because they would see voting for her as giving up on the revolution.
For me personally, I don't want anyone named Clinton, Bush, or Roosevelt for that matter to be president again for maybe 100 years or so. This to me is like hereditary succession of the British Crown all over again. I am leaning towards her only because Trump's policies and ideas are insane and scare me, but I still might throw out a protest vote to the Green party or Libertarians because, not living in a swing state, my vote doesn't count anyway.
Probably sounds pretty nuts to most of you, but this is the kind of thinking a lot of people are having right now.
I mean FDR was closer related to his wife than Teddy Rosevelt lol. Lots of sons and more recently daughters and wives of important politicians have gotten into politics, very few of them have wound up coming anywhere close to becoming president. As long as they're the best (or at least less bad) canidate for president, I have no problem with it. Very few people are voting for HIllary because of Bill, and even less people voted for Dubya because of his one term daddy. People should be more upset about the fact that the two party system is so entrenched that its never going to go away then the fact that a Clinton might be president again. If Chelsea is running a campaign based on my name is Clinton its my time, then you can worry.
|
lol. Look back at the last few pages if you don't understand why Bernie supporters didn't hop on the Hillary bus.
We do know what she's done, that's one reason we don't support her. She's not going to have the house so she'll pass nothing Republicans wouldn't pass on their own. She's shown multiple times that she's willing to flat out lie to us for months on end. People convincing themselves she's going to push a liberal agenda with any success are deluding themselves.
|
On September 21 2016 10:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 10:09 Mohdoo wrote:
I think it really all comes down to people not thinking much can go wrong if Trump is president. I think people are convinced that even if we elected an actual donkey, it would still be pretty much business as usual because of the senate and congress and other things. People don't think they are at risk of personally suffering as a result of whoever is president. As such, they have no problem letting their own ego dictate who they vote for. They'll put their nose in the air and pat themselves on the back for being principled, as if it means anything. This is the part that scares the fuck out of me. That they assume that nothing will happen or he will improve a few things, but congress will keep him in check with the crazy stuff. If he wins, the Republicans will have control of both houses and the democrats will be powerless to do anything. The GOP will run the show for 4 years and the guy backed by Briebart will be picking our next supreme court justice. Trump has said he wants to remove all caps on campaign donations and just let the money flow freely. Apathy is how terrible things happen to countries.
And it will be fun.
If you can get by financially while this is happening in front of your eyes, this will be the greatest show on Earth.
I actually want to see the banters between russia and us.
Putin vs Trump in smooth talking.
It will be sexy as fuck.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If policy were the entire story, Hillary would easily have my vote. The matters I trust her to act like a bumbling idiot on, including FP and trade, most presidents would probably do badly so I have no choice. But to put it simply, I need to see Hillary actually campaigning on those issues that her supporters say she is going to implement. I was hoping to watch the DNC and get a good idea of what platform she intends to push as president. No dice; identity politics, attacks on Trump, and distortions of reality is all I got. It makes me wonder if she intends to simply use Trump as a tool to enable herself to push the worst of her possible platform, and justify it by some "lesser of two evils" appeal again. Ultimately there is no good choice this election so I have to make do with what I have. But I don't blame others of about my political alignment of staying home, voting third party, or voting Trump if Hillary's supposed strengths are not pushed as policy suggestions by her campaign, and her faults are as real as I could plainly see they were a year ago.
|
On September 21 2016 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol. Look back at the last few pages if you don't understand why Bernie supporters didn't hop on the Hillary bus.
We do know what she's done, that's one reason we don't support her. She's not going to have the house so she'll pass nothing Republicans wouldn't pass on their own. She's shown multiple times that she's willing to flat out lie to us for months on end. People convincing themselves she's going to push a liberal agenda with any success are deluding themselves.
So you'd rather throw out the chance to have a canidate whose voting record is 90% the same as Bernies for Trump. lol
|
On September 21 2016 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol. Look back at the last few pages if you don't understand why Bernie supporters didn't hop on the Hillary bus.
We do know what she's done, that's one reason we don't support her. She's not going to have the house so she'll pass nothing Republicans wouldn't pass on their own. She's shown multiple times that she's willing to flat out lie to us for months on end. People convincing themselves she's going to push a liberal agenda with any success are deluding themselves.
Pretending we had anything to do with it is silly. You feel comfortable not voting for Clinton because you aren't concerned with the differences between a trump and clinton presidency.
|
Hillary Clinton has dropped the words “climate change” from most of her public addresses since winning the endorsement of her party rival Bernie Sanders, according to Climate Home analysis.
While the presidential candidate talks regularly about her plan for the US to become a “clean energy superpower”, in recent months she has rarely made reference to the planetary crisis that necessitates it.
On Monday, when she launched her pitch to millennials online, she could find no room for an issue that will affect that voting cohort more than any other.
The rhetorical shift undermines hopes that climate change might emerge as a key campaign issue in 2016. Boosted by the disparity between Clinton and her Republican opponent Donald Trump, a self-professed non-believer in climate change.
Indeed, the signs were there. During the last six months of Clinton’s primary campaign against Sanders, the transcript log of her speeches shows she was talking about climate change at one out of every two speeches she gave.
But since Sanders endorsed Clinton on July 12, the full focus of the Clinton campaign has swung to Trump. In 38 speeches since that date, Clinton mentioned climate change specifically eight times. Just once every five public addresses.
“As Bernie reminds us so powerfully, we owe it to future generations to work together to combat climate change,” said Clinton as she accepted Sanders’ endorsement.
The overwhelming priority for progressive Americans is to avoid a Trump presidency. This has necessitated a change in tone, said Prof Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program. “The Clinton campaign needs to target its messages to independent, undecided voters at this point. Speaking to her own constituency on the left would not be a productive use of her time and effort.”
Research from Yale released in July indicates that even during the hottest year ever recorded, only the 17% of voters who describe themselves as “alarmed” about climate change rank it as a top tier election issue. Meanwhile, Trump has framed Clinton’s climate change response as a “poverty-expansion agenda”. The economy ranks in the top two defining policy areas for all other voters.
The Democratic primary season was altogether different. Clinton, the overwhelming favourite for the nomination, was ambushed on the left by her socialist rival. To tackle climate change, Sanders had promised to declare legislative war on fossil fuel companies. For her part, Clinton announced a plan to increase US solar capacity seven-fold by 2020. In the spring, she rolled out a wider platform on environmental justice and protection.
Source
|
On September 21 2016 10:27 LegalLord wrote:
If policy were the entire story, Hillary would easily have my vote. The matters I trust her to act like a bumbling idiot on, including FP and trade, most presidents would probably do badly so I have no choice. But to put it simply, I need to see Hillary actually campaigning on those issues that her supporters say she is going to implement. I was hoping to watch the DNC and get a good idea of what platform she intends to push as president. No dice; identity politics, attacks on Trump, and distortions of reality is all I got. It makes me wonder if she intends to simply use Trump as a tool to enable herself to push the worst of her possible platform, and justify it by some "lesser of two evils" appeal again. Ultimately there is no good choice this election so I have to make do with what I have. But I don't blame others of about my political alignment of staying home, voting third party, or voting Trump if Hillary's supposed strengths are not pushed as policy suggestions by her campaign, and her faults are as real as I could plainly see they were a year ago.
We are in a post policy election. There is no way to get through the noise and reach voters talking about policy. The last 12 stories I have seen on my news feed are about Trump saying anything. He speaks, they report on it. Clinton talks about policy, no one gives a shit or reads. Trump is promising to create 25 million well paying jobs from literally nothing. I don't know how you talk about policy when the other side is promising hover boards because is past 2015.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
