Mediaboss Marketing

The Democratic Party is stuck in a moment that it cant get out of. That moment is 2:30 a.m. on November 9, 2016, when Donald J. Trump took to the podium at the Hilton Midtown in Manhattan to deliver his victory speech, having just won the presidency of the United States. Since then, Democrats have been reliving the shock that was the day before, aware they have to most past the trauma of a devastating loss but unable or unwilling to do so.

Seven months later, they remain stunned, their questions ultimately focused on a fundamental inability to explain how they could blow a 50-point late-fourth-quarter lead, in a contest that had them holding every advantage. If "she-didnt-campaign-in-Wisconsin" became a popular refrain in the days and weeks after the election, it is only because people needed some means to explain away the inexplicable.

Since then, other explanations have emerged, including from Hillary R. Clinton herself. They suggest that even as the political class begins to look to 2018, much of the Democratic establishment remains stuck in 2016.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

The latest round of recrimination came from Van Jones, the CNN commentator who was previously a green energy adviser to President Obama. Speaking in Chicago on Saturday, he harshly criticized the Clinton campaign of squandering its $1.2 billion war chest.

"The Hillary Clinton campaign did not spend their money on white workers, and they did not spend it on people of color, Jones said according to The Hill. They spent it on themselves. They spent it on themselves, let's be honest."

Jones seemed to be exploding the debate over which demographic Clinton had failed to attract: What is it the Midwestern whites whod voted for her husband Bill in 92 and 96, or the racially diverse millennials who went for her onetime rival Obama in 08?

Neither, Jones said at the outset of his remarks: "This is the stupidest false choice I've ever heard," he said to loud applause.

They took a billion dollars, a billion dollars, a billion dollars, and set it on fire, and called it a campaign!" He continued, A billion dollars for consultants. A billion dollars for pollsters. A billion dollars for a data operation, that was run by data dummies who couldn't figure out that maybe people in Michigan needed to be organized."

Joness diatribe may have been a dig at her young campaign manager Robby Mook, who reportedly rejected investing more money in the upper Midwest, where the famed Democratic firewall collapsed on Nov. 8, paving the way for a Trump victory.

Did the Clinton campaign waste the enormous amount of money it raised? Yes, but only because the efforts of any losing campaign seem wasteful after the fact. If you wake up with a hangover, youre bound to lament the choices you made the night before. Did I really need that seventh bacon-tini?

More substantively, it is true that Clintons campaign was an expensive enterprise, especially when compared to Trumps threadbare operation, which was largely predicated on free press coverage for his daily outrages.

For example, in early 2016, Clinton reportedly spent more than $700,000 in one quarter on polls; in an earlier quarter of 2015, shed spent $1.9 million, vastly more than any other candidate of either party. During the summer before the general election, she was spending $500,000 per day on television ads, while Trump was shelling out nothing for the same.

Hillary Clinton speaks to the Childrens Defense Fund in Washington, November 16, 2016. Reuters

Clinton has her own ideas about why she lost, and these have nothing to do with resource allocation. As she has been more vocal about her views on the election, many observers have noticed a lack of contrition on her part, a willingness to blame anyone but herself.

For example, at a tech conference in California in May, Clinton blamed the Democratic National Committee: It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it, she said.

A former data director for the DNC answered on Twitter with the following rebuke: DNC data folks: todays accusations are fucking bullshit, and I hope you understand the good you did despite that nonsense.

Many have marvelled at Clintons ability to manufacture excuses. The right-wing Washington Times, for example, noted in an editorial that Clinton had come up with nearly 20 reasons for her loss, including Facebook, Twitter, the Russians, the Democratic National Committee, racism, misogyny, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, voter suppression, The New York Times, Steve Bannon, Google, and the media.

The Rev. Al Sharpton had his own ideas on why theres no President Clinton today: Her mistake was she did not mobilize in the black community, he said last month. Though according to a much-discussed New York Times op-ed by Mark Lilla, she actually lost because shed too often slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop.

The unceasing relitigation of Novembers election isnt likely to help Democrats in 2018, which they hope will be a wave election that allows them to retake the House of Representatives. If there are lessons to be learned, they plainly havent learned them yet. That Democrats are still pointing fingers and picking at scabs a half-year after the polls closed is a sign of just how lost the party is, torn between competing nodes seemingly unable to reconcile their differences.

Of course, it doesnt help that President Trump continues to gloat over his victory in the election, routinely tweaking Clinton on Twitter, in a manner many consider unbecoming of a president. Crooked Hillary Clinton now blames everybody but herself, refuses to say she was a terrible candidate, he said in a May 31st tweet. Hits Facebook & even Dems & DNC.

Visit link:
Van Jones, Hillary Clinton and the Disastrous Democratic Blame Game - Newsweek

Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonFormer assistant FBI director rips Comey: Not a strong enough person to be FBI director US Navy commissions USS Gabrielle Giffords Van Jones: Clinton campaign set a billion dollars 'on fire' MORE penned a letter to Teen Vogue contributor Lauren Duca encouraging the 26-year-old blogger and columnist to "continue writing and speaking out."

"As we know all too well, the Internet is not a friendly place for women, especially those who aren't afraid to speak their minds and challenge established systems of power," Clinton wrote. "And so I applaud you, and hope you will continue writing and speaking out. Your voice is so important."

"Thank you, @HillaryClinton. For this, and for everything. I promise to keep fighting (right after I'm done sobbing)," she tweeted.

Thank you, @HillaryClinton. For this, and for everything. I promise to keep fighting (right after I'm done sobbing). pic.twitter.com/3trk8yav2p

Duca garnered attention in December after Teen Vogue published a scathing opinion piece she authored accusing President Trump of actively deceiving and manipulating American voters.

She also bitterly sparred on the air with Fox News host Tucker Carlson in December, calling him a "partisan hack." Carlson, in turn, told Duca that she "should stick to the thigh-high boots.

The Fox News host later said he shouldn't have "lost control and snapped at her," though he also called her "not very impressive."

In January, news that controversial former pharmaceutical CEO Martin Shkreli, a self-declared Trump backer, was harassing Duca on Twitter gained traction. Shkreli has since been suspended from the social media site.

Read the rest here:
Hillary Clinton writes to Teen Vogue contributor: 'The Internet is not a friendly place for women' - The Hill

Attention race car drivers: The Whitaker Speedway has re-opened. Since the traffic calming experiment is complete, the racing is back to normal.

The narrative that leaving the Paris climate agreement wont impact jobs isnt relevant. Getting out of a bad treaty that was purely political is the relevant thing to do.

Enough with the extra innings and unearned runs. When will the three-strikes rule ever apply to Alderman Tony Thomas? He needs to be stopped short.

Make America covfefe again!

When will the recall petition for Tony Thomas be ready and where can I sign it? Totally serious!

Kudos again, Savannah Morning News, for your commentary on Sunday, June 4, regarding Van Johnson and Tony Thomas. You go, Savannah Morning News. Great commentary. Keep up the good work.

God is a Republican. Mainly just think of what the Democrats believe in and then youll know he is a Republican.

I wonder if Van Johnson would be so forgiving if it had been his mother or sister that Tony Thomas used that profanity toward?

I think its time Hillary Clinton closed the book on the election. She may not believe this, but she is embarrassing herself.

Can Mosquito Control please come spray all of the islands? Its really bad out here. Weve called them a lot and they just wont do anything. We really would appreciate it.

This is to the person who found my Belks package at Belks and did not turn it in but kept it: I hope you can live with your conscience. May God be with you.

Not only have the American people turned their back on God, a lot of them have turned their back on America. Its really a shame. Ive been hoping our country would get turned back around.

View original post here:
Vox Populi: 'I think it's time Hillary Clinton closed the book on the election.' - Savannah Morning News

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Saturday, June 10, 2017, 7:00 AM

While the James Comey drama was unfolding in Washington D.C. Thursday, presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton opted for a Broadway play.

The former Secretary of State was spotted at the Brooks Atkinson Theatre, where she watched Sara Bareilles perform in Waitress -- a role the actress will hand over to Betsy Wolfe after her Sunday performance. The star and the politico share a special bond -- Bareilles hit song Brave topped Clinton's campaign play list last year.

Were told that Waitress producer Fran Weissler, whos a longtime friend of Clintons, brought the former First Lady to the show, then escorted her backstage after the performance. Thats where she met Bareilles, starlet Cate Elefante, and the show's writer, Jessie Nelson.

The entire cast knew Clinton was in the audience, and Bareilles said backstage that she was hoping Clinton would find the show funny.

Sen. John McCain clarifies bumbling statements in Comey hearing

I have it on good authority that she did, Clinton assured her.

Were told that Clinton also commented on how great the theater smelled. That aroma comes courtesy of a convection oven that is baking a pie as the audience enters.

With Brian Niemietz

Read more:
Hillary Clinton and Sara Bareilles say goodbye to Broadway - New York Daily News

The international left is hailing the stunning performance of U.K. Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn in Thursdays election as a political and ideological victory. Its easy to understand the enthusiasm from self-described socialists: Corbyns controversial ascendancy to the head of his party was a dramatic moment in European politics the centrist, finance-friendly approach of George W. Bush ally Tony Blair had been upended, and Labour was returning to the populist thinking that defined it for most of the 20th century.

But Corbyns victory is about much more than the internal dynamics of The Left. It is a critical event for anti-authoritarian politics more generally, one with implications that span the globe, and that carry a particular resonance in the United States in the age of Donald Trump.

Financial crises foment authoritarianism. This idea is not controversial in Europe, where authoritarian scars are still historically fresh. Stateside, many financial journalists intuitively grasp the connection between banking crashes and far-right politics, after witnessing the pattern in country after country. The idea dates back at least as far as the publication of John Maynard Keynes The Economic Consequences of the Peace in 1919, and has been repeatedly affirmed, including in a compelling 2015 study by three German academics.

But for American political science, the online wonk-industrial complex, and the cable news circuit, this is a difficult concept to grasp. As Donald Trump surged in the Republican primaries, a flurry of academic papers began making the rounds highlighting the moderately high median incomes of his supporters. These are still trickling out. They continue to serve as feature fodder for centrist publications and continue to be largely irrelevant to the political landscape. It doesnt matter how rich the authoritarians are. Their key feature is their authoritarianism.

We have had few financial crises in the United States since the Great Depression, and our political thinkers are accustomed to grappling with aristocratic conservatism, not authoritarianism. Aristocratic conservatism the type espoused by House Speaker Paul Ryan and establishment Republicans of the past 50 years seeks to protect the financial interests and social status of the wealthy. Banking elites want low capital gains taxes, but they are in many ways more protective of their position on top of the American social hierarchy. Even as he scuttled prosecutions for financial fraud and protected bonuses for bailed-out bankers, former President Barack Obama prompted hysterical denunciations from Wall Street by casually dismissing fat cat bankers in a single TV interview early in his first term.

The Democratic Party can sometimes defeat aristocratic conservatives by publicly shaming them as extremists. Aristocratic conservatives are sensitive to elite social pressure and respond to attacks on their dignity. This was a key plank of Hillary Clintons 2016 general election strategy, and in some ways, it worked: Clinton really did win over a big chunk of millionaires who had previously voted Republican.

But shame is a terrible strategy for defeating authoritarian candidates after a financial crisis. Banking meltdowns dont unleash a wave of aristocratic sympathy. They cause widespread, unfair suffering and create tremendous uncertainty. People lose their jobs and homes through no fault of their own. Even working families who survived the 2008 crash relatively unscathed did not do so without having to confront new psychological strains. Millions of people who kept their jobs had to come to the aid of family members who did not. The prospect of economic ruin was always right around the corner.

Authoritarians exploit this uncertainty by promising stability, order and safety. This is not a mathematical equation guaranteeing higher incomes. It is a social rebellion against the governing aristocracy that has just failed and even in the most just and perfect bank rescue enjoyed the political prioritization of its own interests over the needs of the broader citizenry.

In the wake of a financial crisis, the public does not interpret centrist politics as an appeal to moderation or reasoned debate. It sees centrism as an attempt to rehabilitate the legitimacy of the aristocracy which has just pushed the country into disaster. Countrymen, I have been approved by the finest minds of the old order as an eminently reasonable leader! is a poor slogan when measured against I will crush your enemies and restore your glory!

A much better pitch? I am on your team and will protect you. This works very well with promises to expand and improve social welfare programs. I will break the cheating aristocrats who did this to you can also be effective. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt put the Democratic Party in power for only the third time since the Civil War by campaigning on a combination of both messages.

Whatever the slogan, anti-authoritarian politicians need to make a clean break with what failed and offer a psychological alternative to authoritarianisms call for order through violence and suspension of civil liberties.

The specific policy agenda is important politicians need good ideas that people actually like. Corbyn appears to have significantly boosted the youth vote by promising to abolish college tuition fees entirely. But policy mostly functions as a guidepost for voters. A leaders tone and presentation matter just as much the point is to project a sense of safety and community. Corbyn nailed that part, too. When May called the election, she and the Conservatives believed Corbyns left-wing priorities would alienate him from voters. His stump speeches did the exact opposite.

Hillary Clinton got some of the policy right in her 2016 run. Bernie Sanders ran to her left, of course, but Hillarys debt-free college plan was in some respects more progressive than Bernies tuition-free deal. Her positioning, however, was awful. Campaigning to boost the minimum wage? Good. Insisting that a $12 minimum wage was much more responsible than a $15 minimum wage, then waffling and saying maybe $15 was fine, then trying to talk about something else? That was pretty bad. Getting paid millions of dollars to give private speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms? That was catastrophic.

Trump is the American strain of the authoritarian virus that has infected much of Europe. In France, its standard-bearer is Marine Le Pen. In Greece, it is the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party. Finland has the True Finns; Hungary has Jobbik. In the U.K., this faction was represented by Nigel Farage and the U.K. Independence Party, which won 4 million parliamentary votes in 2015 and successfully mobilized a campaign to push their country out of the European Union by demonizing refugees and promising better health care for native Britons.

Farage is still at it. During a Fox Business interview with Maria Bartiromo last week, he raised the prospect of mass internment of thousands of terror suspects. But under May, the chief vehicle for authoritarian politics in the U.K. has become the Conservative Party. She has embraced Farages Brexit cause and floated the repeal of human rights laws in the name of stability in opposition to Corbyns weak approach to terrorism. On Thursday night, UKIP was decimated, its vote split between the new ethno-nationalist haven in the Conservatives, and the populist alternative offered by Corbyns Labour party.

The same union of authoritarian insurgents and the aristocratic old guard is taking place in the United States. After campaigning as an authoritarian populist, Trump has filled his administration with Goldman Sachs alums and is embracing the aristocratic economic agenda of Paul Ryans Republican Party.

And the Republican aristocracy, with a few Never-Trumper exceptions, is reciprocating. Just ask Paul Ryan about James Comeys Senate testimony. Then ask him about Dodd-Frank.

Corbyn made significant gains where nearly every political expert in Europe expected him to march off an electoral cliff. He did so by abandoning dyed-in-the-wool aristocratic Tory voters, energizing new, young Labour voters with policy, and making a direct psychological challenge to authoritarian appeals.

Theres a lesson there for the Democratic Party. It can be the party of the Good Aristocrats, or it can be the Anti-Authoritarian Party. But it cant be both.

Link:
What Jeremy Corbyn And The UK Election Should Teach Hillary ... - HuffPost