Hillary Clinton warns progressives could cost Dems at midterms

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  38 comments

By:   Mark Moore (New York Post)

Hillary Clinton warns progressives could cost Dems at midterms
Former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton criticized progressive lawmakers saying they could cost democrats seats in the upcoming midterm elections.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton appeared to single out progressive lawmakers for criticism in a recent interview, warning that an inability to "get things done" could cost Democrats the House and Senate in next year's midterm elections.

"I think that it is a time for some careful thinking about what wins elections, and not just in deep-blue districts where a Democrat and a liberal Democrat, or so-called progressive Democrat, is going to win," Clinton told MSNBC's Willie Geist. "I understand why people want to argue for their priorities. That's what they believe they were elected to do."

Clinton's interview with Geist was recorded earlier this month, but parts of it aired Thursday.

The former senator from New York added that she was "all about having vigorous debate. I think it's good, and it gives people a chance to be part of the process.

"But at the end of the day it means nothing if we don't have a Congress that will get things done, and we don't have a White House that we can count on to be sane and sober and stable and productive."

Hillary Clinton says Democrats need to think about what wins elections outside of deep blue districts. TODAY

Clinton's remarks come after House progressives attacked Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from West Virginia, over his opposition to President Biden's $2 trillion Build Back Better social spending package.

When Manchin, a crucial vote in the evenly divided Senate, announced on Fox News Dec. 19 that he could not vote for the current version of the spending package, liberal Democrats accused him of going back on his word and ignoring the needs of his Mountain State constituents.

Progressives refused to vote on a $1.2 trillion infrastructure package unless the Senate first passed Build Back Better to keep pressure on Manchin, who was negotiating its cost and some of its provisions with the White House.

Hillary Clinton spoke out after progressives attacked West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin for oppsing President Biden's Build Back Better agenda.

The two pieces of legislation were eventually decoupled after Biden gave assurances that Manchin was on board with the massive social spending plan.

Following Manchin's announcement, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) denounced the West Virginian's reasons for opposing it as "bulls—."

"The people of West Virginia would directly benefit from childcare, pre-Medicare expansion, and long term care, just like Minnesotans," she wrote in a tweet. "This is exactly what we warned would happen if we separated Build Back Better from infrastructure."

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) accused the Democratic senator of "obstructing" Biden's domestic agenda.

Rep. Ilhan Omar said residents of West Virginia would benefit from the Build Back Better plan.MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA-EFE/REX

"He has continued to move the goalposts, he has never negotiated in good faith, and he is obstructing the president's agenda, 85 percent of which is still left on the table. And in obstructing the president's agenda, he is obstructing the people's agenda," Pressley said in an interview with CNN.

Clinton's warning also follows Republican Glenn Youngkin's surprise win in the November governor's race in Virginia, a state that Biden won by 10 percentage points in 2020.

Youngkin defeated Democrat Terry McAuliffe, a former Virginia governor, by focusing on parents' right to have a say in their children's education and the debate over teaching of critical race theory in public schools.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
She also thinks the midterms may be stolen:

Your link delivers this language: 

"Right-wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential election. And they’re not making a secret of it," said Clinton. "The right-wing-controlled Supreme Court may be poised to rule on giving state legislatures the power to overturn presidential elections." The claim comes as the Supreme Court is hearing a case this term that could give state legislatures more power in regulating federal elections. The case, Moore v. Harper , stems from a lawsuit by the GOP-controlled North Carolina General Assembly over a state court's invalidation of congressional redistricting.

The midterm is not a presidential election.

Summary of Moore v. Harper case:   (from a source you will accept )

ELECTION REDISTRICTING:  Moore v. Harper(Arguments TBA)

AT ISSUE: Whether state courts have improperly taken powers given by the U.S. Constitution to state lawmakers governing federal elections and congressional redistricting.        

THE CASE: Involves a challenge by North Carolina Republicans to a state court ruling that threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly, which would have made GOP candidates likely victors in 10 of the state's 14 congressional districts.

THE ARGUMENTS: The Supreme Court is now being asked to invoke the "independent state legislature doctrine" for the first time. Backers of ISL say Article 1 of the Constitution — notably the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof" — gives state legislatures sole authority to regulate federal elections, without oversight by state courts or state constitutions. Civil rights groups call it an effort to inject hyper-gerrymandering into the redistricting process, and that the theory was used by some to challenge election results in the 2020 presidential election. The question for the justices will be defining the limits of the word "legislature."

This would allow a rogue state legislature to establish rules designed to achieve a particular result.   If this were done, the legislature could potentially disenfranchise its constituents.   It all depends on the 'rules'.  

Federal oversight is critical.   It is a principle of our constitution to limit powers and have checks & balances.   Federal oversight on state election rules for federal elections is directly in line with the constitution and is a good practice.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.1    one month ago
Federal oversight on state election rules for federal elections is directly in line with the constitution and is a good practice.

Actually, it is not. The Constitution gave State Legislatures the exclusive power to enact State election laws. That power was interfered with in the 2020 election; thus, the door was open to people having questions about it. Hillary claimed the 2016 election was stollen and is sowing the seeds of distrust in the coming midterm election.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

Read the entire paragraph, Vic, it is critical if you intend to get my meaning:

TiG@1.1 ☞ Federal oversight is critical.   It is a principle of our constitution to limit powers and have checks & balances.   Federal oversight on state election rules for federal elections is directly in line with the constitution and is a good practice.

In short, the idea of checks & balances is right down the center-of-the-plate in constitutional principles.   It is a good practice to have federal oversight on state election rules for federal elections.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.1    one month ago

The GOP candidate for governor in Arizona, Kari Lake, was asked whether she realized her desired result for the 2020 election would be the result of disenfranchising 740,000 Arizonians because of some glitch in the vote by mail system.  Lake didnt even bat an eye and reiterated that there was an "issue" with vote by mail. In other words, yes, she would disenfranchise 740,000 people to prove her nebulous point about mail in voting. 

This is the type of person MAGA wants ruling this nation.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    one month ago

Hillary was correct about everything regarding #45, such as all roads with TT lead to Russia/Putin.   This wouldn't surprise me all.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2    one month ago

She was?

You mean Trump colluded with Russia?

You mean Trump stole the 2016 election?

Why doesn't the media call her an election denier?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago
Why doesn't the media call her an election denier?

Denying an election is rather commonplace.   Contrast mere denial with the actions by Trump in his Big Lie campaign.   It is those actions that distinguish Trump and place him in the category of the first PotUS in US history who tried to steal a presidential election.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.1    one month ago
Denying an election is rather commonplace.

It is not reported that way.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one month ago
It is not reported that way.

A pointless thing to debate.   

The point is that merely denying the results of an election is common and largely irrelevant.    Mere denial, when done by the sitting PotUS, can be damaging ... especially if said PotUS declares that the electoral system of the USA is rigged and continues with this mantra to incite his supporters.    But Trump did not stop there, he went past mere denial and attempted coercion, subornation, frivolous litigation on top of inciting supporters.   That is so beyond anything that any former PotUS has done that it distinguishes Trump in a new historical category that I can only hope will never gain a second member.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

Why do you always put words in my mouth?

Not a good look.

I said none of those things.

Why would the 'media' say that?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    one month ago

They dont care TiG. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
2.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago
Why doesn't the media call her an election denier?

Because that would eliminate all the whining and crying that Trump did it.  Remember the whole "investigation" into the Russia Collusion hoax started with Clinton denying the results of the election she lost.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.6    one month ago

Hillary denied her election several times.   Trump denied his continuously, repeatedly and is still doing so almost two years later.

But this is not about mere denial.   If all Trump did was deny the election that would be bad since he was PotUS.   But Trump went well beyond mere denial and attempted coercion, subornation, frivolous litigation on top of inciting supporters.   That is so beyond anything that any former PotUS has done that it distinguishes Trump in a new historical category that I can only hope will never gain a second member.

And you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that Trump did anything wrong in his Big Lie campaign and thus contribute to Trump continuing as the defacto leader of the GoP and the negative consequences that brings to the party and to the nation.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
2.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.7    one month ago
Hillary denied her election several times.   Trump denied his continuously, repeatedly and is still doing so almost two years later

And you freak out over one and give a pass to the other.

But Trump went well beyond mere denial and attempted coercion, subornation, frivolous litigation on top of inciting supporters.

And Clinton's denial spurred an investigations lasting 6 years that amounted to NOTHING.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.6    one month ago

And Russia has ever since been the main enemy for democrats.  That was the lie that wouldn't die.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
2.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    one month ago
Russia has ever since been the main enemy for democrats

But yet we worked with Russia on so many different things over the years.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.10    one month ago

Oh well, that was before the Clinton campaign declared Russia the enemy!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.11    one month ago

So Putin and Russia are our allies?

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
2.1.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.11    one month ago

Well that's what happens when you are Secretary of State and still don't know what's going on.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.8    one month ago
And you freak out over one and give a pass to the other.

Another lie.   You have no argument so instead you simply make shit up.

Was it   wrong (not legal guilt but rather right vs. wrong) for Trump to try to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution?:

  • claim that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud in the US electoral system?
  • agitate his supporters into falsely thinking their votes were disenfranchised?
  • try to get officials (e.g.  Raffensperger) to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia)?
  • try to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)?
  • try to get the Speaker of the AZ House (Bowers) to authorize fake electors?
  • try to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states?
  • encourage his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election)?
  • tweet that Pence had let them down in the middle of the insurrection?
  • refuse to take action to stop the insurrection for 3 hours?

Clinton's election denial was wrong.   So was Trump's.   That should be obvious even to the partisan blind.   But Trump went way further than Clinton ... further than any candidate in US history ... by far.   Was it wrong for him to do that?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
2.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.14    one month ago
Clinton's election denial was wrong.   So was Trump's.

But you are only freaking out over ONE.  That's called hypocrisy.  We've been through this just the other day.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.16  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.13    one month ago

Her husband was very content with her not knowing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.15    one month ago
That's called hypocrisy. 

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif     Asking you to opine on the extreme and historically distinct actions of the most recently former PotUS is not "freaking out" nor is it "hypocrisy".   It is, however, a very good litmus test for intellectual honesty.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
2.1.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.18    one month ago

Explained it to you once.  Don't have the time or crayons to break it down to your level.  Have a good day.,

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.19    one month ago
Explained it to you once.

256

There is nothing to ' explain '.    This is a simply expressing an opinion on an obvious matter.    You have written all sorts of deflective language to avoid having to write that Trump obviously was wrong to:

  • claim that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud in the US electoral system
  • agitate his supporters into falsely thinking their votes were disenfranchised
  • try to get officials (e.g.  Raffensperger) to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia)
  • try to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)
  • try to get the Speaker of the AZ House (Bowers) to authorize fake electors
  • try to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states
  • encourage his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election)
  • tweet that Pence had let them down in the middle of the insurrection
  • refuse to take action to stop the insurrection for 3 hours

Of course Trump was wrong to take these actions.   Any rational mind knows it is wrong for a sitting PotUS (any in our history) to take these actions.   Some of your fellow conservatives have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the obvious fact that these were wrong.

You, however, cannot muster the intellectual honesty to even offer your opinion on whether these were wrong or right.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
2.1.21  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.20    one month ago

Repeat it how ever many times you want.  It doesn't change a goddamn thing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    one month ago

It is a bit late to warn about the inability to get things done.    That warning should have come last year.    

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago

So now it's Katie bar the door?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one month ago

If so, it is meaningless.   It is like warning someone that their stock price is falling but with insufficient time to complete a sell transaction.   It is a) obvious and b) too late.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    one month ago

Agreed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4  Texan1211    one month ago

And here Democrats keep telling us they have moved on from Hillary, but she keeps popping up.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Participates
4.1  George  replied to  Texan1211 @4    one month ago

She is the human equivalent of Herpes.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  George @4.1    one month ago
She is the human equivalent of Herpes.

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  George @4.1    one month ago

So what is TT?  The human equivalent of anal warts?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
5  Snuffy    one month ago

What I find interesting is that the Republicans for the past 50 years have been working hard to win at the state and local level and have been rather successful.  And winning at those levels allows them to be able to control the redistricting process after every census.  Add that to the partisan shift that has taken place in the past year where a Gallup poll had 49% of people identify as Democrat/lean Democrat and 40% identify as Republican/lean Republican.  That was from the beginning of 2021.  By the end of 2021, those had shifted to 47% identify as Republican/lean Republican and 42% identify as Democrat/lean Democrat.  

So with those two things taken into account it would seem that this mid-term should be a massive wave for Republicans.  Yet all the polling shows that the races are still rather close.  This tells me that the Republicans are still doing what they do best, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  Had Republicans been better at putting forth quality candidates and more forceful in combating what the Democrats did in spending money to promote those hard-right candidates they thought would be easier to beat in the general election, as well as moving Trump into the margins this election could have been huge for Republicans.  

This is not to say that the Democrats did everything right.  It's more that both parties have such poor leadership.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
5.1  evilgenius  replied to  Snuffy @5    one month ago

You know Snuffy? There is nothing in this post I disagree with. Especially - 

It's more that both parties have such poor leadership.

It's like they all have taken the partisanship divide for granted and revel in the ignorance of the electorate.

 
 

Who is online


Ronin2
Drinker of the Wry
MonsterMash
CB
Snuffy
Just Jim NC TttH
Texan1211
Jeremy Retired in NC


21 visitors