Hillary Clinton warns progressives could cost Dems at midterms
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 3 years ago • 38 commentsBy: Mark Moore (New York Post)
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
Who is online
136 visitors
She also thinks the midterms may be stolen:
Hillary Clinton accuses GOP of scheming to 'literally steal the next presidential election' (msn.com)
Your link delivers this language:
The midterm is not a presidential election.
Summary of Moore v. Harper case: (from a source you will accept )
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.
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.
Read the entire paragraph, Vic, it is critical if you intend to get my meaning:
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.
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.
It is a bit late to warn about the inability to get things done. That warning should have come last year.
So now it's Katie bar the door?
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.
Agreed.
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.
You know Snuffy? There is nothing in this post I disagree with. Especially -
It's like they all have taken the partisanship divide for granted and revel in the ignorance of the electorate.