« He Legally Purchased the Gun at an Alabama Pawn Shop | Main | Sunday News Roundup - 26 July, 2015 »

25 July 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Looks like the carefully scripted and triangulated campaign is not doing so well among the "little people." Does this mean that politics in a democracy is actually about something more than marketing in service of the maintenance of oligarchy? pl

The Donald is doing the same to the GOP establishment...lol


Being a leader consists of making decisions on dilemmas where by def both choices bad (easy ones obvious). Decisions made based on avail info and values. US leaders have much info. Anger & frustration come when one believes one'd make different choice than leader. Then one thinks leader is a) stupid; b) evil; c) crazy; or d) all. Because populace most always has less info than leader, half++ of populace ALWAYS thinks leader is stupid; is systemic.

Democracy then consists of marketing designed to convince populace politician will make different decisions and appears to have integrity. When voted in, politician has "holy crap" moment, realizes is worse than thought, often does same thing previous very clever politician did with full info. Cf. Greece.

"Democrats elect dark horses, they don't elect warhorses." Hillary is failing to maintain even the illusion that she has basic integrity. She failed against Obama before; she likely will end up failing again. It will take the rearrangement of much money to determine this outcome, which puts jobs in the economy.

The oligarchy is not monolithic, it is a bucket of crabs. Cream rises to top; also scum. We live in a republic, not democracy, where the smartest guys in the room are supposed to be able to make good decisions for the good of all. They have to get re-elected first, periodically. This is mostly marketing, with some intangibles (cf. Hulk Hogan). Marketing attempts to determine what you think about, how you frame your values, and where you pay attention to. You CAN fool most of the people most of the time; Bush/Cheney. Israel vs. Iran is being fought on the marketing plane; anti-Russia too. Crab fights. So, yes, election politics are mostly about oligarchic marketing, barring egregious fails. Even then: Israel.

Outrage Beyond

As a late German fascist put it, "the common people don't want war." Hillary is a proven warmonger; the likelihood that she'll start one if elected seems high.

Sanders is a proven Zionist. He might find himself sucked into another war for Israel, if by some unlikely circumstance he's elected. But he probably isn't hungry to start one.

As to whether politics is more than marketing for oligarchs, one would hope so. Periodically, there are faint stirrings, such as the Occupy movement on one side; or the Tea Party on the other. But quickly these small sparks are crushed by militarized police (Occupy) or co-opted and absorbed into the Borg (Tea Party).

A cynic might think that this momentary Sanders "surge" is just part of the marketing stunt. A way for the Queen to be perceived as humbled, so that her victory can be claimed as a "comeback" in the manner of the would-be first Penis, who styled himself the "Comeback Kid."



I am rather surprised that Hillary's unfavorability rating is this low. I would have expected much higher considering she's been associated with a lot of shady stuff in the past. And she and Bill have played to the gallery while fattening the calf. I am also surprised at the percentage of women inclined towards her. I have assumed that women discriminated more and were less tribal.

IMO, the Democrats like Republicans will choose the candidate who they believe will win so they will always lean towards the establishment candidates. I think the election would be most interesting if Bernie and Donald run as independents.

I am ready to throw up thinking about a Jeb vs Hillary match up. That would insure status quo and The Borg firmly in control.


It is still very early in this process and most predictions are nothing more than WAG's. It is more than a year away before any final votes are counted.


The mainstream media has just made "the Donald" into the genius he claims to be. How! Well this past week he ranted on how the media grab a snippet here and a snippet there then put them together into a story to mean something completely different and Voila the news is made. Well I always kind of knew this and actually went through a few episodes where the media was completely off base but it is always refreshing to be reminded that all that is written in our esteemed media is not completely true.
Seems the "old Grey Lady" came out with a story that some Inspector Generals of the Government were asking another govt. entity to investigate Mrs. Clinton for passing around some classified data via her super duper special machine, that has not been proven as yet to have been hacked by the Chinamen, the kicker was that it was a criminal matter. Turns out it was about a bunch of government employees that had a difference of opinion as to what was FOIA'ble and what was not and whether a few of the items should of been Classified when they initially were sent. Thus to protect us all they forwarded there concerns on to the other entity but they never mentioned anything criminal. Well there were a few revisions to the initial story and a few counter stories in other media but they are all on to something else tonight but the seeds were sown and Grandma has some explaining to do again so I imagine her favorables will take further drop. Of course we are still in the Silly Seasom of the Presidential election.
For those who take these things seriously (I do know it is serious business) my apologies for the flippant parts of this post.

Richard Armstrong

Or perhaps not counted if the S.C. becomes involved again.


Cue up some deep dark background story on Bernie, that will be directly targeted on his strengths. Sotra of a civilian swift boat attack.


It is already underway. My Tea Party friends already sent me stories about Bernie making dubious medical claims when he was writing in the 70s. Of course, these people forget that i am old enough to have been there at the time. The claims that Sanders made, really he just cited a study, were held by a lot of people in the 70s. There were dozens of journal articles on the topic. It was finally concluded it was wrong. However, the Tea Party folks are claiming that Bernie must still believe it because he wrote it in the 70s. So, never fear, the disinformation campaign is well under way.


William R. Cumming

The people [hopefully voters] keep trying to measure the character of the candidates. This all about whether if elected the candidate will deliver on his/her promises.

So far Sanders and Trump seem to resonate both as characters and having character. Time will tell.


You can't chump the Trump.

Nancy K

I think it depends how questions are asked in polls. I am a liberal Democrat and identify more with Bernie Sanders than Hillary Clinton, and prefer in in many ways, however I know Sanders could never win so I will vote for Clinton in the primary. Possibly Republicans think the same way, they might identify with what Trump is saying but in a primary would probably vote for the candidate they think could win such as Bush or Rubio.

Swami Bhut Jolokia

I don't know if I'd get my knickers in a twist just yet. We're 6 months away from primary season, and 15 from the actual elections. That's plenty of time for things to change, and a narrowing of the polls generally produces more robust messaging and campaigning.

What would be of more concern to Clinton is the narrative that develops around the email thing.

And what should be of more concern to the Republicans is the lack of clear policy differences between the declared candidates. Given that the nomination becomes a beauty contest, rather than selection based on policy preferences.

Farmer Don

If this election turns out not to be bought and paid for, by big money, it will be a great surprise, and a great day for the whole world.

nick  b

The article cited above is almost as interesting for what it doesn't say as what it does.

"Among Democrats and left-leaning independents, Clinton's favorability rating has dropped from 79 percent to 74 percent since April."

The poll also shows that Clinton leads Sanders by significant margins in every category mentioned.

"Clinton's favorability rating has fallen from 44 percent to 36 percent among independents, while 14 percent of Republicans and right-leaning independents hold a favorable view of her."

This is incomplete. The actual statistic is Clinton's favorability rating among 'non leaning' independents. It would be more revealing if we knew what percentage of independents were left, right and non leaning.

"75 percent of women hold a favorable view of Clinton, compared to 32 percent for Sanders."

This is also incomplete. The figure is actually for Democrats and Democratic leaning women. It's interesting to note that the same figure for men is 71%

Gallup's own 'bottom line' is "Clinton's national image has taken a slight turn for the worse, which is also evident in her image among Democrats. But she remains the only Democratic candidate for president with a national name, and Clinton continues to stand head and shoulders above her next closest competitor -- Sanders -- in popularity for the presidential nomination."

Also worth noting is that while Clinton's over all favorability has dropped, and would appear to be trending down, she still has a +11 edge in this category over the next closest Republican, Jeb Bush. All the Republican candidates have favorability v. unfavorability numbers that are nearly even with the exception of Trump, whose unfavorability is +24 and Ben Carson whose favorability is +12. All others are in single digits positive, negative or are even.

different clue


There is suspicion among some that the "Black Lives Matter" disruption of Bernie's appearance at the Netroots Nation convention was itself part of that swift boating campaign. The goal will be to "swift boat" Sanders as being "culturally insensitive" to the "feelings" of Black people. Also to swift boat him for being ignorant and therefor indifferent to Black interests by virtue of living in Vermont where he had near-zero Black person exposure. ("Reverend" Al Sharpton used this swift boat measure against Howard Dean back in Dean's nomination quest.)

It is suspected by some that the Black "protest" against Sanders was quietly co-ordinated ahead of time with the Clintonite forces. Clinton herself was conveniently absent from that convention. If Sanders encounters more Black "protests" while Clinton does not, that will deepen suspicion that these Black "protesters" were/are Clintonite agents.

different clue

Nancy K,

I view the primaries as our opportunity to say who/what we LIKE as against who/what we think OTHER people might like. Given Clinton's support for Obamatrade, Obamacare, and other Obama initiatives, I would rather lose with Sanders than win with Clinton. Since a President Clinton would consolidate and advance the Obama conspiracy against American sovereignty, American economic survival, etc.; I would regard a win for Clinton as being a very threatening and dangerous loss to myself.


I won't be surprised if Sanders is labeled as the poster boy for White Flight.


A net loss of votes assumes a motivated black electorate without which it is as likely to result in a net gain. He is not enough of a threat to justify such a calculated risk.

Again, just guessing, but so are most people.


Nancy, I'm a conservative who is disgusted by RHINOS like BUSH and RUBIO. Only Liberals like them...

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad