Author Topic: Scott Rasmussen: Hillary Clinton not liberal enough to win nomination  (Read 492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,817
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,817
"Not Liberal Enough"?

Her thesis is titled "There's only the Fight!"....where she clearly shows that she is an advocate of Saul Alinsky.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Progressives, many of whom are eyeing Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or even Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders leading up to 2016, see the issue as a winner in the election and aren't satisfied with Clinton's more moderate approach.


Pocahontas (Warren) is the Ronald Reagan of the left.  She comes across as the epitome of their collectivist ideology.  The left, just as with the strong right, rejects compromise.  And they know that while Hillary would embrace some of the philosophy of the left, she is not a purist.  And they fear that like her husband before her, she would too quickly walk across the aisle to forge deals.

Neither wing wants any compromise.  This is a time of ideological political war.  Moderate conservatives are "RINOs" and moderate liberals are "DINOs".  Recognition that there has to be give and take is anathema to them. 

The bright spot here for me is that while Hillary is still the odds on favorite, the left is going to seriously pressure her as we approach 2016.  The concern for me is that the growing wealth gap is a real issue and will be used continually by the left, including Hillary.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,355
MAC wrote above:
[[ The concern for me is that the growing wealth gap is a real issue and will be used continually by the left, including Hillary. ]]

Fearless prediction:
The "wealth gap" is going to continue to "grow", no matter what the government tries to reverse the trend. It has as much to do with the changing demographics of America as anything else.

The Euro population is declining while the Hispanic population is increasing. Hispanics as a group test lower in IQ than do whites -- meaning that they will probably occupy lower-earning postions "as a group". This is particularly true for the high number of Mestizo-Mexicans who have invaded America across the southern border.

The black population is growing, very slightly -- but because of their illegitimacy rate, and a black thug culture that discourages achievement through work and self-improvment, blacks are slipping down "the economic chute". Don't expect the gap to be closed by black improvement. On the contrary, blacks as a -group- seem to be going the other way - downwards. Too many positions once occupied by blacks, are now the domain of the Hispanics.

Asians by and large are a different story. Those from China, Japan, Korea are high-IQ and high achievers. But not all Asians fit into this category, either. The total of -all- Asians isn't yet enough to make a significant impact, except in the Pacific Rim states.

So of course the wealth gap is an issue ripe for exploitation by the left.
And the reality is that demographically, for the 'rats it's gonna be a growth industry...

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
"So of course the wealth gap is an issue ripe for exploitation by the left."

A few quick comments.  The growing wealth gap is real, and of course will be exploited by the left.  I'm not sure that the rationale you gave will help Republicans much in any of their races either this year or in 2016.

The left can point to the growth of the financial and credit sectors of the economy and claim that the wealth taken out of those areas represent only a small segment of the working population but a huge amount of the income.

Whether or not Hispanics as a group register a lower average IQ, the Heritage Foundation has walked that study back...way back in the light of criticisms of the methodology used.  When "The Bell Curve" was published, a counter to that came out questioning the methodologies and conclusions.

Large segments of the Europeans who came over here in the 18th and 19th centuries including the Irish, Germans and Polish were farmers, and probably didn't look too good at that time from an intellectual point of view.

Whether or not the government can do anything to turn around the growing wealth gap, it will be an issue and certainly the left has some suggestions.  It would be wise for conservatives to start looking at the issue and how to use the market based economy to help turn it around.  Romney's 47% quote will likely return with a vengeance against the GOP candidates. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,355
MAC wrote:
[[ The growing wealth gap is real, and of course will be exploited by the left.  I'm not sure that the rationale you gave will help Republicans much in any of their races either this year or in 2016. ]]

My favorite conservative quote:
"Reality is what it is. It is NOT what we believe it to be."

My observations in post #3 were more about reality, than with "helping Republicans" in either 2014 or 2016.

[[ When "The Bell Curve" was published, a counter to that came out questioning the methodologies and conclusions. ]]

Yup, of course, from a noted leftist (or two). But I believe folks who study intelligence and IQ professionally tend to agree with the conclusions of Murray and Hernstein, even if they won't admit as much publicly. See the reality quote above.

[[ It would be wise for conservatives to start looking at the issue and how to use the market based economy to help turn it around.  Romney's 47% quote will likely return with a vengeance against the GOP candidates. ]]

They can look at the issue, but there really isn't all that much they can do to change things. The smarter, more educated folks are likely going to make high incomes. The folks in the middle will make middlin' incomes. And the growing demographic numbers of folks with less smarts and less education aren't going to be earning all that much. Of course, you can improve the lot of the last group by, um, "redistributing income", right?

One big reason for the "wealth gap" is because a huge chunk of the middle/working class manufacturing jobs have been literally cut out of America. Some went to Mexico with NAFTA. A lot more have gone to China. Whole factories have been torn down, packed up, shipped out. Those were the jobs that once made a middle/working class possible, by paying "ladder wages" (that let families climb up the economic ladder, even if only a rung or two) to millions of Americans.

Now they're gone.
We know where they went.
Hmmmm, which political party supported shippin' 'em out ?????????????

Offline speekinout

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,337
The absolute litmus test for liberals is the belief that all outcomes should be equal regardless of ability or effort expended. They of course make an exception for themselves and their favored few - they will make everyone else equal to each other if they just have enough money and power.
Kids can't get trophies for athletics or games unless everyone gets one; schools are no longer giving "F" grades for lack of mastering the subject; companies have to hire people on quotas instead of ability; and so on.  hillary was never a vocal champion of these ideas, so in that respect, she isn't liberal enough. But she is female, and the liberals believe that it is past time to check off that quota slot. So she doesn't have to be liberal herself; she just has to help liberals come closer to their goals of having every minority represented in every position.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
The absolute litmus test for liberals is the belief that all outcomes should be equal regardless of ability or effort expended. They of course make an exception for themselves and their favored few - they will make everyone else equal to each other if they just have enough money and power.
Kids can't get trophies for athletics or games unless everyone gets one; schools are no longer giving "F" grades for lack of mastering the subject; companies have to hire people on quotas instead of ability; and so on.  hillary was never a vocal champion of these ideas, so in that respect, she isn't liberal enough. But she is female, and the liberals believe that it is past time to check off that quota slot. So she doesn't have to be liberal herself; she just has to help liberals come closer to their goals of having every minority represented in every position.

There's nothing I disagree with, but it doesn't change the reality of either the changing demographics or the growing wealth gap.  The issue is how the GOP will address them, not whether the liberals are using them to change our culture and way of life.  We know they are, but how do the candidates from the right counter their offensive?  The defense does not win wars or elections.  Republicans found that out the hard way when the Dems continually accused them of conducting wars on women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, and the poor. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Fishrrman wrote:
Quote
My observations in post #3 were more about reality, than with "helping Republicans" in either 2014 or 2016.

Still, my goal is the election because all the history or principles in the world are worthless to second place.

Quote
They can look at the issue, but there really isn't all that much they can do to change things. The smarter, more educated folks are likely going to make high incomes. The folks in the middle will make middlin' incomes. And the growing demographic numbers of folks with less smarts and less education aren't going to be earning all that much. Of course, you can improve the lot of the last group by, um, "redistributing income", right?

That's exactly what the GOP has to counter...income redistribution.  There have always been three classes as you describe.  But what happens when the bottom class is expanding while the middle class is shrinking?  And the upper class continues to grow in wealth?  It's a scenario the GOP absolutely needs to be able to address, because the left is certainly putting "solutions" together. 

You mentioned jobs going overseas.  you're right, but in addition, businesses are hesitant to expand for a lot of reasons, and without significant jobs oriented market expansion, the economy will more and more be made up of government spending as well as low employment financial and credit sectors. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline speekinout

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,337
There's nothing I disagree with, but it doesn't change the reality of either the changing demographics or the growing wealth gap.  The issue is how the GOP will address them, not whether the liberals are using them to change our culture and way of life.  We know they are, but how do the candidates from the right counter their offensive?  The defense does not win wars or elections.  Republicans found that out the hard way when the Dems continually accused them of conducting wars on women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, and the poor.

I doubt there's anything the GOP can do to win over the welfare classes. Those people are largely poorly educated (thanks, libs) and don't understand anything except that they want bigger checks from the "greedy rich". The GOP shouldn't pander to them.
But there are now a lot of have-nots among the recent college graduates and the middle class who have lost their jobs during this admin. Those people can understand why the big gov't policies will never work. The GOP can educate them and can come up with plans to get our economy healthy again. The GOP should focus on getting their votes. And those people come in all genders and races.

I'm saying that the GOP should focus on intelligent discussion and forget the emotional child level name calling. They'll never win that battle.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
I'm saying that the GOP should focus on intelligent discussion and forget the emotional child level name calling. They'll never win that battle.

Perfectly said. Now - if only the GOP would actually listen.  :shrug:
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Speekinout Wrote:
Quote
I'm saying that the GOP should focus on intelligent discussion and forget the emotional child level name calling. They'll never win that battle.

Indeed, but that intelligent discussion has to center on how to save our market-based economy from the socialist path it's heading down.  Yes there are lots of other issues that will be debated in the next two elections, such as immigration reform, various social concerns, foreign policy, etc, but we are almost at the point of no return with respect to who's better suited to run our economy...the marketplace or the government.  And the market cannot print and hand out money.  Uncle Sugar can.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,355

Offline speekinout

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,337
Speekinout Wrote:
Indeed, but that intelligent discussion has to center on how to save our market-based economy from the socialist path it's heading down.  Yes there are lots of other issues that will be debated in the next two elections, such as immigration reform, various social concerns, foreign policy, etc, but we are almost at the point of no return with respect to who's better suited to run our economy...the marketplace or the government.  And the market cannot print and hand out money.  Uncle Sugar can.

Agree that the discussion should be about saving our economy. That's an issue that affects everyone, and everyone has some level of understanding and a great interest in fixing. In a way, that's lucky for the GOP, because they only have one (or two, if you count 0bamacare separately) issues to discuss and can reach everyone with the same messages. The other issues like immigration, social concerns, etc. do not directly affect everyone and don't even affect the ones that they do in the same way. Messages on those issues need to be more diverse, more nuanced, and more targeted. Economic issues are much broader in audience.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf