Electability factors into my calculations for several reasons. First, the appointment of Supreme Court justices. If Obama did not get elected and appoint two liberal justices we could have had a far- right stranglehold for many years. Instead we have Kennedy and Roberts being swing justices who can align with either the liberal bloc or the conservatives.
Then we need to look at what would happen if a Republican president gets elected. These guys do not inspire confidence that they would be much better than Bush II. To recap his administration:
(1) his administration deemphasized counter- terrorism and then did nothing, NOTHING when he received an urgent brief that there was indications of a major attack coming in the US (it's amazing that Bush II got a pass on his incompetence here when he could have taken actions that would have significantly improved the chances of stopping the attacks, particularly with Mossadegh being arrested--compare that with the nonsense thrown Hillary's way);
(2) the ludicrous, farcical war against Iraq as the result of the 9-11 attacks that Iraq was not involved in. I am fairly confident that no other democracy has done anything similar. Then there was the deceptive attempt to convince Americans that Iraq posed a nuclear threat and the lies that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks (with the slimy Cheney being point man). This horrendous mistake cost several thousand dead and many more wounded (when TBI and PTSI are counted we're talking about hundreds of thousands of physical and mental injuries);
(3) lax financial policy led to the Financial Crisis. Would we have that Financial Crisis if there was another president in power and did not cause huge deficits with tax cuts, did not start a war with Iraq causing an enormous financial strain on the country, who maybe did something to curb the oil speculation in the oil commodity due to new rules not requiring that the commodities be traded without ever taking physical possession of them? Or done something when the real estate market got our of control? Hard to know...but no else could have done nearly as bad a job.
(4) frittered away without any thought whatsoever a psychological barrier that had been transcended of actually balancing the budget.
This is real stuff. This is thousands of people lives lost in the Iraq war and hundreds of thousands negatively affected. Millions of Americans negatively affected by the Financial Crisis.
DF has criticized me for being unprincipled in my support of Hillary. Look at the above stuff. You want to criticize me because I would continue to support Hillary after some vague allegations of improprieties with the Clinton Foundation and she had a private e-mail account. Look at what happened when we had an incompetent idiot as president. The allegations against Clinton are minor stuff and will not affect how she does as president. She will be similar to Obama I think--a cautious, prudent president who will competently manage things and will not get us into unnecessary wars due to some need to prove toughness. Whereas , DF was awfully silent about all of Bush II's errors. Oh, let's throw a fit over four Americans dying in Benghazi which no serious person holds Hillary responsible for-- not a word of criticism about Bush II's many mistakes that ruined many lives. Who did you vote for in 2004, DF? Private email account vs an unlawful, deceptive war killing thousands? I am very secure in my principled stand regarding Hillary.
Oh, and then we have the winners lining up to be the Republican nominee. Huckabee saying that the Iran deal marches Israel to the door of the ovens; Santorum supporting his remarks; Cruz saying that the deal risks millions of Americans and Israelis being killed and that the US is now the leading financier of Islamic terrorist as a result of this deal. Ridiculous over-the-top bombastic stuff.
And for all DF's incessant criticism of Obama and that he is running our country into the ground...growth is up, unemployment is down , deficits are under control, American casualties are much reduced, and there is no evidence that our strategic interests have been sacrificed... Imagine if McCain had been president?
By the way, with Walker talking about his job in Wisconsin there is little evidence that his type of pro-business policies help economic growth.
http://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/04 ... h-addendumAs for DF's contention that if conservatives all got together they would do better than liberals we already have that--blue states do better economically. Shocking that when you are inclusive, promote immigration and the energy that bright motivated people from other countries bring, when you spend on infrastructure including education, when you allow people to have their own culture, customs and beliefs that don't affect others instead of demanding that society reflect majority views, when you make it easier for women to balance career and family, when you pay workers an adequate wage so that can afford to buy more things, when you do all these things --you do better than other places that don't do those views. Freedom is not just from an overbearing government; it's also from a majority that says we don't like you...you are not like us, you don't believe the things we do, we don't want you here. Places with people like that...are not going to do as well economically.
So, yeah, Hillary is a good floor as a candidate. If someone better comes along and can win--great. But the stakes are too high for pipe dreams. People who voted for Nader thought they were being principled but a lot of people suffered because of their self- indulgence. Bernie Sanders is a socialist-he has literally no chance of winning (Ricky..these kind of early polls don't mean much--Americans are not electing a socialist). I am glad he is in the race so liberal issues will be highlighted. Pragmatism is principled when it means a better world. I would say a Democrat voting for a third party candidate and helping a Republican to win is being unprincipled in my mind.
28 Jul 2015, 2:06 pm 
