Amidst the anti-Confederate flag mania, Hillary Clinton has committed a grave sin. Hillary Clinton has unabashedly made a racist statement that cannot be forgiven and will not be forgiven. She must be lynched. Hillary Clinton is truly despicable. Hillary Clinton is a racist. It cannot be denied.
We have the proof of the reprehensible Hillary Clinton racist statement. Take the young ones away from eye range. Protect the easily “triggered” snowflake millennials in your household by shielding them from Big Pink. Protect yourself by ingesting pharmaceutical tranquilizers from what we are about to impart. Here is Hillary Clinton’s unforgivable Confederate flag waving Ku Klux Klan Gadsden Flag racist terrorist Dylann Storm Roof atrocity statement which proves she is an unadulterated white bitch racist:
“All lives matter.”
Well, there it is. Hillary Clinton stands condemned before history. How dare she! “All lives matter” indeed. The horror! AND SHE SAID IT IN A BLACK CHURCH!!!!!!!!!:
Little did we know, though, that Clinton would commit what some consider the most offensive faux pas imaginable just minutes into her address: she proclaimed that “all lives matter.”
As long ago as last December, Cornell University’s police chief ended up apologizing in an email to the campus for using the phrase, which she wasn’t aware was considered “disrespectful pushback against #BlackLivesMatter on many Internet forums.”
Clinton apparently didn’t get the memo either, sharing an anecdote in which her mother told a young Hillary that “all lives matter.”
Hillary Clinton must be burned along with every Confederate flag. Let’s have one big national bonfire inside the Jefferson Memorial and concentration camps near crematoria for those who dare even THINK “All lives matter.”
HATE CRIME laws must be passed to make THOUGHT CRIMES such as “All lives matter” a capital crime punishable by death. In the instant case of Hillary Clinton not only THINKING “All lives matter” but daring to racistly publicly state “All lives matter” there should not even be a trial. There must only be summary execution via executive order signed by Barack Obama. No doubt Republicans Mitch McConnell and John Boner will imediately move to help their pal Barack get all the unitary executive power to begin public executions, preferably by lynching, of anyone who dares utter the words “All lives matter.”
The man who is considered to be the “new Al Sharpton” Deray McKesson warns Hillary:
I hope that the @HillaryClinton speechwriters realize that “all lives matter,” in any form, will cost more than its benefits for black folk.
“All lives matter” is unforgivable. The only thing that is allowed is “#BlackLivesMatter”.
In a very real sense Hillary Clinton is to blame for this madness. It’s never a good thing to “put your eggs in one basket”. And that is in essence the strategy of #Hillary2016. All the pandering to the kook left, and the attempt to “rebuild the Obama coalition is another way of saying that the strategy for 2016 by Hillary2016 is to get the black vote out in droves in numbers comparable to the color-over-content-of-character election turnout by blacks for Barack Obama.
The Hillary2016 pander-to-blacks-and-the-kook-left will fail. That is becoming increasingly clear to every political analyst as what we wrote years ago is rapidly becoming conventional wisdom.
The latest article to regurgitate what we wrote long ago is one called “The Obama Gap” via the leftist New Republic:
The Obama Gap
Favorable demographics and a charismatic leader aren’t enough to make a majority party. A case study in electoral failure from Florida. [snip]
Obama’s electoral victories in 2008 and 2012 seemed to herald a new era of Democratic dominance built on a winning coalition of young and minority voters, one that would indicate a long-term, structural advantage for Democrats. It seemed to be the scenario John Judis and Ruy Teixeira famously predicted in 2002, at the nadir of Democratic influence during the Bush administration, in their book The Emerging Democratic Majority. Increasing urbanization, education, and racial diversity offered “fertile ground for the Democrats’ progressive centrism and postindustrial values.” A few days after the 2012 election, Teixeira, writing for The Atlantic, pointed to Obama’s success with minority voters over Mitt Romney (80 percent to 18 percent); with educated professionals (55 percent to 42 percent); and among young voters (60 percent to 37 percent). He reminded readers that Obama was “the first Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt to win successive elections with more than 50 percent of the vote, powered by the continuing rise of the coalition described in the book.” As Teixeira recently told me, while Democrats must be mindful of not continuing to hemorrhage white voters, “the advantages, all else equal, continue to increase.”
But set Obama’s impressive electoral victories aside and the Democrats look less like an emerging majority and more like a party in free fall: Since Obama was sworn in six years ago, Democrats have suffered net losses of 11 governorships, 30 statehouse chambers, more than 900 statehouse seats, and have lost control of both houses of the U.S. Congress. After the 2014 midterm rout, Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg penned a memo deeming it “remarkable”—an understatement—that voters had given Republicans so much control so soon after giving Democrats Rooseveltian wins nationally. The implications, Rosenberg warned, were dire: “The scale of Republican success in recent years outside the Presidency has altered the balance between the two parties now, and may even leave the GOP a stronger national party than the Democrats over the next decade.”
There is no dispute that the Obama Dimocrat Party is “a party in free fall”. Obama killed the Democratic Party in 2008 and replaced it with the Obama Dimocrat Party, and that party is the one now in free fall. Why? Consider Obama’s “great achievement” and legacy, ObamaCare. We denounced it as providing forced customers to insurance companies and a great gift to Big Pharma. Remember Billy Tauzin? Now it turns out that Jonathan Gruber the “architect” of ObamaCare knew where the money was flowing:
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber: ‘Pharma is going to be a huge winner from this bill’
“I understand that some will try to delay action until the special interests can kill it,” President Obama said from the Rose Garden in late July 2009, warning that these opponents “would maintain a system that works for the insurance and the drug companies, while becoming increasingly unaffordable for families and for businesses.”
This was hogwash. A couple of months later, as the Wall Street Journal reports now, Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber wrote top White House health official: “Pharma is going to be a huge winner from this bill — maybe $15 billion/year in incremental revenue.” Gruber then asked, “Any way to go after them harder for financing?”
Gruber may not have been aware that Democratic officials had already “go[ne] after” pharma for financing — financing of the reelections of the Democratic senators who support Obamacare.
The Gruber email is just another bit of evidence revealing Obamacare as a big pile of corporate welfare.
The Supreme Court will likely gut ObamaCare either this Thursday or (more probable) next Monday. But anyone that wants to condone ObamaCare in 2016 will be in support of this “big pile of corporate welfare” that loots the American people. It’s possible that Hillary Clinton will pander to those that love Barack Obama and declare her support for ObamaCare but it will be as big a mistake as the current Hillary2016 strategy of “put the eggs in a black basket”.
At the time that Obama strategists convinced Hillary2016 to try to recreate the “Obama Coalition” it might have made sense. Back then the Obama strategist assured everyone that the economy was about to recover with a boom. But now the boom is bust. Economic indicators show at best a plodding along in this no-lives-matter economy.
The Hillary2016 brain-trust better reassess, and quickly, the foundational assumptions they have made. John Judis is only the latest to issue dire warnings even as once he spoke of the emerging Democratic majority.
Michael Barone weighed in on the John Judis flip of an emerging Democratic majority to now an emerging Republican advantage:
But as Judis writes now, that coalition has come apart. That’s partly because of diminished support from millennials and Hispanics, but mostly because of additional white working-class defections and erosion among suburbanites unhappy with higher government spending and taxes.
In fact, he now says that the majority he predicted endured for only two elections. [snip]
They had a chance to extend those by coming up with policies generally deemed successful and which held their disparate coalition together.
They failed on both counts. Big government policies — the stimulus package, Obamacare — proved generally unpopular. And other Democratic policies began splitting the party’s coalition. Gentry liberals’ environmental policies antagonized blue collar unions and Jacksonians from West Virginia to Oklahoma, once one of the party’s mainstays.
Hispanics in target-state Colorado were turned off by gentry liberal priorities — abortion absolutism, gun control, opposition to fracking. Asians in California were repelled by attempts to re-institute racial quotas and preferences in higher education that directly harm them. Millennials were socked with high health insurance premiums even as they searched for jobs from their parents’ basements. Israel supporters have been dismayed by Obama’s Middle East policies.
The less surprising trend is that Democrats have continued to hemorrhage support among white working-class voters—a group that generally works in blue-collar and lower-income service jobs and that is roughly identifiable in exit polls as those whites who have not graduated from a four-year college. These voters, and particularly those well above the poverty line, began to shift toward the GOP decades ago, but in recent years that shift has become progressively more pronounced.
The more surprising trend is that Republicans are gaining dramatically among a group that had tilted toward Democrats in 2006 and 2008: Call them middle-class Americans. These are voters who generally work in what economist Stephen Rose has called “the office economy.” In exit polling, they can roughly be identified as those who have college—but not postgraduate—degrees and those whose household incomes are between $50,000 and $100,000. (Obviously, the overlap here is imperfect, but there is a broad congruence between these polling categories.)
The defection of these voters—who, unlike the white working class, are a growing part of the electorate—is genuinely bad news for Democrats, and very good news indeed for Republicans. The question, of course, is whether it is going to continue. It’s tough to say for sure, but I think there is a case to be made that it will.
We’ll have Sean Trende provide last rites to the notion of Hillary and the Obama Coalition:
Today, however, a large portion of the Democratic Party’s intellectual class seems more interested in the weaker, predictive part of Judis and Teixeira’s book rather than the prescriptive portion of it. That is, they see demographics both as destiny and as an opportunity for abandoning Clinton-style centrism. But if the book is correct, this is exactly backwards: Clinton-style centrism is the way to harness these demographics. Abandon it, and you risk abandoning the majority.
Note Judis’ case study of Maryland. His point here is basically this: There is a limit to white suburbanites’ willingness to embrace new taxes, even in a deeply blue place like the Old Line State. Yet as others have noted, the ability to raise taxes for new social programs without touching those voters is limited. Embracing a full-throated progressive program places real strains on these voters’ loyalty to the Democratic Party.
In 2016, Democrats have as their likely nominee possibly the single strongest candidate for putting the old Democratic coalition back together again. I think with an adequately strong economy and a campaign founded in progressive centrism, Hillary Clinton could very well put together a broader coalition than Obama’s, and a victory that eclipses his. Whether her party allows her to run such a campaign is probably the most important question of 2015; this book explains why.
“Clinton style centrism is the way to harness these demographics.” Instead Hillary2016 panders to the dead Obama coalition. As we recently wrote, “The more Hillary panders to the black peas and the kook peas the harder it will be to get the chick peas and the independent peas on the electoral fork.”
If “all lives matter” is now a thought crime not to be expressed and brands Hillary a racist, and the only permissible expression is “blacklivesmatter” then Hillary2016 is headed to defeat.
We’ve written this before, well before Judis, Trende, etc. Indeed, there was a “Mistake In ’08″ Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII, and the “Barack Obama Situation Comedy” Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV).
In recent elections pollsters have been taken completely by surprise. In Denmark, Great Britain, and the United States, the pollsters say that respondents are lying. Voters will only express what is politically correct then in the secrecy of the voting booth, they vote as they truly think. The voters understand they cannot say “all lives matter” but only “blacklivesmatter”. It’s a lesson that Hillary Clinton and Hillary2016 better learn.
Hillary Clinton and Hillary2016 better learn the lesson not because the language must be adjusted but because the current strategy has to be junked and an inclusive, centrist, Hillary must be allowed to emerge well before the convention in 2016. All lives matter. If Hillary cannot say something as mundane as “all lives matter” without being branded a racist, she might as well go home.