Folkelige Trump mod big business Clinton

Diverse — Drokles on August 6, 2016 at 11:10 am

James P Pinkerton skriver at “the Republicans as the populist party and the Democrats as the establishment party” i Breitbart

Trump has, to be sure, changed the GOP: It is now the populist party.  Meanwhile, under Hillary Clinton, the Democrats are now the elitist establishment party.  The Post, now owned by Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com, the third richest man in America, boasting a fortune estimated at $66.5 billion, might be forgiven for missing the nuances of any argument involving criticism of the elite establishment.

Yet across the country, the choice is clear: If you’re not happy with the status quo, if you want change, you’re likely to lean Republican.  By contrast, if you think things are going fine, if you like the way we’re being led, you’re likely to be a Democrat—except, of course, for Bernie Sanders voters; we’ll come back to them later.

And so that’s the real role reversal this year: It’s a matter of speaking truth to power—or not.  And seeking real change—or not.

(…)

In 2008, Barack Obama captured the Democratic party, and it’s safe to say that Hillary Clinton is now pledged to carry on his legacy; from a perceptual point of view, Hillary sealed that deal when she hugged Obama on stage on Wednesday night.  So yes, Clinton is Obama’s third term.

Of course, we must also remember that Hillary and Bill Clinton have always been tight with the power structure—and power has been good to them.  We can recall that they first made real money with the connected Rose Law Firm, back in Little Rock, and then they amassed a substantial fortune through their work with the Clinton Foundation in Manhattan.

So today, Republicans are the outsiders, and Democrats are the insiders.  In many ways, this might seem to be a risky stance for the “ins”; after all, the “right direction/wrong track” polling question stands at roughly 23:70.  That is, more than three times as many Americans are unhappy with the way things are going as happy.

Trump har banket hele den gamle elite af republikanere ud af spillet. Og hvis Trump skulle tabe, citerer Pinkerton den politiske rådgiver John Weaver for at give folkeligheden et håb; “I think we’ll have a lot of mini-Trumps in the 2018 midterm elections imitating what we’ve seen.  People always copy what they believe might be successful.”

For their part, the Democrats haven’t changed much.  The big change is that they are trying to hide their true selves, and they are using big money to help them do the hiding.

However, if we take a close look, we can see that the Democratic Party is as devoted to its pet causes as ever, including quotas of all kinds and fawning treatment for street radicalism.

As to quotas, we can examine, as an almost random example, the website of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and see the head-counting regime in full force.  Last year, in extraordinary detail, Badger State Democrats enumerated what they wanted in their 2016 convention delegation: African Americans, 12 percent; Hispanics, six percent; Native Americans, three percent; Asian/ Pacific Americans, two percent; LGBT Americans, 12 percent; and so on.

Indeed, the Democrats’ national party platform this year features a pledge to end “systemic racism”—which might leave some to wonder whether they noticed that Obama won the last two presidential elections.  But of course, activists are never satisfied with progress made and always want more.  And the ’16 platform gave it to them, and thus it includes this shout-out to #BlackLivesMatter, embedded in a call for ever more social engineering: “We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and that there is no place for racism in our country.”

Yet the main takeaway from Philadelphia isn’t that the Democrats are still McGovernized.

Instead, the big news from Philly is that big money is back.  And the even bigger news is that the Democrats don’t care who knows it.  In fact, Democrats have turned money into a point of pride; they have more cash than the Republicans.

Without a doubt, the differences are stark: Hedge funds and their employees gave $122.7 million to Hillary, but just $19,000 to Trump.  Some might be tempted to ask: Now what does that tell you? But for Hillary Democrats, it’s nothing but good news.

And how ’bout this New York Times headline: “After Lying Low, Deep-Pocketed Clinton Donors Return to the Fore”? The Times quoted Charlie Crist, former Republican governor of Florida, now running as a Democrat for a House seat: “This is a good place to be—for a lot of reasons. We must have set up five fundraisers today.  This is the bank.”

Yes, sirree, the DNC is “the bank.” So Democrats, bow down to the one you serve, or at least, walk this way.  The Times continued, quoting more Democrats rolling in their dough—and not caring who knows it:

For many Clinton donors, particularly those from the financial sector, the convention is a time to shed what one called the “hypersensitivity” that had previously surrounded their appearance at Clinton’s fundraisers.  “I think we’re past that,” said Alan Patricof, a longtime donor to Clinton, when asked about the need to lie low during the primaries.

To be sure, Hillary herself doesn’t talk about big money, at least not in public; maybe one day, we’ll find out what she said to Goldman Sachs—but not yet.  And so, okay, perhaps there’s a little hypocrisy at work.  As Politico explained, “While Clinton continues to promise to rein in the influence of big money, her donors this week have seemed emboldened, celebrating at private parties around town and mingling in the lobby of the Center City Ritz-Carlton over cocktails and seafood.”

So there we have it.  Of course, it’s not just the Clinton campaign that’s raking in the bucks; it’s also pro-Clinton SuperPACs, such as Priorities USA, which has $142 million, dwarfing any pro-Trump effort.

And that much money can, indeed, buy things.  As was reported in 2015, Hillary’s social-media following has some, uh, interesting characteristics:

Her official Facebook account had almost 685,000 fans. … At least 46,000 of them list Baghdad, Iraq, as their hometown.  While most of her US Facebook fans are older than 55 . . . Clinton enjoys the support of younger Facebook fans with 66 percent of her Iraqi female fans and 67 percent of males aged between 18 and 34.

Evidently, such dubious digital payola is still continuing: For some people, it’s a living to go online and support Hillary.  Yes, if your campaign has the money to spare, you can buy votes, or at least online pseudo-votes.

To be sure, some holes have been punched in the Clinton financial armor.  As many observers noted, nobody in Philadelphia mentioned the Clinton Foundation—evidently, it now polls as a negative for the Clintons, hence the silence.  So kudos to Peter Schweizer, author of the muckraking book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How Foreign Governments and Businesses Made Bill and Hillary Rich.  By dint of his investigative prowess, Schweizer has knocked a major girder out from under Bill and Hill.

In addition, some caustic observers on the left have actually taken note of the persistent stench of plutocracy.  Under the headline, “The DNC Is One Big Corporate Bribe,” New Republic reporter David Dayen singled out marquee-name Democrats now working plush jobs in just one industry, tech, including:

Obama campaign guru David Plouffe (now with Uber) and Gore consultant Chris Lehane (now with Airbnb) . . . former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, now at Amazon.  . . . Former Attorney General and corporate lawyer Eric Holder took time off from his work with Uber and Airbnb to address the convention.

However, we can observe that all this money comes at a cost: With each new dollar, the Democrats are ever more bought into the establishment system.  And this is at a time when, as we have seen, more than two-thirds of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.  So the Democrats, being bought and paid for, can’t help but appear smug and oblivious.

As The Washington Post’s Dan Balz wrote, Hillary “embodies the establishment and political status quo.” From an electoral point of view, that’s sad!  Or as Trump himself tweeted, “Hillary will never reform Wall Street.  She is owned by Wall Street!”

(…)

In other words, maybe the Democrats’ whole huge effort to build a Potemkin village of faux ideology has come to naught.  As Mike Murphy, chief adviser to Jeb Bush and definitely not a Trump fan, tweeted on Thursday night: “The highly effective dog whistle this convention has been sending to disaffected Republicans ended abruptly in HRC’s speech…  #TooLiberal.”

Yes, the Democrats have a lot of money, and they used it to put a lot of lipstick on the pig, but maybe it wasn’t enough; it’s still a pig.

Michael Moore har, som mange andre, bemærket at Hillary Clinton ikke er inspirerende og på de socieale medier florerer et meme, som selvfølgelig ikke ligefrem er et bevis, der illustrerer den pointe

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-05-kl-124417

Mens Hillary nok fører i meningsmålinger, så er opbakningen til hende lunken. Trump deler vandene, men han formår at begejstre sine tilhængere og hans kampagne er, omend mindre, så mere folkeligt sponseret

Ved utgangen av juni var det totalt 85,9 millioner dollar (724 millioner kroner) i Hillary Clintons valgkampkasse og hos de såkalte super PACene som støtter henne. Til sammenligning hadde Donald Trump 22,5 millioner dollar (185 millioner kroner).

Men ifølge opplysninger fra Trumps egen kampanje har pengene fosset inn i juli. I en felles digital og såkalt direct mail-kampanje, har Det republikanske partiet og Trump-kampanjen samlet inn 64 millioner dollar.

The New York Times skriver at alt i alt fikk Trump og Det republikanske parti inn 82 millioner i juli, det betyr at de ligger helt i ryggen på Clinton som fikk inn 90 millioner dollar.

Dette er tall fra Trumps egen kampanje. Først når de offisielle juli-tallene fraFederal Election Commission foreligger senere denne måneden vil en få vite detaljer i Trump-kampanjens økonomi.

(…)

To tredjedeler av de pengene som kom inn i juli, kom over nettet. Ifølge The New York Times kan Trumps kampanje bli den første republikanske presidentkampanje som henter storparten av inntektene fra små givere. Mange har gitt mellom 10 og 25 dollar.

Dette er et fenomen man også så med demokraten Bernie Sanders kampanje.

Hillary Clinton får mer penger fra storkapitalen enn Trump. Hele 37 direkte eller indirekte bidrag til hennes kampanje har vært på én million dollar eller mer.

Hvis det kun er den hårde ideologiske kerne af demokrater og social justice warriors der orker eller føler sig forpligtet til at møde op kunne det måske forklare, hvorfor de, der møder op til konventer, ser ud til at opføre sig utåleligt

1 Kommentar »

  1. [...] Taget herfra [...]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress