On identity politics and the Hillary emails: I think Cokie’s overestimating
Cokie Roberts thinks few people care about the Clinton email story, unless they already weren’t going to vote for her:
“The people who are not going to vote on Hillary Clinton based on e-mails are already not going to vote for her based on her email, which is about three people,” Roberts said.
She and the rest of the panel added the story could damage Clinton’s overall reputation, as it already seems to have dented her trustworthy numbers. “It plays into voters versus attitudes,” Roberts said. “It plays into that whole storyline of can you trust her? And can you trust the Clintons?”
But the panel returned to the theory that the story was unlikely to meaningfully shape the election. “If you like Hillary Clinton and are you a Democrat and you’re going to support the Democratic nominee, what she did or didn’t do with her server is probably irrelevant,” Katty Kay said.
That’s the way it is these days. Clinton’s support (and Obama’s support before her) is untethered from the usual things like performance, ethics, corruption, secrecy, mendacity. That’s one of the beautiful things about identity politics and identity candidates. If a candidate’s support rests not on what he/she accomplishes in office or qualities of character, but instead depends on inherent and fixed qualities such as race or gender, then things like this don’t matter and won’t drive away many voters.
Membership in the Democratic Party, of course, is required, as well as willingness to support its basic program or veer even further left. But that’s a given these days with all the Democrats; the only question is which Democrat will be nominated.
Hillary Clinton is a woman, an identity candidate. She also happens to be the only candidate the Democrats have got. So I offer a caveat: if the Democrats had another viable candidate, I think the emails would matter (as well as Hillary’ age and general unlikeability) and she would not be a shoo-in for the nomination. In 2008, one of the many things that happened was that Obama’s identity politics—as well as his youth, newness, and general “likeability” (although I’ve never really perceived that latter trait, it apparently exists)—trumped Hillary’s.
It matters more whether moderates will be less likely to vote for Hillary in 2016 because of the emails. Since “moderates” is often a code-word for “low-information voters,” I’m not at all sure they’ll be aware of the story, and certainly may not remember it by the time the election rolls around. But I continue to think that there are several Republican candidates—even ones who identify as conservatives—who could appeal mightily to this group. Two that come to mind are Scott Walker and Marco Rubio. Rubio, being Hispanic, even has his own version of identity politics, although of course to Democrats that makes him a fake (white?) Hispanic.
If you’re the kind of airhead who’ll vote for Hillary because she’s got ovaries and the Clinton last name, then no the emails won’t matter to you.
And considering that’s really all HRC has going for her, then her law breaking in the course of her paranoid drive for secrecy and control won’t dissuade people already committed to voting for her as they mindlessly shout “historic.”
When ethics, honesty, character and the like don’t matter, what are you left with? Much of the times a candidate with a D after their name. “At this point, what difference does it make?”
Says Cokie BOGGS Roberts, who got her silver spoon an even older-fashioned way than Hillary…she was born into it.
Rush Limbaugh said the same thing today as Cokie Roberts and you about who will vote for Hillary and why. Though it has been going on for a long time. “Ethnic, shmethnic, as long as he’s Jewish” was the reason for voting for a candidate on the Lower East Side for years. That’s how Obama did it too, but Hilary can’t count on that particular voting block. If she wins the nomination, it’s going to be a lady parts election, and nothing more substantial than that. Sigh…
Obama beat Clinton mainly because of her support of the 2002 AUMF against Iraq and the Left activist (false) narrative of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Cokie’s NPR plus other stuff, so NATURALLY she’s for HILLARY!
Hillary is so poor on the stump that she’ll simply not motivate the Democrat base to really turn out for her.
As ayatollah Soetoro has shown, elections in this age are won by motivating your fanatics and totally disregarding the center/ moderates.
After all, the sole reason that they ARE moderates is because they’re not paying any attention in the first place. It’s the ‘center’ that is not voting.
As HRC would put it: “What difference does it make!”
I’d say a Walker – Rubio ticket will be a crusher.
They are both just too effective for HRC to deal with.
So the untethering from performance ethics, corruption, secrecy, mendacity and the reciprocal hitching your star to who you are, your signal identities beyond just plain old vanilla human is the praxis of the day. And… you still think voting a productive application of one’s time? Or you are aware it’s a long money wager on one’s hopes… but that’s all there is… so?
I’ll put a fin on the ole gray mare to win. Another fin on the chestnut roan from Florida to show. Any pintos running?
George Pal:
Yes, of course.
Vote for your own reasons; I do. Why give up the fight and cede to the other side? That makes zero sense to me.
Hrc will motivate women on the left who will swoon over the idea of the 1st female president, but I think others who usually vote dem will not find her so inspiring. Blacks, hispanics, and the millennials will not be in a rush to support the coronation.
When an electorate abandons criteria such as performance and ethics and ignores corruption, secrecy and mendacity, sacrificing all upon the altar of ideology, it reveals itself to have lost its moral compass.
Such an electorate is prey to the barbarian for men without a moral compass lack the sustained motivation needed to fight the barbarian until they’ve won. Men such as they may win battles but they will lose the war that barbarism always brings.
““War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing that is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” – John Stuart Mill
Those who voted for Obama and will vote for Clinton or Warren have and are creating the preconditions for their own imprisonment.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security [entitlements] will deserve neither and lose both. Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Benjamin Franklin
More than anything else, Hillary Clinton seeks to be the Master. Her hunger for power is I suspect, insatiable.
Hillary has indeed been driven by that “hunger for power,” but I wonder if it’s not felt all that much in her gut these days. I’m wondering because there’s something odd about her very low-key announcement that she’s running. Something more than her arrogance. It’s almost as if she’s hoping some other Democrats will actually step up and get in the race. As if, deep down, she’s tired of it all, and because there is always the possibility that someone like, say, Rubio, might stir up enough support to deny her a win once again.
“Blacks, hispanics, and the millennials will not be in a rush to support the coronation”
I suspect that’s true but they will be firmly in support of keeping the public trough open for business. They also ‘know’ that Republicans want to deny them access to that fiscal sewer, restricting it to only the wealthy. Minorities will vote for Hillary out of self-interest and many millennials out of indoctrinated ideology.
I’d agree with Ann … Hillary’s roll-out and first event was lackluster, almost as if she is just going through the motions one more time. The whole road-trip in Scooby, the stealth appearance at a Chipotle with no-one noticing until they reviewed the security tapes when the press started calling. Either she is tired of it all, or is planning to bail as soon as she has spent a bit of her funds, or just figures that she is the ONE this time so she can get away with just phoning it in.
It’s all kind of curious.
I think the email thing should be pushed as a sign of her (lack of) intelligence. It’s not just that she violated the rules; it’s that she made the diplomatic secrets of our country accessible to hackers from Russia, China, etc. If she couldn’t figure that out, how in the h**l can she figure out how to run the country. And now, she of foreign donors fame, wants to amend the constitution to prevent Americans from having a say in politics.
GB,
I somewhat agree, but hrc will not tally as many votes as bho. Millions of those you describe will not have the same enthusiasm for hrc. And, millennials are shying away from the party line. Students at the Jones County, Iowa community college where hrc appeared were less than impressed. You can find their comments at college insurrection.
IMO, if the gop fields a strong ticket it stands to have a clear shot at winning 11/16.
Ace has a great line today re Hillary — Our Evasive Evita
Alas, it would be roll-in-the-aisle funny if it weren’t so close to the truth.
Her sincerity, honesty, integrity, openness, truthfulness, caring, championship & understanding of the middle class….OOOpppsss!!
expat said:
“It’s not just that she violated the rules; it’s that she made the diplomatic secrets of our country accessible to hackers from Russia, China, etc. If she couldn’t figure that out, how in the h**l can she figure out how to run the country.”
What if she did figure it out. And just didn’t care.
Her real enemies who can’t go through her emails under any circumstances are Republicans/conservatives. Not the Russians or the Chinese.
A few things: I visited the nutters at Democratic Underground to see how they were feeling about hilly-girl.
They do not like her. There is much muttering in the Red camp against her. They still hold a grudge against Bill for tacking (somewhat) to the center in the 1990s; they see the Clintons as a couple of slick operators rather than True Believers. But they will mostly hold their noses and vote for her anyway.
The general impression I got was that the Red Guard like her about as much as the TEA Party folks like Jeb Bush. Also, that they’ve gone Full Commie Retard. They are waaaay out in the left field weeds.
I told a LoFo friend that Hillary had taken a $130 million contribution from a South American dude while she was Sec. of State, and changed America’s policy as a result to favor said dude. Friend asked, “Where do you GET all this information?!?” Online, UK news, etc., I told her. (She only watches the networks; I’m trying to show her they hide half the story, all the time.)
I suppose we could put on our hip-waders and see what is pinging inside the craniums of the Daily Kossacks as well.
Beverly @1:13 – –
I had dinner with a couple friends last night, Democrat stalwarts, highly intelligent people who bizarrely buy the whole propaganda package. We do not discuss politics.
They shocked me by spontaneously bringing up HC in order to bitterly condemn her as a phony liar. Wow!
My only contribution was a half-hearted “what about the private email server and deleted emails?” which sent them into further annoyed and angry condemnations.
They want someone else.
Of course they will vote for Granny when the time comes but it was encouraging to hear the truth being spoken, and maybe it is a sign of something bigger going on.
Of course they will vote for Granny when the time comes but it was encouraging to hear the truth being spoken, and maybe it is a sign of something bigger going on….
Maybe.
Ouch!