Attention Liz Warren. I wish to bring two simple facts to your attention.
1. You earned your wings by fighting for the economic rights of the 99%.
2. No denying you fit the stereo-typical mold of short-haired Massachusetts liberal female politicians like Martha Coakley and Katherine Clark.
I mean it took a year to figure out who was who between Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and a few of the other creepy short guys with slick backed shoe polish black hair. To me they’re all the same. Now think of the people in Iowa. What false perceptions do they have of you? And anti-Trump smack talk isn’t going to change their minds.
Why dilute your political brand? Would Sacks Fifth Avenue sell the same stuff the street vendor is selling outside?
When you came in to office you were popular because you weren’t like many of the Democratic hypocritical frauds more concerned about keeping their place in the status quo than taking on the nuts and bolts of the problems.
We all know people make immediate assumptions and on the national front you might be coming across as just another whiney know-it-all-Harvard type who doesn’t add anything to the conversation but anti-trump rhetoric and one liners. Every politician is doing that.
What happened to that space you carved out for yourself? The one you owned and operated. The voice of the 99%. This group includes many Trump voters. Political capital is very limited.
I suggest you stay on the economy and go back to being known as the crusader for the 99%.
—–
I am not the descendant of immigrants. My ancestors were always here. They did however welcome the first immigrants who walked across the frozen Bearing Straight from Asia. So, you see, my people know a little something about immigrants. We’ve been dealing with them longer than any other.
Because of this much wisdom has been passed down thousands of generations on how to deal with immigrants. How does a community accept immigrants? What should immigrants know in order to assimilate? What can natives and immigrants each do to ease the tensions that come with assimilation.
This insight has never been shared with people from the outside. It was for us only. But because of recent national and international events we believe the relationship between Americans and immigrants can be significantly improved if we released one piece of information.
Without a doubt relations would improve if immigrants would…..
Wave to a driver who stops to let them go. That’s all they have to do. Smile and wave and let the white American know you appreciate it. Otherwise you’re bringing down, not just your people, but all people with your same shade.
That’s how it works. Trust us on this.
The automobile has created more anti-something-or-other than any war or genocide in the history of man. For instance, years ago if a guy from South Boston was driving in East Boston and got cut-off by a red Lincoln, or brightly colored Olds, he would say elfin g-word. If the guy was fat he would an elfin fat g-word. And if he was flamboyant..well, there you go. That’s how people are when driving.
Now that can apply to anything. If you drive by a private high school or a public one in a wealthy town and some kid comes ripping out of the parking lot in his daddy’s car and almost hits you then you say “Effin little spoiled rich douche bag driving his daddy’s car. Then you apply that to all the kids at that school.
Who says the word “broad” anymore? I’ll tell who. Old guys in cars referring to any female driver over 40. As in “what’s this broad trying to do here?” Otherwise they’re gurls who are too young to drive.
Getting back to the immigrants. I’m not sure if the wave is an American thing like tipping or the immigrants are afraid to make eye contact or engage us in anyway. But I’ll tell you this, we found that most immigrants don’t give the thank you wave. Nothing pisses a good ole American off more than this.
Double for Massholes.
But once you hit us with a wave… well, all’s good. If there’s a big smile accompanying that wave well, you can come over for dinner, Changes everything.
So those are our findings. Don’t shoot the messenger on this. But science doesn’t lie.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
I don’t. Just needed click bait because the new system doesn’t let people know when you post.
This will get in the comment section.
jconway says
I gave you one for the astute insights on Warren. Swing voters only
care about economic issues and as soon as the Democrats wake up and realize this-the sooner we can retake our government.
jconway says
N/T
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
so not me
Christopher says
…advocating taking on Trump on ALL fronts? Of course Warren should continue taking him on for ALL offenses against human decency!
JimC says
All offenses against human decency, yes, but there will be Trump Fatigue (I don’t know when), and Senator Warren will need to be doing more than being anti-Trump.
It’s sort of like “Give em’ enough rope.” When people are sick of him, it won’t necessarily redound to us.
jconway says
And if it’s my diary you were referring to that was for 2018. Resistance helps us win back the House. But Senate and presidential elections are just as much about the specific candidates and their views as it is a referendum on the incumbent. Thus the pressing need for a lunch pail economic agenda to compliment the resistance to Trump’s social and foreign policies.
johntmay says
When Republicans get the Estate Tax gone, Corporate Taxes slashed, the ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in the gutter, the EPA, OSHA, and all the rest on the ropes, they will then turn on Trump like pack of rabid hyenas and impeach him…..
But then, what do Democratic hyenas do? What are Democratic hyenas? Well, they are the ones like Corey Booker, friend of Big Pharma, Chuck Schumer, friend of Wall Street and their backers who all say “Hey, the MONEY has to come from somewhere!”…..
What do we do?
jconway says
We will be getting a new DNC chair soon. I like Ellison and Pete better-but I can live with Perez. All would be a massive improvement over their predecessor. The House and Senate Dems will resist within the minority-which is the key to regaining the majority. Senate candidates (and we should contest every race) should run with a Bernie style populist message. Then we can worry about who steps forward for 2020.
JimC says
But I don’t think it’s immigrants.
I think you have a solid point on Elizabeth Warren. Nobody really cares about which Cabinet nominees she opposes.
stomv says
if I push my way into a merge because the driver didn’t really want to let me in but my lane is ending or I need to move over?
I wave.
If I’m trying to cross the street on foot with the crosswalk light or if I’m crossing at an unsignalized crosswalk? Eff no you don’t get a wave. That would be like waving at the people stopped at the red while you drive through the intersection in another direction with the green. Doesn’t make any sense. You don’t get a wave for merely following the law.
Christopher says
Wonders never cease!:)
stomv says
I drove 78 miles yesterday, in fact. I drive quite a bit, skewing toward highway miles.
stomv says
In 2016 I drove 4720 miles and was passenger for another 486, though I think that’s more than typical. Key drivers (ahem) include driving to upstate NY or NYC-metro area to visit family, sadly more often for funerals than weddings. I also drive for work sometimes; yesterday I drove from National Airport to Annapolis and back. Of the nearly 5000 miles in a car last year, only about 1000 were solo (either me driving alone or a car for hire driving only me). The rest were some form of car pooling. I also rode a bicycle for 1520 miles and walked for 436 miles in 2016.
For 2017 I expect the biking to be about 100 miles more, walking to be about the same, and driving to be down a few thousand miles
hesterprynne says
Here are the nominees that Senator Warren has voted against confirming. For which of them could she not make any connection to economic issues?
Devos: Education
Mulvaney: OMB
Price: Health and Human Services
Pruitt: EPA
Mnuchin: Treasury
Tillerson: State
Pompeo: CIA
McMahon: Small Business
Kelly: Homeland Security
Chao: Transportation
JimC says
I’m not sure if this is directed to me or Ernie, but I think the average voter sees “The Cabinet” as one big fight. So yes, oppose DeVos, she’s anathema to a core constituency. Some with Pruitt, and maybe Price. But McMahon? Who cares?
Also, with the possible exception of DeVos there was almost zero chance of nominee #2 or 3 or 17 being remotely better. It’s just not that important, because in the end they’re all just extensions of Trump-ism (again DeVos stands out — she has an AGENDA, and Trump will leave her alone).
So in the Great Realm of Fights to Pick, the Cabinet is only worth so much time.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
You’re taking the constricted view IMHO.
It’s not about her voting down any of the cabinet members. Jesus Christ, talk about a constricted view.
No Mam, it’s about what the newspapers are writing, the news is showing, and internet is saying.
I suggest that seven out every ten times she is in the national spotlight she should advocating for the 99% and telling the people in simple terms how Trump’s economic policies are royally screwing them.
In the process she will be articulating an economic policy appealing to Joe Six Pack in Pembroke and the Democratic base.
Instead I see too much of her trying to be the loudest singer in the chorus.
It goes beyond the senate confirmation hearings.
jconway says
Swing voters don’t care about the cabinet. They are judging Trump strictly on jobs and security-and so far he looks pretty good to them. Our base is judging resistance to Trump down the line so you can’t equivocate and say some cabinet posts are worth more than others. Dumping on all of them is dumping Trump. Key to the midterm agenda is holding the base through broad resistance and winning back swing voters with an economic agenda that actually helps them. Both/and.
Christopher says
Of course I know you don’t actually support him, but you’re giving him too much credit and his voters too much slack. I for one have NOT heard that he has proposed any legislation to create or retain jobs and anything he has attempted in the name of security has been nothing but theater which can’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
Christopher says
…the myth of the swing voter. A truly swing voter who adheres to the middle and tries to discern the qualities of each candidate would not vote for this guy, and if they did they have to be having second thoughts.
jconway says
That’s the actual myth. Swing voters are not high minded centrists but low info voters primarily concerned about security and the economy and they broke late for Trump in the six states he flipped from Democratic to Republican. Polls show this group supports his clumsy travel ban and believes he is bringing jobs back through photo ops like Carrier.
Here is how progressive political analyst Paul Waldman describes that voter:
We have to be extremely careful to separate our own views on these policies when analyzing why other voters might find them persuasive. This does not mean moving to the middle. It means delivering jobs at fair wages to this swath of the electorate-and I strongly agree with Ernie that focusing on the 99% v the 1% is the correct frame to oppose Trump.
Who’s in the Trump cabinet? 1% ers
Who’s gonna get rich off his tax policies? 1% ers
Who’s going to win out on entitlemeents? 1% ers
When did America turn on Bush? Was it after Guantanamo, after the Patriot Act, after the Iraq War, or when he tried to privatize Social Security? It was the latter-since he hit working people right in their retirement. Democrats were able to stay united and bounce back into power by opposing this policy.
Mid term strategy: Resist Trump on every policy and shore up the base. No need to reach out to soft Trump voters yet.
But definitely we can win them back in 2020 and Warren could be the candidate to do it if she runs as her populist 2012 self. My advice is to llet Warren be Warren.
SomervilleTom says
Using the phrase “swing voter” to describe the behavior you elaborate is an example of using dishonest vocabulary to distort society.
I frankly don’t buy any of this high-minded sophistry. Here’s what I think happened, and continues to happen now:
1. Black voters in the crucial states (like PA and WI) stayed home. Doesn’t matter why.
2. White racists and misogynists turned out for Donald Trump, because Donald Trump panders to them in an unprecedented way.
3. America was not ready for a black President, and was even less ready for a woman.
I love Ms. Warren where she is. I think we should focus our efforts on transforming America from a “red map” to a “blue map” at the most local levels of government.
Our government is proposing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and two years building concentration camps. It is proposing to hold whomever it chooses for TWO YEARS without charges, access to an attorney, or any other niceties of due process.
I’m sorry, but talking about “jobs” like this strikes me as very close to the edge of immoral. America is being transformed into a authoritarian fascist state as we speak.
The economic impacts are devastating:
Today’s America doesn’t care and isn’t paying attention. This isn’t the time to talk about the 2020 election. This isn’t the time to offer the same cliches that some have been repeating here for more than a year.
This is the time to act against the outrages happening right now.
johntmay says
If we don’t know the “why” or don’t care why, how do we win in 2020?
The historical record indicates were were, two times in a row.
Sorry, but being a woman was the least of her problems, if it was a problem at all.
Christopher says
Two majority elections, first for a Dem since FDR says to me the country in aggregate was in fact ready for a black President. I also have 2.8 million votes that say we were ready for a woman too!
SomervilleTom says
We have discussed and speculated why black voters stayed home ad nauseam. In my view, the choice in 2016 was more stark than in any other election in the modern era. Any black voter voter who chose to not turn up in 2016 is, in my opinion, not going to be swayed by anything we do. In my view, the various things offered in our many post-mortems infantilize those voters. Each and every one of them knew full well what would result from their decision to stay home. That decision was theirs and theirs alone.
The re-election of Barack Obama strikes me as no more significant than the re-election of George W. Bush. A huge number of American voters responded to eight years of GOP obstructionism — eight years of obstructionism filled with thinly-disguised racist dog-whistles — by electing Donald Trump, a candidate who doubled-down on all the racist stereotypes bandied about during the administration of Barack Obama.
My point is that America today is racist, fascist, and sexist. America will be that way, or worse, in 2020 unless we change it. Denying and ignoring our racism, fascism, and sexism in favor of false promises of “jobs” will accomplish nothing even if it does get the ball over the goal line in 2020.
Right now, more than TEN MILLION men, women and children face years of confinement in concentration camps without access to lawyers, family, or even a semblance of due process. That is the human suffering our current government is creating right now.
“Winning” in 2020, while ignoring this suffering, is utterly meaningless.
JimC says
Link
SomervilleTom says
You are not paying attention to what is happening right now.
This community is in abject denial of the horror sweeping our nation. Your link exemplifies what I mean. The evil that we face is NOT about what Hillary Clinton did or did not do.
You are not paying attention.
JimC says
Are you?
JimC says
Your link points to a pastor saying there was “demonic activity” at a Trump rally. If he said that about a Democratic rally, how much stock would you put in that story?
SomervilleTom says
I am, of course, not saying that Satan was rampant at the event.
The point of the piece is to understand the energy that Mr. Trump and his entourage is calling forth. This particular pastor describes it as “demonic activity”. You and I would probably choose a different phrase. The energy of the event is still appalling. What that piece describes is people, even conservative evangelicals, who are both surprised and repelled by the energy Mr. Trump and his entourage is summoning.
The piece describes a mob physically attacking two women who dared to criticize their fearless leader.
The tenor and tone of events like this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Hillary Clinton, her emails, or anything else. The piece you cite is simply ignoring the flagrant pandering to most vile and primal fears and emotions of people who are already suffering. This demagogue is feeding off these base emotions, fanning them rather than seeking to allay them.
Nothing remotely like this has ever happened in any Democratic rally I’ve ever been a part of or learned about.
These are actions that provoke lynchings. Maybe they aren’t “demonic”, but they have nothing to do with what Hillary Clinton did or did not in the past campaign.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
not sure what that means but sounded like a great come back to your headline
SomervilleTom says
Why am I not surprised that you choose a snarky ad hominem towards me?
I guess so long as the storm troopers aren’t coming after you and yours, you don’t give a shit.,
petr says
… she was winning right up until the moment she lost. It wasn’t like she wasn’t getting incredible amount of very positive and very public feedback: polls, endorsements, etc right up until most of the ballots were cast… What would you have done differently over the last week of October and the first week of November under those circumstances? And it wasn’t like he wasn’t getting serious amounts of negative press…. So it sounds like you, and the author of this piece, require her to be both less subjectively horrible as well as prescient about the nature of the public support she was getting right up until Nov 9th. You’re also asking us to ignore the objectively horrible parts of him that are not excused by whatever perception of her exists.
I’d suggest, up front, that that view isn’t very fair to either Clinton or the people who voted for her, but I’m compelled to first point out that it’s not actually very sane. I mean, if “you lose a soapbox derby to to a man whose vehicle is on fire” maybe it’s not you and, in fact, the judges are pyromaniacs and/or arson fetishists who get off on seeing things on fire… It seems like you’re going out of your way to actively avoid that possibility.
Christopher says
…of all people should not have to have had their hands held to show up to vote against the DUMB candidate. Maybe it was complacency, since polls right up to the day before showed she had this in the bag.
JimC says
“The Obama coalition” means the left wing of the party, which directly chose Obama over Clinton in 2008 because he represented a more progressive vision than she did. We could argue that, and we did, but he was for example much less aggressive on foreign policy. She was trying to be a Warrior Queen to get ready for her (inevitable) nomination. Oops.
But for people on the left wing of the party, she has always been a bitter pill. (Bill is worse.) They were moments when she seemed like the progressive hero she has always been portrayed as, like her fierce defense of Planned Parenthood. But there were other things too, like hanging with Kissinger (Kissinger!). The Goldman Sachs thing hurt. “Basket of deplorables” hurt a lot. Reminders about “superpredators” hurt. (Was that Bernie who brought that up? I don’t remember.)
And when she said she was the most qualified, well, it was true, but it also came off as entitlement. In the immortal words of Tip O’Neill, people like to be asked (not told).
Was sexism a factor? Of course. Racism too — Tom has a point that Trump united the crazies like no one has in recent memory. But I wonder if there’s any state they swing.
In the end it was old news vs. a big middle finger to Washington. We (me included) should have seen this coming. My whole point is, cueing off the article, we do ourselves no favors claiming she was robbed, or that it was the FBI. Sure the FBI hurt. But the choice is what mattered in the end.
theloquaciousliberal says
As I recall it was this The Nation piece that was first in bring up the “superpredators” remark in early February 2016:
https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
Bernie jumped on board after Bill Clinton publicly fought with BLM protestors in April:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-super-predators-sanders_us_570a67a2e4b0836057a17d1e
I think that was the basic timeline.
Christopher says
I saw the clip of her saying that several times, including with plenty of what she said before and after to give it context. She never racialized the term. She simply said that certain people are beyond redemption and reform which unfortunately is true. Plenty of white people meet that description as well.
centralmassdad says
that for the real left wing, the left-center is always a FAR bigger enemy than anything on the right. So it was with the empowered left in this election.
This seems like it was a useful discussion in late November, and maybe into December. But its February now, Trump is actually POTUS, and is doing stuff that should probably be rather vehemently opposed by anyone who has ever voted Dem ever.
I think s’tom’s point is simply that a re-hash over the Dem 2016’s candidates personal and political shortcomings is rather comprehensively irrelevant on Feb 23 2017. If he is right– as I glumly think he is– that all of the -isms that motivate Trump voters completely override any ordinary or re-tooled Democratic ideology pitch, then there isn’t really much to be done but hang on until the reactionary moment spends itself. If he isn’t, and jconway et al. are right, that there are decent Trump voters who might respond to such appeals, then super.
But, ultimately, this discussion is the very same either/or discussion that has been so very boring on this site for over a year now. Sure, make your jobs appeal. But if you are not going to oppose injustice– indeed oppose everything about the present administration, then why are you bothering at all?
JimC says
What does this mean?
I agree with your main point, there’s no point in rehashing the election. But I think we are failing to move on partly because we keep laying blame on factors like the FBI.
The best way to move on is to be our best selves.
centralmassdad says
I could expand the point that that the radical wing of a political group always seems to concentrate fire on moderates, all the way back to Jacobins hatred of Girondists. It seems pretty clear to me that a similar phenomenon drove the Bernie insurgency– my own email, facebook, etc. was filled with ardent Bernie supporters who respectfully disagree with Trump on a few points, but utterly LOATHED Clinton for giving a speech, etc., and who still think Trump is better because Trumpism will somehow provoke a true social revolution or something.
The larger point is who cares? Hillary lost. She is not president, is not in Congress, and is not involved in politics. Whether she REALLY should have run on the proposition that Obama, as well as every other Democratic president during the last 50 years (or more) was worthless and no better than a Republican; that Obama betrayed the American people by not arbitrarily imprisoning “Wall Street” people, etc. is completely boring and useless.
So that means that there has to be some substance offered up, in the hopes that basic human decency eventually prevails over whatever it is that leads people to love Trump.
But in the meantime, Dems must oppose this proto-fascist in the White House and his Congressional bootlickers at every turn. You cant necessarily win, because you dont have the numbers. But that doesn’t mean that you must acquiescel. To that end “Nevertheless, she persisted” was great. More of that please.
Put another way, whatever it is that ernie “recommends”– don’t do that.
jconway says
There won’t be any justice until Trump is removed or voted out of office and he won’t be voted out of office in 2020 without a strong jobs appeal. That’s it. My message has always been both/and. Charley, stromv, Paul Simmons are Clinton backers who make the same arguments. It’s you two who stubbornly insist that the party or Roosevelt and Kennedy suddenly has to choose between fighting for civil rights and a New Deal. That’s always been a false choice, it was when the Clinton’s argued it and it is today.
jconway says
Fratricide is boring and positive suggestions are welcome. I’d love to see more posts on what we do going forward and have contributed a few.
Christopher says
First, while way too many Americans for my taste do seem to be racist, fascist, or sexist, I wouldn’t describe the country as a whole that way. I think the demonstrations we’ve seen in recent weeks bear that out.
Also, what are these concentration camps of which you speak? There are no Auschwitzs on our soil so let’s beware the Godwin triggers.
SomervilleTom says
What do you think the “immigration facilities” referenced in the NYTimes piece are? These orders propose to build “detention facilities” over a two-year period, where “detainees” are to be held — according to these orders — without access to lawyers, courts, trial, or any other due process.
I call them “concentration camps”. What euphemism do you prefer?
Christopher says
…and the one directly above leads to an index where I could not quickly find what you are referring to. If it’s really affecting that many people I’m surprised it hasn’t taken over my FB feed. As to what to call them – detention centers, immigration facilities, 21st century Ellis Island, I don’t know – just not concentration camps until you can show me ovens and gas chambers.
SomervilleTom says
I posted a link to a NY Daily News piece in my comment that started all this.
Perhaps we can compromise on “Internment Camps“. Or perhaps “Gulags“.
We are talking about “disappearing” people and holding them without charges, representation, or due process for YEARS.
I don’t think that ever happened at Ellis Island, for crying out loud.
Do you also claim that nobody was tortured because we didn’t pull fingernails out or burn people with cigarettes?
Christopher says
…I still think you are hyperventilating a bit. “Disappearing” is also a very loaded term that I think has no place in this discussion.
SomervilleTom says
Everything is fine.
Let’s just keep our focus on making sure that older white males stay happy. No need to worry about all this other stuff, it’s just “hyperventilating”.
SomervilleTom says
The New York Times reports “Immigrants Hide, Fearing Capture on ‘Any Corner'”:
This exchange exemplifies the complaints of white privilege so many are making against we Democrats. I’m “hyperventilating”, while millions of people are literally living in fear.
Christopher says
…and I don’t like it either, but we still must be careful not to rhetorically advertise the US as a fascist state before it actually is one. Let’s file “disappearing” and “concentration camps” under words we do not use when that is not what is actually happening.
jconway says
What’s disturbing about the deportations isn’t that they are happening, Trump promised then and anyone who said he wasn’t serious is now complicit in this travesty, but that they are largely happening under the radar. The push to rely on local ale enforcement should trouble all of us in a post-Ferguson environment. My contacts back in Chelsea are terrified, as are my teacher friends. Guatemalans who were deported in the first wave are already dead. A more accurate WWII analogy would be internment camps and turning the boats back to Europe-our own government is repeating sins our grandparents repented for.
centralmassdad says
If the project is to arrest people, and then detain them for two years without access to judges, lawyers, or the ability to communicate to people where they are or what has happened to them, then I see no reason not to use words that precisely describe just that, even if the failure to use euphemism makes some people squeamish.
johntmay says
but lately, when I scratch the surface of anyone who is still a Trump supporter, I see signs of racism. Not KKK types, not too far into it, but just enough to make me feel uncomfortable talking to them.
SomervilleTom says
I appreciate this — I really do.
johntmay says
…in an uncomfortable sort of way! (not on your account, on theirs)
johntmay says
And that’s why Clinton’s neolibeal campaign lost……how do we change the citizens of the USA?
Would not not be easier to simply change our candidate, say, someone who actually cares where the money for their campaign comes from?
In any case, assuming you are correct, how do you propose “we” change the minds of sexist, fascist, and racist America? Ought we infiltrate and try to change them from within? I do not know where the next KKK or John Birch meeting is in my town, but since about 7,000 voters in the town of Franklin voted for Trump, there must be one close by, eh?
SomervilleTom says
This is the kind of comment that makes BMG a waste of my time.
johntmay says
Classic projection….
Christopher says
…that Warren is now the face of our party. I would file that under “He says it like it’s a bad thing!”
Mark L. Bail says
voters, but based on what they do in the future and how much they suck in general. Aside from Flynn, who was a poor choice and part of a scandal that has only begun to unwind, they don’t matter much individually. In the aggregate, they will become a reflection of a Trump Whitehouse completely unconcerned with policy that helps workers.
Trump voters can’t be looked at as a monolith. Some a stupid people who care more about their political identity than their quality of life, but others are persuadable and less unreasonable than people give them credit for.
Warren is doing the work of a DNC chair. We haven’t had one since the odious DWS. We have no leader of the party, but we should have one of those by Sunday. It will be interesting to see if Warren slows down after that.
I agree, however, that the Democrats need to be offering a concrete program with explicit alternatives to the GOP/Trump agenda.
jconway says
n/t
johntmay says
the economy is going to motivate someone to vote, the value statement is going to motivate them to vote for “A” over “B”.
Example: Trump ran on the economy and his value statement was that America was weak, timid, and that’s why the economy sucks, so we need to be strong.
Sanders ran on the economy and his value statement was that the system is gigged by and for the rich, and that’s not fair.
Clinton ran on the economy doing just fine, but we need a woman to break the glass ceiling and Trump is a very bad man.
Christopher says
Your Trump and Sanders summaries are spot on. Clinton ran on I am the most experienced and qualified candidate who has the best chance of actually accomplishing what candidates have been talking about.
jconway says
Primary is over and the worst President is in office…