It doesn't appear that she understands what's driving people to Trump. In this one speech she managed to solidify Trump's base, bring more independents into the Trump camp and validate the case that Trump has been making to the African-American voter.
But, if she wants to play the game of guilt by association, she will lose that game.
From her endorsement of black lives matters, to the endorsement of Democrats by New Black Panthers...to the contributions to her by Middle-easterners who support misogyny and punishment of homosexuality...from her and her husband's associations with (and endorsement of) leading segregationists in Arkansas and grand wizards (or whatever) such as Byrd...the Communist Party support for her and Obama...the support for Democrats by terrorists such as Ayers and racists like Reverand Wright. I'm sure there are more. This is a weird attack she has launched.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I believe Cruz was the "tea party" candidate, these folks despise Cruz.
All the articles by Breitbart Blog in support of the Tea Party over the last 8 years don't exist?
They didn't support Cruz because he went with many mainstream Republican values. Not being Teabagging enough for Breitbart = Alt Right seems to be even more bagging than the Tea Party.
Link: in support of Tea Party values
"Tea Party" supported Cruz.
What's now being called the "Alt right" supported Trump and as such, these two groups were diametrically opposed during the primary process.
Breitbart supported both at least at some level. They're now fully Trump, but I don't think the same can be said for the "Tea Party".
In fairness to you, you've never been quite able to grasp what the "Tea Party" is.
And of course they now fully support Trump and instead of calling it Tea Party, they gave it a new name = Alt Right from the Far Right which opposes any immigration and hates Islam - sort of teabagging on steroids. They're more racist than before. It's the new spin instead of calling them Tea Party. Breitbart.com endorses the Alt-right or the extreme teabagger. It may not be totally correct to say it's the new spin but really it is, it's just even further right than most know. They say Trump defeated Cruz who was the Republican MainStream - if that makes sense.
Sure, there's some overlap.
The Tea Party movement was all about reducing taxes, smaller government and reducing the debt.
The Trump movement is all about anti-PC, silenced majority, nationalism, etc.
The Tea Party was more about "get the government out of my life" whereas the Trump movement is more about "the government should be doing more for me".
Further evidence:
"RAND tested several queries to clearly divide Trumps support from his rivals. For example, they found that Trump crushes Ted Cruz among voters who both strongly believe that immigrants threaten American customs and values" and among voters who "strongly favor" raising taxes on the richest American households. But voters who agreed with the statement people like me don't have any say about what the government does were 86.5 percent more likely to prefer Trump. This feeling of powerlessness and voicelessness was a much better predictor of Trump support than age, race, college attainment, income, attitudes towards Muslims, illegal immigrants, or Hispanic identity."
The Tea Party movement has embraced more than just "Gov't get out of my Private affairs" rhetoric - it has promoted anti-PC rhetoric and anti-immigration rhetoric all along. Being Alt Right has moved the TeaBaggers to a more extreme view. The TeaParty has stepped away from Cruz and others because of their "appeasement" to the mainstream Republican Party values. Breitbart blog has supported Tea Party initiatives from the beginning - 2008. Alt-right, which has been around for a few years in the US is now finding its home in the extreme Republican Party with the TeaParty people (Breitbart). - But Breitbart.com has been a "white supremacist styled group all along with its anti ACORN investigation manipulation and anti-progressive agenda and anti-color rhetoric.
I was wrong in stating that they were the new spin as it was being touted on one of the morning shows; it is more sinister than that - it is a product from across the pond and has been embraced by Republicans - Trump - as this article is saying. When David Dukes became an shadow figure in the Trump campaign (even as Donald has said he doesn't know who Dukes is) - now with Bannon as chief campaign manager, the Republican's now appear to be heading down the path of promoting racism as a mainstream platform. All those pieces appear to be fitting together, Kellyanne Conway, Bannon ....
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-alt-right-finds-a-home-inside-the-republican-convention/2016/07/21/5890518e-4f8c-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html
states and their politicians too. I found it from 2012 GOP presidential debate when Newt Gingrich viciously attacked Romney for his Bain business. I just realized for the conservative leaders like Gingrich, their southern background still influence them, i.e., populism probably is built in their blood.
I read it in a whiny, high-pitched voice, feel free to add a lisp or whatever...
"Breitbart (for reference: a hack blog/media group) supported this group and now it supports this other group! See! See! Both groups are the same thing and you want to dispute it??? Huh? Huh? [several incoherent, rambling sentences included for no apparent reason, emphasis maybe?]"
(no message)
Something like a coalition of social outcast online trolls, who blindly support Trump. Several here definitely fit this description, not sure if they self-identify.
Wikipedia is defining it as Hillary did: a bunch of racist people who support Trump. I suspect that page will be heavily edited over the coming days.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Neddie and Eli - How ironic.
PS: I'm just buying into your premise.
(no message)
I think I agree with NDAve that Hillary basically just confirmed what Trump said about her being a race monger...but nobody will notice.
And, dividing the races further apart, causing more racial discord, is a great way for her to distract from the scandals that are building and to shore up her liberal base.
[Interesting article by the way. Levin nails it. I had forgotten about all that Trent Lott stuff.]
That's just the thing. I think people will notice. I find it entirely likely that there will be a segment of independents and centrists who find it offensive and will be turned off of Hillary. It is evident to me there there is a significant movement against the overly sensitive, pollitcally correct and race-baiting environment that has evolved over the last couple of decades. We saw yesterday a letter that came out from the University of Chicago Administration to students which says they don't support "Trigger Warnings" or intellectual "safe spaces". It's a perfect example of how this issue has gained momentum.
With regards to African-American voters, Trump really has no place to go but up. Any black voter who has already decided to roll the dice with Trump won't be swayed by Hillary's rhetoric. On the other hand, I could see a small percentage thinking to themselves, "Something doesn't smell right with why Hillary is going back to the same well again. Maybe I'll listen to what Trump is saying." She's basically painting them as victims again, while Trump is telling them they don't need to be victims anymore. Agree with it or not, there is some appeal there. The fact is that this race looks like it will go down to the wire and a small change in the African-Ameican vote could be very dangerous to Hillary.
So what does that make Trump?
Latterly, Breitbart emerged as a nationalist site and done great stuff on immigration in particular, VDARE.com editor Peter Brimelow told The Daily Beast.
VDare is a white supremacist site. Its named after Virginia Dare, the first white child born to British colonists in North America. Brimelow said he and Bannon met briefly last month and exchanged pleasantries about each others work.
"Brimelow isnt the only prominent white nationalist to praise the Bannon hire. Richard Spencer, who heads the white supremacist think tank National Policy Institute, said he was also pleased. Under Bannons leadership, Breitbart has given favorable coverage to the white supremacist Alt Right movement. And Spencer loves it."
Greg Johnson, then-editor of The Occidental Quarterly, stressed how Richard Spencer's concept of the "Alternative Right" was to collect a variety of perspectives that are outside the purview of the American Conservative movement: [Alternative Right] will attract the brightest 'young' conservatives and libertarians and expose them to far broader intellectual horizons, including race realism, White Nationalism, the European New Right, the Conservative Revolution, Traditionalism, neo-paganism, agrarianism, Third Positionism, anti-feminism, and right-wing anti-capitalists, ecologists, bioregionalists, and small-is-beautiful types.
The Anti-Defamation League cited him in 2013 as "a leader in white supremacist circles", and says that since his time at The American Conservatism, he has rejected conservatism, because according to Spencer, its adherents "can't or won't represent explicitly white interests".[13] In a 2016 interview for Time, Spencer said that he rejected white supremacy and slavery of nonwhites, preferring to establish a white ethnostate.
So now we are stuck with selecting either Trump or the biggest lying criminal in history as our next President. Just damn.
Link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/17/alt-right-rejoices-at-trump-s-steve-bannon-hire.html
so hard I'm crying. Ha, ha, ha, ha,....
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)