Clinton ridicules Sanders & say she is committed to build a winning Dem party

[Shadows]

You know, I’m tired of people, even in my own party, even friends of mine, who aren’t willing to do the hard work of building a party that can win. That’s why I started a new organisation called Onward Together. I am funding and supporting grassroots groups that are recruiting candidates, particularly young women, that are training them, that are standing up for a lot of the progressive causes that I believe in. Because, you know, I’m not going to sit around and worry about what happens in 2020. I’m going to try to build a party that can win in 2018. If we take back the house in 2018, and it is plausible because I won 24 congressional districts with Republican incumbents in them, then everything changes.

Q - But is there a risk in that strategy, which clearly those are all laudable things that everyone would want to happen—less gerrymandering, no voter suppression—but that said, if the Democratic Party pushes and makes that its main focus, that it is seen as the party of identity politics.

You know, I beat Bernie Sanders by four million votes, okay. So that was a landslide by any definition. He was very clear that there was only one message, a single message about billionaires, you know, take back America from the billionaires, and he had ideas which were hard for him to explain but he never had to explain them except in one editorial board meeting with the New York Daily News. So when people say, you know, just give up on that civil rights stuff, don’t talk about it. Look what Trump is doing. You know, what are the Democrats supposed to say? Oh, we don’t want to talk about it, oh it’s too controversial? No! Stand up for what you believe in and what you know is right. If it costs you votes, go find the votes somewhere else. I didn’t do a good enough job fighting suppression and finding the votes somewhere else. But I am determined to make sure the Democratic Party doesn’t make the mistake of walking away from so many of the values and [the] progress that we have helped to bring about.

https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21730338-interview-democratic-candidate-president-2016-elections-transcript

There was not even a single question on Sanders but on Economics where she pivoted to Sanders for some weird reason & hammered him for no good reason.

Anyways, looks like, people will see an active energetic Hillary Clinton who will play a big role in future Democratic contests & in the direction of the Dem party !

[Shadows]

Two things:

1. Left wing economics won't pull minorities out of poverty. It'll just push everyone else into poverty.

I really can't comprehend how we're supposed to be part of the same political party, honestly.

PS. Also, thanks for essentially proving the point of my other post.

The Democrats have never been a socialist political party. They've supported civil rights and civil liberties and center to center-left economics.

Also, I don't see how I've proved the point of your other post. I was by no means a super enthusiastic Clinton supporter, either. And if you're going to claim that any non-socialists aren't "real Democrats", then there really arent that many real Democrats.

The Democrats have always been largely socialistic within the free enterprise & have often waged a way against capitalism. The Minimum wage was a socialist & possibly the most anti-capitalistic idea which totally destroys the free market for wages. Social Security, Food Stamps, Meals of Wheels etc are all uber socialist ideas. Medicare & Medicaid are socialist ideas which have destroyed the capitalistic free market for health insurance.

FDR increased taxes from 25% to 90%+. The Democrats by & large have increased taxes compared t the GOP. LBJ expanded  federal government & started a war on poverty with huge government programs. Truman campaigned on socialist single payer healthcare. FDR, not only wanted free healthcare & education but wanted Universal Basic Income guaranteed to everyone.

That is who the Democrats have historically been. The 8 Hour Work-week is an anti-capitalistic idea. Glass Steagal & breaking of banks was an anti-capitalistic idea. Affirmative action is an anti-capitalistic idea. By & large Democrats have been a mixture  of socialism & capitalism to put it mildly.

[Shadows]

1. Left wing economics won't pull minorities out of poverty. It'll just push everyone else into poverty.

The idea that income equality causes poverty is absurd. Norway has the 3rd lowest Gini coefficient and the 3rd highest per capita income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Norway:

1. Has a TON of oil money
2. Gets another huge load of money by ripping off the US on pharmaceuticals.

Irrelevant. You have obviously never read economics. Inequality is fundamentally bad for GDP growth as middle class & lower income people have a much higher Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC). MPC Determines the Consumption Function of GDP ( GDP = C + I + G + NX) & Consumption is the main fulcrum of the economy. MPC also determines the GDP multiplier.

Economic inequality will also lead more people to miss college (due to lack of resources) which means less people get into the 21st century educated labour force. Economic Inequality will lead to class warfare, social tensions & will lead to the rise of insane leaders like Trump who will come with terrible policies. Economic Inequality (or high inequality) means you have less money to spend, you will likely get federal welfare. That is a higher deficit, more debt, lower GDP Growth.  Ultimately you get into a trap of High Debt & Low GDP Growth.

This is pretty basic economics. You need some level of inequality to incentive people but too much & the economic system collapses.