Josh Marshall speaks out on the white working class!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2016

May not care much for Those People:
Based on last month's election disaster, is it possible that Democrats should pay more attention to the circumstances, needs and experiences of white working class voters?

Would that make sense from a political perspective? Would it make sense as a matter of basic fairness, humanity, decency?

It seems to us that the answers are yes. That said, we're amazed by the hostility that seems to pour forth in some quarters when such bland suggestions are advanced. Consider yesterday's post by the irate Josh Marshall.

In fairness, Josh seems to have scribbled the post in such haste that its meaning isn't entirely clear. That can happen when very smart people decide to become business moguls.

That said, Josh had watched a (very) short segment on CNN; it seemed to leave him disgusted. As he started his post, he gave this basic account of what he had seen:
MARSHALL (12/19/16): I was just watching a brief segment on CNN about, among other things, the future of the Democratic party. The Daily Beast's Patricia Murphy was one of the two panelists. And it was, frankly, embarrassing.

Murphy said in so many words that Democrats aren't able to move forward because they have no theory of why they lost
and in many cases think they actually won (because of the popular vote). "So when you have that kind of an attitude going forward there's very little soul searching, very little effort to look inside and say what do we need to say and do differently in order to get more people to win? They're writing off a large portion of the electorate as a group of people they don't even want."
Links to the actual CNN transcripts are offered below.

So far, we're not sure why Murphy's statement would be "embarrassing," at least not in the way Marshall meant. Some people have perhaps been a bit cavalier about the import of Clinton's win in the popular vote. Beyond that, we think some liberals and progressives are perhaps a bit inclined to "write off a large portion of the electorate"—that is, the white working class—"as a group of people they don't even want."

We thought that attitude seemed to be present in Professor Dyson's piece in this weekend's Sunday Review. So far, we don't see what's so hideously wrong about what Murphy is said to have said.

That said, Murphy's remarks seemed to have Marshall upset. As he continued, he produced a great deal of thunder, though perhaps not a great deal of light:
MARSHALL (continuing directly): I listen pretty closely to what Democrats say and if anything I hear more "throw the baby out with the bathwater" talk in terms of targeting working class white voters in the industrial Midwest than writing off whole portions of the electorate. This whole riff was, I think, a good example of why Democrats generally should do as much as they possibly can to ignore this kind of gilded DC-centric pablum. It also points our attention to why how the Democrats move forward is actually more complicated than a lot of people really get, a lot more complicated than a lot of commentators want to get.
We're still not entirely sure what that means. Would Democrats be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" if they decide to "target working class white voters in the industrial Midwest?" Is that what Marshall was saying?

The name-calling there is unmistakable; the analysis is still unclear. In fairness, we'll assume Marshall had important balance sheets to return to. But later in his post, his meaning seemed a bit more clear—and to us, a good deal more puzzling:
MARSHALL: The fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes makes it very hard to see the 2016 election as a referendum on the Democratic party or Democratic governance or a rejection of either. This isn't just a matter of salving hurt feelings or looking on the bright side. The import is more concrete and unforgiving. All politics involves trade-offs. One bundle of issues gets you one coalition of voters. If you toss that bundle overboard you'll probably lose some or possibly a lot of the voters you have. That's difficult when you're still pretty close to winning majorities of votes. It's especially tough when you're actually already winning majorities, at least of the two party vote. (This does not even get into the infinitely consequential issue of the political morality of potentially abandoning your most vulnerable and political loyal supporters.)
To us, that's just very strange. It sounds like Marshall is assuming that Democrats will "lose a lot of the voters they have"—will even be tweaking "the political morality of potentially abandoning their most vulnerable and political loyal supporters"—if they decide to care about industrial workers in coal country and the Rust Belt who have seen their jobs and their communities going up in smoke.

By the way, those industrial workers have children. Is there some reason why liberals and progressives shouldn't care about them?

We have no idea why sympathy for some struggling group would represent the abandonment of some other group. Is Marshall perhaps expressing the very attitude Murphy was talking about? If not, we don't know an emerging lefty mogul when we bow to one.

Marshall is making the money now, so let us help him here. There are children all through the Midwest who see their family incomes going away. There is no reason why a progressive party, or a decent person, shouldn't care about that.

What is Marshall talking about here? Is he imagining that black voters will be lost to Democrats if Democrats show concern for these white voters too? It sounds like that may be what he's talking about. If so, we'll suggest he may not understand the moral depth of this country's "black" population.

We have no clear idea what Marshall was saying in this post. By the time he'd finished, he had returned to the name-calling—and he seemed to be throwing those children away again:
MARSHALL: There is a huge amount of work for Democrats to do. But a key part of that work is resisting the demand from the supercilious center that Democrats don sackcloth and ashes and repent of their ideals and even of themselves. Demography and ideology are critical. But require a politics and relentless organizing to give them force. That is where Democrats should be focusing their attention.
Marshall has perhaps grown too great to understand these matters. Speaking very slowly, let us try to explain:

Progressives aren't donning sackcloth and ashes, let alone repenting of their ideals, if they look for ways to take the side of children whose families are in trouble.

Josh sounds a bit like the mine owner here, not much like the coal miner's daughter. Or is that too crude a reference for our emerging high tech upper class?

Tomorrow: Professor Dyson tackles race and class

To peruse the CNN transcripts: Murphy's brief segment with Carol Costello starts at the end of this CNN transcript.

Their brief conversation continued from there. For the supercilious remarks which inflamed Marshall so, you can just click here.

45 comments:

  1. "By the way, those industrial workers have children. Is there some reason why liberals and progressives shouldn't care about them?"

    They have white skin and most believe in Jesus. What more do you need? They're just going to grow up evil and care about something else besides the right to free abortions and feeling safe from offensive words.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marshall's comment is, indeed, as stupid as it gets -- as if the only way to continue to get support from blacks and Hispanics is to ignore working class voters. It sure defies everything Bernie stood for.

    How about dispensing with the term "white working class" and just go with "working class." Clinton's problem was that her campaign simply abandoned any message rampany throughout the platform she agreed on with Bernie about reversing the trend towards inequality and doing everything possible to raise incomes for working people. Somebody -- probably not Clinton herself, who in the last couple of months of a canmpaign is probably consumed with performing well in multiple daily appearances -- made the extremely stupid decision that repeating over and over and over and over what nasty things Trump said about women and minorities, and how he does not have the right temperament was all they needed to do. What does that say good about her and what she will do for working people? She said the right things in speeches and even in the debates when the moderators deigned to raise questions about actual issues, but thousands see speeches and millions see or hear commercials on TV and radio.

    She didn't ave to be more populist. She only had to promote the amount of populism she actually has. Her campaign people didn't let her do that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw no reversal of Clinton's platform for working people. I saw her speak truth to the coal miners about the likelihood of coal coming back. I saw her pledge to help them find other jobs and other ways to support their communities. They didn't like that message.

      Today Kevin Drum discusses the advent of AI-based industrial and service applications that will further reduce jobs among the working class. Lying to people about whether those jobs can be preserved is wrong. It seems to me Trump did lie and he was rewarded with votes. I am proud that Clinton did not lie, even if it cost her the election.

      You cannot explain complex issues in sound-bite length commercials. I agree that she didn't have to be more populist. She already was. Why didn't the people affected know that? Because Trump lied, Bernie lied, and the media lied about her. Day in and day out. Her campaign people can do little about that. But hey, let's all blame Hillary.

      Delete
    2. Yes you can explain issues in commercials if you work hard at brevity and are willing to spend more for 60-second or even two-minute commercials more befitting a serious public endeavor instead of only 30-second commercials more appropriate for cereal or laundry soap or video game advertising.

      It doesn't take a lot of words to say we need to raise the minimum wage because it hasn't been raised in ten years and we need to do everything we can to raise incomes to grow the economy -- in contrast to Trump, who said wages are too high. Or to say that we need a fairer tax system that assures the wealthy will pay at rates as high as ordinary Americans, not the big tax breaks for the wealthy that Trump proposes that would do nothing toi help the economy grow. Or to say women should be permitted make their own decisions about pregnancies according to their own consciences, not be forced by government coercion into a decision that only some people want. Etc., etc. There were probably 8 to 10 issues that could have been been presented in appropriate commercials emphasizing the differences between Clinton and Trump affecting the lives of Americans. None of them were presented in the advertising campaign. The good speeches could not reach the millions necessary to remind wafflers who had voted for Democrats in 2008 and 2012 what was at stake.

      Delete
    3. Clinton ran attack ads against Trump, especially toward the end, because they moved her numbers up. She might have had more ability to run targeted ads like you suggest if she hadn't been dealing with Comey. It seems likely Trump didn't scare those firewall voters and millennial s the way he scared people in other demographics, who turned out in big numbers in places like CA.

      Delete
  3. Not surprised to hear that you're disagreeing with Josh's assessments about the the way forward for the Democratic party, but from this post, I'm not sure if you're really trying to engage with a lot of what Josh has been arguing.

    Regarding "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater", there have been loads of pundits, mainly younger, far-left pundits writing at places like Jacobin, The Intercept, TNR, and The Week, almost all disgruntled Sanders supporters, and almost all of whom were, to my ear anyway, pretty vicious in their hatred of HRC, who have flatly argued post-election that the Dem party *has* to adopt a far-left of center agenda, one that they're convinced has support across racial/demographic/ideological divisions. They're definitely not calling for merely "tweaking" the Democratic platform, and while they're certainly passionate and sincere, they're not all that convincing on whether they represent the right approach. And when you look at some of their writing, say the TNR post by Sarah Jones that you flagged last week, there is definitely a "don sackcloth and ashes" tone that seems more than a little overwrought, and I'd say pretty unfair when you consider that the party and its most recent candidate ran on a platform that had the working class in mind.

    And regarding Josh's reference of "trade offs", is he being historically inaccurate? Didn't Democrats lose Southern White voters when the party decided to show sympathy for African-Americans in the 1960's? And hasn't the party lost those working white class voters ever since? If you think that's wrong, maybe you can elaborate as to why that is, rather than dismissing Josh's comments out of hand.

    I'm not going to deny that the party needs to figure out what to do better next time, but I would love to hear progressives maybe discuss the things the party is doing right, since it seems to reflect, in terms of its base and its agenda, where the American people want to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It took the FBI and Russia to take down the Democratic candidate. I think the Dems did a lot right and the Right did a lot wrong this time.

      Delete
  4. The R's, and the moderate chattering classes, do not use the term white working class by accident.

    I'm sure there are a fair number of black and brown people (not to mention women as the term is many times working class white men) in those areas that this term deliberately ignores.

    And let's not underestimate the moral depth of some of the nations white people that went with the 'D's without the explicit identity reference.

    Murphy's analysis is silly. The D's do concentrate on the working class and do not want to write them off. They do not use the same identity politics as the R's and yes doing so might cause problems with their existing voters.

    The D's lost but in an election where a change of appox. 100K votes in three states could have changed the outcome, Murphy's analysis kills time on CNN but adds little understanding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're fucking delusional, mate. Did you watch the democratic convention? If aliens from space had seen that and were to guess at the demographics of the US, they surely would have assumed whites made up no more than 15% of the population.

      The democratic party's motto might as well be "get whitey."

      Delete
    2. If there is anyone delusional it is you my friend, the 2016 Democratic Convention nominated whiteys Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, had keynote speaker whitey Elizabeth Warren, had a stream of 257 speakers that were by far mostly white. Yes, the delusion is all yours.

      Also 4:27, appreciate your accurate comment about the Democratics already concentrate on the white working class; however, you are wrong on the fact of the number of voters that decided the outcome - it was not 100k votes it was actually about a mere 78k votes, a much slimmer margin.

      Delete
  5. First things first, or in the words of an American icon, "Math class is tough." [LINK].

    ReplyDelete
  6. Neoliberalism is the problem. Not liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neoliberalism is a conservative term adopted by Bernie's supporters. What does it even mean?

      Delete
    2. For starters, you might want to use the Google and/or check Wikipedia.

      Since it now refers to policies (low trade barriers springs to mind) that are quite unpopular and associated with Bill Clinton, the DLC and Hillary Clinton, it's not a big surprise that Sanders' supporters would adopt it as a shorthand for the lack of help Clinton offered the working class (relative to Sanders, not Trump).

      Delete
    3. [LINK]

      [QUOTE]
      The First Neoliberals
      How free-market disciples and union busters became the prophets of American liberalism.

      ...Now, neoliberalism, of course, can mean a great many things, many of them associated with the right. But one of its meanings—arguably, in the United States, the most historically accurate—is the name that a small group of journalists, intellectuals, and politicians on the left gave to themselves in the late 1970s in order to register their distance from the traditional liberalism of the New Deal and the Great Society.

      The original neoliberals included, among others, Michael Kinsley, Charles Peters, James Fallows, Nicholas Lemann, Bill Bradley, Bruce Babbitt, Gary Hart, and Paul Tsongas. Sometimes called “Atari Democrats,” these were the men—and they were almost all men—who helped to remake American liberalism into neoliberalism, culminating in the election of Bill Clinton in 1992....

      We can see that distance first declared, and declared most clearly, in Charles Peters’s famous “A Neoliberal’s Manifesto,” which Tim Barker reminded me of last night. Peters was the founder and editor of the Washington Monthly, and in many ways the √©minence grise of the neoliberal movement....

      ...[R]eading Peters, it’s clear that unions were, from the very beginning, the main target. The problems with unions were many: they protected their members’ interests (no mention of how important unions were to getting and protecting Social Security and Medicare); they drove up costs, both in the private and the public sector; they defended lazy, incompetent workers (“we want a government that can fire people who can’t or won’t do the job”).

      ...When [Hillary] Clinton’s main line of attack against Sanders is that his proposals would increase the size of the federal government by 40 percent, when her hawkishness remains an unapologetic part of her campaign, when unions barely register except as an ATM for the Democratic Party, and Wall Street firmly declares itself to be in her camp, we can hear that opening call of Peters — “But we no longer automatically favor unions and big government or oppose the military and big business” — shorn of all awkward hesitation and convoluted formulations, articulated instead in the forthright syntax of common sense and everyday truth. [END QUOTE]

      [LINK]

      [QUOTE] ...[T]he inspiration for my post [above], as I said, was a tweet from Chait in which he professes an impish disbelief in the term “neoliberal,” as if it were a made-up word of paranoid leftists used to abuse liberals like Chait. And in this series of tweets, he doubles down on that disbelief, claiming that Peters-style neoliberalism had at best a shadowy half-life in the magazine world; it “barely existed,” tweets Chait, “then died.” No one’s called themselves that in ages, so it can’t mean anything at all.

      In my post, I claimed that one of the reasons contemporary writers like Chait write from this state of amnesiac euphoria — where they fail to recognize the distance they’ve traveled from the midcentury world of labor liberalism — is that they’ve so completely absorbed the neoliberal critique that they can’t even remember a time when liberals thought otherwise.... [END QUOTE]

      Delete
    4. Thank you for explaining. Clinton was called neoliberal but doesn't fit this description. I heard the term thrown at her by Bernie supporters who I believe are largely unfamiliar with her actual achievements, her programs and policies, and the content of her speeches, and ignorant of political history. That is forgivable in 20-somethings new to politics, but that doesn't characterize Bernie himself, who seemed to encourage these mischaracterizations of Clinton.

      Take Nafta, for example. It was a Republican plan that was passed by a Republican congress that had a veto-proof majority, so Bill Clinton first tried to modify it and then signed it. Hillary has always admitted it had flaws and pledged to fix them. She has always included a concern for workers in her negotiations as secretary of state. She did not take Bernie's all-or-nothing attitude, but few politicians do, and that does not make her any sort of neoliberal. Nor is she a hawk. As I have stated here before, the four years of relative peace exemplify both her skill as a diplomat and her approach to dealing with world crises, as Obama's Secretary of State. She has explained that intervention in places like Libya were part of international actions to which the US was pledged, in support of local uprisings and intended to decrease suffering and death among people in those places. She has never been eager to enter any dispute or enforce US interests militarily, as the word hawk might imply. She is firmly committed to diplomatic solutions.

      The simple-minded reduction of complexities to shorthand labels like neoliberal by Bernie supporters was frustrating because it is difficult to discuss anything meaningful with someone employing that approach. The caricature of Clinton's actions and views was and is unfair and inaccurate. I believe that aspect of Bernie's campaign was as damaging as other things he did, in part because it mirrors the right's attack on her, but also because it gave millennials a justification for disliking her without asking them to understand who she is.

      I do not understand how those who consider her a "neoliberal" could reconcile the broad support from so many constituencies of all kinds who rallied to endorse her at the DN Convention and on the campaign trail. Most of them would never have supported someone who fit the definition of neoliberal you present here. Yet they did.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. There were several candidates for the most preposterous sentence in that comment at 8:26 PM, but the one among all of them that was so shiny that we could even say it glowed is this one:

      [QUOTE] She has explained that intervention in places like Libya were part of international actions to which the US was pledged, in support of local uprisings and intended to decrease suffering and death among people in those places. [END QUOTE]

      Have you no shame?

      Delete
    7. All those difficulties communicating with Trump supporters clearly apply to Bernie supporters too.

      Delete
    8. Like Hillary herself, Clinton cultists cannot fail, they can only be failed.

      Delete
    9. I guess we all know who you didn't vote for -- happy with your choice?

      I live in CA where Clinton did well. Failure is an odd term to describe that ~3 million margin. Hillary was torpedoed by you and your Bernie supporting ilk. You'll have 4 years to rethink things while everyone pays for your mistake and Bernie's hubris.

      Delete
    10. "Failure is an odd term to describe" Hillary's 2016 election campaign? 12:04 AM find somebody to introduce you to reality.

      Delete
    11. A diehard Berniebot lecturing others on reality. That's a joke. Has Susan Sarandon told you when the revolution starts, now that you've got your shiny new president?

      Delete
    12. Well, there's certainly a diehard on this thread, but it's not CMike. Please continue the entertainment by fleshing out what you mean by "Berniebot," or Bernie's hubris, or even a fuller description of Bernie's "ilk." There's no parody like self-parody.

      Delete
    13. None of this changes the fact that the voters who could have put Clinton into office, the ones who didn't come out at all, were those Bernie could have influenced in her favor. He chose instead to remain "pure" and we now have to live with the result. CMike thinks that calling something shameful constitutes an argument. He doesn't refute, he calls names. I could define my terms by example, but why bother. Bernie lost more than Clinton did and we both lost because he was a sore loser.

      There is little point to being a diehard for Clinton because she won't run again. Neither will Bernie, although he still thinks he is important and is still making random noise in the Senate. My point here is simply that it is hard to win an election when you are being attacked by both right and left. Republicans may be traitors for inviting Russia into our election, but so are those supporting Bernie, for undermining the party's candidate and either knowingly or unwittingly giving the election to the worst candidate. I hope Bernie and his followers, like CMike, are happy with the result. I am not.

      Delete
    14. Jimmy Dore seems unhappy with the result [LINK].

      Delete
    15. They both belong in a trash bin.

      Delete
    16. Anon 1128,

      Here is a sentence from HRC's kind review of Henry Kissinger's recent book:

      "Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state."

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-reviews-henry-kissingers-world-order/2014/09/04/b280c654-31ea-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html?utm_term=.35fc2888b02a

      Who are you calling a traitor?

      Delete
    17. [LINK]

      [QUOTE]
      ...Bill Clinton, while campaigning for his wife in New Hampshire, told a crowd of her supporters, "Henry Kissinger, of all people, said she ran the State Department better and got more out of the personnel at the State Department than any secretary of state in decades, and it's true." His audience of Democrats clapped loudly in response.

      ...It was odd that the Clintons, locked in a fierce fight to win Democratic votes, would name-check a fellow who for decades has been criticized—and even derided as a war criminal—by liberals. Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves opposed the Vietnam War that Nixon and Kissinger inherited and continued.

      ...In the years since then, information has emerged showing that Kissinger's underhanded and covert diplomacy led to brutal massacres around the globe, including in Chile, Argentina, East Timor, and Bangladesh.

      ...With all this history, it was curious that in 2014, Clinton wrote a fawning review of Kissinger's latest book... In that article, she called Kissinger, who had been a practitioner of a bloody foreign-policy realpolitik, "surprisingly idealistic."

      ...This Clinton lovefest with Kissinger is not new. And it is not simply a product of professional courtesy or solidarity among former secretaries of state, who, after all, are part of a small club. There is also a strong social connection between the Clintons and the Kissingers. They pal around together.

      ...When Oscar de la Renta died in 2014, the New York Times obituary reported:

      At holidays, the de la Rentas filled their house in Punta Cana with relatives and friends, notably Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy and Henry Kissinger, and the art historian John Richardson. The family dogs had the run of the compound, and Mr. de la Renta often sang spontaneously after dinner.

      ...In 2012, the Wall Street Journal, in a profile of de la Renta, wrote:

      Over Christmas the Kissingers were among the close group who gathered in Punta Cana, including Barbara Walters, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Charlie Rose. "We have two house rules," says Oscar, laughing. "There can be no conversation of any substance and nothing nice about anyone."

      A travel industry outlet reported that Vogue editor Anna Wintour was part of the crew that year.

      ...This gathering of the Clintons, the Kissingers, and the de la Rentas seems to occur most years. In 2011, de la Renta, a native of the Dominican Republic, told Vogue that he built this seaside estate so he could host his close friends, and he cited the Kissingers and Clintons as examples. "At Christmas," he said, "we're always in the same group." [END QUOTE]

      Delete
  7. Democrats may need to do a better job explaining why they are the party of the working class, but they do actually support policies that help the working class. I'm thinking of universal healthcare, child health programs, minimum wage and overtime rules, pro-union, pro-public schools, pro-clean environment, pro-public works, higher taxes for the affluent, social security, job training, etc., etc. All of these policies really do help the working class. Obama tried to get an infrastructure bill passed but every Republican opposed it. That was a working class proposal. Only Dems put forth serious policy proposals for these things. Yes, the working class has taken a huge hit due to globalization and technological advances but its not just the white working class from the Rust Belt and it's not because of NAFTA, which I believe was a Republican proposal signed in to law by a Democrat president. Should we pander to these folks that we supposedly treat poorly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does pander even mean in this context? Some Dems are taking the suggestion to mean giving up on social justice issues to which many people are deeply committed. That is what Josh Marshall was talking about.

      Delete
    2. Far be it for these people to stop until every last American participates in a gay wedding ceremony -and likes it!

      It's a real mystery why people resent that.

      Delete
  8. How to get your Ex Boyfriend back after a breakup, I’m extremely happy that me and my ex-boyfriend are living together again.
    I' m Mary from England, My boyfriend of a 4yr just broke up with me and am 30 weeks pregnant.I have cried my self to sleep most of the nights and don’t seem to concentrate during lectures sometimes I stay awake almost all night thinking about him and start to cry all over again.Because of this I end up not having energy for my next day’s classes ,my attendance has dropped and am always in uni and on time. Generally he is a very nice guy ,he ended it because he said we were arguing a lot and not getting along.He is right we’ve been arguing during the pregnancy a lot .After the break up I kept ringing him and telling him I will change.I am in love with this guy and he is the best guy I have ever been with.I’m still hurt and in disbelief when he said he didn’t have any romantic feelings towards me anymore that hurt me faster than a lethal syringe.He texts me now and then mainly to check up on how am doing with the pregnancy,he is supportive with it but it’s not fair on me, him texting me as I just want to grieve the pain and not have any stress due to the pregnancy.i was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a spell for me. 28 hours later, my bf came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I and my bf are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Unity. If you have any problem contact Dr.Unity now and i guarantee you that he will help you. Here’s his contact. Email him at: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com ,
    you can also call him or add him on Whats-app: +2348071622464 ,
    His website: http://unityspelltemple.yolasite.com .

    ReplyDelete
  9. My ex and I were together for 5 years. We lived together and were engaged. We went on a trip with friends and his family and had a nasty fight and broke up. We both moved out of our home and with our parents. We decided to go no contact for a month and 2 weeks in he started dating a girl and took her on a trip to California ( where we’ve gone the last 2 years on my bday) on my birthday weekend! After battling it out thru emails and a few meetings we finally came to see each other all of last week, i love him so much and i was so desperate to have him back coz i new that girl was not the right person for him so i have to save my relationship and reunite with me ex again so i try all i could to bring him back but all to avail i have be in contact with so many spell caster who only too my money and still nothing good work out of it, i ws so confuse and devastated one day trying to search on facebook, i come across a wonderful testimony of a lady on how a spell caster who she contacted also for love spell help her and bring her husband back to her with-in less day 2 days after the spell i was so fill with joy coz this lady meant my day and i regain my hope back so i directly and desperately email http://happyspelltemple.webs.com/ coz i love my ex so much and i want him back all to my self so with-in 5 min,Dr happy email me back with hope and told me that i have found solution in him that i should worried no more so i did all he ask of me and he gave me assured and guarantee that my ex will come back so i believed and was so gifted all to my surprise after the spell my ex call, come to my working beg and apology for his mistake,and he said sorry for the nasty break up that he was inconsiderate of my feelings nt in tend to hurt me. i can testify with the power love spell of Dr happy me and my ex are happily married now thank you Dr i will for ever be grateful to you and keep sharing your testimony if you need help or love spell fine it difficult to get back with your ex, email happylovespell2@gmail.com or call his mobile number on +2348133873774

    ReplyDelete
  10. Seriously, you are being pretty dense about this, Somerby: sure, Democrats can emphasize trade protectionism, but that play runs into problems when you are running against a guy who takes your protectionism and adds the other half of that proposition, which is anti-immigration and xenophobia. You aren't going to convince the more-american-than-us white working class by only telling them half of what they want to hear, they'll still vote for the guy that's telling them EVERYTHING they want to hear. These are people who literally believe that more-american premise, by the way; they think that popular vote margin that Clinton has over Trump is illegitimate, votes cast by 'illegals' and the children of illegals, votes cast by felons, votes cast by poor people of color in a naked quid pro quo for some Obama phones and t-bone steaks.

    There's been some pretty horrid tone-policing in the wake of Clinton's defeat, implying that she wasn't talking effectively enough about jobs and expansive government spending funded entirely by people earning more than $200K, despite there being ample evidence to the contrary. But instead of taking these straw-man claims on, Somerby seems to want to focus on negative-space defenses of racism, where if you don't possess dog ears, you can't say that dog-whistles are being used. It's getting to be kinda weird; because Somersby explicitly uses race to dismantle arguments about our 'failing' schools, occasionally bumping up against the truth that racism isn't quite as dead as we would like it to be, but never really addressing the topic itself. Why is that, do you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >These are people who literally believe that more-american premise, by the way; they think that popular vote margin that Clinton has over Trump is illegitimate, votes cast by 'illegals' and the children of illegals, votes cast by felons, votes cast by poor people of color in a naked quid pro quo for some Obama phones and t-bone steaks.

      That's literally all true. You know, simply being within the borders does not make you American. That's not how culture works. Sure, you can just let tens of millions of illegals into the country and refuse to do anything about it for decades, to the point where California's demographics go from 80% white to 40% white in 30 years, but what you're left with is a totally different California. It's been fundamentally altered. The same is true with much of the country. How "American" is New York City, where 40% of the people living there are foreign-born?

      We don't have magic dirt. There's no property to the land in this country that makes people who tread upon it "American." Like anywhere else, American culture is created over time, by people being rooted to communities, and establishing social trust.

      Lastly, Detroit had over 700 more votes than voters. I'd love to see a California audit.

      Delete
    2. ...well there you go.

      OK, so let's test this premise: exactly what criteria would you suggest we use to determine who gets to vote and who doesn't? What test do you propose to separate the true American believers from all the rest of us fakers?

      Delete
  11. Let me translate that jew-speak for you, Bob:

    "Oy vey! These stupid idiots! Ok, so we lost this one election. Still and all, we've flooded the country with enough Mexicans that it won't matter long-term. The schwartzes are a sure bet, and we can't stop the 'fuck whitey' vibe we've got going over this one minor setback; it's hard enough getting them to the polls as is! What's wrong with these people?!"

    ReplyDelete
  12. I disagree with the conclusion that targeting "working class white voters in the industrial Midwest" would have helped Hillary. I live with these people in the northern burbs of Cincinnati. They hated Hillary before the election started. They hate government. They would never vote for a democratic candidate. Policy does not matter to them.
    I believe they vote against their interests, but they will not change their views no matter the facts. In my view, they have to be overcome, not bartered with.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello, I am Theresa Williams After being in relationship with Anderson for years, he broke up with me, I did everything possible to bring him back but all was in vain, I wanted him back so much because of the love I have for him, I begged him with everything, I made promises but he refused. I explained my problem to my friend and she suggested that I should rather contact a spell caster that could help me cast a spell to bring him back but I am the type that never believed in spell, I had no choice than to try it, I mailed the spell caster, and he told me there was no problem that everything will be okay before three days, that my ex will return to me before three days, he cast the spell and surprisingly in the second day, it was around 4pm. My ex called me, I was so surprised, I answered the call and all he said was that he was so sorry for everything that happened that he wanted me to return to him, that he loves me so much. I was so happy and went to him that was how we started living together happily again. Since then, I have made promise that anybody I know that have a relationship problem, I would be of help to such person by referring him or her to the only real and powerful spell caster who helped me with my own problem. email: drogunduspellcaster@gmail.com you can email him if you need his assistance in your relationship or any other Case.

    1) Love Spells
    2) Lost Love Spells
    3) Divorce Spells
    4) Marriage Spells
    5) Binding Spell.
    6) Breakup Spells
    7) Banish a past Lover
    8.) You want to be promoted in your office/ Lottery spell
    9) want to satisfy your lover
    Contact this great man if you are having any problem for a lasting solution
    through drogunduspellcaster@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  14. How to get your Ex Boyfriend back after a breakup, I’m extremely happy that me and my ex-boyfriend are living together again.
    I' m Mary from England, My boyfriend of a 4yr just broke up with me and am 30 weeks pregnant.I have cried my self to sleep most of the nights and don’t seem to concentrate during lectures sometimes I stay awake almost all night thinking about him and start to cry all over again.Because of this I end up not having energy for my next day’s classes ,my attendance has dropped and am always in uni and on time. Generally he is a very nice guy ,he ended it because he said we were arguing a lot and not getting along.He is right we’ve been arguing during the pregnancy a lot .After the break up I kept ringing him and telling him I will change.I am in love with this guy and he is the best guy I have ever been with.I’m still hurt and in disbelief when he said he didn’t have any romantic feelings towards me anymore that hurt me faster than a lethal syringe.He texts me now and then mainly to check up on how am doing with the pregnancy,he is supportive with it but it’s not fair on me, him texting me as I just want to grieve the pain and not have any stress due to the pregnancy.i was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a spell for me. 28 hours later, my bf came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I and my bf are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Unity. If you have any problem contact Dr.Unity now and i guarantee you that he will help you. Here’s his contact. Email him at: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com ,you can also call him or add him on Whats-app: +2348071622464 ,His website: http://unityspelltemple.yolasite.com .

    ReplyDelete
  15. My ex-boyfriend is back after a breakup, I’m extremely happy that we are living together again. I' m Mary from England, My boyfriend of 4yr broke up with me and am 30 weeks pregnant. I have cried my self to sleep most of the nights and don’t seem to concentrate during lectures sometimes I stay awake almost all night thinking about him and start to cry all over again.Because of this I end up not having energy for my next day’s classes ,my attendance has dropped and am always in uni and on time. Generally he is a very nice guy ,he ended it because he said we were arguing a lot and not getting along.He is right we’ve been arguing during the pregnancy a lot .After the break up I kept ringing him and telling him I will change.I am in love with this guy and he is the best guy I have ever been with.I’m still hurt and in disbelief when he said he didn’t have any romantic feelings towards me anymore that hurt me faster than a lethal syringe.He texts me now and then mainly to check up on how am doing with the pregnancy,he is supportive with it but it’s not fair on me, him texting me as I just want to grieve the pain and not have any stress due to the pregnancy.i was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help get ex back fast. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a spell for me. 28 hours later, my bf came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I and my bf are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Unity. If you have any problem contact Dr.Unity now and i guarantee you that he will help you. Here’s his contact. Email him at: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com ,you can also call him or add him on Whats-app: +2348071622464 ,His website: http://unityspelltemple.yolasite.com .

    ReplyDelete
  16. After being in relationship with Wilson for seven years,he broke up with me, I did everything possible to bring him back but all was in vain, I wanted him back so much because of the love I have for him, I begged him with everything, I made promises but he refused. I explained my problem to someone online and she suggested that I should contact a spell caster that could help me cast a spell to bring him back but I am the type that don't believed in spell, I had no choice than to try it, I meant a spell caster called Dr Zuma zuk and I email him, and he told me there was no problem that everything will be okay before three days, that my ex will return to me before three days, he cast the spell and surprisingly in the second day, it was around 4pm. My ex called me, I was so surprised, I answered the call and all he said was that he was so sorry for everything that happened, that he wanted me to return to him, that he loves me so much. I was so happy and went to him, that was how we started living together happily again. Since then, I have made promise that anybody I know that have a relationship problem, I would be of help to such person by referring him or her to the only real and powerful spell caster who helped me with my own problem and who is different from all the fake ones out there. Anybody could need the help of the spell caster, his email: spiritualherbalisthealing@gmail.com or call him +2349055637784 you can email him if you need his assistance in your relationship or anything. CONTACT HIM NOW FOR SOLUTION TO ALL YOUR PROBLEMS'

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi everyone!
    I'm so excited share this testimony here about how i got my ex husband back after a break up. I'm divorce. 28 yr old from USA, Am a woman who love and cherish my husband more than any other thing you can imagine on earth continent. My husband was so lovely and caring after 3 years of marriage he was seriously ill and the doctor confirm and said he has a kidney infection that he needed a kidney donor, that was how I start searching for who can help, doctor has given me a periodic hour that he will live just 24 hours left, that was how I ask the doctor if I can be of help to my husband that was how he carried out the text, the confirming was successful, I was now having this taught that since 3 years now we got married I have not be able to get pregnant can I be able to get bring again? That was the question I ask the doctor, he never answer his response was did you want to lost your husband? I immediately reply no I can't afford to lose him. After the operation my husband came back to live and was healthy I was also OK with the instruction given to me by the doctor, after 3 months my husband came home with another lady telling me, that is our new wife that will give us kids and take care of us, that was how I was confused and started crying all day, that was how my husband ran away with his new wife cleanable. Since then I was confuse don't know what to do that was how I went back to the doctor and tell him everything, he told me that, this is not just an ordinary it must be a spiritual problem that was how he gave me this Email: Ahmedutimate@gmail.com that I should tell he all my problem that he can help that was how i contacted he and I do as instructed. After 22 hours and I have done what he ask me to do, my husband start searching for me and went back to the doctor, that was how we well settle he also told me not to worry that I will get pregnant, this month making it the fifth Month I contacted he am now 3 months pregnant. These great spell cater is a great man,
    if you have any kind of problem you can contact him here on his
    Email: Ahmedutimate@gmail.com or call/whataspp +2348160153829
    Save Your Crumbling Relationship

    ReplyDelete
  18. How i got my Husband back Thanks to Lord Alika for bringing back my Husband ,and brought great joy to my family??? My name is Kathryn Louise, My Ex-Husband dumped me two weeks ago after I accused him of seeing someone else and insulting him. I want him back in my life but he refuse to have any contact with me. I was so confuse and don't know what to do, so I reach to the internet for help and I saw a testimony of how a spell caster help people to get their ex back so I contact the spell caster and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me and assure me of 48hours that my ex will return to me and to my greatest surprise the third day my ex came knocking on my door and beg for forgiveness. I am so happy that my love is back again and not only that, we are about to get married. Once again thank you Lord Alika , You are truly talented and gifted. Web:http://lordalikaspelltemp8.Wix.Com/http is the only answer. He can be of great help and I will not stop publishing him because he is a wonderful man.Email: lordalikaspelltemple@yahoo.Co.Uk or +19287694882. Web:http://lordalikaspelltemp8.Wix.Com/http

    ReplyDelete