Shit all the arguments you see in this thread are basically entirely over groups and people with very different ideas about how this primary went down. Like fucking 90% of the arguments in every thread on this topic since the later half of the democratic primary can be boiled down to one single argument. One side feels Sanders behaviour was very obviously a factor in killing enthusiasm for voting for Clinton in the election and the other side doesn't think that is true to any degree that mattered. And neither side has been willing to budge on that one point for months now. Queue arguments.
Beyond the argument itself being intractable, I don't even either side really says anything actionable moving forward.
We can sit here and moralize at each other, exacerbating the split along this thing that we can't go back in time and fix, or we can actually fix the thing that we all agree on; the party needs to get its shit together to oppose Trump.
Unless relitigating the primary is going to produce some amazing insight, which seems rather unlikely at this point, it's just throwing around blame and accomplishing nothing but extending the rancor.
I put an easy one just a few posts above. This primary can show us alot of things about what needs to be done going forward.
Number one is don't delegitimize the process. Don't feed into preexisting biases within the Democratic and left-wing base that encourage a lack of participation. The Democratic party and left wing politics in general in the US, live or die on participation. Turnout is a win for progress. Don't discourage voters.
I would prefer to simply remove the points within the process that only serve to exacerbate such arguments. Because we're going to argue about this stuff, anyway. It's what we do.
Your second point here is the reason your first is inadequate. As you said earlier "In politics, perception is reality." It's not enough to remove the parts of the process that create this perception, one has to actively not cultivate that perception as well. Just cause it's not real doesn't mean people won't believe it if you hammer that point.
But the hitches and complication of the system that exists served to feed the perception. In many instances, it actually served to kick off new waves of anger about the primary being "rigged", which themselves triggered angry responses about how it wasn't.
The lack of standardization and transparency is a huge problem. We can't do this again.
Right when obama released his birth certificate the birthers just went away
These two things aren't even remotely comparable.
And, honestly, I don't understand why the idea of fixing the primaries is so contentious. Just about everyone hated them while they were happening, either because they seemed broken or because other people wouldn't stop complaining about them seeming broken.
This ignores all the pain and suffering about to happen or that happened from January 20, 2001 until hell, like nine months ago is when we finally got out from under the financial collapse Bush helped cause. I hate accelerationist talk because it commits the sin I hate the media for: treats this like a game without real effects on real people.
the problem is, the DNC leadership did exactly this.
i'm not talking about accelerationism, i'm talking about basic coalition building. Obama was hugely successful on this front in part because he focused on taking care of reaching across to as many groups as he could. this didn't result in many policy wins, but it was a hell of a political strategy.
Clinton used old-school Clinton politics, which considering what was happening with both the GOP and the Dem sides, it should have been obvious that that would no longer work. the emails were the last straw; i saw nothing incriminating or illegal in them, but i did see a top-down approach which kept being perpetuated by DWS and by Brazille. once those came out, the Clinton campaign should have immediately addressed them and full-stop reached out to Bernie supporters and others. but no, instead they shut the lights off sections at the DNC, stayed mum about the emails, and flat out refused to change course. that is a strategic error of gigantic magnitude, and it was possible only because the DNC leadership empowered it.
What, concretely, should they have done? Again, she moved way left. She was unapologetically liberal in the general election campaign in a way Obama never was but people assumed him to be.
It's all this desire for vaguely symbolic stuff while throwing away real victories that makes me frustrated with a subset of lefty activists.
actual concrete things:
- released the damn emails - should have done this at the start. lets the press pore through them at the start of the election cycle, burn out the narrative that "she's hiding something", defang that whole argument.
- immediately apologize to Bernie Sanders supporters on the questionable strategies thrown around.
- recognize the protests going on at the DNC and embrace them.
- release the transcripts from her paid speeches. it looks a shit ton better when YOU release them and control the narrative, rather than having the media hunt them down and speculate endlessly.
this election came down to "who was more authentic". voters (wrongly) coalesced around Trump because they (wrongly) believed he was just telling the truth. of course he wasn't. but put him next to a candidate who was stonewalling every potentially controversial pain point and was doing nothing to sell what the Dems could do for America, and of fucking course people won't vote for Clinton. i don't care that she moved her positions to the left, she never campaigned on that.
if anything, i remember stating really clearly right after the DNC that Clinton should have stopped her focus on attacking Trump and instead on the positive messages the DNC put out. her polling numbers were STUPID HIGH right after the DNC, and that's because the DNC remembered for a second that they should be telling Americans what they would do for them, not just how terrible Trump is!
Posts like this make me think for you specifically nothing was ever going to be enough. As someone who watched a disturbing number of her rallies, she absolutely campaigned on those positions. Also in the debates she embraced that platform. The press was obsessed with Trump so you didn't hear much about that though.
I'll admit her ads were mostly negative and I'll agree with that much.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+5
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
This ignores all the pain and suffering about to happen or that happened from January 20, 2001 until hell, like nine months ago is when we finally got out from under the financial collapse Bush helped cause. I hate accelerationist talk because it commits the sin I hate the media for: treats this like a game without real effects on real people.
the problem is, the DNC leadership did exactly this.
i'm not talking about accelerationism, i'm talking about basic coalition building. Obama was hugely successful on this front in part because he focused on taking care of reaching across to as many groups as he could. this didn't result in many policy wins, but it was a hell of a political strategy.
Clinton used old-school Clinton politics, which considering what was happening with both the GOP and the Dem sides, it should have been obvious that that would no longer work. the emails were the last straw; i saw nothing incriminating or illegal in them, but i did see a top-down approach which kept being perpetuated by DWS and by Brazille. once those came out, the Clinton campaign should have immediately addressed them and full-stop reached out to Bernie supporters and others. but no, instead they shut the lights off sections at the DNC, stayed mum about the emails, and flat out refused to change course. that is a strategic error of gigantic magnitude, and it was possible only because the DNC leadership empowered it.
What, concretely, should they have done? Again, she moved way left. She was unapologetically liberal in the general election campaign in a way Obama never was but people assumed him to be.
It's all this desire for vaguely symbolic stuff while throwing away real victories that makes me frustrated with a subset of lefty activists.
actual concrete things:
- released the damn emails - should have done this at the start. lets the press pore through them at the start of the election cycle, burn out the narrative that "she's hiding something", defang that whole argument.
- immediately apologize to Bernie Sanders supporters on the questionable strategies thrown around.
- recognize the protests going on at the DNC and embrace them.
- release the transcripts from her paid speeches. it looks a shit ton better when YOU release them and control the narrative, rather than having the media hunt them down and speculate endlessly.
this election came down to "who was more authentic". voters (wrongly) coalesced around Trump because they (wrongly) believed he was just telling the truth. of course he wasn't. but put him next to a candidate who was stonewalling every potentially controversial pain point and was doing nothing to sell what the Dems could do for America, and of fucking course people won't vote for Clinton. i don't care that she moved her positions to the left, she never campaigned on that.
if anything, i remember stating really clearly right after the DNC that Clinton should have stopped her focus on attacking Trump and instead on the positive messages the DNC put out. her polling numbers were STUPID HIGH right after the DNC, and that's because the DNC remembered for a second that they should be telling Americans what they would do for them, not just how terrible Trump is!
very much this
I don't think I've ever liked the Seattle city government more than when they invited the Occupy Seattle camp to literally move into city hall (an offer which they refused because all the part-time pop anarchists saw it as capitulating to The Man but that's another thread)
Random neat fact about the state Democratic Parties I learned yesterday: each state's Vice Chair is the highest ranking member in the party that is not the same gender as the Chair.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts like this make me think for you specifically nothing was ever going to be enough. As someone who watched a disturbing number of her rallies, she absolutely campaigned on those positions. Also in the debates she embraced that platform. The press was obsessed with Trump so you didn't hear much about that though.
I'll admit her ads were mostly negative and I'll agree with that much.
i voted for Clinton, so it was clearly enough for me.
i was not the target audience Clinton should have had in mind.
the problem is, no one in the current Dem leadership seems to want to change course. we have stalwarts like Warren and Franken grilling Trump's appointees, but that is not going to lead to the appointees being rejected. Brazile is still DNC chair and has not resigned, even after the whole debate questions thing came to light. forgive me if i have little faith in the Democratic party as it currently stands.
Caving to nutjobs looking to discredit you never works that's my point
The people demanding he Goldman Sachs speeches had already made up their minds about what was in them. Just releasing them wouldn't change their opinions
+7
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
This ignores all the pain and suffering about to happen or that happened from January 20, 2001 until hell, like nine months ago is when we finally got out from under the financial collapse Bush helped cause. I hate accelerationist talk because it commits the sin I hate the media for: treats this like a game without real effects on real people.
the problem is, the DNC leadership did exactly this.
i'm not talking about accelerationism, i'm talking about basic coalition building. Obama was hugely successful on this front in part because he focused on taking care of reaching across to as many groups as he could. this didn't result in many policy wins, but it was a hell of a political strategy.
Clinton used old-school Clinton politics, which considering what was happening with both the GOP and the Dem sides, it should have been obvious that that would no longer work. the emails were the last straw; i saw nothing incriminating or illegal in them, but i did see a top-down approach which kept being perpetuated by DWS and by Brazille. once those came out, the Clinton campaign should have immediately addressed them and full-stop reached out to Bernie supporters and others. but no, instead they shut the lights off sections at the DNC, stayed mum about the emails, and flat out refused to change course. that is a strategic error of gigantic magnitude, and it was possible only because the DNC leadership empowered it.
What, concretely, should they have done? Again, she moved way left. She was unapologetically liberal in the general election campaign in a way Obama never was but people assumed him to be.
It's all this desire for vaguely symbolic stuff while throwing away real victories that makes me frustrated with a subset of lefty activists.
actual concrete things:
- released the damn emails - should have done this at the start. lets the press pore through them at the start of the election cycle, burn out the narrative that "she's hiding something", defang that whole argument.
- immediately apologize to Bernie Sanders supporters on the questionable strategies thrown around.
- recognize the protests going on at the DNC and embrace them.
- release the transcripts from her paid speeches. it looks a shit ton better when YOU release them and control the narrative, rather than having the media hunt them down and speculate endlessly.
this election came down to "who was more authentic". voters (wrongly) coalesced around Trump because they (wrongly) believed he was just telling the truth. of course he wasn't. but put him next to a candidate who was stonewalling every potentially controversial pain point and was doing nothing to sell what the Dems could do for America, and of fucking course people won't vote for Clinton. i don't care that she moved her positions to the left, she never campaigned on that.
if anything, i remember stating really clearly right after the DNC that Clinton should have stopped her focus on attacking Trump and instead on the positive messages the DNC put out. her polling numbers were STUPID HIGH right after the DNC, and that's because the DNC remembered for a second that they should be telling Americans what they would do for them, not just how terrible Trump is!
Posts like this make me think for you specifically nothing was ever going to be enough. As someone who watched a disturbing number of her rallies, she absolutely campaigned on those positions. Also in the debates she embraced that platform. The press was obsessed with Trump so you didn't hear much about that though.
I'll admit her ads were mostly negative and I'll agree with that much.
Her ads were what most voters saw. A huge chunk of them never even bothered to watch the debates.
0
Options
imdointhisI should actually stop doin' this.Registered Userregular
(The worst thing Democrats can do in the face of the Trumpening is to fracture like they did after the Rehnquist coup installed our last Republican President. A key part in not fracturing is to not overstate our differences. We all basically stand for the same stuff: civil rights, universal health care, environmental protection, a more equal distribution of wealth, etc. It's just a matter of degrees and methods.)
i think the fracture is already happening. the DNC should have already been a warning sign. whole sections of the DNC voiced loud opposition, and the DNC leadership reacted by turning the lights off in the protesting area sections.
later, Donna Brazille refused to recognize the frustration of Party staffers.
instead of just coming out and taking the frustrations of Bernie supporters head on, the DNC barrelled on like everything was fine.
But in terms of policy y'all won a number of major victories. The 2016 Democratic Party is as left economically since what, 1968? And socially it's so far to the left that LBJ's head would explode. Hell, King's head might explode. Clinton pushed for hire taxes on the rich, expanding social security, improving the ACA to make it better and more universal, combating climate change, significant aid for tuition, unapologetically gave the pure feminist answer on abortion, embraced gay rights more than any presidential candidate ever, talked significantly about racial justice, etc. The party is moving left, you made that happen. I genuinely don't understand and this is what really causes the frustration with the "left" among the rest of us.
part of this was clearly fueled by polling, which to this day is still shocking in how wrong it all was. but part of it reflects an intractable party machine unwilling to listen and unwilling to give up the reins of power. that has to stop. if it takes the implosion of the Democrat party for that to happen, so be fucking it..
This ignores all the pain and suffering about to happen or that happened from January 20, 2001 until hell, like nine months ago is when we finally got out from under the financial collapse Bush helped cause. I hate accelerationist talk because it commits the sin I hate the media for: treats this like a game without real effects on real people.
It also ignores that the damage caused doesn't go away and takes a LONG time to fix. The US government has never recovered from the post-New-Deal Republican. Every administration or Congress they've controlled has done a huge amount of damage to the US government and economy that the Democrats have never fully been able to fix. The deregulation of Reagan, the gutting of the federal knowledge base by Gingrich, the fucking of the economy and the entire Middle East by Bush, these things have not been fixed yet.
This whole attitude is shitty and destructive. Conservatives in power destroy the modern liberal nation state and it takes a long time to recover. The Democrats have basically been fighting a rearguard action for almost 40 years now because they can't maintain control of government long enough to get shit moving fully in the right direction.
I've just finished watching a Today Show video series interviewing Trump voters in areas that voted for Obama: The first video shows how both a Union and a person who supported Bernie can switch to support Trump due to feeling neglected and just how much of a mistake it was for Clinton to not visit those states. It shows how someone can acknowledge Trump is a terrible person but still vote for him.
The second video shows how a big part of Obama winning was due to him being perceived as an outsider, different, and an arbiter of change and how Trump used the same feeling to win. How women who proclaim themselves as pro-choice and acknowledge Trump as pro-life are still okay with voting for him. How Clinton's cruft meant they had something they could point at as bad while for Trump all of the bad things were external to politics and easy to ignore.
The third and most current video that shows how the religious could pick someone like Trump due to the perception that Christians are under attack from the left. How the interviewer drops the ball on bringing up the Muslim ban when someone talks about religious freedom. How they acknowledge he's a terrible person but are okay with him being in power as long as it means they won't be persecuted.
In all of the videos there's indications that they're annoyed by his post-election behavior and have low expectations that he'll actually do what he says he would.
(The worst thing Democrats can do in the face of the Trumpening is to fracture like they did after the Rehnquist coup installed our last Republican President. A key part in not fracturing is to not overstate our differences. We all basically stand for the same stuff: civil rights, universal health care, environmental protection, a more equal distribution of wealth, etc. It's just a matter of degrees and methods.)
i think the fracture is already happening. the DNC should have already been a warning sign. whole sections of the DNC voiced loud opposition, and the DNC leadership reacted by turning the lights off in the protesting area sections.
later, Donna Brazille refused to recognize the frustration of Party staffers.
instead of just coming out and taking the frustrations of Bernie supporters head on, the DNC barrelled on like everything was fine.
But in terms of policy y'all won a number of major victories. The 2016 Democratic Party is as left economically since what, 1968? And socially it's so far to the left that LBJ's head would explode. Hell, King's head might explode. Clinton pushed for hire taxes on the rich, expanding social security, improving the ACA to make it better and more universal, combating climate change, significant aid for tuition, unapologetically gave the pure feminist answer on abortion, embraced gay rights more than any presidential candidate ever, talked significantly about racial justice, etc. The party is moving left, you made that happen. I genuinely don't understand and this is what really causes the frustration with the "left" among the rest of us.
part of this was clearly fueled by polling, which to this day is still shocking in how wrong it all was. but part of it reflects an intractable party machine unwilling to listen and unwilling to give up the reins of power. that has to stop. if it takes the implosion of the Democrat party for that to happen, so be fucking it..
This ignores all the pain and suffering about to happen or that happened from January 20, 2001 until hell, like nine months ago is when we finally got out from under the financial collapse Bush helped cause. I hate accelerationist talk because it commits the sin I hate the media for: treats this like a game without real effects on real people.
It also ignores that the damage caused doesn't go away and takes a LONG time to fix. The US government has never recovered from the post-New-Deal Republican. Every administration or Congress they've controlled has done a huge amount of damage to the US government and economy that the Democrats have never fully been able to fix. The deregulation of Reagan, the gutting of the federal knowledge base by Gingrich, the fucking of the economy and the entire Middle East by Bush, these things have not been fixed yet.
This whole attitude is shitty and destructive. Conservatives in power destroy the modern liberal nation state and it takes a long time to recover. The Democrats have basically been fighting a rearguard action for almost 40 years now because they can't maintain control of government long enough to get shit moving fully in the right direction.
That's skipping of the Watergate Babies, Carter, and the beginning of Democrat sponsored deregulation. It's a rearguard action where the lines between who's fighting and who's on the other side have blurred at several points over the last fifty years.
Caving to nutjobs looking to discredit you never works that's my point
The people demanding he Goldman Sachs speeches had already made up their minds about what was in them. Just releasing them wouldn't change their opinions
they're not nutjobs when the emails are right there.
nutjobs are like the birthers who refuse to believe Obama is a natural born citizen, despite the proof being publicly available and pushed out by a GOP governor.
reasonable folks saw Clinton refusing to release the speech transcripts, reading them later thanks to the e-mail leaks, and concluding that Clinton wants to hide things that actually do exist.
basic marketing/debate strategy 101: address your weaknesses up front. not only will the audience/voter respond positively when you admit a wrong, they'll also see you as someone who has integrity. like, literally, that's all it would have taken!
The emails showed how little there was to the speeches not that it was a smoking gun
You just confirmed my point. You wanted the speeches to be damning evidence and even when the partial contents got leaked you still believe it despite the actual rather boring content
Caving to nutjobs looking to discredit you never works that's my point
The people demanding he Goldman Sachs speeches had already made up their minds about what was in them. Just releasing them wouldn't change their opinions
they're not nutjobs when the emails are right there.
nutjobs are like the birthers who refuse to believe Obama is a natural born citizen, despite the proof being publicly available and pushed out by a GOP governor.
reasonable folks saw Clinton refusing to release the speech transcripts, reading them later thanks to the e-mail leaks, and concluding that Clinton wants to hide things that actually do exist.
basic marketing/debate strategy 101: address your weaknesses up front. not only will the audience/voter respond positively when you admit a wrong, they'll also see you as someone who has integrity. like, literally, that's all it would have taken!
No, it wouldn't have. If she released the speeches, they would have picked for nits with the zeal of a chimp on meth, to find "evidence" of her "selling out" to Wall Street.
Caving to nutjobs looking to discredit you never works that's my point
The people demanding he Goldman Sachs speeches had already made up their minds about what was in them. Just releasing them wouldn't change their opinions
they're not nutjobs when the emails are right there.
nutjobs are like the birthers who refuse to believe Obama is a natural born citizen, despite the proof being publicly available and pushed out by a GOP governor.
reasonable folks saw Clinton refusing to release the speech transcripts, reading them later thanks to the e-mail leaks, and concluding that Clinton wants to hide things that actually do exist.
basic marketing/debate strategy 101: address your weaknesses up front. not only will the audience/voter respond positively when you admit a wrong, they'll also see you as someone who has integrity. like, literally, that's all it would have taken!
No, it wouldn't have. If she released the speeches, they would have picked for nits with the zeal of a chimp on meth, to find "evidence" of her "selling out" to Wall Street.
Well when they're hiding a pedophile ring in a pizza parlor using coded language it's only rational. :rotate:
The emails showed how little there was to the speeches not that it was a smoking gun
You just confirmed my point. You wanted the speeches to be damning evidence and even when the partial contents got leaked you still believe it despite the actual rather boring content
i think you're misreading me here.
the speeches weren't a smoking gun of anything. i agree with you.
the fact that Clinton spent so much energy playing hide the ball with them, that looks bad to voters, makes it look like there's something there.
releasing the emails and transcripts early at the start of the cycle would have burned out the nitpickers, defanged the attacks anyone would have against Clinton. because she would've controlled the narrative from the start.
The emails showed how little there was to the speeches not that it was a smoking gun
You just confirmed my point. You wanted the speeches to be damning evidence and even when the partial contents got leaked you still believe it despite the actual rather boring content
i think you're misreading me here.
the speeches weren't a smoking gun of anything. i agree with you.
the fact that Clinton spent so much energy playing hide the ball with them, that looks bad to voters, makes it look like there's something there.
releasing the emails and transcripts early at the start of the cycle would have burned out the nitpickers, defanged the attacks anyone would have against Clinton. because she would've controlled the narrative from the start.
Again, it wouldn't have, because the people were using them the same way a drunk uses a lamppost - for support, rather than illumination.
The Wall Street speaches completely undermined her credibility on that front, at least to me and many I know. Hiding the speaches made it worse. Next time you want to convince me you mean business on Wall Street, maybe don't take millions of dollars from them. It made her seem disingenuous at worst and at best a wishy-washy figure willing to lean wherever the wind blew.
This ignores all the pain and suffering about to happen or that happened from January 20, 2001 until hell, like nine months ago is when we finally got out from under the financial collapse Bush helped cause. I hate accelerationist talk because it commits the sin I hate the media for: treats this like a game without real effects on real people.
the problem is, the DNC leadership did exactly this.
i'm not talking about accelerationism, i'm talking about basic coalition building. Obama was hugely successful on this front in part because he focused on taking care of reaching across to as many groups as he could. this didn't result in many policy wins, but it was a hell of a political strategy.
Clinton used old-school Clinton politics, which considering what was happening with both the GOP and the Dem sides, it should have been obvious that that would no longer work. the emails were the last straw; i saw nothing incriminating or illegal in them, but i did see a top-down approach which kept being perpetuated by DWS and by Brazille. once those came out, the Clinton campaign should have immediately addressed them and full-stop reached out to Bernie supporters and others. but no, instead they shut the lights off sections at the DNC, stayed mum about the emails, and flat out refused to change course. that is a strategic error of gigantic magnitude, and it was possible only because the DNC leadership empowered it.
What, concretely, should they have done? Again, she moved way left. She was unapologetically liberal in the general election campaign in a way Obama never was but people assumed him to be.
It's all this desire for vaguely symbolic stuff while throwing away real victories that makes me frustrated with a subset of lefty activists.
actual concrete things:
- released the damn emails - should have done this at the start. lets the press pore through them at the start of the election cycle, burn out the narrative that "she's hiding something", defang that whole argument.
- immediately apologize to Bernie Sanders supporters on the questionable strategies thrown around.
- recognize the protests going on at the DNC and embrace them.
- release the transcripts from her paid speeches. it looks a shit ton better when YOU release them and control the narrative, rather than having the media hunt them down and speculate endlessly.
this election came down to "who was more authentic". voters (wrongly) coalesced around Trump because they (wrongly) believed he was just telling the truth. of course he wasn't. but put him next to a candidate who was stonewalling every potentially controversial pain point and was doing nothing to sell what the Dems could do for America, and of fucking course people won't vote for Clinton. i don't care that she moved her positions to the left, she never campaigned on that.
if anything, i remember stating really clearly right after the DNC that Clinton should have stopped her focus on attacking Trump and instead on the positive messages the DNC put out. her polling numbers were STUPID HIGH right after the DNC, and that's because the DNC remembered for a second that they should be telling Americans what they would do for them, not just how terrible Trump is!
-Releasing the emails would have been a colossal mistake. The Pubs and media would have picked them apart like piranha to find any dirt. Even if they didn't find any dirt, they would just make stuff up. It's also a terrible precedent that a major government official has to disclose non-public job communications because of media-enabled partisan bullshit.
-I'm ignorant of this "questionable strategies" thing. What did she do?
-She moved the party platform way left. How is that not recognizing the protest? Specifically what does "recognize" mean in the context you are using here?
-See my first point. It would have done nothing at all the help her because it was built on BS anyway and as we have learned reality doesn't matter. If anything it would have hurt her by burning the business donors she needs.
Even if the speeches were themselves completely benign, which I honestly feel is probably the case, they completely submarined her ability to present an authentic voice for a bunch of the stuff Progressives already doubted her on. And then they chose to hide them, which made it worse. All of this was helped along, as well, by her inability to come across as authentic on anything but children's health and women's rights. It was a total shitstorm of my (least) favorite word from the primary; optics.
This is a lot of the same stuff that Trump hit her on all the way through the general as well. That a candidate with actual plans to regulate the financial industry lost to the guy who is putting a record number of Goldman-Sachs alumni in his cabinet is a testament to how you should never, ever associate with groups like that if you want to be taken seriously on those issues.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
11) Things are not yet hunky dory at the convention, unlike 2008.
(I think the quick turn around between the last primary and Sanders' concession and the convention is an underrated factor here. If the DNC is in July in 2008 instead of August, might the hard feelings over that primary have erupted into something obnoxious and disruptive? More likely than it ended up being in August. Bernie did a lot of work that week to try to slow things down, to his credit. But the feelings were still pretty raw.)
12) None of this shit should have mattered, except James Comey staged a fucking coup d'etat.
(The worst thing Democrats can do in the face of the Trumpening is to fracture like they did after the Rehnquist coup installed our last Republican President. A key part in not fracturing is to not overstate our differences. We all basically stand for the same stuff: civil rights, universal health care, environmental protection, a more equal distribution of wealth, etc. It's just a matter of degrees and methods.)
That, I think, is a much bigger factor than Comey.
I don't see that. This is post election sour grapes you're looking at, not reasonable examinations of information. More importantly it fails its own narrative. Clinton had heavy presence in Penn... which she still lost... which she needed to win even if she also won Wisconsin and Michigan(the states that your argument relies on her winning).
This is the same team that got Obama his victory. In the same method... with the same complaints (before the election that time, about how terrible it was that there were so many Republican yard signs and so few Democratic ones)
There are a lot of claims that "Clinton didn't do that thing that Obama did" when indeed she did do those things. Case in point is @fightinfilipino 's claim
the emails were the last straw; i saw nothing incriminating or illegal in them, but i did see a top-down approach which kept being perpetuated by DWS and by Brazille. once those came out, the Clinton campaign should have immediately addressed them and full-stop reached out to Bernie supporters and others. but no, instead they shut the lights off sections at the DNC, stayed mum about the emails, and flat out refused to change course. that is a strategic error of gigantic magnitude, and it was possible only because the DNC leadership empowered it.
The thing is that the Clinton Campaign did. When the emails first came out Bernie Sanders even was on board. Clinton addressed the emails in a full stop reach out moment no less than 10 times during the campaign. She did it each and every democratic primary debate. She did it again each and every general election debate.
How in the world can we get to the point where some people think that Hillary Clinton didn't address her emails?!
- released the damn emails - should have done this at the start. lets the press pore through them at the start of the election cycle, burn out the narrative that "she's hiding something", defang that whole argument.
- immediately apologize to Bernie Sanders supporters on the questionable strategies thrown around.
- recognize the protests going on at the DNC and embrace them.
- release the transcripts from her paid speeches. it looks a shit ton better when YOU release them and control the narrative, rather than having the media hunt them down and speculate endlessly.
Hillary Clinton did every one of those things (in substance) minus releasing the transcripts of her paid speeches (which she might not have even had). She released her emails to the FBI and could not make them public since the accusation was that there was classified material on them. This was done during the Benghazi hearings iirc, long before the primary started.
There were no "questionable strategies" thrown around except from the Bernie camp. There was nothing she did that was questionable. There was nothing the DNC did that was questionable. Admitting to "questionable" practices would have fueled the fire. You do not get to tactically admit to rigging a primary and then go along like you still won. You sure as fuck don't do that if you didn't rig anything. However she did spend a significant amount of time trying to assuage the protestors.
Hillary Clinton gave Bernie Sanders and co the largest concessions to policy that any primary loser has ever gotten. She moved towards the left at a time when most campaigns move to the middle in order to not lose voters. Doing this very likely could have been a mistake, and make no bones this is 100% precisely the opposite of the "Clinton Triangulation Strategy" that the Sanders supporters claimed to hate so much.
No. I would sooner believe that the protestors at the DNC were being worked by the Russians than i would that Clinton did not address the concerns of the left.
The idea that Big Business is always evil is one of the most frustrating things about the activist left. The current people and culture running Big Business are certainly scum, but that's because of the Republican's de-regulation. With proper government oversight Big Business can be a Good Thing. Taking money from business donors is not itself a bad thing. You want to stop big business, you do not vote Trump or Stein or whatever. Bernie would be a good choice for this specific issue, but he lost the primary, so vote Clinton.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
She couldn't release anything to prove her trustfulness because the people she needed to prove that to already didn't trust her.
And then it came out that she was telling the truth about things she was accused of lying about, or things she said/did were nearly entirely benign, and it came from sources that weren't her.
And then it became "Well, she shouldn't have been so untrustworthy in the first place, so she's still untrustworthy."
If she had released literally everything, the narrative would've just been "She must be hiding the other BAD things." And that's what it was for even things on exhaustive public record like the Clinton Foundation.
One thing that became clear was that Clinton either had a terrible grasp of optics or didn't really care about them.
Those conventional wisdom now that trump won is telling everyone who dislike your optics to go fuck themselves with great force is the winning strategy.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
This is the same team that got Obama his victory. In the same method... with the same complaints (before the election that time, about how terrible it was that there were so many Republican yard signs and so few Democratic ones)
Not quite the same team. These were more junior staffers, instead of Plouffe and Axelrod (whose inability to get over the 2008 primary remains obnoxious).
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
(The worst thing Democrats can do in the face of the Trumpening is to fracture like they did after the Rehnquist coup installed our last Republican President. A key part in not fracturing is to not overstate our differences. We all basically stand for the same stuff: civil rights, universal health care, environmental protection, a more equal distribution of wealth, etc. It's just a matter of degrees and methods.)
i think the fracture is already happening. the DNC should have already been a warning sign. whole sections of the DNC voiced loud opposition, and the DNC leadership reacted by turning the lights off in the protesting area sections.
later, Donna Brazille refused to recognize the frustration of Party staffers.
instead of just coming out and taking the frustrations of Bernie supporters head on, the DNC barrelled on like everything was fine.
But in terms of policy y'all won a number of major victories. The 2016 Democratic Party is as left economically since what, 1968? And socially it's so far to the left that LBJ's head would explode. Hell, King's head might explode. Clinton pushed for hire taxes on the rich, expanding social security, improving the ACA to make it better and more universal, combating climate change, significant aid for tuition, unapologetically gave the pure feminist answer on abortion, embraced gay rights more than any presidential candidate ever, talked significantly about racial justice, etc. The party is moving left, you made that happen. I genuinely don't understand and this is what really causes the frustration with the "left" among the rest of us.
part of this was clearly fueled by polling, which to this day is still shocking in how wrong it all was. but part of it reflects an intractable party machine unwilling to listen and unwilling to give up the reins of power. that has to stop. if it takes the implosion of the Democrat party for that to happen, so be fucking it..
This ignores all the pain and suffering about to happen or that happened from January 20, 2001 until hell, like nine months ago is when we finally got out from under the financial collapse Bush helped cause. I hate accelerationist talk because it commits the sin I hate the media for: treats this like a game without real effects on real people.
It also ignores that the damage caused doesn't go away and takes a LONG time to fix. The US government has never recovered from the post-New-Deal Republican. Every administration or Congress they've controlled has done a huge amount of damage to the US government and economy that the Democrats have never fully been able to fix. The deregulation of Reagan, the gutting of the federal knowledge base by Gingrich, the fucking of the economy and the entire Middle East by Bush, these things have not been fixed yet.
This whole attitude is shitty and destructive. Conservatives in power destroy the modern liberal nation state and it takes a long time to recover. The Democrats have basically been fighting a rearguard action for almost 40 years now because they can't maintain control of government long enough to get shit moving fully in the right direction.
That's skipping of the Watergate Babies, Carter, and the beginning of Democrat sponsored deregulation. It's a rearguard action where the lines between who's fighting and who's on the other side have blurred at several points over the last fifty years.
No dude, it's highlighting the importance of keeping conservatives out of power at all costs. If you think the Democrats are the ones pushing deregulation over the last 40 years, you are as disconnected from reality as a Trump voter. The Democrats have been more centrist then you or I might like over that time period and done some shitty things but don't fucking kid yourself about what's going on here. Alot of the centrist moves of the Democrats you see during like the Clinton years or the like are actually a response to Conservative dominance of the federal government post-Southern-Strategy. Where they felt (and I believe in large part correctly) that they had to tack with the winds guys like Reagan were blowing or be left in the dust.
The idea that Big Business is always evil is one of the most frustrating things about the activist left. The current people and culture running Big Business are certainly scum, but that's because of the Republican's de-regulation. With proper government oversight Big Business can be a Good Thing. Taking money from business donors is not itself a bad thing. You want to stop big business, you do not vote Trump or Stein or whatever. Bernie would be a good choice for this specific issue, but he lost the primary, so vote Clinton.
I despise that too. Banks as a whole especially want stability. They'd love tighter regulations. For one, it makes it really fucking hard for the little guys to upset them and quashes huge fluctuations which wreak havoc on things. For fuck's sake, work with them to improve things for everybody. The attitude that something went wrong, so first and foremost order of business is assigning blame and making sure punishment is meted out is awful. Get rid of problems that are in the way of making things better, but all taking a hostile attitude is going to do is stymie progress. It'd be much faster, easier, and more effective to get things done with cooperation than open rank hostility.
Even if the speeches were themselves completely benign, which I honestly feel is probably the case, they completely submarined her ability to present an authentic voice for a bunch of the stuff Progressives already doubted her on. And then they chose to hide them, which made it worse. All of this was helped along, as well, by her inability to come across as authentic on anything but children's health and women's rights. It was a total shitstorm of my (least) favorite word from the primary; optics.
This is a lot of the same stuff that Trump hit her on all the way through the general as well. That a candidate with actual plans to regulate the financial industry lost to the guy who is putting a record number of Goldman-Sachs alumni in his cabinet is a testament to how you should never, ever associate with groups like that if you want to be taken seriously on those issues.
The speeches were a complete mistake. Especially since they happened after the crash when the anti-Wall-Street sentiment among the general populace should have been blindingly obvious.
Not revealing them was the best play she had once she'd fucked up though I think. There's nothing in their actual text that would assuage the concerns of anyone who gave a shit about the speeches in the first place.
The idea that Big Business is always evil is one of the most frustrating things about the activist left. The current people and culture running Big Business are certainly scum, but that's because of the Republican's de-regulation. With proper government oversight Big Business can be a Good Thing. Taking money from business donors is not itself a bad thing. You want to stop big business, you do not vote Trump or Stein or whatever. Bernie would be a good choice for this specific issue, but he lost the primary, so vote Clinton.
I despise that too. Banks as a whole especially want stability. They'd love tighter regulations. For one, it makes it really fucking hard for the little guys to upset them and quashes huge fluctuations which wreak havoc on things. For fuck's sake, work with them to improve things for everybody. The attitude that something went wrong, so first and foremost order of business is assigning blame and making sure punishment is meted out is awful. Get rid of problems that are in the way of making things better, but all taking a hostile attitude is going to do is stymie progress. It'd be much faster, easier, and more effective to get things done with cooperation than open rank hostility.
The really big banks not so much. Because their incentive structures are all fucked up because their risk is socialized. They fought the relatively mild Dodd-Frank tooth and nail.
A number of them made a ton of money on the financial crisis. Like the Secretary of Treasury designate, for example.
Genuinely fuck cooperating with those dudes. They should be broken up. What bothers me is that people like Krugman say that Clinton had the better plan on this issue!
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Shit all the arguments you see in this thread are basically entirely over groups and people with very different ideas about how this primary went down. Like fucking 90% of the arguments in every thread on this topic since the later half of the democratic primary can be boiled down to one single argument. One side feels Sanders behaviour was very obviously a factor in killing enthusiasm for voting for Clinton in the election and the other side doesn't think that is true to any degree that mattered. And neither side has been willing to budge on that one point for months now. Queue arguments.
Beyond the argument itself being intractable, I don't even either side really says anything actionable moving forward.
We can sit here and moralize at each other, exacerbating the split along this thing that we can't go back in time and fix, or we can actually fix the thing that we all agree on; the party needs to get its shit together to oppose Trump.
Unless relitigating the primary is going to produce some amazing insight, which seems rather unlikely at this point, it's just throwing around blame and accomplishing nothing but extending the rancor.
I put an easy one just a few posts above. This primary can show us alot of things about what needs to be done going forward.
Number one is don't delegitimize the process. Don't feed into preexisting biases within the Democratic and left-wing base that encourage a lack of participation. The Democratic party and left wing politics in general in the US, live or die on participation. Turnout is a win for progress. Don't discourage voters.
I would prefer to simply remove the points within the process that only serve to exacerbate such arguments. Because we're going to argue about this stuff, anyway. It's what we do.
Your second point here is the reason your first is inadequate. As you said earlier "In politics, perception is reality." It's not enough to remove the parts of the process that create this perception, one has to actively not cultivate that perception as well. Just cause it's not real doesn't mean people won't believe it if you hammer that point.
But the hitches and complication of the system that exists served to feed the perception. In many instances, it actually served to kick off new waves of anger about the primary being "rigged", which themselves triggered angry responses about how it wasn't.
The lack of standardization and transparency is a huge problem. We can't do this again.
Yes and I said as much already. My point was that this isn't enough, as you claimed it was. There has to be more. You have to not encourage that kind of thinking in your base too. Like seriously, if this whole election season has shown anything, I would think it would be that it's not enough to just not have a fire, you can't have smoke either.
And guys like Sanders were busting out the smoke machines at the end of the primary. You can't have that shit.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
Posts
But the hitches and complication of the system that exists served to feed the perception. In many instances, it actually served to kick off new waves of anger about the primary being "rigged", which themselves triggered angry responses about how it wasn't.
The lack of standardization and transparency is a huge problem. We can't do this again.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
These two things aren't even remotely comparable.
And, honestly, I don't understand why the idea of fixing the primaries is so contentious. Just about everyone hated them while they were happening, either because they seemed broken or because other people wouldn't stop complaining about them seeming broken.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Posts like this make me think for you specifically nothing was ever going to be enough. As someone who watched a disturbing number of her rallies, she absolutely campaigned on those positions. Also in the debates she embraced that platform. The press was obsessed with Trump so you didn't hear much about that though.
I'll admit her ads were mostly negative and I'll agree with that much.
very much this
I don't think I've ever liked the Seattle city government more than when they invited the Occupy Seattle camp to literally move into city hall (an offer which they refused because all the part-time pop anarchists saw it as capitulating to The Man but that's another thread)
i voted for Clinton, so it was clearly enough for me.
i was not the target audience Clinton should have had in mind.
the problem is, no one in the current Dem leadership seems to want to change course. we have stalwarts like Warren and Franken grilling Trump's appointees, but that is not going to lead to the appointees being rejected. Brazile is still DNC chair and has not resigned, even after the whole debate questions thing came to light. forgive me if i have little faith in the Democratic party as it currently stands.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
The people demanding he Goldman Sachs speeches had already made up their minds about what was in them. Just releasing them wouldn't change their opinions
Her ads were what most voters saw. A huge chunk of them never even bothered to watch the debates.
and then he made her secretary of state.
I had a problem with that chain of events, even though I voted for him. Twice.
It also ignores that the damage caused doesn't go away and takes a LONG time to fix. The US government has never recovered from the post-New-Deal Republican. Every administration or Congress they've controlled has done a huge amount of damage to the US government and economy that the Democrats have never fully been able to fix. The deregulation of Reagan, the gutting of the federal knowledge base by Gingrich, the fucking of the economy and the entire Middle East by Bush, these things have not been fixed yet.
This whole attitude is shitty and destructive. Conservatives in power destroy the modern liberal nation state and it takes a long time to recover. The Democrats have basically been fighting a rearguard action for almost 40 years now because they can't maintain control of government long enough to get shit moving fully in the right direction.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Let me guess what color they all are.
Edit: Yup, all white. Color me shocked.
That's skipping of the Watergate Babies, Carter, and the beginning of Democrat sponsored deregulation. It's a rearguard action where the lines between who's fighting and who's on the other side have blurred at several points over the last fifty years.
they're not nutjobs when the emails are right there.
nutjobs are like the birthers who refuse to believe Obama is a natural born citizen, despite the proof being publicly available and pushed out by a GOP governor.
reasonable folks saw Clinton refusing to release the speech transcripts, reading them later thanks to the e-mail leaks, and concluding that Clinton wants to hide things that actually do exist.
basic marketing/debate strategy 101: address your weaknesses up front. not only will the audience/voter respond positively when you admit a wrong, they'll also see you as someone who has integrity. like, literally, that's all it would have taken!
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
The emails showed how little there was to the speeches not that it was a smoking gun
You just confirmed my point. You wanted the speeches to be damning evidence and even when the partial contents got leaked you still believe it despite the actual rather boring content
No, it wouldn't have. If she released the speeches, they would have picked for nits with the zeal of a chimp on meth, to find "evidence" of her "selling out" to Wall Street.
Well when they're hiding a pedophile ring in a pizza parlor using coded language it's only rational. :rotate:
i think you're misreading me here.
the speeches weren't a smoking gun of anything. i agree with you.
the fact that Clinton spent so much energy playing hide the ball with them, that looks bad to voters, makes it look like there's something there.
releasing the emails and transcripts early at the start of the cycle would have burned out the nitpickers, defanged the attacks anyone would have against Clinton. because she would've controlled the narrative from the start.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Again, it wouldn't have, because the people were using them the same way a drunk uses a lamppost - for support, rather than illumination.
-Releasing the emails would have been a colossal mistake. The Pubs and media would have picked them apart like piranha to find any dirt. Even if they didn't find any dirt, they would just make stuff up. It's also a terrible precedent that a major government official has to disclose non-public job communications because of media-enabled partisan bullshit.
-I'm ignorant of this "questionable strategies" thing. What did she do?
-She moved the party platform way left. How is that not recognizing the protest? Specifically what does "recognize" mean in the context you are using here?
-See my first point. It would have done nothing at all the help her because it was built on BS anyway and as we have learned reality doesn't matter. If anything it would have hurt her by burning the business donors she needs.
This is a lot of the same stuff that Trump hit her on all the way through the general as well. That a candidate with actual plans to regulate the financial industry lost to the guy who is putting a record number of Goldman-Sachs alumni in his cabinet is a testament to how you should never, ever associate with groups like that if you want to be taken seriously on those issues.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I don't see that. This is post election sour grapes you're looking at, not reasonable examinations of information. More importantly it fails its own narrative. Clinton had heavy presence in Penn... which she still lost... which she needed to win even if she also won Wisconsin and Michigan(the states that your argument relies on her winning).
This is the same team that got Obama his victory. In the same method... with the same complaints (before the election that time, about how terrible it was that there were so many Republican yard signs and so few Democratic ones)
There are a lot of claims that "Clinton didn't do that thing that Obama did" when indeed she did do those things. Case in point is @fightinfilipino 's claim
The thing is that the Clinton Campaign did. When the emails first came out Bernie Sanders even was on board. Clinton addressed the emails in a full stop reach out moment no less than 10 times during the campaign. She did it each and every democratic primary debate. She did it again each and every general election debate.
How in the world can we get to the point where some people think that Hillary Clinton didn't address her emails?!
To continue:
Hillary Clinton did every one of those things (in substance) minus releasing the transcripts of her paid speeches (which she might not have even had). She released her emails to the FBI and could not make them public since the accusation was that there was classified material on them. This was done during the Benghazi hearings iirc, long before the primary started.
There were no "questionable strategies" thrown around except from the Bernie camp. There was nothing she did that was questionable. There was nothing the DNC did that was questionable. Admitting to "questionable" practices would have fueled the fire. You do not get to tactically admit to rigging a primary and then go along like you still won. You sure as fuck don't do that if you didn't rig anything. However she did spend a significant amount of time trying to assuage the protestors.
Hillary Clinton gave Bernie Sanders and co the largest concessions to policy that any primary loser has ever gotten. She moved towards the left at a time when most campaigns move to the middle in order to not lose voters. Doing this very likely could have been a mistake, and make no bones this is 100% precisely the opposite of the "Clinton Triangulation Strategy" that the Sanders supporters claimed to hate so much.
No. I would sooner believe that the protestors at the DNC were being worked by the Russians than i would that Clinton did not address the concerns of the left.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
And then it came out that she was telling the truth about things she was accused of lying about, or things she said/did were nearly entirely benign, and it came from sources that weren't her.
And then it became "Well, she shouldn't have been so untrustworthy in the first place, so she's still untrustworthy."
If she had released literally everything, the narrative would've just been "She must be hiding the other BAD things." And that's what it was for even things on exhaustive public record like the Clinton Foundation.
Those conventional wisdom now that trump won is telling everyone who dislike your optics to go fuck themselves with great force is the winning strategy.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
Not quite the same team. These were more junior staffers, instead of Plouffe and Axelrod (whose inability to get over the 2008 primary remains obnoxious).
even when they're running agaisnt a billionaire promising to cut big banks taxes by trillions
give one speech to Goldman Sachs you're less trustworthy immediately!
No dude, it's highlighting the importance of keeping conservatives out of power at all costs. If you think the Democrats are the ones pushing deregulation over the last 40 years, you are as disconnected from reality as a Trump voter. The Democrats have been more centrist then you or I might like over that time period and done some shitty things but don't fucking kid yourself about what's going on here. Alot of the centrist moves of the Democrats you see during like the Clinton years or the like are actually a response to Conservative dominance of the federal government post-Southern-Strategy. Where they felt (and I believe in large part correctly) that they had to tack with the winds guys like Reagan were blowing or be left in the dust.
I despise that too. Banks as a whole especially want stability. They'd love tighter regulations. For one, it makes it really fucking hard for the little guys to upset them and quashes huge fluctuations which wreak havoc on things. For fuck's sake, work with them to improve things for everybody. The attitude that something went wrong, so first and foremost order of business is assigning blame and making sure punishment is meted out is awful. Get rid of problems that are in the way of making things better, but all taking a hostile attitude is going to do is stymie progress. It'd be much faster, easier, and more effective to get things done with cooperation than open rank hostility.
The speeches were a complete mistake. Especially since they happened after the crash when the anti-Wall-Street sentiment among the general populace should have been blindingly obvious.
Not revealing them was the best play she had once she'd fucked up though I think. There's nothing in their actual text that would assuage the concerns of anyone who gave a shit about the speeches in the first place.
The really big banks not so much. Because their incentive structures are all fucked up because their risk is socialized. They fought the relatively mild Dodd-Frank tooth and nail.
A number of them made a ton of money on the financial crisis. Like the Secretary of Treasury designate, for example.
Genuinely fuck cooperating with those dudes. They should be broken up. What bothers me is that people like Krugman say that Clinton had the better plan on this issue!
Yes and I said as much already. My point was that this isn't enough, as you claimed it was. There has to be more. You have to not encourage that kind of thinking in your base too. Like seriously, if this whole election season has shown anything, I would think it would be that it's not enough to just not have a fire, you can't have smoke either.
And guys like Sanders were busting out the smoke machines at the end of the primary. You can't have that shit.
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.