That counterfactual would decisively answer the sexism on the left question, since Joe is less liberal than Hillary in most respects.
He's more believable tho. A large issue with Hiliary is that she is perceived as someone carried by the currents, willing to give lip service to anything she feels is going to benefit her. I think the term we use here is "evolving", but most are not so charitable.
Biden wouldn't have faced that issue.
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
...you should think real hard about why she has less credibility.
Let me guess, you're going to use sexism to paint over any actual issues she might have?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Former Vice President Joe Biden late Friday night said he regretted not running for the presidency, predicting if he had secured the Democratic nomination he could have won against Donald Trump.
"I had planned on running for president and although it would have been a very difficult primary, I think I could have won,” he said. “Maybe not, I don’t know.”
"I was fairly confident that if I had become the Democratic nominee, I would have had a good chance to be president," Biden continued.
Biden's gaffes would have been used as false equivalence with Trump's bad speaking. Same goes for Biden's uncomfortable history of groping women in public. Biden would be seen as just as much of an establishment politician. Biden versus Bernie would have had at least some of the same left versus center-left conflicts. Maybe Biden loses his temper and says something awful. Maybe Biden's not up for campaigning as hard after the death of his son.
That's all for the general though. Hard to say if Biden would have actually won the primary--Hillary had a lot of endorsements and such sewn up ahead of time. If Bernie was already running that might have ended up a three person race or it might not have--the non-Bernie vote might have coalesced around Hillary anyway, some of the sexist Bernie bros might have gone to Biden... I think Hillary still wins the primary, honestly.
But who knows? Analysis of your mistakes is one thing, counterfactuals are pretty pointless.
That counterfactual would decisively answer the sexism on the left question, since Joe is less liberal than Hillary in most respects.
He's more believable tho. A large issue with Hiliary is that she is perceived as someone carried by the currents, willing to give lip service to anything she feels is going to benefit her. I think the term we use here is "evolving", but most are not so charitable.
Biden wouldn't have faced that issue.
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
...you should think real hard about why she has less credibility.
Let me guess, you're going to use sexism to paint over any actual issues she might have?
Biden was both more conservative than Clinton by a large margin and had way deeper and longer lasting ties to the banking industry. And not just in 2016 or 2008. She was considered to be a looney left winger whispering in Good Ole Boy Bill's ear ( a oversimplification but still). Meanwhile Biden was a core member of the New Democrats.
Sexism had a big role in this election. Backing Biden if you thought she was too Wall Street, too much a member of the establishment and/or insufficiently progressive basically proves that.
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
This was always amazing to me. The idea was that Hillary should adopt some of Bernie's platform to help bring things together after the primary. But when she does, oh she's doesn't really mean it, screw her.
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
This was always amazing to me. The idea was that Hillary should adopt some of Bernie's platform to help bring things together after the primary. But when she does, oh she's doesn't really mean it, screw her.
I didn't want her to adopt anything, I just didn't want her to be the candidate. I had zero confidence shed push for anything difficult, she never has. Paying lip service is what she does, and I was unimpressed.
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
This was always amazing to me. The idea was that Hillary should adopt some of Bernie's platform to help bring things together after the primary. But when she does, oh she's doesn't really mean it, screw her.
I think you're probably conflating two groups of people
One group was happy to see Hillary pushed left and adopting parts of Bernie's platform
The other was never going to be convinced that she ever would
There might be a third group of people saying she should move left and then remaining unhappy with her when she did, but I'm unaware of it and it's likely small-ish compared to the first two
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
This was always amazing to me. The idea was that Hillary should adopt some of Bernie's platform to help bring things together after the primary. But when she does, oh she's doesn't really mean it, screw her.
I didn't want her to adopt anything, I just didn't want her to be the candidate. I had zero confidence shed push for anything difficult, she never has. Paying lip service is what she does, and I was unimpressed.
Uhhh what?
What about Hillarycare, which put in place the groundwork that led to Obamacare? Or all of the various things she's pushed (and in many cases achieved), particularly in welfare field? She's had lots of pet issues, like universal pre-K, that she's fought hard for for literally decades.
Solomaxwell6 on
+11
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
...you should think real hard about why she has less credibility.
It's common knowledge that Bill ran his presidency according to opinion polls, and as Not A Democrat it really looked like Hillary ran her campaign the same way. How else to explain her "I was for it before I was against it" attitude on trade and other assorted issues that Bernie revealed to be popular?
...you should think real hard about why she has less credibility.
It's common knowledge that Bill ran his presidency according to opinion polls, and as Not A Democrat it really looked like Hillary ran her campaign the same way. How else to explain her "I was for it before I was against it" attitude on trade and other assorted issues that Bernie revealed to be popular?
If you actually look at the statements she made about TPP being "the gold standard" etc, she was always talking about it from a hopeful perspective. I don't have my copy of Hard Choices handy, but she makes it clear that she's excited for the deal but knows that it may not be perfect and she may not actually support it in the end. That's well before the primary, and well before Bernie was on anyone's radar (and, as an aside, if anyone pushed Hillary on free trade, it was Warren rather than Sanders).
Her position then was consistent with the position she ultimately took. She was always in favor of free trade, and she always thought TPP could be good, but that individual deals are not necessarily good.
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
This was always amazing to me. The idea was that Hillary should adopt some of Bernie's platform to help bring things together after the primary. But when she does, oh she's doesn't really mean it, screw her.
I didn't want her to adopt anything, I just didn't want her to be the candidate. I had zero confidence shed push for anything difficult, she never has. Paying lip service is what she does, and I was unimpressed.
Uhhh what?
What about Hillarycare, which put in place the groundwork that led to Obamacare? Or all of the various things she's pushed (and in many cases achieved), particularly in welfare field? She's had lots of pet issues, like universal pre-K, that she's fought hard for for literally decades.
Hiliarycare? A bill that got compromised into oblivion and accomplished nothing? Not exactly the example id pull.
She's always had a good focus on women and children, and that I commend her for. However, those aren't really controversial stances to hold. No ones getting their feet held to the fire over that. And unfortunately, taking on positions that are already popular or noncontroversial is already what people associate with her.
There is nothing in her resume that suggests she ready to fight tooth and nail for her platform.
You realize that she gave a speech about women's rights in China in 1995 that was both controversial because it called out their treatment of women in China and Republicans here attacked her for going as well.
That was well before it wasn't a controversial stance.
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
This was always amazing to me. The idea was that Hillary should adopt some of Bernie's platform to help bring things together after the primary. But when she does, oh she's doesn't really mean it, screw her.
I didn't want her to adopt anything, I just didn't want her to be the candidate. I had zero confidence shed push for anything difficult, she never has. Paying lip service is what she does, and I was unimpressed.
Uhhh what?
What about Hillarycare, which put in place the groundwork that led to Obamacare? Or all of the various things she's pushed (and in many cases achieved), particularly in welfare field? She's had lots of pet issues, like universal pre-K, that she's fought hard for for literally decades.
Hiliarycare? A bill that got compromised into oblivion and accomplished nothing? Not exactly the example id pull.
She's always had a good focus on women and children, and that I commend her for. However, those aren't really controversial stances to hold. No ones getting their feet held to the fire over that. And unfortunately, taking on positions that are already popular or noncontroversial is already what people associate with her.
There is nothing in her resume that suggests she ready to fight tooth and nail for her platform.
Without looking it up, what was Hillary care, this compromised to nothing bill?
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
This was always amazing to me. The idea was that Hillary should adopt some of Bernie's platform to help bring things together after the primary. But when she does, oh she's doesn't really mean it, screw her.
I didn't want her to adopt anything, I just didn't want her to be the candidate. I had zero confidence shed push for anything difficult, she never has. Paying lip service is what she does, and I was unimpressed.
Uhhh what?
What about Hillarycare, which put in place the groundwork that led to Obamacare? Or all of the various things she's pushed (and in many cases achieved), particularly in welfare field? She's had lots of pet issues, like universal pre-K, that she's fought hard for for literally decades.
Hiliarycare? A bill that got compromised into oblivion and accomplished nothing? Not exactly the example id pull.
She's always had a good focus on women and children, and that I commend her for. However, those aren't really controversial stances to hold. No ones getting their feet held to the fire over that. And unfortunately, taking on positions that are already popular or noncontroversial is already what people associate with her.
There is nothing in her resume that suggests she ready to fight tooth and nail for her platform.
Without looking it up, what was Hillary care, this compromised to nothing bill?
90s healthcare bill that didn't pass because it was too far left wing. Most important part of it was that it included the public option, opening up government employee health insurance to everyone. Obamacare has its roots as the conservative Republican alternative, with most of its important features (especially the individual mandate) were part of a Heritage Foundation plan. She pushed health care hard, and it failed, and she moved a bit to the right on healthcare after that because she realized a left wing bill wasn't going to change.
No, it didn't pass--but of course neither did single payer, free healthcare, or the other left wing Bernie bills. Doesn't change the fact that it was a progressive bill that she pushed hard for.
If things that don't pass don't count and the things that do pass are usually things that were less progressive and so could get through Congress, that strikes me as a catch 20/20 under which every single politician must not be a true progressive.
If things that don't pass don't count and the things that do pass are usually things that were less progressive and so could get through Congress, that strikes me as a catch 20/20 under which every single politician must not be a true progressive.
That counterfactual would decisively answer the sexism on the left question, since Joe is less liberal than Hillary in most respects.
He's more believable tho. A large issue with Hiliary is that she is perceived as someone carried by the currents, willing to give lip service to anything she feels is going to benefit her. I think the term we use here is "evolving", but most are not so charitable.
Biden wouldn't have faced that issue.
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
...you should think real hard about why she has less credibility.
Let me guess, you're going to use sexism to paint over any actual issues she might have?
Biden was both more conservative than Clinton by a large margin and had way deeper and longer lasting ties to the banking industry. And not just in 2016 or 2008. She was considered to be a looney left winger whispering in Good Ole Boy Bill's ear ( a oversimplification but still). Meanwhile Biden was a core member of the New Democrats.
Sexism had a big role in this election. Backing Biden if you thought she was too Wall Street, too much a member of the establishment and/or insufficiently progressive basically proves that.
Biden was the Senator for fucking Delaware for God's sake. And we all know what the only thing Delaware is famous for is.
Delaware is famous for various lax corporate laws which make it attractive for incorporating your national business their.
You know any objection to "selling X across state-lines" that brings up how this will just lead to a race to the bottom in regulation where all companies involved with X will relocate to the state with the most favourable laws?
That counterfactual would decisively answer the sexism on the left question, since Joe is less liberal than Hillary in most respects.
He's more believable tho. A large issue with Hiliary is that she is perceived as someone carried by the currents, willing to give lip service to anything she feels is going to benefit her. I think the term we use here is "evolving", but most are not so charitable.
Biden wouldn't have faced that issue.
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
...you should think real hard about why she has less credibility.
Let me guess, you're going to use sexism to paint over any actual issues she might have?
Sexism is a actual issue and this isn't a mutually exclusive scenario. It's not like America has overcome sexism in our culture. It's alive and well.
edit: Also feeding into the narrative that Hillary is untrustworthy to the left, despite giving them what they want is exactly what the GOP wanted to depress turnouts among the Democrats. You're essentially telling us that she cannot win your support under any circumstances, yet she's the bad guy here? Hillary wasn't perfect by a long shot, but she was an angel compared to Trump and this was a two (wo)man race, one of them as going to be president and not voting for her was helping us get President Trump.
edit: Would you have preferred a President Hillary over Trump?
That counterfactual would decisively answer the sexism on the left question, since Joe is less liberal than Hillary in most respects.
He's more believable tho. A large issue with Hiliary is that she is perceived as someone carried by the currents, willing to give lip service to anything she feels is going to benefit her. I think the term we use here is "evolving", but most are not so charitable.
Biden wouldn't have faced that issue.
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
...you should think real hard about why she has less credibility.
Let me guess, you're going to use sexism to paint over any actual issues she might have?
Biden was both more conservative than Clinton by a large margin and had way deeper and longer lasting ties to the banking industry. And not just in 2016 or 2008. She was considered to be a looney left winger whispering in Good Ole Boy Bill's ear ( a oversimplification but still). Meanwhile Biden was a core member of the New Democrats.
Sexism had a big role in this election. Backing Biden if you thought she was too Wall Street, too much a member of the establishment and/or insufficiently progressive basically proves that.
Biden was the Senator for fucking Delaware for God's sake. And we all know what the only thing Delaware is famous for is.
In 08 he was mockingly referred to as Biden (D-MBNA) pretty often around here.
Hell Biden was in the Senate in 93 and he's one of the guys who stopped healthcare reform from being a thing back then.
I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.
This was always amazing to me. The idea was that Hillary should adopt some of Bernie's platform to help bring things together after the primary. But when she does, oh she's doesn't really mean it, screw her.
I didn't want her to adopt anything, I just didn't want her to be the candidate. I had zero confidence shed push for anything difficult, she never has. Paying lip service is what she does, and I was unimpressed.
Uhhh what?
What about Hillarycare, which put in place the groundwork that led to Obamacare? Or all of the various things she's pushed (and in many cases achieved), particularly in welfare field? She's had lots of pet issues, like universal pre-K, that she's fought hard for for literally decades.
Hiliarycare? A bill that got compromised into oblivion and accomplished nothing? Not exactly the example id pull.
She's always had a good focus on women and children, and that I commend her for. However, those aren't really controversial stances to hold. No ones getting their feet held to the fire over that. And unfortunately, taking on positions that are already popular or noncontroversial is already what people associate with her.
There is nothing in her resume that suggests she ready to fight tooth and nail for her platform.
Without looking it up, what was Hillary care, this compromised to nothing bill?
90s healthcare bill that didn't pass because it was too far left wing. Most important part of it was that it included the public option, opening up government employee health insurance to everyone. Obamacare has its roots as the conservative Republican alternative, with most of its important features (especially the individual mandate) were part of a Heritage Foundation plan. She pushed health care hard, and it failed, and she moved a bit to the right on healthcare after that because she realized a left wing bill wasn't going to change.
No, it didn't pass--but of course neither did single payer, free healthcare, or the other left wing Bernie bills. Doesn't change the fact that it was a progressive bill that she pushed hard for.
Generally agreed, but this is not true. The Heritage Foundation plan involved gutting Medicaid and Medicare, massively deregulating insurance plans, and changes to the tax code aimed at ending most employer-provided insurance. The ACA's only major similarity was a mandate to buy insurance, but note that the Republican plan would've involved being mandated to buy catastrophic-only coverage that wouldn't pay out until you were financially ruined. And of course other countries that do have universal health care but not single payer also have insurance mandates.
IOW, the fake Republican plan invented only so that the GOP could pretend to have an alternative to HillaryCare in the 90s isn't like the ACA. It's like AHCA. Ryan and Trump and McConnell would totally pass the Heritage plan now if they thought they would be safe from the consequences.
It is true that all the bleating from the GOP about how the mandate is just like slavery is made even more ridiculous for their nominal support of the same insurance mandate, which was why that rhetorical trick was (unwisely) used. But they're not similar plans.
The 2017 GOP is not exactly the same as it was in 1992. But the party's offer to the poor and sick hasn't changed. It just remains extremely difficult for Republicans to pass legislation that would destroy their own voters en masse, which is one reason why the actual Heritage plan never went anywhere.
A wacky races primary finally worked for Republicans, presumably because if you have too many negative ads spread out over too many people, the public just tunes it out. Whereas Mrs. Clinton was a lightning rod from day 1.
I don't think Mr. Biden would have saved the election because Republicans were destined to win, but he could have saved us from destroying Mrs. Clinton's presidential career.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A wacky races primary finally worked for Republicans, presumably because if you have too many negative ads spread out over too many people, the public just tunes it out. Whereas Mrs. Clinton was a lightning rod from day 1.
I don't think Mr. Biden would have saved the election because Republicans were destined to win, but he could have saved us from destroying Mrs. Clinton's presidential career.
Wouldn't losing '16 end her presidential aspirations?
The GOP primaries ended up working for Trump for a variety of reasons. For example, there wasn't one single strong anti-Trump candidate to solidify against, they attacked him from the right, they did a poor job individually and as a team, the party establishment itself was at its nadir at this point Trump wouldn't have succeeded in a primaries in the W. era, they deluded the field thanks to everyone getting their own billionaire backer and Trump was someone who the media couldn't get enough of whether he was there or not (that's why Fox News ultimately chose to cater to him rather than back Megan Kelly). That was not a healthy primary for them, either - a healthy primary looks like '08.
A wacky races primary finally worked for Republicans, presumably because if you have too many negative ads spread out over too many people, the public just tunes it out. Whereas Mrs. Clinton was a lightning rod from day 1.
I don't think Mr. Biden would have saved the election because Republicans were destined to win, but he could have saved us from destroying Mrs. Clinton's presidential career.
Wouldn't losing '16 end her presidential aspirations?
The GOP primaries ended up working for Trump for a variety of reasons. For example, there wasn't one single strong anti-Trump candidate to solidify against, they attacked him from the right, they did a poor job individually and as a team, the party establishment itself was at its nadir at this point Trump wouldn't have succeeded in a primaries in the W. era, they deluded the field thanks to everyone getting their own billionaire backer and Trump was someone who the media couldn't get enough of whether he was there or not (that's why Fox News ultimately chose to cater to him rather than back Megan Kelly). That was not a healthy primary for them, either - a healthy primary looks like '08.
People usually get multiple tries after losing a presidential campaign. The diluted field works for the candidates because nobody's milk gets too undrinkably sour and everyone acts as a shield from pure bad press. The news cycle repeatedly demonstrated its inability to focus on one candidate at a time, so no scandal cemented against any one candidate. To retain information, we require repetition, and we got plenty of that with emails, emails, emails. Mr. Trump had an exhaustive list, but it was all different and peppered with novel stuff from the candidate peanut gallery. Nothing had a chance to really settle in - not until the distractors were weeded out.
Mrs. Clinton had more time to have the news cycle to herself, which proved to be more of a curse than a blessing.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A wacky races primary finally worked for Republicans, presumably because if you have too many negative ads spread out over too many people, the public just tunes it out. Whereas Mrs. Clinton was a lightning rod from day 1.
I don't think Mr. Biden would have saved the election because Republicans were destined to win, but he could have saved us from destroying Mrs. Clinton's presidential career.
Wouldn't losing '16 end her presidential aspirations?
Unfortunately, because I think she would have been a great President, yes I think so. She was sub-optimally old as it was and I expect both nominees to be male for the next 3 cycles at least.
A wacky races primary finally worked for Republicans, presumably because if you have too many negative ads spread out over too many people, the public just tunes it out. Whereas Mrs. Clinton was a lightning rod from day 1.
I don't think Mr. Biden would have saved the election because Republicans were destined to win, but he could have saved us from destroying Mrs. Clinton's presidential career.
Wouldn't losing '16 end her presidential aspirations?
Unfortunately, because I think she would have been a great President, yes I think so. She was sub-optimally old as it was and I expect both nominees to be male for the next 3 cycles at least.
If the Simpsons taught us anything, a white female with a deadbeat brother will be the next President after Trump.
+4
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
She would have lost two primaries in a row, both times as the favored candidate. That's a whole lot of loser stink to wash off, and there wouldn't have been the SoS gig to rehab her image this time around.
Biden would have benefited from coming off of an eight year gig where, as far as most people were aware, he was Obama's best bud and just a smiling happy fun guy. Eight years of Onion Joe Biden stories wouldn't have hurt either. I think he would have benefited Bernie's chances though. You'd have two centrist candidates and one much further to the left. It's the same sort of vote splitting that hit the Republican primary.
...you should think real hard about why she has less credibility.
It's common knowledge that Bill ran his presidency according to opinion polls, and as Not A Democrat it really looked like Hillary ran her campaign the same way. How else to explain her "I was for it before I was against it" attitude on trade and other assorted issues that Bernie revealed to be popular?
If you actually look at the statements she made about TPP being "the gold standard" etc, she was always talking about it from a hopeful perspective. I don't have my copy of Hard Choices handy, but she makes it clear that she's excited for the deal but knows that it may not be perfect and she may not actually support it in the end. That's well before the primary, and well before Bernie was on anyone's radar (and, as an aside, if anyone pushed Hillary on free trade, it was Warren rather than Sanders).
Her position then was consistent with the position she ultimately took. She was always in favor of free trade, and she always thought TPP could be good, but that individual deals are not necessarily good.
In 2012 she said this about the TPP:
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
That's a pretty clear statement that she thinks that the TPP is most excellent, or that she has really low standards for international trade agreements. You really have to stretch to say that she is only being hopeful about the potential of the deal. Which is fine, because at that point she'd just spent four years negotiating the thing. I don't really expect someone to come out and say that they'd spent four years on something that might have potential, but it definitely sets her up for the flip-flop attack.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I'm perfectly fine with politicians changing what they say they'll do based on their electorate changing their collective minds. The whole point behind politicians is that their constituents are voting for them based on what they say they will do and if they don't do that they're supposed to get voted out. The system is broken right now because people put more stock in 1) the letter next to your name and 2) what the voter imagines the politician actually truly secretly believes over what they say they'll do. The former leads to incumbents winning when they literally didn't help anyone and all incoming opponents are blatantly better than them. The latter leads to Clinton's situation where when she adjusts to match what her voters want (aka what politicians are supposed to do) there's a group that assumes she's a liar and will never do the things she says. This sort of thing also happened with Trump in a positive manner, where he stated baffling, terrible, no-good policy goals and a large group assumed he was lying/exaggerating for effect and he had a secret sane plan ready to go in the wings once he took office.
I'm perfectly fine with politicians changing what they say they'll do based on their electorate changing their collective minds. The whole point behind politicians is that their constituents are voting for them based on what they say they will do and if they don't do that they're supposed to get voted out. The system is broken right now because people put more stock in 1) the letter next to your name and 2) what the voter imagines the politician actually truly secretly believes over what they say they'll do. The former leads to incumbents winning when they literally didn't help anyone and all incoming opponents are blatantly better than them. The latter leads to Clinton's situation where when she adjusts to match what her voters want (aka what politicians are supposed to do) there's a group that assumes she's a liar and will never do the things she says. This sort of thing also happened with Trump in a positive manner, where he stated baffling, terrible, no-good policy goals and a large group assumed he was lying/exaggerating for effect and he had a secret sane plan ready to go in the wings once he took office.
I wouldn't say that's exactly what everyone is doing with the Democrats, what keeps the centrists in power is that they have the GOP as the ultimate boogeyman (who happens the be very real) and they don't have an internal opposition who can quell those concerns. Take that off the table and all bets are off, but as of yet their opponents from the left have been unable to sell themselves to the public as a faction who will do better at beating the GOP at their own game.
She would have lost two primaries in a row, both times as the favored candidate. That's a whole lot of loser stink to wash off, and there wouldn't have been the SoS gig to rehab her image this time around.
Biden would have benefited from coming off of an eight year gig where, as far as most people were aware, he was Obama's best bud and just a smiling happy fun guy. Eight years of Onion Joe Biden stories wouldn't have hurt either. I think he would have benefited Bernie's chances though. You'd have two centrist candidates and one much further to the left. It's the same sort of vote splitting that hit the Republican primary.
I don't think so, with Biden there it becomes a different two person race (where we get a situation like Obama vs Hillary again) and Bernie joins O'Malley, Chafee and Webb in the shadows. Without the full attention in the media Bernie would still stay in the race, despite losing unofficially to these two at some point but the fuel for his revolution is given less fuel in the press who want a horse race - instead they'll focus on the horse race aspect with Biden.
Harry Dresden on
+3
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I'm perfectly fine with politicians changing what they say they'll do based on their electorate changing their collective minds. The whole point behind politicians is that their constituents are voting for them based on what they say they will do and if they don't do that they're supposed to get voted out. The system is broken right now because people put more stock in 1) the letter next to your name and 2) what the voter imagines the politician actually truly secretly believes over what they say they'll do. The former leads to incumbents winning when they literally didn't help anyone and all incoming opponents are blatantly better than them. The latter leads to Clinton's situation where when she adjusts to match what her voters want (aka what politicians are supposed to do) there's a group that assumes she's a liar and will never do the things she says. This sort of thing also happened with Trump in a positive manner, where he stated baffling, terrible, no-good policy goals and a large group assumed he was lying/exaggerating for effect and he had a secret sane plan ready to go in the wings once he took office.
I wouldn't say that's exactly what everyone is doing with the Democrats, what keeps the centrists in power is that they have the GOP as the ultimate boogeyman (who happens the be very real) and they don't have an internal opposition who can quell those concerns. Take that off the table and all bets are off, but as of yet their opponents from the left have been unable to sell themselves to the public as a faction who will do better at beating the GOP at their own game.
She would have lost two primaries in a row, both times as the favored candidate. That's a whole lot of loser stink to wash off, and there wouldn't have been the SoS gig to rehab her image this time around.
Biden would have benefited from coming off of an eight year gig where, as far as most people were aware, he was Obama's best bud and just a smiling happy fun guy. Eight years of Onion Joe Biden stories wouldn't have hurt either. I think he would have benefited Bernie's chances though. You'd have two centrist candidates and one much further to the left. It's the same sort of vote splitting that hit the Republican primary.
I don't think so, with Biden there it becomes a different two person race (where we get a situation like Obama vs Hillary again) and Bernie joins O'Malley, Chafee and Webb in the shadows. Without the full attention in the media Bernie would still stay in the race, despite losing unofficially to these two at some point but the fuel for his revolution is given less fuel in the press who want a horse race - instead they'll focus on the horse race aspect with Biden.
Possibly. And you know the press would go batshit over the death of Biden's son, that's the sort of heartstring tugging shit that everyone eats up. Still, you've got Iowa and New Hampshire as the first two contests, and they're both pretty favorable to Sanders. Maybe the grandpa ranting about class doesn't get near the traction it did, but he still offers up a heck of a contrast in both style and substance. Angry outsider is a pretty easy story hook for the media to go with.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Possibly. And you know the press would go batshit over the death of Biden's son, that's the sort of heartstring tugging shit that everyone eats up. Still, you've got Iowa and New Hampshire as the first two contests, and they're both pretty favorable to Sanders. Maybe the grandpa ranting about class doesn't get near the traction it did, but he still offers up a heck of a contrast in both style and substance. Angry outsider is a pretty easy story hook for the media to go with.
Being an outsider only goes so far, without a clear field he's not going to be their first choice to cover and Biden's the first choice for a strong opponent/horse race narrative. The '16 primary gave Bernie the biggest boost in his career via the media, with competition like Biden they no longer have to focus on him thus he never gains the exposure he did. How would Biden in the mix effect those regions? Would Biden pull voters from him? Don't they have overlap with their base, and he'd pull from Hillary as well.
Contrast and substance don't get very far if the media want to push someone they think is a stronger candidate against Hillary, and I'm positive they wouldn't blink twice before doing that to Biden if he ran. That said, I wouldn't say Hillary or Biden were candidates who couldn't offer their own substance and I'm sure they'd be able to find a hook to spin Biden regardless.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
It's not about the media pushing a particular candidate, it's the media pushing the conflict. They might look at First Woman President vs. Overcoming Personal Tragedy and think that's enough story to last them. Alternatively, they might think that some three-way action might be the way to go. A situation that I think would be likely, since Biden v. Clinton would probably be a pretty damn boring campaign. Very similar policies and they'd both be pushing the Continuing Obama's Legacy thing to the hilt. Hell, O'Malley might actually have an edge in this hypothetical since you'd have the (relative) youth angle too.
And the media is not the only determining factor here. Iowa and NH are small regions, so getting out and pressing the flesh can get things done, Sanders' policies would be very different than what Clinton or Biden would be pitching, and the caucus system can make things interesting all on its own.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
...you should think real hard about why she has less credibility.
It's common knowledge that Bill ran his presidency according to opinion polls, and as Not A Democrat it really looked like Hillary ran her campaign the same way. How else to explain her "I was for it before I was against it" attitude on trade and other assorted issues that Bernie revealed to be popular?
If you actually look at the statements she made about TPP being "the gold standard" etc, she was always talking about it from a hopeful perspective. I don't have my copy of Hard Choices handy, but she makes it clear that she's excited for the deal but knows that it may not be perfect and she may not actually support it in the end. That's well before the primary, and well before Bernie was on anyone's radar (and, as an aside, if anyone pushed Hillary on free trade, it was Warren rather than Sanders).
Her position then was consistent with the position she ultimately took. She was always in favor of free trade, and she always thought TPP could be good, but that individual deals are not necessarily good.
In 2012 she said this about the TPP:
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
That's a pretty clear statement that she thinks that the TPP is most excellent, or that she has really low standards for international trade agreements. You really have to stretch to say that she is only being hopeful about the potential of the deal. Which is fine, because at that point she'd just spent four years negotiating the thing. I don't really expect someone to come out and say that they'd spent four years on something that might have potential, but it definitely sets her up for the flip-flop attack.
First of all, in 2012, she was Secretary of State and not really at liberty to discuss personal views. This wasn't just a case of her praising something because she had (indirectly) been involved with it and didn't want to feel bad, this was a case of her doing her job. The Secretary of State is supposed to be praising the work of the Department of State, even if they have personal, private reservations. Whereas Hard Choices, written 2013-14, after her time as SecState and long before TPP was unpopular, is much more ambiguous about the support.
Second of all, in 2012 the TPP wasn't written yet. There were drafts, but it was years out from being finalized, and there were still many contentious issues that we know changed substantially over the years. So any discussion of TPP in 2012 was implicitly only about the potential of the deal. It's like how every year I say "this is going to be a good year for the Washington Nationals!" despite not actually knowing how the year will turn out (and despite them often falling short in the end). You know when I say that that I'm not a prophet, I don't actually know if they'll make the playoffs, let alone win the World Series, I can only look at the fact that they have a pretty decent team and the framework and potential is there, and then add in a good helping of pure hope.
+12
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
...you should think real hard about why she has less credibility.
It's common knowledge that Bill ran his presidency according to opinion polls, and as Not A Democrat it really looked like Hillary ran her campaign the same way. How else to explain her "I was for it before I was against it" attitude on trade and other assorted issues that Bernie revealed to be popular?
If you actually look at the statements she made about TPP being "the gold standard" etc, she was always talking about it from a hopeful perspective. I don't have my copy of Hard Choices handy, but she makes it clear that she's excited for the deal but knows that it may not be perfect and she may not actually support it in the end. That's well before the primary, and well before Bernie was on anyone's radar (and, as an aside, if anyone pushed Hillary on free trade, it was Warren rather than Sanders).
Her position then was consistent with the position she ultimately took. She was always in favor of free trade, and she always thought TPP could be good, but that individual deals are not necessarily good.
In 2012 she said this about the TPP:
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
That's a pretty clear statement that she thinks that the TPP is most excellent, or that she has really low standards for international trade agreements. You really have to stretch to say that she is only being hopeful about the potential of the deal. Which is fine, because at that point she'd just spent four years negotiating the thing. I don't really expect someone to come out and say that they'd spent four years on something that might have potential, but it definitely sets her up for the flip-flop attack.
First of all, in 2012, she was Secretary of State and not really at liberty to discuss personal views. This wasn't just a case of her praising something because she had (indirectly) been involved with it and didn't want to feel bad, this was a case of her doing her job. The Secretary of State is supposed to be praising the work of the Department of State, even if they have personal, private reservations. Whereas Hard Choices, written 2013-14, after her time as SecState and long before TPP was unpopular, is much more ambiguous about the support.
Second of all, in 2012 the TPP wasn't written yet. There were drafts, but it was years out from being finalized, and there were still many contentious issues that we know changed substantially over the years. So any discussion of TPP in 2012 was implicitly only about the potential of the deal. It's like how every year I say "this is going to be a good year for the Washington Nationals!" despite not actually knowing how the year will turn out (and despite them often falling short in the end). You know when I say that that I'm not a prophet, I don't actually know if they'll make the playoffs, let alone win the World Series, I can only look at the fact that they have a pretty decent team and the framework and potential is there, and then add in a good helping of pure hope.
1) Opposition to the TPP started in 2012, so she wasn't exactly ahead of the curve. Or at least she wasn't far enough ahead that you can easily point to it as evidence of her true feelings.
2) Your argument is basically that we should ignore the 2012 statement because that was her job, and her true opinion is from 2014, which is no more compelling than the argument that her true opinion was from 2012, and her 2014 statements are just her positioning herself for the presidential run.
This is not to say that had she won, she would have reversed on the TPP. Just that arguments that she changed position out of political expediency are very easy to make stick in this instance.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
...you should think real hard about why she has less credibility.
It's common knowledge that Bill ran his presidency according to opinion polls, and as Not A Democrat it really looked like Hillary ran her campaign the same way. How else to explain her "I was for it before I was against it" attitude on trade and other assorted issues that Bernie revealed to be popular?
If you actually look at the statements she made about TPP being "the gold standard" etc, she was always talking about it from a hopeful perspective. I don't have my copy of Hard Choices handy, but she makes it clear that she's excited for the deal but knows that it may not be perfect and she may not actually support it in the end. That's well before the primary, and well before Bernie was on anyone's radar (and, as an aside, if anyone pushed Hillary on free trade, it was Warren rather than Sanders).
Her position then was consistent with the position she ultimately took. She was always in favor of free trade, and she always thought TPP could be good, but that individual deals are not necessarily good.
In 2012 she said this about the TPP:
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
That's a pretty clear statement that she thinks that the TPP is most excellent, or that she has really low standards for international trade agreements. You really have to stretch to say that she is only being hopeful about the potential of the deal. Which is fine, because at that point she'd just spent four years negotiating the thing. I don't really expect someone to come out and say that they'd spent four years on something that might have potential, but it definitely sets her up for the flip-flop attack.
First of all, in 2012, she was Secretary of State and not really at liberty to discuss personal views. This wasn't just a case of her praising something because she had (indirectly) been involved with it and didn't want to feel bad, this was a case of her doing her job. The Secretary of State is supposed to be praising the work of the Department of State, even if they have personal, private reservations. Whereas Hard Choices, written 2013-14, after her time as SecState and long before TPP was unpopular, is much more ambiguous about the support.
Second of all, in 2012 the TPP wasn't written yet. There were drafts, but it was years out from being finalized, and there were still many contentious issues that we know changed substantially over the years. So any discussion of TPP in 2012 was implicitly only about the potential of the deal. It's like how every year I say "this is going to be a good year for the Washington Nationals!" despite not actually knowing how the year will turn out (and despite them often falling short in the end). You know when I say that that I'm not a prophet, I don't actually know if they'll make the playoffs, let alone win the World Series, I can only look at the fact that they have a pretty decent team and the framework and potential is there, and then add in a good helping of pure hope.
1) Opposition to the TPP started in 2012, so she wasn't exactly ahead of the curve. Or at least she wasn't far enough ahead that you can easily point to it as evidence of her true feelings.
2) Your argument is basically that we should ignore the 2012 statement because that was her job, and her true opinion is from 2014, which is no more compelling than the argument that her true opinion was from 2012, and her 2014 statements are just her positioning herself for the presidential run.
This is not to say that had she won, she would have reversed on the TPP. Just that arguments that she changed position out of political expediency are very easy to make stick in this instance.
Yes.
If you want to ignore the part of his argument that the TPP wasn't written yet when she endorsed it. Which was, frankly, infuriating throughout 2016, because people can't fathom that someone would like an idea in its infancy, and yet not approve of the end result.
The fact that resistance to the TPP existed in 2012 is irrelevant, because as stated above it was still in draft form and the people against it then would never be in favor of any trade deal and they are also the type that complain that it was negotiated in secret, when that is standard practice.
Posts
Let me guess, you're going to use sexism to paint over any actual issues she might have?
Biden's gaffes would have been used as false equivalence with Trump's bad speaking. Same goes for Biden's uncomfortable history of groping women in public. Biden would be seen as just as much of an establishment politician. Biden versus Bernie would have had at least some of the same left versus center-left conflicts. Maybe Biden loses his temper and says something awful. Maybe Biden's not up for campaigning as hard after the death of his son.
That's all for the general though. Hard to say if Biden would have actually won the primary--Hillary had a lot of endorsements and such sewn up ahead of time. If Bernie was already running that might have ended up a three person race or it might not have--the non-Bernie vote might have coalesced around Hillary anyway, some of the sexist Bernie bros might have gone to Biden... I think Hillary still wins the primary, honestly.
But who knows? Analysis of your mistakes is one thing, counterfactuals are pretty pointless.
Besides it's clear to me that everybody learned what they wanted from 2016 and that further discourse isn't changing anyone's opinion
Biden was both more conservative than Clinton by a large margin and had way deeper and longer lasting ties to the banking industry. And not just in 2016 or 2008. She was considered to be a looney left winger whispering in Good Ole Boy Bill's ear ( a oversimplification but still). Meanwhile Biden was a core member of the New Democrats.
Sexism had a big role in this election. Backing Biden if you thought she was too Wall Street, too much a member of the establishment and/or insufficiently progressive basically proves that.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This was always amazing to me. The idea was that Hillary should adopt some of Bernie's platform to help bring things together after the primary. But when she does, oh she's doesn't really mean it, screw her.
I didn't want her to adopt anything, I just didn't want her to be the candidate. I had zero confidence shed push for anything difficult, she never has. Paying lip service is what she does, and I was unimpressed.
I think you're probably conflating two groups of people
One group was happy to see Hillary pushed left and adopting parts of Bernie's platform
The other was never going to be convinced that she ever would
There might be a third group of people saying she should move left and then remaining unhappy with her when she did, but I'm unaware of it and it's likely small-ish compared to the first two
Uhhh what?
What about Hillarycare, which put in place the groundwork that led to Obamacare? Or all of the various things she's pushed (and in many cases achieved), particularly in welfare field? She's had lots of pet issues, like universal pre-K, that she's fought hard for for literally decades.
If you actually look at the statements she made about TPP being "the gold standard" etc, she was always talking about it from a hopeful perspective. I don't have my copy of Hard Choices handy, but she makes it clear that she's excited for the deal but knows that it may not be perfect and she may not actually support it in the end. That's well before the primary, and well before Bernie was on anyone's radar (and, as an aside, if anyone pushed Hillary on free trade, it was Warren rather than Sanders).
Her position then was consistent with the position she ultimately took. She was always in favor of free trade, and she always thought TPP could be good, but that individual deals are not necessarily good.
Hiliarycare? A bill that got compromised into oblivion and accomplished nothing? Not exactly the example id pull.
She's always had a good focus on women and children, and that I commend her for. However, those aren't really controversial stances to hold. No ones getting their feet held to the fire over that. And unfortunately, taking on positions that are already popular or noncontroversial is already what people associate with her.
There is nothing in her resume that suggests she ready to fight tooth and nail for her platform.
That was well before it wasn't a controversial stance.
Without looking it up, what was Hillary care, this compromised to nothing bill?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
90s healthcare bill that didn't pass because it was too far left wing. Most important part of it was that it included the public option, opening up government employee health insurance to everyone. Obamacare has its roots as the conservative Republican alternative, with most of its important features (especially the individual mandate) were part of a Heritage Foundation plan. She pushed health care hard, and it failed, and she moved a bit to the right on healthcare after that because she realized a left wing bill wasn't going to change.
No, it didn't pass--but of course neither did single payer, free healthcare, or the other left wing Bernie bills. Doesn't change the fact that it was a progressive bill that she pushed hard for.
Now you've got it!
Biden was the Senator for fucking Delaware for God's sake. And we all know what the only thing Delaware is famous for is.
It's our own lil' tax haven.
Delaware is famous for various lax corporate laws which make it attractive for incorporating your national business their.
You know any objection to "selling X across state-lines" that brings up how this will just lead to a race to the bottom in regulation where all companies involved with X will relocate to the state with the most favourable laws?
Delaware is already that place.
Sexism is a actual issue and this isn't a mutually exclusive scenario. It's not like America has overcome sexism in our culture. It's alive and well.
edit: Also feeding into the narrative that Hillary is untrustworthy to the left, despite giving them what they want is exactly what the GOP wanted to depress turnouts among the Democrats. You're essentially telling us that she cannot win your support under any circumstances, yet she's the bad guy here? Hillary wasn't perfect by a long shot, but she was an angel compared to Trump and this was a two (wo)man race, one of them as going to be president and not voting for her was helping us get President Trump.
edit: Would you have preferred a President Hillary over Trump?
In 08 he was mockingly referred to as Biden (D-MBNA) pretty often around here.
Hell Biden was in the Senate in 93 and he's one of the guys who stopped healthcare reform from being a thing back then.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9571573/biden-hillary-republicans
Can you imagine the backlash Hillary would get for saying something like this?
Generally agreed, but this is not true. The Heritage Foundation plan involved gutting Medicaid and Medicare, massively deregulating insurance plans, and changes to the tax code aimed at ending most employer-provided insurance. The ACA's only major similarity was a mandate to buy insurance, but note that the Republican plan would've involved being mandated to buy catastrophic-only coverage that wouldn't pay out until you were financially ruined. And of course other countries that do have universal health care but not single payer also have insurance mandates.
IOW, the fake Republican plan invented only so that the GOP could pretend to have an alternative to HillaryCare in the 90s isn't like the ACA. It's like AHCA. Ryan and Trump and McConnell would totally pass the Heritage plan now if they thought they would be safe from the consequences.
It is true that all the bleating from the GOP about how the mandate is just like slavery is made even more ridiculous for their nominal support of the same insurance mandate, which was why that rhetorical trick was (unwisely) used. But they're not similar plans.
The 2017 GOP is not exactly the same as it was in 1992. But the party's offer to the poor and sick hasn't changed. It just remains extremely difficult for Republicans to pass legislation that would destroy their own voters en masse, which is one reason why the actual Heritage plan never went anywhere.
I don't think Mr. Biden would have saved the election because Republicans were destined to win, but he could have saved us from destroying Mrs. Clinton's presidential career.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Wouldn't losing '16 end her presidential aspirations?
The GOP primaries ended up working for Trump for a variety of reasons. For example, there wasn't one single strong anti-Trump candidate to solidify against, they attacked him from the right, they did a poor job individually and as a team, the party establishment itself was at its nadir at this point Trump wouldn't have succeeded in a primaries in the W. era, they deluded the field thanks to everyone getting their own billionaire backer and Trump was someone who the media couldn't get enough of whether he was there or not (that's why Fox News ultimately chose to cater to him rather than back Megan Kelly). That was not a healthy primary for them, either - a healthy primary looks like '08.
People usually get multiple tries after losing a presidential campaign. The diluted field works for the candidates because nobody's milk gets too undrinkably sour and everyone acts as a shield from pure bad press. The news cycle repeatedly demonstrated its inability to focus on one candidate at a time, so no scandal cemented against any one candidate. To retain information, we require repetition, and we got plenty of that with emails, emails, emails. Mr. Trump had an exhaustive list, but it was all different and peppered with novel stuff from the candidate peanut gallery. Nothing had a chance to really settle in - not until the distractors were weeded out.
Mrs. Clinton had more time to have the news cycle to herself, which proved to be more of a curse than a blessing.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
If the Simpsons taught us anything, a white female with a deadbeat brother will be the next President after Trump.
Biden would have benefited from coming off of an eight year gig where, as far as most people were aware, he was Obama's best bud and just a smiling happy fun guy. Eight years of Onion Joe Biden stories wouldn't have hurt either. I think he would have benefited Bernie's chances though. You'd have two centrist candidates and one much further to the left. It's the same sort of vote splitting that hit the Republican primary.
In 2012 she said this about the TPP:
That's a pretty clear statement that she thinks that the TPP is most excellent, or that she has really low standards for international trade agreements. You really have to stretch to say that she is only being hopeful about the potential of the deal. Which is fine, because at that point she'd just spent four years negotiating the thing. I don't really expect someone to come out and say that they'd spent four years on something that might have potential, but it definitely sets her up for the flip-flop attack.
I wouldn't say that's exactly what everyone is doing with the Democrats, what keeps the centrists in power is that they have the GOP as the ultimate boogeyman (who happens the be very real) and they don't have an internal opposition who can quell those concerns. Take that off the table and all bets are off, but as of yet their opponents from the left have been unable to sell themselves to the public as a faction who will do better at beating the GOP at their own game.
I don't think so, with Biden there it becomes a different two person race (where we get a situation like Obama vs Hillary again) and Bernie joins O'Malley, Chafee and Webb in the shadows. Without the full attention in the media Bernie would still stay in the race, despite losing unofficially to these two at some point but the fuel for his revolution is given less fuel in the press who want a horse race - instead they'll focus on the horse race aspect with Biden.
Possibly. And you know the press would go batshit over the death of Biden's son, that's the sort of heartstring tugging shit that everyone eats up. Still, you've got Iowa and New Hampshire as the first two contests, and they're both pretty favorable to Sanders. Maybe the grandpa ranting about class doesn't get near the traction it did, but he still offers up a heck of a contrast in both style and substance. Angry outsider is a pretty easy story hook for the media to go with.
Being an outsider only goes so far, without a clear field he's not going to be their first choice to cover and Biden's the first choice for a strong opponent/horse race narrative. The '16 primary gave Bernie the biggest boost in his career via the media, with competition like Biden they no longer have to focus on him thus he never gains the exposure he did. How would Biden in the mix effect those regions? Would Biden pull voters from him? Don't they have overlap with their base, and he'd pull from Hillary as well.
Contrast and substance don't get very far if the media want to push someone they think is a stronger candidate against Hillary, and I'm positive they wouldn't blink twice before doing that to Biden if he ran. That said, I wouldn't say Hillary or Biden were candidates who couldn't offer their own substance and I'm sure they'd be able to find a hook to spin Biden regardless.
And the media is not the only determining factor here. Iowa and NH are small regions, so getting out and pressing the flesh can get things done, Sanders' policies would be very different than what Clinton or Biden would be pitching, and the caucus system can make things interesting all on its own.
First of all, in 2012, she was Secretary of State and not really at liberty to discuss personal views. This wasn't just a case of her praising something because she had (indirectly) been involved with it and didn't want to feel bad, this was a case of her doing her job. The Secretary of State is supposed to be praising the work of the Department of State, even if they have personal, private reservations. Whereas Hard Choices, written 2013-14, after her time as SecState and long before TPP was unpopular, is much more ambiguous about the support.
Second of all, in 2012 the TPP wasn't written yet. There were drafts, but it was years out from being finalized, and there were still many contentious issues that we know changed substantially over the years. So any discussion of TPP in 2012 was implicitly only about the potential of the deal. It's like how every year I say "this is going to be a good year for the Washington Nationals!" despite not actually knowing how the year will turn out (and despite them often falling short in the end). You know when I say that that I'm not a prophet, I don't actually know if they'll make the playoffs, let alone win the World Series, I can only look at the fact that they have a pretty decent team and the framework and potential is there, and then add in a good helping of pure hope.
1) Opposition to the TPP started in 2012, so she wasn't exactly ahead of the curve. Or at least she wasn't far enough ahead that you can easily point to it as evidence of her true feelings.
2) Your argument is basically that we should ignore the 2012 statement because that was her job, and her true opinion is from 2014, which is no more compelling than the argument that her true opinion was from 2012, and her 2014 statements are just her positioning herself for the presidential run.
This is not to say that had she won, she would have reversed on the TPP. Just that arguments that she changed position out of political expediency are very easy to make stick in this instance.
Yes.
If you want to ignore the part of his argument that the TPP wasn't written yet when she endorsed it. Which was, frankly, infuriating throughout 2016, because people can't fathom that someone would like an idea in its infancy, and yet not approve of the end result.