Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

at what date was Hillary Clinton neither in office nor effectively running for something?

looks like the answer is October 2013, for starters

I didn't say anything about ineligibility for office fwiw? My point is only that the "lecture circuit" is manifestly a different thing when we're talking about enormous, set-you-up-for-life sums dispensed to politicians by interest groups, as opposed to elder rock stars giving inspirational commencement speeches or whatever. I think this difference is worth recognizing, and that these things should be regulated and made transparent, so that their bribe-like qualities might be more visible. And Sanders shining light on the speeches hints at some of the troubling aspects of this entire business. I wish he'd make these points more explicitly but so it goes. I'm glad it's a thing people are talking about.

I dunno maybe I'm in some crazy minority but imho it should be troubling when people running for office can thank interest groups for their massive fortunes. Would we not notice if a Republican candidate, during a two-year interregnum between leaving a Cabinet position and running for President, racked up half a million for two speeches to the NRA and the tobacco lobby? The only defenses I can imagine start to sound like Trumpisms. "Sure, I take lots of fees, I speak to people, terrific people. That doesn't mean I owe them anything." I mean, come on. I know I would remember getting a couple hundred grand for a couple hours' work.

BTW, this is something I hadn't really thought about before because it was very in keeping with his core platform but Sanders' crowing about how little he's made off of speaking fees is an incredibly empty boast seeing as he's been an elected official since 1981 and constrained by bribery rules as to what he could reasonably accept as a result; he couldn't get paid massive amounts to give a speech even if he wanted to.

I don't think this is a big GOTCHA against him or anything as nothing in his platform makes me think he has any interest in making $$$$$ off of the lecture route but it seems like something worth footnoting.

and lol at the idea that hillary clinton was not effectively running for president in october 2013. are we talking about the same person?

but basically i think who needs to be scrutinized and regulated are the people handing out the bribes. again, this is not controversial when we're talking about mysterious fur coats and lincoln continentals showing up at the house wrapped in a giant bow. we have laws on the maximum gifts you can give politicians. why is it so weird to bring up the same concepts when the gift is changed to a 'speaking fee'?

making speeches for $200K a pop to wall street people doesn't make someone ineligible to run for president, but it's definitely a salient point to consider, especially when "the high-profile speaker commanding that fee could also be responsible for legislation that governs the person paying the fee", as sund4r succinctly put it upthread.

it's impossible to prove, and i'm not saying it deserves an fbi investigation or anything, but is there any reason that an investment bank should pay someone like hillary clinton a few hundred thousand dollars for an hourlong speech OTHER than doing it to gain influence? is she so phenomenal of a public speaker and financial guru that her thoughts are worth $55.55 per second?

why can't hillary just take their money & then stab them in the back

they paid her to speak & she's not legally obligated to do anything beyond that for them

(nearly) everyone in the position to make bank off of those kinds of speeches does it, but it's still not a good look. and it still doesn't make any sense to not release the transcripts when requested to do so by numerous outlets, whether it's from a PR or transparency perspective. as others have said, it's not like anyone expects that she said "trust me ya big money wall street boyz, i will pay you BACK when i am president, and by that i mean i will deregulate your sector to the greatest extent possible in a relatively low-key way that preserves my chances of re-election!" so just release the damn transcripts already

i was looking around and it seems like her fees were comparable to other blockbuster speakers. whether her observations + thoughts are worth that much is a different question but i do assume that a former first lady, senator + secretary of state would have insight + experiences that normal ppl would not. it's not necessarily specific financial recommendations that they would be seeking but maybe information about stability in various international markets, information about who key decision makers are, etc. plus obv the prestige of having this kind of speaker. i'm not sure it makes sense that in 2013 they were giving her this money to speak bc they assumed she'd be the next POTUS instead of bc of her previous job experience. in hindsight it seems obv that she'd run again but i remember in 2013 seeing lots of stories about how she hadn't decided.

it's not just hillary clinton. i think anyone running for president should feel obligated to disclose transcripts of paid speeches they've given in the recent past. if bernie sanders refused to release a transcript of a speech a lof people would be like O_o

in hindsight it seems obv that she'd run again but i remember in 2013 seeing lots of stories about how she hadn't decided.

iirc the instant she stepped down as secretary of state it was clear that she was running for president. i think it was common wisdom that she was preparing to run for president and it would have been shocking if she did not.

TBF, we don't know that these speeches weren't just hour-long, expletive-filled excoriations of the banking industry, now do we.

Hillary Clinton has been running for president since at least '91, iirc.

that's true, she could be holding them back because she dropped the f-bomb too much while suplexing a commodity derivative market specialists

again, see my beatles comment. i don't disagree that non-politcians can also get big big fees for telling wealthy people/groups/companies that everybody's free to wear sunscreen, or paraphrasing 'oh the places youll go' or whatever. but when it is a politcian, there are obvious conflicts of interests which is why they're not supposed to be able to take huge gifts and bribes. there are loopholes: you can do it while you're not currently in office or officially running, and if you accept the money under this comforting label of 'speaking fee' it's less likely that people will complain about it two years later than if you just take the mansion and the yacht directly.

sanders is basically calling that bluff and seeing if people DO find it suspicious once attention's brought to it. i dunno whether or how it could be regulated exactly, but at the very least, the court of public opinion might shift us to a point where people who take these sackfuls of cash are seen as 'bought' and consequently can't get votes.

as to why not release them: i suspect that at first she probably just figured it was a non-scandal that would blow over and sanders would either look bad for sticking to it, or just give it up after gaining no traction with it. it doesn't seem to have hurt him, and maybe now backing off would look bad in itself. could also be that the speeched are so empty and vaporous that, now that there is attention on them, they become campaign ad fodder. ''Hillary Clinton's Wall Street friends paid her x dollars a word for her insight. What did she have to tell them? (Quote most empty section.) Very insightful. Is that really all Goldman Sachs expected for their money? When the chips are down, whose side do you think Hillary Clinton will be on?'' That needs a lot of polish obv but I think the contents of the texts might be mobilizable in a way that the idea of 'the speeches' isn't, by itself. idk.

welp

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/717003103871115267

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/files/2016/04/BENNETT.jpg&w=1484

we'll have the last laugh, just wait! stupid lamestream media.

Did that say..."no more oreos - Donald trump" or have I finally just lost my mind completely.

I too am wondering if I have actually gone insane.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/18/trump-s-oreo-boycott.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5zjVUZA7rY

^from back in september

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfHwqbCUIAEbhB6.jpg

oh thank god this all is referring to the actual cookies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZK9vrBNRys

The NYT with one of its where-did-it-go-wrong stories about Sanders.

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, April 4, 2016 6:39 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

What I take away is that Sanders himself is awesome and that the people running his campaign are kinda assholes.

― Frederik B, Monday, April 4, 2016 7:16 AM (5 hours ago)

once this is all over, i really hope this is going to be the takeaway certain people have -- people who for whatever reason have devoted a lot of their time to attacking sanders and his message and tactics. he genuinely seems to be a fundamentally decent human being, something that can't be said of a lot of politicians, let alone national ones

(tbh i don't think anything in that article painted sanders' team in a particularly unfavorable light either. tbh i find the recoil at what are perceived to be the "attacks" coming out of the sanders camp pretty funny -- it's like people have completely forgotten about 2008, or maybe arent paying attention to the current GOP race. (sanders' supporters, esp those on social media, are another story otoh))

from that story btw:

Several prominent Democrats say that a different candidate — one with more history in the South and more experience with black voters — might have been able to beat Mrs. Clinton. Some singled out Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who considered seeking the nomination.

“Biden could have competed among African-Americans far better than Sanders and possibly stopped Clinton from getting the delegate lead she has,” said Joseph P. Riley Jr., a former mayor of Charleston, S.C., who is a Biden ally and supports Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy.

it's amazing to me how clueless some apparent dem insiders can be. someone, i think jamelle bouie, pointed this out on twitter last night, but basically anything bad you can say about hillary from the 90s -- and there is plenty bad to say -- biden was just as bad or worse. HRC supported (and made some pretty awful comments about) the crime bill -- biden wrote it. biden was as cozy with the financial and credit card industries as anyone in congress in the 80s and 90s. biden voted for the iraq war too. (though, to his credit, he's certainly more dovish than clinton these days.) the list goes on

why can't hillary just take their money & then stab them in the back

― ejemplo (crüt), Monday, April 4, 2016 11:53 AM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they paid her to speak & she's not legally obligated to do anything beyond that for them

― ejemplo (crüt), Monday, April 4, 2016 11:54 AM (33 minutes ago)

can't tell if you're being facetious but if not you may not understand the idea of conflict of interest

btw to sort of synthesize a few points about this upthread: as a private citizen HRC is perfectly entitled to give speeches to whomever she wants. doesn't mean it's not fair game on the campaign trail, tho

Kind of curious what the effect would be on the market for the supposed insights if it was clear that they'd be in the papers a month later.

Now that "No more oreos!" makes more sense, the shot with that quote still offers us

"Donald Trump is simply awe-inspiring" - all who gaze upon him

"I wrote the Art of the Deal" - Donald Trump

lol djp: hey, it's still only april give him a minute

I think policing black identity is one of the places that Trump has left to go once he needs to really unfurl his sails in the general.

the entire reason Trump had momentum to begin with is that he policed the identity of America's most powerful black person

^^^

We really need more intrepid reporters setting rhetorical traps for Trump. He's proven so suggestible and adept at taking the bait thus far, exposing the void where a system of values would lie in a functioning human being. Ask him questions in such a way that it steers him towards voicing a hugely-unpopular and perhaps even broadly offensive position that is in no way reflective of his having given any real thought to the issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" as political tool. I like it! Can we get this on the air by Tuesday?

Old Lunch otm. In the abortion conversation, Matthews deserves some credit for continuing to press Trump, but he (Matthews) also comes off as somewhat rambly and disorganized. He gives some cover to Trumpoids who say it was a baiting question and that it needs to be heard in context. Even so T. needed to release several flailing and contradictory clarifications, and he is still on the defensive. Which is great.

Slightly better planning and a more laserlike focus might get some truly un-walk-backable stuff out of Trump. Ask him about affirmative action. Ask him about voter ID. Ask him about pay equity. Let the fun commence.

All this said, it's not primarily the media's job to torpedo Trump's candidacy. I continue to believe that Trump is his own worst enemy, and that if permitted enough rope he will destroy his own chances just by being himself.

x-post re Clinton and Sanders on Wall Street and possible influence or not of her speeches

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/01/05/3736113/bernie-sanders-wall-street-plan/

How Sanders and Clinton differ with their Wall Street related plans (as of January)

Some agreement, but differences on Glass-Steagall, what a financial transaction tax should cover, and other things

video game fascism, who could have predicted...

Just to sidestep for a moment the vitally important conversation about Hillary Clinton's speeches - do you Sanders supporters really not see that your belief that he'd do better nationally than Clinton is the exact mirror image of right-wing nutjobs' belief that "if we just nominate a True Conservative, the country will be ours!" Sanders is fucking doomed, and it's not the word "socialist" that kills him, it's the word "revolution." People don't want a revolution. They want to be left the fuck alone. That's why voter turnout is what it is. Clinton's presidency promises to be low-impact for the average person, and she's the only candidate of whom that's true. Trump, Cruz, and Sanders all promise to make people's lives more complex, and bring trouble, if they win. Only maniacs vote for politicians who are going to require them, the voters, to actually do something or change their own lives in a significant way. And the vast majority of Americans are not maniacs - they're people with other shit on their minds, who want to think seriously about politics for about a month, once every four years.

tbf current polling does suggest that he'd be competitive nationally tho who knows how that looks when we get to october

on, eh, clinton's speeches (sorry), just ftr, for me they represent a massive problem in where she's coming from - even if there's no formal quid pro quo it tells you tons about where she feels comfortable and who she thinks is important. but there was nothing actually illegal about them as far as anybody can tell.

it's similar to how carrying a heavy jug of your own excrement and putting it up the lectern next to the microphone as you give a speech is not illegal. "No, Victoria, I will not move this jug of excrement down from the lectern, and I do not care if it is blocking your vision. That is YOUR problem, Victoria, that is YOUR problem, not mine!"

- John Oliver

top man - which of ''you sanders supporters'' are you politely addressing? we try to all keep on the same page, you know, but differences of opinion slip through which is why our hive mind has resolved that we should continue to post under separate screen names, at least through the current phase of the campaign. but it does make it tricky to answer blanket responses to what may in fact be phantom strawmen. i for one am comfortable with the idea that sanders's current hypothetical general numbers would crash hard once he's subjected to a full-bore GOP smear campaign. the only caveats are that some of that loss might be canceled out by clinton's preexisting high negatives, and the enormous disadvantages that any of the toxic GOP candidates has going in re: electoral map, etc. etc.

"Clinton's presidency promises to be low-impact for the average person, and she's the only candidate of whom that's true."

I think there may be are more "average" people who are looking for more significant changes than you think, Phil (congratulations on speaking for all the normals though).

yeah, i mean the whole basis of sanders's campaign, and in a different way trump's, is that lots of 'regular people' feel like the status quo is actively screwing them over and they are seeking restitution. not saying that that by itself is an election-winning coalition but it's an odd year to lean hard on people's fundamental complacency and preference for business-as-usual.

do you Sanders supporters really not see that your belief that he'd do better nationally than Clinton is the exact mirror image of right-wing nutjobs' belief that "if we just nominate a True Conservative, the country will be ours!"

― the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Monday, April 4, 2016 1:46 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if you say so

xp also an odd century.

Sanders v. Trump
RCP Average 3/16-4/2 53.4 37.4 Sanders +16.0

Clinton v. Trump
RCP Average 3/16-4/2 49.4 38.6 Clinton + 10.8

(it's been holding steady like this for a long time now)

vs. Kasich, currently

Sanders: +1.3
Clinton: -6.3

And vs. Cruz

Sanders +9.8
Clinton +3.1