I was wondering if she'd go there at tonight's debate. I was hoping she would-and she did not disappoint.
After the subject came up about Bernie's ad about 'two kinds of Democrats'-those like Hillary who take money from Wall St. and those like Bernie-and no one else really, who doesn't-she pointed out that Bernie was also criticizing President Obama who also took money from banks during 2008.
That's smart in front of a South Carolina audience as the President is very popular in SC-as he also is in Iowa.
I agree with her framing her. Her administration will pretty much be Obama plus while Bernie is not really in the same mode of reformist, liberal Democrat.
An interesting point was made at FiveThirtyEight tonight as well:
"Sanders just said that political polarization is caused, in part, by our campaign finance system. Sanders is likely wrong. Most of the political science, including a recent book by Ray La Raja and Brian Schaffner, has found that states that try to limit campaign contributions have, in fact, encountered more extreme legislators."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/nbc-democratic-debate-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-18077754
Aha! Very interesting. So this suggests that money may actually act as a kind of balm or calming influence over the process contrary to Bernie's obsession with money in politics!
I do think there are some problems-certainly Citizen's United was a travesty, but in many ways the work of Donald Trump in making the GOP's super PACs completely meaningless may do more to set back super PACs than Bernie's crusading against them.
Ironically, a big conclusion from this race is that they are much less effective than everyone assumed.
I agree on the need for campaign finance but I don't see it as the root of all evil as Bernie does. I think his obsession here is reductionist.
What he seems not to get is that people really do agree. His narrative assumes that we all do agree and somehow big money hides this from us. I find that theory dubious.
After the subject came up about Bernie's ad about 'two kinds of Democrats'-those like Hillary who take money from Wall St. and those like Bernie-and no one else really, who doesn't-she pointed out that Bernie was also criticizing President Obama who also took money from banks during 2008.
That's smart in front of a South Carolina audience as the President is very popular in SC-as he also is in Iowa.
I agree with her framing her. Her administration will pretty much be Obama plus while Bernie is not really in the same mode of reformist, liberal Democrat.
An interesting point was made at FiveThirtyEight tonight as well:
"Sanders just said that political polarization is caused, in part, by our campaign finance system. Sanders is likely wrong. Most of the political science, including a recent book by Ray La Raja and Brian Schaffner, has found that states that try to limit campaign contributions have, in fact, encountered more extreme legislators."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/nbc-democratic-debate-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-18077754
Aha! Very interesting. So this suggests that money may actually act as a kind of balm or calming influence over the process contrary to Bernie's obsession with money in politics!
I do think there are some problems-certainly Citizen's United was a travesty, but in many ways the work of Donald Trump in making the GOP's super PACs completely meaningless may do more to set back super PACs than Bernie's crusading against them.
Ironically, a big conclusion from this race is that they are much less effective than everyone assumed.
I agree on the need for campaign finance but I don't see it as the root of all evil as Bernie does. I think his obsession here is reductionist.
What he seems not to get is that people really do agree. His narrative assumes that we all do agree and somehow big money hides this from us. I find that theory dubious.
O/T: Mike, file this one under "future reference." One of the commenters I see frequently at Jason's blog and at Sumner's is John Handley. Here's a piece he wrote critical of one of Sumner's plots and posts. Funny thing is, that tagline at the top is true: he's 15 years old! That's what he confirmed when I asked. His latest is a post critical of a Simon Wren-Lewis post (something Jason tackled today too).
ReplyDeleteAnd I notice the string of posts starting with "Bernie" has been broken here.
It's embarrassing that I can't follow all the logic of the back and forth between 15 year old John, and Sumner here (the post John was critical of).
DeleteYes. It's funny I saw you comment. Then straight after, I started my new post and thought "Ok, so now the streak will be broken!'
ReplyDeleteCampaign finance is only the most visible means of plutocrat influence, and like many things it is what you cant see that is more significant. PACs and Super PACs are window dressing and I agree that they have been shown to be less of a problem than many want to admit but the influence of the Koch brothers types in universities and think tanks is waaaaay more troubling than Super PACs in my view. The "privatization" movement of the last 30 years is the channel through which the super wealthy have been changing the society...... for the worse. Bernie and others have talked about this but changing that requires much more than a new president.
ReplyDeleteThis is unbelievable......
ReplyDeleteAfter I left my last comment I went to my next site, Alternet, and was greeted with this front page article
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/inside-new-book-thats-giving-koch-brothers-heart-attack
LOL. You know David Brock makes the same point in his book about the plan to destroy Hillary.
ReplyDeleteIt is being run by the Koch Brothers.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00TOT9LBC?keywords=david%20brock&qid=1453163222&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1
For me I agree there are some concerns but I'm not an ideologue about it.
I do think that while in a world of nuclear weapons you can't unilaterally disarm.
But the Koches are a real problem at the state and congressional level.
That looks like a great book.
There is a book that argues that one thing campaign finance can't do is end partisanship. To the contrary:
"One of the more compelling arguments for campaign finance reform has long been that it would undermine partisanship. After all, a great deal of money goes to political parties. Cut off the money to them, and you undermine their influence over candidates and elected officials, right?"
"If these issues concern you, I strongly encourage you to read Ray La Raja and Brian Schaffner's new book Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail. Their approach has been to examine the American states that have been experimenting with campaign finance restrictions on parties over the past few decades. What they have found is not that the reforms have been ineffective—rather, they've achieved the opposite of their goal. Those states with campaign finance restrictions on parties have seen more rapid polarization of their state legislatures than states without such rules."
http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/how-campaign-finance-reform-contributed-to-polarization
I have to read up more on it all to really have a more informed opinion but that is an interesting finding.