There is a piece in the NY Times this morning that looks at what he could have done differently. The piece seems to think he would have been better hitting her on the speeches earlier not later.
"In October, as they gathered at a hotel outside Las Vegas to prepare for the first Democratic debate, Mr. Sanders’s advisers urged him to challenge Mrs. Clinton over accepting $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for delivering three speeches, according to two Sanders advisers. They thought the speaking fees meshed with the senator’s message about Wall Street excess and a rigged America. But Mr. Sanders, hunched over a U-shaped conference table, rejected it as a personal attack on Mrs. Clinton’s income — the sort of character assault he has long opposed. She has the right to make money, he offered."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
Interesting. So he once admitted she has the right to make money. The idea that he would have been better hitting her earlier is just a theory. Maybe it is a wrong theory.
I think a lot of Democrats wonder why she's not allowed to make money. The way he keeps asking to see her speeches makes you wonder what smoking gun he expects to see in them? Surely, he doesn't think she promised to deregulate Wall St. in it or something.
The piece also suggests he should have gone after her on the emails.
"Mr. Sanders also refused to attack Mrs. Clinton over her use of private email as secretary of state, which is now the focus of an F.B.I. investigation. Criticizing her email practices could have played into Democrats’ concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s honesty and trustworthiness, and some Sanders allies thought it could be a potent issue. But Mr. Sanders basically took it off the table at their October debate when he said, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.” Sanders advisers cheered that line, seeing it as a sign of their candidate’s integrity, but other Democrats said he had misjudged the issue."
“The email story is not about emails,” Mr. Kerrey said. “It is about wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using FOIA” — the Freedom of Information Act — “to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.”
"Biden is more moderate than Clinton. The idea that he would succeeded where Sanders didn't is laughable and insulting to Sanders' campaign."
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/716833155840352256
Biden actually is in many ways more vulnerable on the Left than Hillary was.
You could argue that the fact that she was able to weather the Bernie challenge is testimony that she is a strong candidate.
Biden would have had his own vulnerabilities. I think it's arguable that:
1. He would not have done better against Hillary.
2. He would have not done better against Bernie.
Josh Voorhes has more analysis on Bernie's what if game.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/04/bernie_sanders_campaign_second_guesses_self_to_new_york_times.html
"In October, as they gathered at a hotel outside Las Vegas to prepare for the first Democratic debate, Mr. Sanders’s advisers urged him to challenge Mrs. Clinton over accepting $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for delivering three speeches, according to two Sanders advisers. They thought the speaking fees meshed with the senator’s message about Wall Street excess and a rigged America. But Mr. Sanders, hunched over a U-shaped conference table, rejected it as a personal attack on Mrs. Clinton’s income — the sort of character assault he has long opposed. She has the right to make money, he offered."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
Interesting. So he once admitted she has the right to make money. The idea that he would have been better hitting her earlier is just a theory. Maybe it is a wrong theory.
I think a lot of Democrats wonder why she's not allowed to make money. The way he keeps asking to see her speeches makes you wonder what smoking gun he expects to see in them? Surely, he doesn't think she promised to deregulate Wall St. in it or something.
The piece also suggests he should have gone after her on the emails.
"Mr. Sanders also refused to attack Mrs. Clinton over her use of private email as secretary of state, which is now the focus of an F.B.I. investigation. Criticizing her email practices could have played into Democrats’ concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s honesty and trustworthiness, and some Sanders allies thought it could be a potent issue. But Mr. Sanders basically took it off the table at their October debate when he said, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.” Sanders advisers cheered that line, seeing it as a sign of their candidate’s integrity, but other Democrats said he had misjudged the issue."
“The email story is not about emails,” Mr. Kerrey said. “It is about wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using FOIA” — the Freedom of Information Act — “to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.”
Again, though this is theory. I think he might have hurt himself had he gone after her on the phony GOP email scandal.
It should also be remembered that a big part of Bernie's brand was supposed to be he's a different type of politician who doesn't do personal attacks. The more mud he throws the more that rings hollow.
It is interesting to note that recent numbers for personal approval for the various candidates show that Bernie is now himself upside down. Only 41 percent have a favorable view, 48 percent are negative.
This might be in part a result of him going negative and no longer being above the partisan fray. Indeed, I'd be interested to see the breakdown there: who has he lost with? Is it among independents or Democrats?
Many Democrats are resentful of the way he continues to hit her so personally after he clearly has no path to victory.
"At the start of the campaign, Bernie warned not to underestimate him. Maybe he underestimated her a little. The depth of her support. The piece also shows that he had come in with a theory of the race where he would win Iowa, NH, and Nevada right out of the box and hope that scrambled the race even among black voters in the South.
I kind of agree with Harry Enten here:
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/716833155840352256
Biden actually is in many ways more vulnerable on the Left than Hillary was.
You could argue that the fact that she was able to weather the Bernie challenge is testimony that she is a strong candidate.
Biden would have had his own vulnerabilities. I think it's arguable that:
1. He would not have done better against Hillary.
2. He would have not done better against Bernie.
Josh Voorhes has more analysis on Bernie's what if game.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/04/bernie_sanders_campaign_second_guesses_self_to_new_york_times.html
No comments:
Post a Comment