Since davidm is jumping in on other shit, I'm just going to wonder if he read this last post.
He did, after all, post that article approving, despite it being comprehensively and predictably wrong. I guess since I didn't mention him explicitly, it made it easier for him to not acknowledge that he was promoting such idiotic drivel. I understand, if I had praised Walker Bragman's stupidity, I'd be embarrassed too.
The Sanders family and Trump family are under FBI investigation. Jill Stein is under Senate investigation. Everybody who ran in 2016 is currently being investigated...except Hillary Clinton.
...well, Gary "Aleppo?" Johnson isn't under investigation either, AFAIK, but still.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
I watched Fox the other day, Tucker show, and they were reporting about how Judicial Watch had gotten a court order to have all of the emails from Weiner's computer released and, you know, lock her up and all that. They made it sound like this is all going to explode any minute now. I guess there is still a push to reopen the investigation in congress or something, I forget already.
I still say her having Ouma on her team was the worst unforced error. I think she could have recovered from Comey's first (one-sided) public outburst over ongoing investigations, but the second one was fatal, and Ouma's computer was the foot in the door for it. Big mistake to take on anyone associated with Anthony "Cock Shots" Weiner.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
But Weiner wasn't known for any of that when Huma started at the State Department. They weren't even married yet.
And it seems a bit icky to suggest she should have been fired because her husband was a perv. And the reason he resigned from Congress was infidelity, not criminal wrongdoing.
It might be that Huma was bad at following IT security guidelines, which might be a better reason not to hire her. But I'm guessing she won't be getting any prominent government position in the future...
But Weiner wasn't known for any of that when Huma started at the State Department. They weren't even married yet.
And it seems a bit icky to suggest she should have been fired because her husband was a perv. And the reason he resigned from Congress was infidelity, not criminal wrongdoing.
It might be that Huma was bad at following IT security guidelines, which might be a better reason not to hire her. But I'm guessing she won't be getting any prominent government position in the future...
Yeah but Weiner had already acheived perv status by the time Clinton was picking her campaign associates. To me, just horse sense would suggest to keep the ex of a famous perv at more than arms length from her campaign staff. I agree it would not have been fair to Huma, but the purpose of a campaign is to get elected, not to be fair to everyone you've ever worked with. It really seems like a self induced vulnerability to me.
I think there is a difference of degree, to have the emails show up on Ant'ny's computer, versus also to have his ex on your campaign staff after all the dirty laundry is already out.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
But Weiner wasn't known for any of that when Huma started at the State Department. They weren't even married yet.
And it seems a bit icky to suggest she should have been fired because her husband was a perv. And the reason he resigned from Congress was infidelity, not criminal wrongdoing.
It might be that Huma was bad at following IT security guidelines, which might be a better reason not to hire her. But I'm guessing she won't be getting any prominent government position in the future...
Yeah but Weiner had already acheived perv status by the time Clinton was picking her campaign associates. To me, just horse sense would suggest to keep the ex of a famous perv at more than arms length from her campaign staff. I agree it would not have been fair to Huma, but the purpose of a campaign is to get elected, not to be fair to everyone you've ever worked with. It really seems like a self induced vulnerability to me.
I think there is a difference of degree, to have the emails show up on Ant'ny's computer, versus also to have his ex on your campaign staff after all the dirty laundty is already out.
Her 2016 campaign didn't have anything to do with Weiner getting involved in the email investigation though. That related to emails from Abedin's time working for Clinton at the State Department, five to eight years ago. Abedin and Weiner separated near the beginning of the 2016 campaign (summer 2015).
Even if she had quit when the sexting allegations came out, or had not been connected to Clinton after 2013, it wouldn't have made any difference. Wiener would've still been connected to Abedin, who was connected to Clinton at State.
So not only was there no reasonable expectation that Weiner would screw Clinton the way he did, but it wouldn't have prevented it anyway. At least, the supposition that it would have is highly speculative. Yet foreseeing that Weiner's sexting would connect to the email server investigation in 2015 would've been even more speculative. Considering it obvious enough such that it's her "biggest unforced error" seems very hard to justify.
I understand those points about the timing, but Clinton should've said, sorry Huma, but Anthony is bad news, so guilt by association, unfair as it may be, I really can't use you on my campaign. See, that just compounds the problem, she was still associating. Compare these two blurbs -
Clinton's emails were found on Weiner's computer via Huma who used to work for her at State.
vs
Clinton's emails were found on Weiner's computer via Huma who used to work for her at State and is now Vice Chairwoman of Clinton's presidential campaign.
Do you see the distinction?
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
I understand those points about the timing, but Clinton should've said, sorry Huma, but Anthony is bad news, so guilt by association, unfair as it may be, I really can't use you on my campaign. See, that just compounds the problem, she was still associating. Compare these two blurbs -
Clinton's emails were found on Weiner's computer via Huma who used to work for her at State.
vs
Clinton's emails were found on Weiner's computer via Huma who used to work for her at State and is now Vice Chairwoman of Clinton's presidential campaign.
Do you see the distinction?
I think it would've made only a minor difference. I think there are much worse unforced errors. For example, picking Tim Kaine for VP was probably worse (although it did probably help put Virginia out of Trump's reach). Not trying to go after telecoms, the least popular corporations in the country, or coming out for marijuana decriminalization or legalization... I can see how associating with Huma was bad in hindsight, but that's different from an unforced error.
At least picking Kaine and policy positions were things that had known implications, while the Huma stuff basically holds her retroactively accountable for the ridiculous coverage of the email issue, compounded by Comey's unprecedented interference and conflation with the Russian email hacking releases.
Given what was known at the time, saying she obviously needed to fire Huma seems odd to me. And I don't recall many people claiming that Huma needed to be fired at the time, based on that rather than crazy stuff like she's a Muslim Brotherhood mole.
I can't see it the same way. Seems like increasing exposure to risk when you pick people with known associations to people of poor character to be on your team. It's kind of like storing a garden rake flat on the floor with the tines facing up. You don't know that you're going to step on it, and then one day the handle is smacking you in the face. It was a completely avoidable risk.
I don't think most people even knew Huma was on Clinton's campaign until the last minute email eruption, or that she was ever married to Anthony Weiner. Take it from me, it didn't sound good when all this was coming to light a few days before the election. It was an avoidable risk. Everybody I talked to at the time had the same impression. Why did she have her on the team, being a tie to anyone as unpopular as Anthony Weiner? It definitely seemed like poor judgement. I still think it may have cost her the election. I clearly recall having a sinking feeling when all that was on the tube.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
I recall a sinking feeling when the Comey letter came out. But you had one when Weiner and Abedin were separating? Thinking this would cost Clinton the election?
Is Clinton really the only person to ever have someone on her campaign personally connected to an adulterous perv? How was it reasonable to expect in 2015 that Abedin (being generally perceived as being wronged by Weiner rather than at fault herself) would bring down Clinton's campaign? And particularly that it's merely the stronger association with Clinton that would've been prevented, since those emails were already on Weiner's laptop? That, as you say, it's that the headlines would say "Clinton's aide, Huma Abedin" rather than "Clinton's former aide at State, Huma Abedin" which would make a big difference. Such a big difference that it would be her biggest mistake.
The idea that Clinton or Democrats generally should jettison anyone that the media, particularly the Republicans and their media arm, Fox News, might make an issue out of is how you get things like Shirley Sherrod and ACORN destroyed by lying racist ratfuckers like Breitbart and James O'Keefe. I'm not sure that capitulating to this kind of bullshit is what they should do. Defensively jettisoning anyone who might have "bad optics" even by association is just a recipe for letting Republicans make your staffing decisions. Which is what you're advocating here, because the idea that they'd be searching Weiner's laptop and find that Abedin had checked her mail on it and then the FBI director would violate protocol and release a letter 10 days before the election which would be used to imply criminality on Clinton's part (while not revealing the existence of a far more serious investigation of Trump's campaign!) AND that the email bullshit would've been inexplicably the biggest, most covered issue of the campaign, such that it would cost her the election... expecting that in 2015 is hardly the most obvious thing. So I can't agree that it was the biggest unforced error.
Meanwhile, the collection of idiots, freaks, grifters and foreign agents in Trump's campaign didn't bring him down.
What Democrats and those on the left should do, which I've been saying while davidm calls me an idiot Hillary worshiper despite the fact that I keep on pointing out the instances where the same patterns play out with other issues (including his own pet issues), other Democrats and others on the left, is strongly and repeatedly criticize the media whenever they go along with this kind of bullshit instead of letting the GOP control the media playing field.
I recall a sinking feeling when the Comey letter came out. But you had one when Weiner and Abedin were separating? Thinking this would cost Clinton the election?
Is Clinton really the only person to ever have someone on her campaign personally connected to an adulterous perv? How was it reasonable to expect in 2015 that Abedin (being generally perceived as being wronged by Weiner rather than at fault herself) would bring down Clinton's campaign? And particularly that it's merely the stronger association with Clinton that would've been prevented, since those emails were already on Weiner's laptop? That, as you say, it's that the headlines would say "Clinton's aide, Huma Abedin" rather than "Clinton's former aide at State, Huma Abedin" which would make a big difference. Such a big difference that it would be her biggest mistake.
The idea that Clinton or Democrats generally should jettison anyone that the media, particularly the Republicans and their media arm, Fox News, might make an issue out of is how you get things like Shirley Sherrod and ACORN destroyed by lying racist ratfuckers like Breitbart and James O'Keefe. I'm not sure that capitulating to this kind of bullshit is what they should do. Defensively jettisoning anyone who might have "bad optics" even by association is just a recipe for letting Republicans make your staffing decisions. Which is what you're advocating here, because the idea that they'd be searching Weiner's laptop and find that Abedin had checked her mail on it and then the FBI director would violate protocol and release a letter 10 days before the election which would be used to imply criminality on Clinton's part (while not revealing the existence of a far more serious investigation of Trump's campaign!) AND that the email bullshit would've been inexplicably the biggest, most covered issue of the campaign, such that it would cost her the election... expecting that in 2015 is hardly the most obvious thing. So I can't agree that it was the biggest unforced error.
Meanwhile, the collection of idiots, freaks, grifters and foreign agents in Trump's campaign didn't bring him down.
What Democrats and those on the left should do, which I've been saying while davidm calls me an idiot Hillary worshiper despite the fact that I keep on pointing out the instances where the same patterns play out with other issues (including his own pet issues), other Democrats and others on the left, is strongly and repeatedly criticize the media whenever they go along with this kind of bullshit instead of letting the GOP control the media playing field.
No! When Comey announced the thing about Clinton's emails on Weiner's computer a very short while before election day. Two old truism's that sound ridiculous but are really quite sound... timing is everything, and perception is everything, especially when they both go terribly wrong in tandem.
I think swing voters really were put off by the last minute outburst over email weiner huma gate.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
But again: What could have been done by that point? The emails at issue were from 2011 or something. Weiner wasn't even outed as a perv until after that. If Hillary had released Huma because of her husband's conduct, not only would it have not actually solved the problem, but she would've received criticism for firing someone for their spouse's conduct - and would probably have been called hypocritical after she'd forgiven Bill for his infidelity (not that that's really anyone's fucking business but her own). And, again, those emails would still have been there. It wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference to the outcome, and it might've hurt her because of the public criticism she'd have gotten for firing a longtime aide over something the aide had no control over.
You're falling into a trap here that I see the media fall into all the time. At LGM it's named Murc's Law for (AFAIK) the person who put it into this succinct formulation: "Only Democrats have agency". The media covers stories this way incessantly, and you are uncritically accepting their framing. The media had agency in choosing how to cover stories; Republicans had agency in choosing what avenues of attack to use (and in choosing to collude with hostile foreign governments to win elections, to disenfranchise minority voters, to run a fascist with no experience in government, and so on); the FBI had agency in deciding to write a prejudicial letter eleven days before an election; and so on. The outcome of 2016 was the result of a lot of bad choices a lot of people made, and the vast majority of bad choices weren't Hillary's. There are a lot more people who deserve a lot more blame for how 2016 turned out, and firing Huma wouldn't have made one fucking bit of difference.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
I think what we have is that you are looking at this as if everyone else is all sane and logical. They're not. US elections are essentially a propaganda war, and the Republicans are good at kicking our ass at it. Swing voters are going to vote for whoever got in the last, best punch, and some blurby catch memes, not vote based on any reasoned consideration of esoteric policy stances.
The media is going to do what they do, not what we want them to do. Optics are important! Carrying around people on your campaign who could blow up in your face at just the wrong moment is an avoidable risk that should be avoided. Whatever embarrasing things that happened years ago, agree, can't be undone. Keeping people on your campaign right up to the election who are tied to those events, completely avoidable.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
I think what we have is that you are looking at this as if everyone else is all sane and logical. They're not. US elections are essentially a propaganda war, and the Republicans are good at kicking our ass at it.
But what you're advocating bears little resemblance to how Republicans win the propaganda wars! They don't jettison a lot of people who deserve to be jettisoned, and especially not for the kind of stuff you're saying to fire Abedin for. They usually don't quit when they're the pervs, much less because their spouse is.
Scott DesJarlais? Pro-life Republican, but it was revealed he had been cheating on his wife with a patient (he's also a doctor) and asked her to get an abortion. He's still in Congress.
David Vitter? Frequented prostitutes, cheating on his wife, and reportedly enjoyed diaper play. He got re-elected.
And of course, Donald Trump.
#metoo might change some of that, we've seen some Republicans brought down by similar stuff this year.
And I will grant you that gay Republicans frequently resign when they're outed, regardless of how bad their behavior actually is. Larry Craig was being kinda pervy, but not really that bad.
But anyway, you don't win the propaganda wars by surrendering. They win because they have propaganda networks and because they and those networks work the refs by criticizing the "lamestream media" constantly. The counter is to push back vigorously against conservative media bias, not to fire anyone the conservative media machine targets. Yeah you might need to cut your losses in some instances, but in 2015, it was not reasonable to do so. I mean, I can see not rehiring her for the Hillary 2020 campaign (not to say there's more than a trivial chance of her running again) but the argument in 2015 was very weak.
Thanks, from:
Ari (01-04-2018), Crumb (01-03-2018), JoeP (01-03-2018), The Man (01-03-2018)
That's a good article and I agree that a sudden (in a generation) threat of poverty is an important factor in America. I also go along with his dismissal of "identity politics" and "backlash against too much liberalism" as causes.
But I'm not ready to dismiss white fear. He only talks about the fear of becoming a minority, which isn't going to happen in Sweden but they still have extremism (which they certainly do), so it can't be a factor at all.
All white fear needs to be is the loss of (some of the) perceived unearned privilege. It doesn't need to be recognised as privilege or as unearned, just the threat of losing it (some of it).
Let's apply his Sweden, Italy, Poland, Hungary, and Russia test to the "shattering reality of poverty" cause. Sure, all developed countries have suffered to some extent since 2008, but how many of those countries are experiencing the threat of poverty? I need to know (nurse! get me stats, stat!) but I doubt it's strong enough to explain the Sweden Democrats, and I think actual conditions in Poland and Hungary have got a bit better if anything. From a low base; same in Russia.
I think actual conditions in Poland and Hungary have got a bit better if anything. From a low base; same in Russia.
Side related note: Venezuela.
Venezuela has a massive pool of poor people and Chavismo tapped into that (And the nation's oil wells at the time of a huge price in oil spike). The floor was so low with the level of poverty we're talking about that any small improvement on the standard of living in the barrios.
Barrio
Health care, dental care, a little more food. Electricity. With high oil prices Chavez borrowed like a Saudi prince and skimmed just as much. A smaller group, the middle class, literate and skilled in their jobs could A: see the corruption going on at the higher levels and B: some panic about Them Poors Taking Our Shit.
The developments for the destitute made for a net gain overall welbeing for the 'average' Venezuelan, but after purging the middle class from their positions in skilled functions and replacing them with political lackies instead, and the subsequent fall of the price of oil, there they are. Once the destitute from neighbouring countries flocked to Venezuela, now Venezuelans are flowing out to Columbia or the Dutch islands in the Caribbean. And the already rich in Venezuela angle to loot more from the country... if they have the correct political connections, or have already fled to Miami/Spain.
My points here are:
-Populism takes a variety of different forms.
-Have a large enough pool of people who are poor, or think they are poor, and promise them the moon, any corruption will be forgiven for awhile at least.
This post brought to you by:
Captain Obvious
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid
I've read, but I forget where, that recessions caused by financial crises are more likely to help right-wing parties than other types of recessions. For some reason. Which is kinda depressing because right-wing policies are also more likely to cause them...
In the 2016 election, there was a much stronger correlation of demographic change to Trump votes than of demographic diversity. Areas in places like Iowa or Pennsylvania (aside from Philly and Pittsburgh) that have been getting significant Hispanic immigration for the first time swung towards Trump. By contrast, California, Arizona and Texas, states with large (and still growing) Hispanic populations swung towards the Democrats. But going from a lot of Hispanics to slightly more Hispanics is not as jarring a change to people in Arizona as going from basically no Hispanics to enough Hispanics that they have their own neighborhoods or are the majority in the small town around a factory/meat processing plant/whatever as happened in places in Iowa. Arizona is likely to be majority-minority in the next decade, and Texas already is. Meanwhile, even though there have been changes in Iowa, non-Hispanic whites are still around 90% of the population. Changes from under 3% Hispanic in 2000 to 5.5% in 2016 seem to have made more of an impression than larger "absolute" demographic changes in other states.
That correlation seems like it would do a better job of explaining what's happening in places like Sweden. Sweden is in no danger of becoming majority non-white or even majority non-Swedish. But the number of immigrants has increased significantly. And they took ~100k Syrian refugees in just one year, which is not a tiny amount given the population of Sweden.
It's also the case that people systematically overestimate the size of minority populations. Surveys of European countries found that people thought the minority populations like Muslims were larger than they are, by double or more.
That said, these things probably have multiple explanations. Russia and especially Poland have a lot less immigration than Sweden.
Was looking at what I said about Corbyn back in the aftermath of 2016, and not to toot my own horn (ok, that's exactly what I'm doing) but it holds up pretty well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
At this point I'm even skeptical of Elizabeth Warren, who hasn't shown herself to be an amazing campaigner (she is an effective interrogator on the attack in congressional hearings - but rallies with soaring rhetoric? Maybe not so much).
Ok, I've been more convinced what I've seen of her so far. She's not Obama or (Bill) Clinton quality, but she's not bad.
Quote:
We also need someone who knows how to work the press.
Warren also seems better at this than Clinton, but unclear whether it's good enough. None of the Democratic frontrunners get as good coverage as Obama. That might not be their faults but also due to continued media consolidation making the media environment worse.
Anyhow, over to Corbyn...
Quote:
Which leads me to this annoying video I've been seeing on Facebook and I want to rant about:
So many former Sanders supporters are posting this like he has hit the nail right on the head. But I don't really agree.
[...]
But anyway, this guy purports to tell us how to win, while embracing someone with his own charisma deficit and a horrible inability to work the media. Yes, he is an ardent Corbynista.
Yeah, those factors seem to have been relevant!
Quote:
Well, how's that working out for him? Corbyn didn't do very well at stopping Brexit, did he? I understand that, like the left and Hillary Clinton, Corbyn and the hard left aren't 100% enthusiastic about the EU. They didn't want to ally with the globalists. And yet, the consequence has been to empower the right in the UK, which maybe they should've been a little more passionate about preventing.
Yeah, the notion that Brexit was very bad for the left and made it easier for the right to win has held up.
If you're a Labour leader and you don't like the EU that much, you should nonetheless prefer not to create a situation that empowers the right-wing. You should look at UKIP dividing the right-wing and taking vote share from the Tories and say, it would be good for that to continue! A Brexit referendum failure would've made the Brexiteers very mad at David Cameron, who campaigned against it! Tories divided are good for Labour! But Corbyn couldn't even fake any enthusiasm for Remain.
I'd also note that the issues that Brexit would cause with the border in Northern Ireland... entirely predictable! The issues that Brexit would cause with Scotland wanting to secede, given that they had just been campaigned to by England on the premise that "Just because the UK is in the EU now doesn't mean it will be simple and easy for Scotland to join the EU after seceding! You should stay in the UK to stay in the EU!" Also entirely predictable! And Scotland now is looking at it and thinking "the EU might get over its opposition to separatism in our case, and enjoy sticking a finger in England's eye, and thus joining the EU will be easier for us in this scenario."
And honestly, Labour should want Scotland to stay part of the UK far more than the Tories do. It will be extremely difficult for Labour to put together a majority coalition if they can't rely on any assistance from Scottish MPs (as full partners or at least confidence and supply). Yet another reason Corbyn was a horrible person to have leading Labour during Brexit. Labour can't afford to lose the Scots, and at this point, the SNP has a good argument to make that maybe Labour (and certainly Corbyn) aren't all that concerned about keeping them on.
Quote:
The result is that the Tories have surged in the polls, and now have a 15 pt lead over Labour.
And before you say the polls were all wrong... no, they weren't, really. The Brexit polling aggregates were off by 2-4%, and in this election, the national polls were off by about 2-3%, and state polls by around 4% on average. That's significant, but not big enough to think that Labour would stand a chance if a general election were called right now.
I guess in 2017 with Theresa May being relatively unpopular and uncharismatic (and perhaps the victim of a bit of sexism herself) this seemed like it was wrong. But the issues with Corbyn didn't just go away, and Johnson seems to be more popular than May. Corbyn may also have benefited from a perception he couldn't win, much in the way Trump did, with some people voting for Labour who didn't really want him to be PM.
It may also have been because Brexit-based polarization hadn't fully developed at that point. The fact that Labour voters were mostly Remain caused a lot of drama in their party and as the Brexit deadline approached and there were those repeated failed votes to approve a deal, with Labour mostly opposing it, it just couldn't be ignored the way it was in 2017.
And expecting Remain voters to all just suck it up and support Brexit and ignore the giant issues that will happen in its wake was not a realistic strategy. You can't lead the party that's mostly Remain voters and expect them to ignore the issue.
And that's still playing out with many of the Corbynites. Anyone who thinks he shouldn't resign is disconnected from reality. And it's not a binary between Tony Blair 2.0 and Jeremy Corbyn...
Back to the US...
Quote:
do they think that pointing to Hillary Clinton's narrow-as-fuck, Electoral College fluke loss, it will be enough to say "Vote for me, I'm the electable one!" and they'll win the primary easily? If Trump's approval rating is in the shitter, and the GOP gets spanked in the 2018 midterms, they had better have a better argument than that because a charismatic but mainstream Democrat will look awfully electable.
*looks at Biden's polling average and then at Bernie's*
Yup. 2018 seriously undermined the notion that you had to move hard left to be electable, seeing as Democrats won back the House while Our Revolution's endorsed candidates didn't flip a single seat. I support Warren, but I understand why people are looking at Biden and thinking he's a good bet. It's tempting for me too, to think maybe he could win easily and bring a bunch of Democrats with him. It could be true! And winning seats in the Senate will probably be more relevant than which of the top four ends up in the White House (which isn't to say that the latter has no relevance, mind you). There's still plenty of time, but those Biden vs. Trump numbers do look very tempting (even if I simultaneously realize they're not particularly predictive this far out).
And it was delusional for people to think that 4 years of Trump chaos would make everyone else just as eager for the upheaval of a "political revolution" as they are, rather than looking for normalcy.
I mean, nobody had ever been elected US president without holding public office (elected or military) previously either.
And I'm not a fan of Jeremy Corbyn and was skeptical of him from the beginning but I don't think the evidence is that he lost primarily because of his economic policies. They may have furthered the narrative of him as an extremist, going along with his activities relating to terrorism, reflexively denying Russia's involvement in Skripal, attempting to purge people from the party, the anti-Zionism shading into Semitism etc. It all fits as a larger picture, but if he only had the economic policies and not that other stuff people would probably had more confidence in him as a potential PM.
So I think it's possible that someone who's more of a Elizabeth Warren type would've done a lot better - someone who's pushing to the left but not attacking everyone who even slightly disagrees and who doesn't have a lot of baggage seen as extreme. I don't think it's clear Labour needs to go hard to the center before trying anything else.
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
already got that, but like the way he puts it and I like the things he says along the way.
Linear Mode
