Can we give decent burial to the meme that Bernie Sanders didn't appeal to black voters.

[karynnj]

122. I think that many of the people who became Sanders supporters had long argued that most Republicans

and many (third way, DLC, ...) Democrats were indepted to the various big money people who contributed to their campaigns. You can find these claims going back at lest to 2004 (the earliest I ever looked at DU) and likely back to when DU started.

I tried long ago to argue that they may be looking at what is essentially a "chicken or an egg" situation -- where it may be because of the policies that these leaders propose that they get those donations rather than they back those policies because they get or want to get those donations. (A less controversial example would be to note that a person who is an environmentalist will get donations from people concerned about environmental issues.)

Some Wall Street millionaires and hedge fund managers were politically liberal and leaned towards Democratic candidates. They saw their role as providing the capital that is needed to grow new innovative companies that would make the new technology of the future, etc. Our political system requires every Congressman, Senator, Governor, etc to raise a large amount of money every election. This means that these people will be invited to glitzy events to raise money for campaigns with Clinton (Obama, Biden, Kerry , Gore ...) As long as these people are giving money because they trust and like that candidate and agree with the policies she/he has, this is NOT corruption, but the entire campaign financing system is rife with the potential for corruption.

I KNOW the sensitivity here is that Sanders, who really is NOT a favorite with most of those wealthy WS Democrats, did exploit as a point of difference between himself and Clinton that she had connections that he didn't to Wall Street and to Goldman Sachs in particular. She explained this as having been the Senator from NY. That was true, but the connection predated that and was openly there during the Clinton presidency. This was a legitimate difference between them and one that in prior elections would have been countered just by saying that Sanders was the one out of the mainstream - the most liberal Senator in the country.

The dilemma Clinton faced - and would have faced even if Bernie did not run - was that a significant portion of the country was furious that "Wall Street" nearly drove the financial system over the cliff and it was "main street" that suffered for it - as they continued to get big bonuses - after one or two bad years. This part of the country evectively turned against mainstream politics - in bothparty's primaries. Imagine Bernie Sanders had run in 2008. HRC's Goldman Sachs speeches didn't help, but it may have been that she was already too defined with Wall Street. This might be a case where her 20 plus years in public service meant that she was already defined. Consider how little traction shifting on TPP gave her.

TPP is something where I absolutely disagreed with Bernie Sanders. However, I understand that this is that he firmly is against trade deals and blames them for the dislocation of jobs. It bothered me when he said this in Michigan, where the jobs were mostly lost years ago to non union southern states before they left the country entirely. In addition, many economists state that as least as many jobs are lost to automation.

HRC clearly saw that being for the TPP, in the Democratic primary, was not a good position. However, TPP was the crown jewel of her main foreign policy accomplishment - thepoorly explained, but highly praised in some places, pivot to Asia. She was on record saying it could meet the gold standard of trade deals. Given where the country was, I get why a straight forward attempt to defend the treaty - as Obama, Biden, Kerry et al did (albeit without running political campaigns) would be risky. I would bet that Bill Clinton might have bet the campaign on his ability to explain why it was a good idea. The alternative, was to move against it, which many people saw as disingenuous and likely to revert to being for it when elected.

Now, people say hindsight is 20/20, but in fact, no one knows what a major change would have done to the campaign. I think that had Clinton opted to explain the trade deals and stood for something that was seen as not politically advantageous, it might ironically have helped her be seen as more honest and genuine. Not to mention, it would have been a reason for going to the states most impacted by economic shifts in the past and explaining the need for the US to insure that some of the new gains from the trade deal to the winners would be used to restore the areas harmed. She could even make the case that this was progressive - and would lead to economic and environmental gains and that - if implemented by her - would be done by simulaneously providing opportunies for those losing.

Before you say that it could not be progressive, consider that in an NPR interview with Jeffery Sachs, Bernie's economic advisor, agreed that it is true that trade deals do "expand the pie" - making the total world economy bigger and that the US would overall gain. However, there would be winners and losers -- and a deal needed to help make the "losers" whole.

I suspect that taking this on would have shown Clinton, taking what could be seen as a courageous stand defending work that she had been involved in. Not to mention, it is an inherently optimistic message - always good - and while she would need very good speechwriters to make it approachable, it would be showing the competent, wonkish side of Clinton. I suspect that THAT is closer to who she is that the role the campaign gave her - of being a Trump attack dog for the last month. Many others could have taken the attacks on. (Then again, this might be why I would not be a good campaign stratigist. )