2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumOn Bill de Blasio’s Premature Endorsement of Hillary Clinton
On Bill de Blasio’s Premature Endorsement of Hillary ClintonThe mayor’s endorsement is understandable, but it could take pressure off Clinton to embrace progressive positions on economic issues.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
The Nation
But there’s a downside. Clinton has already shown a willingness to move on big economic issues (trade, banks, etc.), and it is because of pressure not just from Senator Bernie Sanders but also from Senator Elizabeth Warren and people like de Blasio. Keeping that pressure on at this point is critical. If Clinton decides she has done enough, she may well not move on any more issues. She may begin to backtrack. That’s not just bad for the issues, it’s bad for Clinton. By waiting, de Blasio would have given space to Sanders who, the mayor said, “has moved the discussion of this country in a very productive way,” and to progressive mayors and others to keep the pressure on. Why not endorse Clinton when it is clear that she has moved even more vigorously toward progressive economic positions that can excite and mobilize voters?
This is the clearest rationale why Warren hasn't endorsed anyone and why BLM should keep protesting.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Yet she holds town halls, listens to the people, and has soaring poll numbers instead.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)Once primarys are over if she is nominee she will resort to where she was before the primarys.
de Blasio was always going to endorse Clinton.he just wanted attention.
If they wanted a nominee who would support progressive issues they would support Bernie.
If Bernie isn't the nominee all this will be for nothing.
Yeah de Blasio gets on good side of CLintons if she wins.The people hurting from the corporist,centrist,and pro-war policys of
Dems like Obama and Clintons lose.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It just proves how radically extreme his supporters are.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She'll be a major player at the convention, probably give a barn burner speech, and the longer she waits to endorse, the more she gets the E. F. Hutton treatment--when she talks, people listen.
She doesn't want to peak too soon. I think she'll endorse Clinton, though. I think that's a foregone conclusion.
Mrs. Clinton is certainly the safe choice and she has more connections.
While I agree that Warren endorsing Mrs. Clinton is likely I'm not sure it's a given considering Mrs. Clinton's weak positions on financial regulation and Social Security.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And we saw what they did. Brown was "Just in time" but De Blasio was a bit late to the dance. His timing, being from NY and out of step with the rest of the Democratic delegation, was a day late and a dollar short.
Warren signed the "Run, Hill, Run" letter. She's just keeping her powder dry to raise her cachet. Who would watch the remaining debates (which will be longer, duller slogs now that the field has narrowed) if she jumped in too soon?
Can't blame her at all--she has her own career and options to think about. She's a moneymaker, a massive Democratic silverback in the political forest in terms of how much cash she can rake in, and people who can do that accrue power. Power gets stuff done, and she's smart enough to know the lay of the land, and how that game works. I think she's got a good idea of her timeline. And who knows? She may have an idea of what she wants to do next. I think she'd fit like a glove in the Fed Chair slot. It's the only thing I think she should leave the Senate for...I'd say take Treasury ONLY if Fed Chair was the guaranteed follow-on.
