balladofwindfishes
Member
So now if she doesn't pick Warren for whatever reason, the crazies will swear up and down she did it due to Wallstreet money.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dem donors: Warren VP pick could dry up Wall St donations
- Thread starter boiled goose
- Start date
- Status
Orbis Tabula
Member
I'd agree. But the tenor of your posts seems to allege that you do know the reason behind her decision. The reason being Clinton does not want to irritate her donors.
Team Alucard
Banned
Most likely an empty threat, but still a great move to publicly state this if only for the optics.
It forces her to either pick a VP with no strategic electoral value or else she'll be viewed as a corrupt puppet. Win/win for Trump.
It forces her to either pick a VP with no strategic electoral value or else she'll be viewed as a corrupt puppet. Win/win for Trump.
balladofwindfishes
Member
There is no win for Trump. He only loses.
FrontalMonk
Banned
Yeah, this part annoys me, because I never figured Warren was a realistic or strong pick for VP. She has her strengths in other arenas. If anyone would get tapped I would think it would be Kaine.
Well, unless you can show that Hilary would have chosen Warren if Wall St did not make this threat then this particular instance does not prove that Wall St has influence over the democrats and Hilary. Wall St is obviously trying to influence the democrats, but that is not the same as actually influencing someone.
I have no doubt that Wall St does influence politicians, just like all loby groups do, but this instance certainly isnt some prove that Wall St is influencing who Hilary nominates for the VP.
Or she could pick whoever she wants and reject any Wall Street money.
Yes, Warren will do alot to get Bernie supporters to come over.
metalslimer
Member
So either she chooses Warren or she obviously listened to the Wall Street Donors?
jack_package_200
Banned
As stated before, because of recent polling, she does not the Bernie or Bust crowd to win.
BotoxAgent
Member
Fortunately, the public at large don't really care what Sander fans and their conspiracy theories think anymore.
Heh. This story doesn't even have a single named source, does it? All I see are "a Wall-street donor" listed, which could literally be nothing, or "a guy I know who does a little day trading and gave $10 to Hillary".
Its interesting to me that the same people who rail against the Main-stream media and its "bias" are the same ones who buy into stories with no meat behind them (because they play into a narrative they want to hear I guess).
Its interesting to me that the same people who rail against the Main-stream media and its "bias" are the same ones who buy into stories with no meat behind them (because they play into a narrative they want to hear I guess).
Dash_Riprock
Member
So now people want her to listen to Wall Street.
This elections just keeps delivering.
This elections just keeps delivering.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Doesn't she have more than enough to run the general? especially against Trump? She can pick Warren, win anyway and then Wall Street would be really screwed after they tried fuck over HRC lol.
Poodlestrike
Banned
It's funny, in making the threat, they've effectively forced her to make the pick. Her greatest weakness on the left is the perception that she's corrupt. Now, if she DOESN'T pick Warren, for any reason, the narrative will be that she kotowed to big wall street.
I almost suspect some 11 dimensional chess shenanigans. Lotta Wall St. types would love to see Warren out of the Senate
I almost suspect some 11 dimensional chess shenanigans. Lotta Wall St. types would love to see Warren out of the Senate
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
This isn't the first time you've made this claim. Since you can't prove a negative, the onus is on you to prove that any donations have directly influenced her actions. Otherwise you're just shitposting.
So where's the proof? And remember: Correlation does not equal causation.
Good Job Bob
Member
If she doesn't pick Warren this surely will be far from the only reason or the main reason, but it's not far-fetched to assume it is one of the reasons.
BotoxAgent
Member
yup exactly. They are only against the media when it's going against their narrative.
VendettaRed07
Member
Maybe she doesn't. But the DNC, and downticket democrats need every single ounce of help they can get. We do not have the house or the senate. If there is a voting block that can be courted and help us gain as many seats as possible they should do it. We can't afford to be too exclusionary here imo. Not everyone who like's warren or Bernie is a Bernie or bust,
If the Sanders wing/progressive people can be welcomed in and their interests seen as more apart of the democratic party rather than a fringe insurgency, it will be a bonus. As long as we are smart about it and don't let it take over like the Tea Party has taken over the GOP. But there isn't anything wrong with extending olive branches where possible.
Yup. Just like the Trump will drop out for $150 million "story."
DragonSworne
Banned
She better watch out or these Wall Street guys will release those transcripts.
NullPointer
Member
Indeed.
Characterizing a line like "If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her” from "one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton" as probably "nothing" from "a guy I know who does a little day trading and gave $10 to Hillary" is a fine example of confirmation bias.
It's clear to you why this is not sufficient evidence of influence, right?
I'm annoyed about this because now if Hillary doesn't pick Warren people will argue that it was because of corporate influence, rather than because of having two women on the ticket or because Warren's more valuable in the Senate rather than in the VP's office.
I don't really care who she picks as VP and I'm not sure why anybody else does. Maybe people didn't notice but VP is not a real job.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
The fact that these fuckers are threatening with money is why money should be completely removed from politics.
It's the perfect example. You get no money if you select this person. Fuck that shit.
It's the perfect example. You get no money if you select this person. Fuck that shit.
EatinOlives
Member
I doubt Warren even wants the spot. She's always been vocal about the fact that she can get more done as a senator than as a president. She'd get even less done as a VP. She'd only do it if it helps Clinton's chances but I doubt she needs that kind of help anyway.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
From your link:
So again, where's the direct proof? Because claiming she was bought is a hell of a claim and will take more evidence than "she might've possibly maybe been involved in hiring this guy who has donated to her."
Most of his supporters are already on board and would have supported the nominee no matter who it was. The remainder wouldn't vote for a non-Bernie candidate no matter who was selected as VP, and the Democrats neither need those people in order to win, nor do they really want them anyway.
Septimus Prime
Member
Put Bernie on the ticket, then.
VendettaRed07
Member
Also I don't think people saying Warren was never going to be the VP choice have been paying attention. She wouldn't be currently vetted above previously thought favorites like Castro if she wasn't being seriously considered. Hillary wouldn't be hugging her as closely as she has been Obama ever since she endorsed her. Harry Reid wouldn't have retracted his "Hell no" answer to idea of any Senate Democrats in GOP governed states being VP. And Warren wouldn't be so viciously on the attack, more vocal than any other Dem fighting Trump, going on TV demonstrating she clearly wants the job.
Now I'm not going to say that if she ends up not being the VP that this is ultimately the reason, however if my guesses are right and she is currently the favorite, I really hope that Hillary and the dnc do not allow this threat to play any part in their decision or else much of the criticism they have faced this primary will be proven correct.
Now I'm not going to say that if she ends up not being the VP that this is ultimately the reason, however if my guesses are right and she is currently the favorite, I really hope that Hillary and the dnc do not allow this threat to play any part in their decision or else much of the criticism they have faced this primary will be proven correct.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
That would be ultimate hilarity.
"You told me you didn't want Warren. Now you get this guy."
LegendofJoe
Member
This article would not have been written if Warren wasn't in serious consideration for VP. If Hillary is elected she is going to be one of the most powerful politicians in DC. Whether it's in Hillary's administration or as a leader of the Senate. All the fools saying that Hillary isn't progressive will be eating crow 2 years from now.
Is that the Teddy Roosevelt story? Hide him at VP?
boiled goose
good with gravy
So you agree with Citizens United then?
If no clear examples of quid pro quo then there is no influence right?
There is evidence when data is taken in aggregate.
It is the same way things like systemic racism and discrimination are proven.
Can you prove an individual hiring or promotion decision was discriminatory in nature? It's not really that easy. You take aggregate data and clear trends appear. It is the same thing for the corrupting influence of money in politics.
Again, I agree you can't point to an individual decision one way or another. But the proof is clear when taken in aggregate.
Now sure, it is possible I guess that some politicians are corrupt and some aren't even though they all take money. Or the more likely option that everyone taking money is influenced one way or another.
We already know democrats are influenced by Wall Street Money. Barnie Frank frequently argues: "Would you rather Republicans get all the money?" What does this mean? It is CLEAR this means that if you don't play ball, you don't get the money. Everyone has to play ball.
So the only way to remove this clear conflict of interest is to not take money.
Now, I know that you guys will argue that Hillary's SC appointments would work towards this goal, and I don't disagree.
If you make the argument that you need to play ball now, that it is a necessary evil, we can have a nuanced discussion about the "greater good" and the best way to reach it with the current messed up system.
If you say that politicians are not being influenced now, then yeah, not buying it (and the data shows this)
Picking Warren to piss off Wall Street is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
She'd do far more in the Senate than as VP, as has been said. Wall Street would probably celebrate Warren as VP secretly.
I wouldn't be shocked if it was a Republican that pushed this story. It puts Clinton in a tough space where she can't win. Either they get rid of a thorn in their side in the Senate, or Clinton can be targeted as being in the pocket of Wall Street.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Pretty much. Not surprised at all Politico posted the story. Simply poisoning the well.
Already Torn
Banned
"Now we're all miserable"
NullPointer
Member
I don't want Warren as VP personally. Just want to see some real daylight between Hillary and the Wall Street she'd like people to think she's tough with.
The sources were described as a dozen top Wall Street Democrat donors.
boiled goose
good with gravy
So if big donors are saying this they shouldn't report this because it makes Hillary look bad?
To be fair, when it comes to WS regulation Trump is far worse than Hillary, so all she has to do is focus on that contrast.
Just because Republicans are far worse it doesn't mean democrats are free from criticism.
VendettaRed07
Member
People underestimating what the VP role can be.
Warren wouldn't be actively auditioning for the job if she didn't want it or think she could increase her standing and influence in Washington if she had it.
Warren wouldn't be actively auditioning for the job if she didn't want it or think she could increase her standing and influence in Washington if she had it.
Link
The Autumn Wind
They've created a scenario where if Hillary doesn't pick Warren, this will be the reason given, regardless of why the decision was actually made.
boiled goose
good with gravy
You didn't answer the question. How should this be reported?
She is free to explain her decision.
She could say no to the money and then not pick Warren.
Clearly, the money has conditions attached. You think this is the only condition?
Let's say Hillary changed her mind and said we should reinstate glass steagall. Would she still get the money?
Personally, I see problems in both cases.
Politicians changing their mind to get donor money. Clearly bad right?
Donors propping up politicians that agree with their views when they are different from constituents? Clearly bad right?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked