Support NeoGAF

[dramatis]

It goes with Clinton's strategy of hiding... the less time in public, the less chance of her saying something stupid when people ask her to explain her relationship with wall street, among other things.

Except...she's not hiding.

It's quite amusing to see all these people so keyed into every Bernie event, but don't seem to realize Hillary is doing her own campaign thing too, just that they hadn't researched anything about her campaign, so they fill in with their own assumptions.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

I don't see how anyone can honestly claim this is true, given how large of a sway business interests hold over American politics in 2015.

Maybe relatively close to the country's [corporate] political center. What incentive is there to appeal to voters who don't have money to donate?

Point taken. The influence of corporate donations and lobbyists certainly distorts things. That said, Americans, and in particular the ones who most reliably turn out to vote, are simply more conservative than many of us would like. Look at the reaction to the very modest reform of ACA. Do you have a link to opinion polls where both parties are well out of step with the public? (Not a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely curious.)

As to your question, can I say the obvious? To get their votes. At the end of the day, as much as money can figuratively buy an election it can't literally buy one.

 

[benjipwns]

Also, 8.5 million most years would be a great number for a second primary debate. Just this year it's contrasted with the entertainment value of the GOP debates, which are also dwindling in viewership as time has gone on.

I believe, aside from major events (new candidates enter, Hillary/Obama showdown) that the first debates are generally the highest rated with it slowly trickling off from there. Especially in the general.

Capitalism and the pursuit of profit is a major reason why we are this deep in trouble with climate change as we currently are. It's the same reason why we haven't implemented and researched more energy alternatives.

This implies there's no profit incentive for more efficient energy production. When energy is a cost.

We can also arguably disprove the lack of profit incentive simply by looking at the growth of alternative energy sector over the decades. Considering the subsidies provided to existing energy I consider it mostly a wash that those "new" sectors are also being subsidized.

 

[Cronox]

Except...she's not hiding.

It's quite amusing to see all these people so keyed into every Bernie event, but don't seem to realize Hillary is doing her own campaign thing too, just that they hadn't researched anything about her campaign, so they fill in with their own assumptions.

I was writing in past tense. The "hiding" happened before the debates. I regret that the term became a Republican talking point, but it is what it is. It's over at this point, but it happened.

From http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-2016-press-118073#ixzz3riAnWsqU

The numbers are in dispute, but the rough estimate is that Clinton has only fielded 13 questions from the press during the first 37 days of her official candidacy for the White House.