j.r. leonard

From my perspective she isn’t a populist & didn’t run a campaign like that. I thought it looked like a traditional “Al gore”style campaign emphasizing aisle-crossing and bipartisanship & inclusiveness of a diverse array of Americans. It was ultra-carful, as in: try not to lose.

I watched her in the first debate, stand next to Trump and attempt some version of ‘I’m against bad trade deals, too.’ Trump had already staked out the nationalist/populist lane. Why try to beer towards it. It made no political sense

I think opposition to international trade deals is more nationalist than populist. I wish she had not changed her position on TPP. I think she was drawn there by Sanders during the primaries.

That’s my whole point. Trying to be all things to all people is an ineffective political strategy. And that’s the problem the Dems have.

I think it’s a good problem to have because we want to represent everyone and not just the people who look like us or the people who come from the same economic class or the same geography

Then we agree, which was the point of my original comment. When you ruthlessly represent one demographic, you have the freedom to be ruthlessly on message. When you’re trying to be all things to all people, the messaging gets jumbled

I think that it’s important to represent everyone in a manner that is fair and just. I think the move left on trade was an attempt to placate the left wing of the party that clearly liked that about Bernie Sanders.

And if you lose the election you don’t get to represent anyone at all. So the way I read it it was a strategic move that she probably didn’t fully agree with but thought it would enable her to win.