Bernie Sanders Exposed?

How much command of detail should we demand of presidential candidates?

Meet the Press - Season 67

Chris Cillizza points to a recent interview to argue that Bernie Sanders is all platitude and no substance. In particular, he highlights this exchange with the New York Daily News:

Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?

Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It’s an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to.

You’ve got head of, I think it’s, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let’s talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there. …

Daily News: Okay. Well, let’s assume that you’re correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

Sanders: Well, I don’t know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

[…]

Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have … JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of …

Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States.

Daily News: I get that point. I’m just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don’t understand. So, what I’m asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

Sanders: I’m not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

Cillizza observes,

For Sanders’s critics — including Hillary Clinton — the Daily News interview is the “ah ha!” moment that they have been insisting will come for Sanders, a time when his pie-in-the-sky proposals are closely examined and found wanting. Sure, free college tuition sounds good, but how, exactly, do you pay for it? And, yes, breaking up the biggest banks seems appealing — particularly if you saw “The Big Short” — but (a) can you actually do it? and (b) what does it mean for all the people those banks employ?

A large part of Sanders’s appeal to the throngs who back him is his insistence that we are in need of a political revolution. And, for those people, the Daily News interview will be much ado about nothing. But what the interview exposes is that once the revolution happens there will be lots of loose ends to tie up. Loose ends that Sanders either hasn’t grappled with — or doesn’t want to.

Remember that Sanders’s campaign began as the longest of long shots. He could propose the world and more because no one thought that he ever had a chance at winning. I could tell you 100 radical changes I would make to the NBA if I were commissioner — raise the age limit to 21, move the three-point line back, etc. — but I would never have to really explain how I was going to do it because you would know there’s a zero percent chance I am going to run the NBA. But if suddenly my name started to pop up on lists to replace Adam Silver — please please please let this happen — then a more careful examination of how I was going to accomplish all of my proposals would be in order.

The Daily News interview amounts to a moment of reckoning for Sanders. Okay, let’s say you get elected — now what? And have you thought through what it might mean to the American worker and the American economy if all of the things you insist have to happen actually did happen? Judging by Sanders’s responses, he hasn’t.

I’m not sure that’s a fair critique.

The NBA analogy isn’t a good one. The sports leagues have typically chosen their commissioners from the ranks of their own senior executives. A would-be replacement for Silver, then, would have spent years inside the system and have staffed any rules change proposals to study second- and third-order effects. It would therefore be reasonable to expect detailed answers.

The same situation often exists in the political arena.  In the British system, a would-be prime minister will typically have spent years in a senior ministerial post or in the shadow cabinet of the opposition party. So, yes, they should be able to talk details.

By contrast, our system and culture virtually guarantee that we elect amateurs as president of the United States. While circumstances will occasionally align to elect a George H.W. Bush or a Richard Nixon, both of whom served eight years as vice president, we’re much more likely to elect governors or relatively junior U.S. Senators. Given our tendency to elect “outsiders” with little experience, it’s not reasonable to expect a lot of nuance.

That’s compounded by the nature of the campaigns themselves.  Most Americans prefer what Bush the Elder derided as “the vision thing.”  Candidates are rewarded for bold, optimistic policy proposals.  Hope!  Change!  Make America Great Again! A New Beginning!  Getting too much into the weeds not only comes off as wonky but tamps down the enthusiasm.

Indeed, it’s part of what’s hampering Hillary Clinton’s closing the deal. Partly, she’s dour and not a natural politician.  And she’s got a lot of baggage from her long career as Bill’s sidekick.  But that’s amplified by the fact that, having been inside the bubble for so long, she’s fatalistic about the process and frustrated by bold pronouncements unlikely to get through our ossified system.

Furthermore, it’s not clear how much detail matters.  In the aforementioned British system, the elected prime minister’s policies will be enacted pretty much intact because they have unity of powers. In our system, a President Sanders would have to get his proposal through both Houses of Congress. Even in the unlikely case that he managed to turn both the House and Senate to Democratic control as he’s elected, the implementing legislation would be very, very different from what was initially proposed. And even that would only cover the relatively broad outlines of the policy; the crucial implementing details would be left to various bureaucratic agencies.

I often get criticized in the comment section here for focusing too much on the horse race or candidate character and personality at the expense of policy. All of the above is why.  If we were electing our candidates based on their proposals, we could just score their white papers. We’d demand to know who they’d pick for key cabinet roles and the Supreme Court.  Instead, we put them through an eighteen-month-or-so gauntlet to test their temperament, judgment, and endurance. That’s because, while the broad direction of their policy preferences matter, their character and fitness for office matter more.

That’s also why, incidentally, I’d rather Sanders be elected than Clinton despite her being far closer to me in terms of policy preference. Ditto John Kasich over Ted Cruz, whose policies aren’t radically different but temperaments are.

FILED UNDER: *FEATURED, Campaign 2016, Politics 101, US Politics
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Dave Schuler says:

    In answer to the question in your slug, it depends on what party they’re running for the nomination in. That sounds facetious but it isn’t.

    Historically, Republicans have looked for different qualities in a president than Democrats. Democrats have tended to prefer candidates with minute command of the details; Republicans haven’t.

  2. Todd says:

    That’s because, while the broad direction of their policy preferences matter, their character and fitness for office matter more.

    That’s also why, incidentally, I’d rather Sanders be elected than Clinton despite her being far closer to me in terms of policy preference.

    This.

    There are at least several (and possibly more) specific policy ideas where I don’t agree with Bernie Sanders. I also don’t doubt that Hillary Clinton has the “experience” to do the job of President. But ultimately when it comes right down to it, I don’t trust her … especially on foreign policy.

    Obviously, I don’t think any Republican would be better. However, in a year when Republicans are in such disarray that it’s widely perceived that virtually “any Democrat” is favored to win the general election, why in the world would so many Democrats insist on nominating a candidate who if elected, may quite plausibly never have an approval rating above 50%?

  3. The problem I see in Sanders responses here is that he doesn’t seem to know how he would even implement the policies that are a central part of the campaign he’s been running for the past year and doesn’t seem inclined to figure out the answer. Given the fact that in the incredibly unlikely event he was elected President he’d likely be dealing with at least a Republican-controlled House and, at the very least, a Senate where even a Republican minority would have many means available to block legislation, that makes his entire campaign sound like nothing but the same kind of hot air that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth.

  4. MikeSJ says:

    I’m not convinced Sanders is electable even against a candidate like Trump. Yep, the polls show one thing now but what did the polls show about Dukakis early in the game?

    The ratfcking the Republicans could do against Bernie. would be epic. The fact is he’s never been vetted because no cared enough to bother. I gather he still hasn’t released his taxes yet? I doubt there’s a smoking gun there but it seems to indicate the normal standards that apply to national politicians are waived for Bernie.

    The fact this interview showed that he’s never bothered to get past a bumper sticker level of detail on his hit parade of blather. I just don’t think he can handle a sit down interview, there’s just no “there” there when it comes to Bernie.

  5. Tony W says:

    Much ado about nothing. Sanders should probably have a better handle on the specifics of his policy, but ultimately the president signs legislation put before him while setting a leadership tone for the type of legislation he’d like to see.

    As much as I criticize Trump for his “we’re going to tear down Obamacare and replace it with something terrific” approach – it’s the same argument. I’m okay with a President leading with ideas and his/her own vision for America.

    That leads me to the simple fact that Sander’s America is much preferable to Trump’s.

  6. KM says:

    @Doug:

    like nothing but the same kind of hot air that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth.

    Because they are speaking to essentially the same audience: people who want (unspecified) change and they want it now!! Appeal to revolution is an appeal to unhappiness; there’s something wrong with the system so lets burn it all down and start again. Sanders supporters, like most Americans, don’t want the nitty gritty but then they tend to be like Trump supporters where they accept more vagueness & promises then facts.

    Hillary is as dry as toast. Sanders speaks of new and exciting things. In the end, who do you want to hire for your position: the boring, scandalous one or the one who promises to be Awesome and destroy your email system from within? Depends on how much you hate Outlook, I guess…….

  7. Boatman1976 says:

    It looks like the fury swirling around the Daily Caller interview is a clear case of swift boating. Bernie’s gave good answers to bad questions, but no one knows the questions were bad so he’s getting pummeled. Not that it will matter any more for Sanders than for Kerry – the media has a story and they’re going to run with it until it doesn’t generate revenue anymore. The only winner here is Wall Street. Isn’t it great to live in a democracy?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5

  8. elizajane says:

    @MikeSJ: I think that Sanders is perfectly electable against Trump. The scenario I see as potentially killing the Democrats’ otherwise excellent chance at a victory would be Sanders vs. Cruz, like Wisconsin gave us last night. While everybody loves Bernie and can’t stand Cruz, I could see debates at which Cruz eviscerated Sanders in ways that were not pretty at all, but were very effective. If debates actually matter, Sanders v. Cruz would be a disaster from a Dem perspective.

  9. gVOR08 says:

    @Dave Schuler:

    Historically, Republicans have looked for different qualities in a president than Democrats. Democrats have tended to prefer candidates with minute command of the details; Republicans haven’t.

    This is consistent with the commonplace observation that conservatives care more about philosophy while liberals care more about policy.

    Good analysis, James. Trump and Palin and others complain about “gotcha questions”. For the most part they are just trying to alibi their lack of preparedness. I don’t think whoever it was asked Palin what papers she reads thought it was a hard question. But there is more than a grain of truth to the complaint. All too often reporters are trying to find some small contradiction or point of ignorance so they can go “gotcha”. As President, Bernie would not be expected to personally draft banking regulations. Getting into the details can be irrelevant.

    I reach the opposite conclusion, I love Bernie, but I’d prefer Hillary as Prez. But it’s not a matter of disagreeing with your analysis so much as a somewhat different emphasis here and there. And the above liberal inclination to care more about what’s in her toolkit than in her heart. Also, I worry about the 2020 election, at which point Hillary will be older than I’d like, but Bernie will be 79.

  10. dmhlt says:

    Actually, Bernie’s “plan” just channels South Park:

    Phase 1. Wag Fingers
    Phase 2. ???
    Phase 3. Banks Broken Up

  11. gVOR08 says:

    @dmhlt: Much as I love Underpants Gnome references, that’s not really a fair characterization of Berie’s answer. Please see the linked article in @Boatman1976: above.

  12. jukeboxgrad says:

    Link:

    Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks … Bernie Sanders probably knows more about breaking up banks than his critics give him credit for.

    … taken as a whole, Mr. Sanders’s answers seem to make sense. Crucially, his answers mostly track with a reasonably straightforward breakup plan that he introduced to Congress last year. … the Fed currently has a lot of power but maybe not all the power it might require to break up the banks without facing serious legal challenges from the financial industry. And Mr. Sanders is also correct that an administration can obtain that power — that is what his bill is for.

  13. Pch101 says:

    Sanders’ “plan” for the banking system has all of the merit of this Republican mantra of “We will destroy ISIS.” It’s just hollow talk that is meant to appeal to voters, all sizzle and no meat.

    Then again, the rhetoric does accurately set the tone for his overall agenda. if Sanders were elected, I believe that he would actually make what would prove to be a failed effort to do something similar to what he’s claiming, as well as attempt to make other broader social reforms. (Unfortunately, his grasp of the banking system is about on par with that of a college freshman, but whatever — he won’t be winning the nomination, anyway.)

  14. Facebones says:

    Look, if you’re going to run a single issue campaign – Wall Street is screwing the middle class – then it’s important you understand that single issue and how it’s going to be implemented.

    Bernie has been talking about breaking up the banks and prosecuting Wall Street for months. When asked how he plans to do this, his answer is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ There’s no excuse for not having some kind of answer.

    I’m a liberal and I like Bernie’s policies, but this is really no better than Trump getting Mexico to pay for the wall.

  15. Facebones says:

    I often get criticized in the comment section here for focusing too much on the horse race or candidate character and personality at the expense of policy. … I’d rather Sanders be elected than Clinton despite her being far closer to me in terms of policy preference.

    And kudos to James for just finally admitting that he’ll never vote for Hillary because he just doesn’t like her. I’m so glad that the media has made likability a litmus test for the presidency. Remember how “likable” George W was? That certainly made that pointless war in Iraq that he lied us into all better, didn’t it?

  16. jukeboxgrad says:

    There’s no excuse for not having some kind of answer.

    Link:

    Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks … Bernie Sanders probably knows more about breaking up banks than his critics give him credit for.

    … taken as a whole, Mr. Sanders’s answers seem to make sense. Crucially, his answers mostly track with a reasonably straightforward breakup plan that he introduced to Congress last year. … the Fed currently has a lot of power but maybe not all the power it might require to break up the banks without facing serious legal challenges from the financial industry. And Mr. Sanders is also correct that an administration can obtain that power — that is what his bill is for.

    There’s no excuse for not knowing that he already has provided “some kind of answer.”

  17. jukeboxgrad says:

    kudos to James for just finally admitting that he’ll never vote for Hillary because he just doesn’t like her

    Link:

    I’m leaning Clinton over Trump

    Link:

    More interesting is a TPM report noting that many Republicans, like myself, seriously contemplating voting for Clinton—our least favorite Democrat of the last quarter century—if the alternative is Trump.

    Your criticisms of Sanders and Joyner would sound less like nonsense if they reflected more familiarity with what those two people have actually said.

  18. Pch101 says:

    There’s no excuse for not knowing that he already has provided “some kind of answer.”

    Is an “answer” that is predicated upon the approval of a Congress that will vote against it really an answer?

  19. jukeboxgrad says:

    predicated upon the approval of a Congress that will vote against it

    Democrats who decide to only talk about bills that Republicans will support might as well be Republicans.

    Also, moving the goalposts.

  20. Pch101 says:

    Yes, doing the math on votes is the same as being a Republican.

    Jesus H Christ, this really is the Tea Party, Left Wing Edition.

  21. jukeboxgrad says:

    Yes, doing the math on votes is the same as being a Republican.

    Yes, if you decide to only talk about bills that meet some alleged standard for “math on votes,” then you are not a leader and you might as well be a Republican.

    Believe it or not, there was once a time when Social Security did not meet the standard for “math on votes.” If FDR had adopted your attitude, there would be no Social Security. Likewise for various other important things that were once considered radical and are now considered mainstream.

    The ways things change is that someone comes along who can see beyond the current conventional wisdom for “math on votes.”

  22. jukeboxgrad says:

    I also think that in many cases when nominal liberals say ‘Sanders can’t do X,’ that statement is a substitute for a different statement that would be more honest: ‘I don’t want X.’ That is, there is a deeper objection that is unstated because it’s more controversial.

  23. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @elizajane:

    I think that Sanders is perfectly electable against Trump.

    The lovable Uncle Bernie who has essentially been given a free pass with respect to having to endure any meaningful level of attacks might be. The problem is that kid gloves treatment will end the second he’s nominated and the Republican attack machine goes into overdrive. I’ve had conversations with Republican strategists who are well prepared to hit the ground running in that respect and praying that they get the opportunity – they want him to be the nominee. The ones that I’ve spoken with are giddy at the prospect.

    The Bernie that will emerge from that 24/7 attack gauntlet will – for wide swaths of the electorate – bear no resemblance to the lovable, quirky old guy who’s now on the stage. They’ll utterly destroy him.

  24. Pch101 says:

    Making promises that they can’t keep is just what politicians do. Sanders is writing checks that he can’t cash, and populists are (predictably) suckers for this sort of stuff.

    In any case, Sanders has absolutely misdiagnosed the problem. Having smaller banks not only doesn’t help but having such a system would make it even more difficult to resolve the next financial crisis. (Go learn about the Great Depression if you want to see how well this fragmented banking system has worked for us before.)

    The size of the institutions didn’t cause the problem; the ability of lenders to over-lever the real estate markets is. Hence, my comment about his freshman-level of knowledge. This sort of too-big-to-fail mantra sounds good to know-nothings, but it only exposes ones ignorance to spout it.

  25. HarvardLaw92 says:

    “I also think that in many cases when nominal liberals say ‘Sanders can’t do X,’ that statement is a substitute for a different statement that would be more honest: ‘I don’t want X.’ ”

    It’s a recognition of the fact that we have zero – and I do mean zero – hope of regaining control of the House.

    Sanders might have all the best intentions in the world. Hell, he might even select cabinet secretaries and advisors who actually know enough about how to implement his proposals to create workable legislation.

    It won’t matter in the least. A Republican controlled House will oppose them on sight, and they’ll go nowhere. He’ll be left with the options of compromising – which he (like most ideologues) seems loathe to do, or just sitting there for four years consuming oxygen and accomplishing exactly zero. This is the problem with promising things that you have no hope of delivering – there’s a sizable population of fools who’ll believe you anyway and wonder why their free pony never showed up.

  26. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    The size of the institutions didn’t cause the problem; the ability of lenders to over-lever the real estate markets is. Hence, my comment about his freshman-level of knowledge. This sort of too-big-to-fail mantra sounds good to know-nothings, but it only exposes ones ignorance to spout it.

    This. Exactly this …

  27. Facebones says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    I also think that in many cases when nominal liberals say ‘Sanders can’t do X,’ that statement is a substitute for a different statement that would be more honest: ‘I don’t want X.’

    That’s just nonsense. I want single payer healthcare. I can also count to 60. There’s no way to peel off enough Republicans to stop a filibuster. Any threats or bribes a Democrat can offer will pale in comparison to the real fear of being primaried by a tea party loon.

    (The best way to do it is to make sure that there are 60 liberal senators, but Bernie and his supporters don’t seem terribly interested in helping down ballot races.)

  28. jukeboxgrad says:

    They’ll utterly destroy him.

    These are the same people who also were sure about their ability to “utterly destroy” a guy named Barack Hussein Obama who was running against a bona fide American war hero.

    Likewise, these are the same people who were once sure that Trump wouldn’t last past December. So I don’t have much confidence in your confidence in their confidence.

  29. jukeboxgrad says:

    The size of the institutions didn’t cause the problem

    I see that you are current on the talking points. Link:

    The Clinton Team Is Writing ‘Too Big To Fail’ Out Of The Financial Crisis … Why grapple with history when you can just rewrite it? …

    Basically, the argument goes, “too big to fail” was never a serious problem, or at least the “big” part of it wasn’t really a problem, and anyhow, Lehman Brothers wasn’t very big.

    This is preposterous. In the Obama era, we’ve grown accustomed to evidence-blind nonsense from Republican politicians looking to protect big banks’ profits. But we’ve entered a sad new world when respected liberals start echoing the arguments proffered by Hamilton Place Strategies, a PR shop run by former George W. Bush Treasury spokesman Tony Fratto, who works on behalf of big banks. Krugman, Goolsbee et al. are essentially placing a Democratic Party seal of approval on corporate GOP rhetoric.

    The Clinton camp’s “too big to fail” denialism runs against the official conclusion of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, as well as the views of other top finance scholars. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson, former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Sheila Bair, former bank bailout Inspector General Neil Barofsky and FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig have all maintained that “too big to fail” was, in fact, central to the crisis.

  30. Pch101 says:

    I see that you are current on the talking points

    I frankly had no idea what the Clinton position is on banking, but thanks for letting me know that they know more about it than I expected. (They certainly know more than you do.)

    Some of us deal with this stuff for a living, so we already knew. We don’t need or want to rely upon political bloggers who know nothing themselves to “explain” it to us.

  31. gVOR08 says:

    @Facebones:

    Remember how “likable” George W was?

    I’d love to have a beer with Bernie. But I’ll support Hillary, who I’d kind of like to have a beer with. Trump, Cruz, and Kasich? I couldn’t be trusted with a beer mug in my hand in the same room with their faces. Be honest, who wouldn’t love to smash a beer mug into Cruz’ face?

  32. bookdragon says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    There’s no excuse for not knowing that he already has provided “some kind of answer.”

    Then there is also no excuse for Bernie being unable to effectively articulate that answer in the interview.

    Seriously, he’s the one campaigning for POTUS. Not voter spends, or can spend, the time to know that he provided the answer from your link. It’s up to him to be able to make the case when asked, even (maybe especially) if it’s the 2nd or 3rd or 1000th time someone asks.

  33. bookdragon says:

    Argh! I forgot replying to jukeboxgrad sends me right to spam filter. James, can you please release my comment?

  34. HarvardLaw92 says:

    These are the same people who also were sure about their ability to “utterly destroy” a guy named Barack Hussein Obama who was running against a bona fide American war hero.

    Obama barely had any record to attack. A few terms in the Illinois Senate and half of a term in the US Senate. It was weaksauce because there was little there to work with (aside from the obvious “he’s a n****r – wink wink” garbage).

    Sanders has been saying and doing and writing things, and being photographed & recorded while saying & doing & writing them, which are a Republican opposition researcher’s dream come true for decades now. The attack ads practically write themselves, these people are well paid because they’re very good at what they do, and there is a LOT of material for them to work with.

    Just one example – one of those ads is built around photos of Sanders in the Soviet Union, all of which magically have Lenin in them. That’s just one example – I’ve seen entire portfolios of ad proposals which are at least that nasty, if not worse. They’ve been preparing to slaughter him for months now – and they’re ready to go. That’s the level of nasty you can expect, and while that might not sway you, you can be sure it’ll sway a lot of other, more moderate voters. He’d spend his entire campaign playing defense and come out looking like a kooky reincarnation of Karl Marx.

    I realize that it’s difficult to see the vulnerabilities of someone you admire, but trust me on this one, what they’ll do to him will make what they’ve done to Clinton seem like a delightful neighborhood bake sale in comparison.

  35. jukeboxgrad says:

    I forgot replying to jukeboxgrad sends me right to spam filter.

    This problem is easily solved. Reply again, except this time don’t use the Reply feature.

  36. jukeboxgrad says:

    I realize that it’s difficult to see the vulnerabilities of someone you admire

    You mean like Clinton’s Unfavorable rating of 55%?

  37. jukeboxgrad says:

    I frankly had no idea what the Clinton position is on banking

    I suppose you also know nothing about the Elizabeth Warren position on banking. You said this:

    This sort of too-big-to-fail mantra sounds good to know-nothings

    Link:

    Elizabeth Warren challenges Obama to break up ‘too-big-to-fail’ Wall St banks

    We learn a lot about the Clinton camp when we notice that they are now classifying Elizabeth Warren as one of the “know-nothings.”

  38. HarvardLaw92 says:

    You mean like Clinton’s Unfavorable rating of 55%?

    Trump’s unfavorable is 63.3%, with a spread of -33.1. Clinton is actually at 54%, with a spread of -13.7. That works just fine for me. You’re losing sight of what is the actual battle here.

    Beyond that, Republicans have already largely exhausted their position with respect to attacking Clinton. They have little material in the pipeline that they haven’t already overplayed & worked to death. It’s mostly old news by this point.

    Every attack against Sanders will be new & exciting material (and aired non-stop)! It’s not remotely the same scenario.

  39. Pch101 says:

    I hate to break it to you, but it’s not wise to rely upon politicians for your knowledge of the banking system, unless you’re determined to not know much.

    I’ve dealt with distressed real estate debt as part of my career. I knew that the last crash was coming years before it did because I understood the mechanisms that were creating excess leverage (and the size of the banks wasn’t the determining factor, since banks large and small were selling off loans and securitizing them) as well as the implications of allowing this to happen (because the banking system is effectively an extension of the monetary system, so the banks cannot be allowed to fail en masse unlike you’re really fond of depressions.)

    So no, I don’t need Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or a political blogger who has no such experience to wrong-splain it to me. Incidentally, you don’t either, unless you wish to remain misinformed.

  40. HarvardLaw92 says:

    We learn a lot about the Clinton camp when we notice that they are now classifying Elizabeth Warren as one of the “know-nothings.

    Elizabeth Warren, who I do actually admire, is an attorney who has spent virtually her entire professional career as an academic, focusing mainly on bankruptcy issues. She’s well versed in the consequences of legislation on personal finances, but she has never worked as a banker. She has never worked as an attorney in banking (or, for that matter, any area of commercial finance). She has no academic background in either finance or economics (her degrees are in speech pathology and law).

    Her position is grounded in “big banks pose the risk of impact to the finances of little people”. It’s not grounded in any real understanding of banking, institutional finance or best practices. She’s interested in reducing what she sees as systemic risk to the average players that she advocates for, not in creating a better banking system.

    If she were, she would admit that fracturing the system into smaller pieces just makes it that much easier to accumulate risk while making it harder to regulate. It’s a recipe for a greater degree of leverage hidden in greater number of smaller holes, while doing nothing to mitigate the interconnected nature of that risk via counterparty exposure.

  41. Franklin says:

    @Boatman1976: I think the Daily Caller is different than the Daily News. Or maybe that’s the joke.

    Even so, not sure how in-depth Bernie expected he had to be with the Daily News.

  42. jukeboxgrad says:

    Clinton is actually at 54%

    According to HP her current number is 55.2%, and ‘not quite as bad as Trump’ is a classic example of faint praise.

    It’s mostly old news by this point.

    Unless James Comey decides to provide some new news. Keep your fingers crossed.

  43. jukeboxgrad says:

    it’s not wise to rely upon politicians for your knowledge of the banking system

    Yes, instead of relying on Elizabeth Warren, I’d much rather rely on an anonymous commenter who says impressive things like this:

    I’ve dealt with distressed real estate debt as part of my career.

    Which is roughly as impressive as another anonymous commenter who claims that Warren lacks “any real understanding of banking, institutional finance or best practices.” Thank you both for sharing.

  44. Pch101 says:

    I never claimed that you should rely upon me. What I’m pointing out is that you’re ignorant and are a sucker for those who are appealing to your ignorance.

    Go learn something about finance, and what I’m saying won’t sound like a mystery. Then again, I’m reasonably confident that you don’t want to know.

  45. HarvardLaw92 says:

    According to HP

    Yea – anything prefaced by “according to Huffington Post” gets immediately discarded as mental mutual masturbation echo chamber fluff, sorry.

    Unless James Comey decides to provide some new news. Keep your fingers crossed.

    Yea, about that …

    Washington (CNN) FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday he does not see a need for urgency in completing the ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server.

    You forget who he works for …

  46. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Which is roughly as impressive as another anonymous commenter who claims that Warren lacks “any real understanding of banking, institutional finance or best practices.” Thank you both for sharing.

    Predictably, you’re falling into your usual tactic – attacking the messenger while sidestepping any discussion of the message.

    I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that you don’t understand it any more than Warren does – and probably a great deal less, judging from your commentary anyway.

    Anyhoo, not interested in another Mary Marsh mudfight. Keep on Bernsplainin! 🙂

  47. stonetools says:

    I’m not sure who has the right of it on the banking issue(although I feel that pch101, HL 92, Paul Krugman , and Austin Goolsbee have the right of it. What I do know is that HRC has thought long & deeply about the issue, and would have been prepared to answer in detail the question Sanders fumbled. Indeed, as Mark Harlperin said, Clinton would have been crucified if she had come up with such a bush league response.
    Pro tip to Sanders: if you campaign for six months on “too big to fail” , you better have a detailed plan when you get asked how you are going to do what you have been promised.

  48. HarvardLaw92 says:

    I was just about to speculate that the mysteriously selective downvoting was about to show up again, but I see that it already has. At least get a new schtick 🙂

  49. elizajane says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I’m not sure that the Republican machine would take out Bernie if Trump were the nominee. They might prefer an ineffectual D in the White House for 4 years to an uncontrollable and disastrous pseudo-R. There would be plenty of anti-Sanders voices from the peanut gallery but not the full weight of the Republican media — who would, on the other hand, get behind Cruz as nominee.
    Mind you, I find all of this incredibly depressing. Not speaking as a partisan, but just as a citizen.

  50. jukeboxgrad says:

    anything prefaced by “according to Huffington Post” gets immediately discarded

    They present a polling average, in essentially the same way RCP does. When you are in a position to point out a problem with their methodology, that will be helpful. Your knee-jerk ad hominem is not.

    Predictably, you’re falling into your usual tactic – attacking the messenger while sidestepping any discussion of the message.

    “Attacking the messenger” is precisely what you just did regarding Huffington Post, so thank you for this remarkable display of self-awareness.

    You forget who he works for …

    I know who he works for. You are forgetting what Comey did on 3/10/04, when he was working for another president. Comey proved a long time ago that he has integrity that goes beyond the concept of “who he works for.”

  51. jukeboxgrad says:

    I never claimed that you should rely upon me.

    You are presenting yourself as knowing more than Elizabeth Warren, which is essentially the same claim.

  52. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Yea, I see where this one is going. Rather than spend time I’ll never get back on what promises to be another yet another 300 comment tantrum / pontification session from our resident flame warrior, I’m out. Have fun …

  53. Pch101 says:

    Whether or not I know more than Elizabeth Warren isn’t the point.

    The point is that you don’t know what you’re talking about and you need to learn more about the subject from those who do, rather than rely upon politicians and uninformed bloggers are you are apt to do.

  54. MarkedMan says:

    I’m glad Bernie is in the race, but I would be horrified if he won the nomination. I like what he says, but can you imagine Bernie after a couple months of the increased pace of a general election, tired, jagged, facing off against Cruz. As someone above said, he would be humiliated. As much as I like what Bernie stands for I can already feel the sick pit in my stomach the next day. I wouldn’t want that for me, and I sure as hell don’t want that to be how Bernie ends an admirable career.

  55. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Todd:

    why in the world would so many Democrats insist on nominating a candidate who if elected, may quite plausibly never have an approval rating above 50%?

    Explain what approval rating has to do with the competence of the leader. In other venues, we gauge the achievements of the person based on accomplishments rather than how people feel about those accomplishments.

    I get that you don’t like Hillary and that it is visceral. I don’t either and my dislike is just a visceral as yours. Having set that aside, let’s move on to issues of governance. If you don’t trust Hillary, why not and what dishonest thing is she going to do that will harm the country? Sell nuclear secrets to Iran? Give more power to corporations (is that even possible)? Promise to do stuff for supporters (ummm…you DO understand that this is politics, right)? Whadda ya got?

  56. Tony W says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: You’ve nailed it – few people really understand why they don’t like Hillary Clinton. I see lots of accusations (liar, thief, murderer, etc.) but they generally require quite a bit of speculation and news from the limited perspective of a Breitbart or redstate source of facts.

    A good leader makes you want her to be successful – and Clinton has not exhibited this quality yet.

  57. jukeboxgrad says:

    Yea, I see where this one is going.

    Yes, I do too. You say something like this:

    I’m out.

    Several comments after saying this:

    Anyhoo, not interested in another Mary Marsh mudfight.

    So did you really mean it when you said goodbye for the second time after demonstrating that you didn’t mean it when you said goodbye the first time?

  58. jukeboxgrad says:

    The point is that you don’t know what you’re talking about

    Whether or not I know what I’m talking about doesn’t matter much. I’m not a senator. Warren is a senator, so whether or not she knows what she’s talking about actually matters. Your claim that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about, based on your extensive experience superior to hers, is a helpful thing to know about you.

  59. jukeboxgrad says:

    Explain what approval rating has to do with the competence of the leader.

    Her approval ratings tells us something about her ability to get elected. There is a problem if her numbers get worse and/or Trump’s numbers get better. Both of those things are quite possible. In 6 months she has gone from roughly 50 to roughly 55 (unfavorable), and that trend does not bode well. Trump also has a problem, but he might figure out how to mitigate it. Betting on him to always be stupid is risky.

    Approval ratings also tell us something about her ability to get things done in office. Congress is more likely to turn you down when they know no one likes you.

  60. Pch101 says:

    Whether or not I know what I’m talking about doesn’t matter much.

    Since you’re using your ignorance to make political choices for yourself, you should care for your own sake.

    In any case, relying upon the uninformed for your “facts” reflects poorly on you.

  61. jukeboxgrad says:

    relying upon the uninformed for your “facts”

    You’ve already communicated your opinion that Elizabeth Warren is “uninformed.” Are you going to say it again?

  62. Pch101 says:

    The issue isn’t with Elizabeth Warren, but with you. You construct poor arguments, you don’t understand data, and you don’t think things through.

    At this point, all of us should know that the financial crisis was caused by excessive leverage. When you figure out WHY lenders would lend as much as they did and HOW they did it, then it should be pretty obvious that you and your heroes are on the wrong track.

  63. MBunge says:

    How about we remember that Sanders has been in politics forever and has already gone through about a kajillion interviews and debates where his command of policy was perfectly adequate and not freak the hell out because he has a bad day.

    Good grief, this reminds me of the Romney/Obama debate where people like Andrew Sullivan practically had nervous breakdowns because Obama had an off night.

    Mike

  64. Tyrell says:

    @Todd: What is Sander’s ideas on foreign policy ? That is what people are still trying to find out. Much of Europe is under threat of more attacks from DAESH and Islamic terrorists. The people of Europe are concerned. Some of the leaders are pushing for stronger borders. Some of our security agencies are watching what is happening over there.

  65. jukeboxgrad says:

    At this point, all of us should know that the financial crisis was caused by excessive leverage.

    We are lucky that you are here to tell us about the things “all of us should know” that Elizabeth Warren doesn’t know.

  66. Pch101 says:

    Again, expecting Elizabeth Warren to help you to understand the causes of the financial crisis is a very bad idea.

  67. jukeboxgrad says:

    Elizabeth Warren has made certain claims about the financial crisis. Internet commenter Pch101 has contradicted those claims, on the basis of his extensive experience working “with distressed real estate debt as part of [his] career.” Who to believe? It’s a dilemma.

  68. Pch101 says:

    Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

  69. Pch101 says:

    Incidentally, this is what Warren said on the subject:

    Then, in the 1980s, a new political wind swept across the country. “Deregulation” became the watchword of the day – or, to put it more bluntly, fire the cops. Not the cops on Main Street, but the cops on Wall Street. The Fed and other bank regulators looked the other way as big financial institutions found new ways to trick their customers, first through credit cards and then through mortgages, home equity lines of credit, and a raft of new financial products. The SEC was badly outgunned. Regulators were clueless as banks developed creative new trading strategies outside the old rules. Credit rating agencies signed off on the safety of pools of mortgages that were more like boxes full of grenades with the pins already pulled out. The wall between high-risk trading and boring banking was knocked down, and Glass-Steagall was eventually repealed.

    http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/18/elizabeth-warren-speech/

    This is actually just an agitprop version of what I said.

  70. jukeboxgrad says:

    This is actually just an agitprop version of what I said.

    From the same speech:

    So what should we do about Too Big to Fail? End it, once and for all. Not talk about ending it – truly end it.

    Earlier you said this:

    This sort of too-big-to-fail mantra sounds good to know-nothings

    Here’s an idea: next time read the whole thing.

  71. Pch101 says:

    Your reading comprehension really sucks.

    I didn’t claim that everything that she said was consistent with my comments, just some of it. I quoted the relevant section.

  72. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    Seriously – I’m trying to tell you, he/she will go on exactly like this – for pages and pages – as long as you keep feeding it. Don’t fall for it.

  73. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    Getting back to the subject, you will want to give this a read.

    Zero in on Section 4 – you’ll find it highly amusing …

    This guy doesn’t have the slightest clue in the world what he’s doing … He’s dangerously inept.

  74. Pch101 says:

    Zero in on Section 4 – you’ll find it highly amusing

    “Catastrophic” is more like it. That’s just beyond stupid.

    More to the point, it shows a complete lack of understanding of how the banking system is linked to the monetary system. Cutting off ones nose to spite ones face, etc.

  75. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    I sat here reading it & first thinking “Sanders evidently wants to cause a complete economic collapse. Either that or he’s a complete nimrod with zero understanding of the monetary system”.

    The worst part is that this is his core issue – the one that he has ostensibly has spent decades immersed in, and yet he’s writing legislation which sounds like it’s the work product of a high school student – and that may be too generous an observation.

    If he’s this inept about the things that he claims to care about, how woefully out of his depth is he on everything else?

  76. jukeboxgrad says:

    I didn’t claim that everything that she said was consistent with my comments, just some of it.

    Just “some of it?” Really? You said this:

    This is actually just an agitprop version of what I said.

    You didn’t say ‘some of what I said.’ You said “what I said.” You were suggesting that your position on the subject is generally congruent with her position, even though a key statement you made (“this sort of too-big-to-fail mantra sounds good to know-nothings”) is a direct, glaring contradiction of a key statement she has made (“So what should we do about Too Big to Fail? End it, once and for all. Not talk about ending it – truly end it.”).

    After emphatically asserting that Warren is allegedly one of the “know-nothings,” I can’t imagine what you expect to accomplish with your new spin that some of her views are allegedly “consistent” with some of yours.

  77. MarkedMan says:

    Honestly, I’m glad Bernie is in the race, but I would be horrified if he won the nomination. I like what he says, but can you imagine Bernie after a couple months of the increased pace of a general election, tired, jagged, facing off against Cruz. As someone above said, he would be humiliated. As much as I like what Bernie stands for I can already feel the sick pit in my stomach the next day. I wouldn’t want that for me, and I sure as hell don’t want that to be how Bernie ends an admirable career.

  78. bill says:

    it’s all bs for the most part- i mean really, what did obama actually accomplish what he “promised” ?
    (i have them handy if you really want to go there)
    none of them can get anything done without congress , one of the main reasons that congress usually switches sides with the prez’s party asap.
    here’s a clue
    – trump can’t build a wall, we already have some and just need to enforce the current laws…that’s the end game…..if he wins.
    – bernie can’t do anything he says, he’s crazier than anyone (save sheila jackson lee) in either house.
    – hillary…..well, she’s 4 more years of whatever we’ve had, and chris matthews gets a tingle up his other leg. neanderthals will rejoice that a woman can be president here, just like they did when a black guy won…..and they forgot to hold them accountable for their role.
    cruz- he says he’ll do what he was elected to do, and then congress will stop him.
    kasich……why bother?

  79. DrDaveT says:

    You are presenting yourself as knowing more than Elizabeth Warren, which is essentially the same claim.

    Stepping in from the wings…

    …um, so? Are you seriously suggesting that a US Senator has credibility as an expert on anything at all? They’re politicians, JBG — not experts.

    Banking isn’t my field of expertise, but I can assure you that I have never seen any evidence that any Congressman understood anything of import at even an undergraduate level in my particular areas of specialty — even when sponsoring legislation in those areas. After a while, you give up, and hope that at least maybe they’ll have some staffers who aren’t total idiots.

  80. jukeboxgrad says:

    I have never seen any evidence that any Congressman understood anything of import

    I’m willing to make an exception for the ones who are smart enough to teach at places like Harvard Law School.

    And so I guess you’re saying that you voted for Obama in 2008 (I assume) even though you viewed him as someone who never “understood anything of import?” Just curious.

    Also, the discussion here was not about her credibility in a vacuum. It was about her credibility relative to the credibility of an anonymous internet commenter who was making unsupported claims. I don’t think that’s a close call, but maybe you do.

  81. Guarneri says:

    One of the better questions ever posed here.

    The presidency is an executive, policy making position. A basic facility with issues and government structure and processes should be expected. You can’t operate on absurd notions. But a staff expert, policy wonk position it is not. Better for the chief executive to set a tone, a policy stance, be intellectually flexible and able to get up to speed with the help of staff briefing. Negotiating, persuasion and people antennae are more important than an encyclopedic knowledge of the tax code or the department of consumer affairs.

    Dave Schulers original observation is insightful. Democrats tend to be more detail oriented in that they have faith in topped down Rube Goldberg government solutions……….oh, if we just had the “right” policy or the “right” people. Failure (War on Poverty anyone?) can always be explained away by lack of funds, unexpected execution failures or the “wrong” people. If something doesn’t work, try harder; enforce harder.

    Republicans (and not those “establishment” hacks) are much more willing to rely on the collective actions of people, recognizing that perfection is out of reach, but the lesser of evils. For this they are rewarded with the labels uncaring, greedy and heartless.

    Poor character but facility with policy gave us Nixon and Clinton, and now Clinton II. Arrogance and rigidity with a slick tongue and public persona has given us Obama and another ineffective Rube Goldberg giant government program. Dissatisfaction with government has facilitated the rise of a goon promising to break shit. Maybe Bush I is the best model. Lincoln appears to already be booked.

    I have a headache…..

  82. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @ jukebox: I get what approval rating does. Todd’s comment was related to what her approval rating was going to be as President. That future performance was what my comment was directed at. The reality that Hillary is vulnerable to some potential event that will galvanize the public against her is not lost on me. I wish that she’d held to her statement that she was going to leave public life to be a grandmother, but I genuinely don’t like her–maybe even more than Todd.

    Fortunately for me, I don’t find that any of the candidates in question–not even Cruz (who I viscerally dislike even more than Hillary)–can do much of anything that will damage my rather modest lifestyle, so I will be objectivist about the outcome. Long live Ayn Rand and selfishness.

  83. jukeboxgrad says:

    Todd’s comment was related to what her approval rating was going to be as President. That future performance was what my comment was directed at.

    I think I already understood that your comment was about future performance, and I think I addressed that when I said this:

    Approval ratings also tell us something about her ability to get things done in office. Congress is more likely to turn you down when they know no one likes you.

  84. DrDaveT says:

    And so I guess you’re saying that you voted for Obama in 2008 (I assume) even though you viewed him as someone who never “understood anything of import?” Just curious.

    It’s a fair question, and the answers are Yes and Yes. (And, in fact, I did have direct personal experience with a topic on which he had acted as Senator from Illinois, and either he did not understand it or he chose to act in a way that would be popular while actually making the problem worse.)

    I voted for Obama because he campaigned both for goals I believe in and for policies I believe are good choices to achieve those goals. As opposed to the Republicans, whose goals are not mine and whose policies I can only hope are ineffectual at achieving those goals.

    I also got the impression that Obama would be much better at surrounding himself with advisers who might actually have fact-informed world views (unlike say W’s advisers) and who might themselves be intelligent and competent (unlike say Jimmy Carter’s advisers).

  85. jukeboxgrad says:

    Thanks for answering one of my questions, but you didn’t address the most important point, which was about Warren’s credibility relative to the credibility of an anonymous internet commenter who was making unsupported claims.

  86. DrDaveT says:

    Thanks for answering one of my questions, but you didn’t address the most important point, which was about Warren’s credibility relative to the credibility of an anonymous internet commenter

    I’m guessing that if you asked that anonymous internet commenter for some authoritative references to back up their assertions about what Ms. Warren does or does not understand, you would either find that you were right to be skeptical, or that they do in fact know something about the topic at hand. Either way, knowledge increases.

  87. jukeboxgrad says:

    I’m guessing that if you asked that anonymous internet commenter for some authoritative references

    I can show you the prior threads where I learned that asking this person that sort of question is a waste of time.

    What I have also learned from my experience, more generally, is that when someone has proof they show it. And when they don’t, what they are likely to do instead is make vague and unprovable claims about their vast personal experience (“I’ve dealt with distressed real estate debt as part of my career … I knew that the last crash was coming years before it did”).

  88. Monala says:

    @bill: Unemployment down, health care reform enacted, Iraq War ended, just off the top of my head.

  89. Pch101 says:

    My professional background has no bearing on your ignorance.

    Even if I was lying and making the entire thing up, you still wouldn’t know what you’re talking about.

    Instead of worrying about what I know, you should be more concerned about your lack of knowledge. Which is considerable.

  90. jukeboxgrad says:

    Instead of worrying about what I know

    The idea that my reaction to you has anything to do with the concept of ‘worry’ is one of many things you have made up.

    By the way, someone suggested that you might be in a position to provide “authoritative references.” Are they correct?

    you should be more concerned about your lack of knowledge. Which is considerable

    Whenever I am in the presence of someone with great knowledge, I hope they will share it, so please proceed.

  91. Pch101 says:

    My professional background provides me with benefit. I didn’t acquire it to help you.

    I don’t think that anyone on the internet can help you. Your reading comprehension isn’t up to the task. Teaching the pig to sing, etc.

  92. jukeboxgrad says:

    OK, so no “authoritative references,” after all. I’m shocked. Thanks for clearing that up.

  93. Pch101 says:

    You aren’t worth the trouble. You wouldn’t understand it anyway.

    If you can’t figure out that the approximately one-third decline in home values during the crash was an indication of excessive debt, then you’re just not that bright. It’s not as if there are many explanations for such a significant loss over a short period of time across such a broad market.

  94. jukeboxgrad says:

    the approximately one-third decline in home values during the crash was an indication of excessive debt

    No kidding. I understand your desire to change the subject. You said this:

    this sort of too-big-to-fail mantra sounds good to know-nothings

    I already cited this:

    The Clinton camp’s “too big to fail” denialism runs against the official conclusion of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, as well as the views of other top finance scholars. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson, former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Sheila Bair, former bank bailout Inspector General Neil Barofsky and FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig have all maintained that “too big to fail” was, in fact, central to the crisis.

    I am still waiting for your “authoritative references” demonstrating that all those people are “know-nothings.”

  95. Pch101 says:

    Ted Cruz says that he will destroy ISIS. And it must be true because I’ve heard of him before and he went to Harvard Law School.

  96. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @ jukebox: I did see your second comment, but I don’t ascribe as much weight to it as you do. But I do see that we are basically on the same page more or less–other than that I’ve become less concerned about the effects of the election as I’ve watched everyone dig in.

  97. jukeboxgrad says:

    Ted Cruz says that he will destroy ISIS.

    Your latest lame attempt at changing the subject is even lamer than your prior lame attempt at changing the subject, and that’s saying a lot.

    it must be true because I’ve heard of him before and he went to Harvard Law School

    I’m sure you always reject the entire concept of expertise, and not just when that rejection is argumentatively convenient. Or maybe what you’re saying is that the concept of expertise is valid, but only when the expert is you.

    And one more thing about this:

    the approximately one-third decline in home values during the crash was an indication of excessive debt

    No shit, Sherlock. Your statement is the equivalent of this: ‘the death of the drowning victim was an indication of excessive water in the lungs.’ The statement is factually correct but it sheds no light and has exactly zero value.

  98. jukeboxgrad says:

    but I don’t ascribe as much weight to it as you do

    Fair enough.

  99. Pch101 says:

    Just a thought, but you might know more about finance if you didn’t devote so much of your time to misinterpreting “polls” from the Drudge Report and everything else that you read. You just aren’t that good.

    My job isn’t to teach you about finance, but to tell you that you don’t know anything about it. Explaining the details would obviously be pointless.

  100. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    Like I tried to tell you before, this one is not interested in rational discussion of issues. He’s interested in explaining to you why he’s so much smarter than you are.

    Which is why, as you’ll see if you read up, he will always, always, always pivot the discussion to make it about you. He’ll always make it personal.

    This is his shtick. He’s a one trick pony – always has been – and yet people keep falling for it. Be smarter than that, or you just let him win.

  101. jukeboxgrad says:

    you might know more about finance if you didn’t devote so much of your time to misinterpreting “polls” from the Drudge Report

    And your third lame attempt at changing the subject is even more lame than the prior two. How long can you continue to outdo yourself? I can’t wait to find out.

  102. jukeboxgrad says:

    He’ll always make it personal.

    Surely you are talking about the person who has said all this, and just in this thread:

    This sort of too-big-to-fail mantra sounds good to know-nothings … you’re ignorant … you don’t know what you’re talking about and you need to learn more about the subject from those who do … you’re using your ignorance to make political choices for yourself … you don’t understand data, and you don’t think things through … Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. … Your reading comprehension really sucks. … you should be more concerned about your lack of knowledge. Which is considerable … I don’t think that anyone on the internet can help you. Your reading comprehension isn’t up to the task. Teaching the pig to sing, etc. … you’re just not that bright … You just aren’t that good.

    You always notice when people “make it personal,” so surely you noticed all that, right? And chances are you also noticed this nice example of someone who decided to “make it personal:”

    this assclown Jukeboxgrad pissed me off the other night, and I lost it. Not proud of it, not excusing it, but it is what it is. I genuinely hate the guy.

    And you also probably noticed this example:

    Go pound sand, you effete bleeding heart asshole.

    Good thing you are not someone who has a track record proving how much you like to “make it personal.” You whining about “make it personal” is the textbook definition of chutzpah.