Or Martin O’Malley, who’s actually running.
Let us imagine he runs.
Now come the articles on his very cozy relations with the credit card and banking industry getting a bill that helped them while hurting consumers through while his son was paid untold amounts of money by MBNA (who had been Biden’s biggest donor). and remembering his signature Senate accomplishment, the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which has resulted in so many (especially so many minorities) in jail for so long for so little.
Really. If he enters then he gets those as the focus and that little favorability blip goes poof.
800 feet of primo copper wire.
And a sweet Trans Am.
Why would things like that hurt Biden but not Clinton?
I was being facetious of course. Compared to Ms. Warren and myself, O’Malley is almost just a teeny-bopper!
But heck, O’Malley seems OK to me. Now all we need is some name recognition. Why not invite Donald Trump to NBC and air “Donald Trump the Democratic Candidates.”
These accomplishments are what I expect to see on a GOP resume. 
Maybe that’s the push he needs for the fence sitters?
So, no.
They and especially the perceptions of her being too cozy with Wall Street are already baked into her current numbers.
As to Bill Clinton having signed that 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act into law, he quite a bit back stated that it was a mistake and Hillary is not the one who signed it (although she did actively support it at the time). She is explicitly currently advocating for reform of it. Biden still claims it was a great thing.
Because it was. I’m telling you, Democrats are making a huge mistake if they think that going back on their law and order stance is going to help them.
I keep thinking I’m mishearing, but an amazing number of Republicans are for sentencing reform.
Republicans are for a lot of change, but change consistent with our principles. Democrats are moving entirely back to their 1970s stances which put them in the wilderness in the first place.
Not exactly – IIRC, the 1970s stance didn’t include body cameras, or getting rid of for-profit prisons, or better national data-keeping on police shootings, or legalizing marijuana, or many other proposed justice reforms.
But except for the drug war, liberals would have favored those things in the 1970s.
What exactly about the 1994 law should Clinton and Biden distance themselves from? Because backing away from it as a whole is dangerous. You won’t see Republicans do it. My side has some very specific issues with the system, stuff I think we all agree on. But others, like broken windows policing, mandatory sentences for violent criminals, three strikes laws, prisoners serving most of their time, laws like Florida’s 10-20-life law for gun crimes, those are pillars of the anti-crime effort of the 1990s. Trying to go back on those would go over about as well as trying to undo the New Deal.
“Would have”? That’s meaningless and impossible to know for sure.
We don’t need to frame it that way – we frame it as a new approach for failed overall policy (the failed drug war, mass incarceration, for-profit and overcrowded prisons, police shootings, etc.).
I doubt much of the public would view the 1990s anti-crime effort as a failure. Quite the contrary.
Parts of it are – mass incarceration is a failure; the drug war is a failure; for-profit prisons are a failure; rampant police shootings are a failure; etc.
That was my point. Democrats, like Republicans, should be addressing certain parts of the 1990s era laws that had unintended consequences. Otherwise it looks like Hillary Clinton was opposed to putting more cops on the street.
That’s fine with me.
Yeahhhhhh… That’s not gonna work. But she’s free to give it a go. Democrats neutralized the crime and welfare issues in the 1990s thanks to Bubba. We’ll take those issues back to beat you over the head with, no problem.