They should probably run Bill Gates
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
How about the Dems go populist and run Mark Cuban.
Honestly I have not thought too much about 2020. I'm still shocked a vacuum is going to be in the White House. And angry that Obama and the Dems made this very stupid mistake. Now even whatever Obama did may well be undone.
We have taken several steps backwards. As I have said elswhere, I am not prepared to prejudge Trump. We simply don't know what he is going to do.
But pretty much the Dems defaulted.
And here we are.
Personally I would prefer someone who has come up through the legislature/congress.
People who know how the system works. Have a voting record. Have taken political positions especially when it has been at a political cost.
Profiles in Courage?
There must be people like that out there.
Gabbard is someone who has interested me for example. I'm sure there are others out there. People who are willing to embrace those who do not agree with them.
We do not need to agree with everyone. But if you are seen to be willing to fight for all, people begin to belive.
Obama showed how to do this.
People who know how the system works. Have a voting record. Have taken political positions especially when it has been at a political cost.
Profiles in Courage?
There must be people like that out there.
Gabbard is someone who has interested me for example. I'm sure there are others out there. People who are willing to embrace those who do not agree with them.
We do not need to agree with everyone. But if you are seen to be willing to fight for all, people begin to belive.
Obama showed how to do this.
Spot on!
Hillary lost for many reasons. There were 25 years of attacks against her. Even if most of that is pure lies, it's really hard to defend against it. She shouldn't have run.
Obama is another main reason for Hilary's failure. He came into power creating a lot of enthusiasm. Yes we can! At the end, what could he do? Very little. Yes, he says the right things, but what are the fundamental changes he has created? Almost nothing. A lot of people got disillusioned and didn't bother to go vote because of that.
Obama is another main reason for Hilary's failure. He came into power creating a lot of enthusiasm. Yes we can! At the end, what could he do? Very little. Yes, he says the right things, but what are the fundamental changes he has created? Almost nothing. A lot of people got disillusioned and didn't bother to go vote because of that.
Strange how you cite 25 years of attacks against Hillary but oddly ommitted the 8 years of GOP obstructionism under Obama, which was compounded by Trump's campaign to expose him as not having been born in the US.
Yes, you are right. Personally, I like Obama a lot. Both as a person and as a President.
However, the truth is that he did not accomplish anything of value. Would you be convinced by Hillary that she would accomplish what Obama couldn't? Why? Given her past?
Actually it was 6 years of obstructionism, because for two years Democrats had both houses and the White House and they did nothing. That's a major reason that cost them: people became disillusioned and didn't go to vote this year.
The only good thing was Obamacare (which again is quite questionable).
They did not even try to prosecute anyone from the previous administration or from wall street for the lies, the wars, the torture, the great recession. The Democrats promised a lot in 2008 and delivered very little.
The Dems could've done more in the first two years but Obama mistakenly believed he could compromise on some of his policies to be inclusive and bipartisan, and in the process played directly into the GOP's strategy. The obstructionism unfortunately, began immediately by way of delegitimization and time wasting, then bled into the Obamacare fight.
He's jumped the shark I think
Cuban leans Dem for the most part. This was just one of these odd situations where various personalities are cross-pollinating.
Wasn't there a meeting with top GOP figures before Obama was sworn in? Apparently they resolved to oppose him on absolutely everything, even if what he proposed was in the interests of their own constituents. That isn't politics, it's fundamentalist insanity. The voting record of the GOP in recent years is also close to 100% -- they agree on everything unanimously. As someone pointed out, that level of conformity should be impossible for any actual political party. I think Obama's presidency was underwhelming, but I also wonder how much he realistically could have actually done that he didn't do faced with this level of opposition -- a lot of it just angry white men seething that a black man could become POTUS.
Last edited:
At the beginning, that's what I thought, too. But now I think I was naive to believe that. Two years is a very long time. You can try to find a compromise for a month, three months, six months ... but two years??? No. Now I believe that Obama simply decided to find his place among the elite. For the next two decades, he will be giving his wonderful speeches and being paid a lot for those. The same thing that happened with Bill Clinton.
(And this explains a lot. For example, the Dakota Access Pipeline, about which the president said ... absolutely nothing.)
They had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for about 40 days.
So what? What is your point? In 8 years, Obama could pass nothing, but we should blame the republicans? He wasn't able (using the power of the presidency) to inspire people to flip any senate seats... At the end, he did very little in all areas, even though he was a well liked person. Thinking about it... if for 8 years he really wanted to do something and they didn't let him do anything ... he should have resigned! Such an extraordinary act would be more honorable and effective than being lame duck president for eight years.
And if the republicans are to blame for Obama's ineffectiveness, how would Hilary do any better? She is not well liked, not even in her own party. She is a red flag for many republicans. The Democrats lost both houses. Why did Hilary believe that even if she became President she would do any better than the lame duck Obama?
My point is that you said they didn't have Republican intransigence for two of the eight years, and I was correcting you.
Please stop spouting utter drivel.
The electorate actually voted out Republicans willing to reach across the aisle and replaced them with Tea Party fundamentalists. I can't think of any president who saw this level of antagonism, even when his party had a minority in congress. Maybe Andrew Johnson, but he was sympathetic to the rebel states post Civil War, and deserved it.
I think Obama could have used an influential congressman like Ted Kennedy in his latter years. The likes of Pelosi, Reid, Schumer... just couldn't effect real influence.
What understanding of the need of ordinary people does Cuban have?
He has not served in any capacity.
One of the reasons Hillary lost was because she was out of touch with the needs of ordinary people.
And where the Democratic party and the electorate itself is does not reflect someone like Cuban.
So basically, he's completely electable then.
wrong conclusion.
These are the type of people we do not want anywhere near the presidency.
EDIT:
Winning and wanting to serve are two seperate things.
What surely we have learnt from this last election.
What did Hillary do wrong ? This lays it all out on a silver platter.
I think we are no longer in a post left v right construct now. We are in an establishment v populist construct. Political background doesn't matter as long as you connect with people, their needs and aspirations. To that end, having a governance background is far less important than it has been in the past. This may not be good new for establishment elites like Booker, Newsome et al
Last edited:
I agree. It is a populist v establishment era now.
But the Democratic party having moved left has rejected the corporate candidate. Cuban will therefore be a less damaged version of Hillary. With the fight going on in the DNC, it is highly unlikely a corporate candidate will be nominated.
Newsom has served and is sufficiently left to perhaps satisfy both parts of the party. If he picks Gabbard for insistence, he will be strengthening his case.
Booker is a pure corporate stooge.
In terms of looking ahead to 2020 - the only person I can think of who can match Trump is Cuban. He doesn't have to pretend he's a politician and can get in the mud with Trump, who by then will probably be wearing a bit thin with the public. There's a genuine opportunity there.
The point I am making is what do we Want?
Do we want someone who wants to unite the nation or someone who is only focused on defeating the other guy.
We failed with that second strategy.
There's no such thing as uniting the nation, so I would propose option B: defeating the other guy.
This is true. You want as broad a message as possible, but in the end it's unlikely anyone tops 53%. No-one's cutting through the current heightened polarisation anytime soon.
The home run candidate for the left would be a Bernie style, "I don't give a feck" populist who is about 20-30 years younger than Bernie. This person would get massive millennial support, which by then will probably comprise a massive portion of a swelling anti-Trump coalition.
Obama reached out to everyone.
True. Not everyone listenen to him. But this time round many of those who did vote for him voted for Trump. These were not racists.
The point I am making is, we need to be seen as wanting to serve the country, rather than trying to win the election.
The second strategy failed misreably.
Reaching out to everyone is one thing, being accepted by everyone is entirely another. Like it or not, we are in a bifurcated political system for the next few cycles until demographic changes decisively swing things to the Dems. Until such time, we will be dealing with what we have since 2000 - occasional periods when one party has both the Congress and WH and other periods when it is split. To put it in slightly more macabre terms, older white baby boomers need to gradually die off and be replaced by heterogenous younger voters before the ship is fully on the right track. Until then, we will remain bifurcated.
The Demographic changes do favour the Dems. They simply thought they did not need one section of the population.
The fact is even then, the Dems would have won if they had a more likeable/trusted candidate.
This failure highlights the need to look at all regions.
Once again. If the objective simply remains to 'win', we lose...even if we 'win'.
You Can unite the nation, even if all people do not agree on all things.
People want the same things.
Better lives, a safe retirement, better future for their children.
The fact is even then, the Dems would have won if they had a more likeable/trusted candidate.
This failure highlights the need to look at all regions.
Once again. If the objective simply remains to 'win', we lose...even if we 'win'.
You Can unite the nation, even if all people do not agree on all things.
People want the same things.
Better lives, a safe retirement, better future for their children.
The trouble is that the voters are fickle. Its perfectly likely that by 2020, Trump will have screwed a ton of things up and the electorate will swing back to wanting the highly qualified expert to fix it all. Which could also mean a GOP primary of course.
Not a single one of them has the balls.
As for the original question, what's next for her - I hope nothing. She's got nothing to offer anymore and should just disappear from the political scene.
One need to look no further than election night, to get a glimpse of Hillary's cowardice. She couldn't even come and address her own supporters, people who'd given a year of their life to campaign for her. Instead she sent Podesta to Javitz center, and Podesta comes out and says "as far as we're concerned the election is still on, a lot of states are too closed to call, what we want is for you to go home, we will be here in the morning counting overnight", right as she's giving her concession speech.
Hillary didn't even have the guts to face her core supporters. She's a coward. And a hypocrite.
Her supporters claim she should have president because she's fought all of her life for us. She's not done anything. She named a street and a building when she was a senator and she destroyed the Middle East. She didn't even care enough about you to be able to come on stage and say thank you and goodbye. She deserves nothing.
One need to look no further than election night, to get a glimpse of Hillary's cowardice. She couldn't even come and address her own supporters, people who'd given a year of their life to campaign for her. Instead she sent Podesta to Javitz center, and Podesta comes out and says "as far as we're concerned the election is still on, a lot of states are too closed to call, what we want is for you to go home, we will be here in the morning counting overnight", right as she's giving her concession speech.
Hillary didn't even have the guts to face her core supporters. She's a coward. And a hypocrite.
Her supporters claim she should have president because she's fought all of her life for us. She's not done anything. She named a street and a building when she was a senator and she destroyed the Middle East. She didn't even care enough about you to be able to come on stage and say thank you and goodbye. She deserves nothing.
Really doesn't help your argument when you exaggerate everything to absurd degrees. She destroyed the middle east? Her only achievement is naming a street? Come on.
At the risk of repeating myself
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/201...ions-trump-wins.403345/page-413#post-19235600
On the economy - the US Congress/administration are so incompetent that they are arbitrarily handing $Billions of US tax revenue away. Take Google, Apple or Amazon; when they earn international profits, those are returns on R&D that was almost exclusively conducted in the US. Yet the bureaucrats in charge, have allowed these US companies to relocate their intellectual property abroad to Ireland, Bermuda, Cayman, Luxembourg and other tax havens through arcane and non-transparent accounting moves. So basically Google's IP (initially funded by the National Science Foundation) is actually claimed by the company to reside in Bermuda, out of the reach of IRS.
One example - Apple profits booked in a foreign country, say Germany, are shifted back to Ireland where there's prolly a sweet deal of 0-1% tax rate. Then the Irish profits are shifted further onward to Bermuda, where tax rates are zero. $100mm in profits in Germany, are paid as a royalty to an Irish based subsidiary of Apple. Then Apple pays no taxes in Germany (since gross revenues are offset by royalty payments) and the $100mm in royalty are booked in Ireland. Then these profits are brought back to the Caribbean tax heavens - the Irish subsidiary pays a "royalty" to the Cayman sub and voila, $100 mm is back in the Caribbean tax free (minus a small haircut in Ireland).
Now if all of Apple's overseas subsidiaries were to be consolidated into one corporate account, and all the company's profits earned on US intellectual property were consolidated into one bottom line, these accounting maneuvers wouldn't matter. Apple's $100mm German sales would hit the US corporate account bottom line where it belongs. But in fact, the opposite is true - un-repatriated "foreign earnings" of US Companies are deferred under the tax code, so that's untaxed. Basically, American companies are sitting on more than $2 TRILLION of accumulated profits that they've booked abroad in this manner to avoid US corporate taxes.
Take Gilead for example, which owns Sofosbuvir, a drug to cure Hepatitis C. Gilead bought the drug from drug developer Pharmasett, which did all the R&D in the USA. Yet the intellectual property on the drug is claimed by Gilead to be Irish for tax purposes. So, when Gilead fleeces US govt by charging $1,000 for a drug that costs $1 to manufacture, and the money is paid by the US Govt to pay for the treatment of a US citizen in the US, Gilead has the balls to book the US profits in Ireland. You can't make this shit up.
Trump has been the only one of the remaining candidates that has talked about the issue. He's talked about lowering the corporate tax, or an amnesty that would allow that money to be brought onshore. He's talked about "bad trade deals", and spoken about in protectionist terms as well, and how he wouldn't eat another Oreo. Fine, that's what the masses understand, as opposed to drawing the fecking diagram containing 50 subsidiaries and special purpose vehicles!!!
I'm not sure what Clinton's policy on the matter is, but I'm assuming as Obama MK2, she doesn't have a clue. And Bernie is probably busy pontificating on just redistributing the wealth.
Also, while you mention regulations, Billary's close relations with Wall Stree helped stoke two financial bubbles (99-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great recession. In the 90's they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose financial fraud, manipulation and toxic assets and eventually collapse. In the process, Billary won elections and got mighty rich.
On national security - Clinton is always on the side of intervention. Foreigners always believe that GOP are the neocons and the Dems act as doves to counterbalance the warmongering. This is not true - both parties are divided between neocon hawks and doves who don't want the US involved in unending wars. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American force and war adventures explains much of our current security danger.
Bill instituted an official US policy to support regime change in Iraq (see Iraq Liberation Act) which laid the foundations of the Iraq war in 2003. Of course by then, Hillary was a senator and a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq which caused thousands of lives, cost trillions of USD and caused more instability in the region than any other single decision in modern foreign policy.
As Secretary of State she was among the most militaristic and disastrous in modern US history. Let's talk about Libya and Syria.
On Libya, she's gotten flack over Benghazi, but her support in overthrowing Qaddafi has been far worse. She promoted regime change in Libya, which not only was in violation of international law but also counter to basic judgment. Libya descended into civil war and unsecured arms stashes quickly spread and fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, spawned war in Mali and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Of course, at the time she quipped on Qaddafi that "we came, we saw, he died".
In Syria she again promoted regime change, demanded that al-Assad be removed and thought this would be quick, costless and successful. Her declaration at the time was "Bashar must get out of the way" etc. Of course, no place on the planet is more fecked up today than Syria, and no place poses a greater threat to US security. 10 million Syrians are displaced, refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean and undermining the stability of Greece, Turkey and the EU. ISIS of course has moved in and used Syria as the base for worldwide terror attacks.
She's also supported NATO expansion (why?) at every turn, including Ukraine and Georgia, against all common sense. Of course, poking the Russian bear in the eye has led to counter-reactions in both Georgia and Ukraine, so as Secretary of State she's presided over the restart of the Cold War with Russia. Add that to her glowing CV.
Is it bad judgment? Does she blindly trust the CIA? Does she want to show that as a Democrat she will be more hawkish than the Republicans? Is it to satisfy her hardline campaign backers? I don't know, and I don't care. Whatever the reasons, she's got an awful record and for that I don't want her to run the country.
If it takes a clown in her stead, so be it.