Depends what Drumpf gets up to in the next couple of years, I suspect he might be such a disaster that Hillary could actually use "It's her turn" as her campaign slogan and win.
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
"You gave us all this mess" will be her primary opponent's slogan and he/she will win comfortably.
Blame it on Russia, or alternatively get the DNC to fix it?
Looong shot.
The Dem establishment (esp. Clinton donors) looks to be rallying behind Kamala Harris. She has ties with them back in her days as AG though there are rumours of favours for contributions there.
Women - Check
Immigrant heritage - Check
Vocal opponent of Trump - Check
The DNC isnt this magical, omnipotent secret organisation that can do everything and anything. It's an empty husk used for fundraising purpose. Her and her husband's personal connection with the Southern black primary voters are what built her delegate lead and ultimately the nomination. No amount of blaming will suffice next time. They gave her a shot out of nostalgia, she gave them Trump and Pence and Sessions.
Besides, as much as she wants the presidency, she hates campaigning, particularly the first two primary/caucus. Iowa/New Hampshire. If she isnt guaranteed a win (can only be the case if Trump is found guilty of treason and '16 is proven to have been rigged), she won't put herself through a year living in those two states again.
If the Dems run her again, they are just plain stupid unless there really is no other option for them (and that can't really be the case).
I think it was fear more than nostalgia. Before the election fecking with the Clintons was a really good way to have your political career ruined on the Dem side.
I'm talking about voters. They certainly didnt vote out of fear, they had no qualms ditching her for Barry O in 08.
Absolutely. The Clintons still bore grudges in the Democratic Primaries last year from what they deemed as failures during her '08 run. Being on the wrong side of the Clintons in Democratic circles was akin to political suicide. The Democrats, and the United States in general, don't need their meddling, self-serving fingers in the political pie any longer.
Don't know much about US politics but Clinton defintely is not the answer.
If the Democrats want to win, their best bet is a white man who is pro immigration, pro Israel, but promises to reduce taxes and provide people jobs - also maybe increase minimum wage.
If the Democrats want to win, their best bet is a white man who is pro immigration, pro Israel, but promises to reduce taxes and provide people jobs - also maybe increase minimum wage.
The primaries were so skewed in her favour that she'd have had to completely choke to lose them, and she nearly managed it regardless. The amount of groundwork that they did before the primaries had even started was incredible, and yet within months she still managed to burn a vast part of the goodwill that she'd built up during her SoS stint.
I think people generally don't recognize quite how huge an advantage she went into that primary with, the endorsements, the connections, the DNC ties, the mass market recognition and much more. For her to be taken to almost a tie by an old self described socialist who 90% of Americans had never even heard of was unbelievable. But then again it shouldn't have been really, because she's a really, really terrible campaigner. The elephant in the room with Trump winning was that if it had been anyone BUT Trump she'd have lost by a truly staggering margin.
I can't quite be bothered to do all this stuffs again, but the 'Sanders nearly won' is a big myth.
It was patently clear that after Super Tuesday her lead was impregnable. Michigan was a great night for Sanders but it was just that. He never managed to cut her lead. By any standard or historical performances of Democratic primary races, hers was an easy victory.
The Clintons built their 'dynasty' on eliminating threats before they became a real challenge. Clinton hoovered up all of the main DNC players prior to her Primary run - the superdonors, the superdelegates... basically nullifying any Democratic challenger before they even tossed their name in the ring. Biden, for example, was snookered before he even had his mind made up about running or not. Sanders, being an Independent and one without close ties to either party, was never taken really seriously by the Clinton campaign almost until it was too late. It was embarrassing how close he actually pushed her in the end despite her having a monumental advantage at every possible turn.
9 million votes and 500 pledged delegates are 'close'?
Do go on. Facts and you have a rocky relationship.
A long essay on the Clintons: https://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/stop-hillary-2/
Open it in incognito.
Obviously it is very anti-Clinton, given the title. But I learnt a lot from this. There are more detailed accounts of the shady and good things they did but this is a good overview on why many leftists don't like them.
Open it in incognito.
Obviously it is very anti-Clinton, given the title. But I learnt a lot from this. There are more detailed accounts of the shady and good things they did but this is a good overview on why many leftists don't like them.
He was theoretically alive till California. Outside 2008, it's one of the closest primaries ever.
It's not a myth, your entire position only makes sense if you saw them as two comparable candidates with a fairly equal chance at the nomination. In that scenario yes it would have been a decent victory, but it wasn't that. It was the most famous active Democratic politician in America with the backing of almost everyone in the party almost throwing the whole thing away against a guy who at the time was basically a nobody and who wasn't even a member of the party!
Theoretically alive is just facetious. Most primaries are run with an incumbent so they are write-off. In an open field it was about as comfortable a win as can be achieved. They even started airing anti-Trump ads before New York. The reality was anyone who bothered to look into the numbers knew Sanders was done after March 1, or at best March 15 (Ohio, Illinois etc..)
There are plenty to bash her with and rightfully so, no need to invent or propagate myths.
The superdelegates situation in the Democratic Primary process is one I find most bizarre. For example, Sanders destroyed Clinton in popular votes in New Hampshire with 60% to Clinton's 37% and received 16 delegates yet Clinton, because of the superdelegates system, only got one less than him with 15. It seems to me that it's a system ripe for corruption and one which no doubt helps the candidate with the best network and connections, rather than the one who voters can more relate to.
The last vote count I recall had a ~3.5m disparity between the candidates. Where is this 9 million figure derived from?
I think the recent UK election is a good comparison. More time=more negatives for her, in 3 cases- the primary, the general, and UK.
Go and read the old US Presidential race thread. You can track the timeline of the primaries perfectly there.
I believe in facts and figures, not talking points.
It was 3.7m actually. I must have the figure mixed up somewhere along the line. She did have a sizeable lead of more than 6m at some point during the race, probably where the confusion came from.
I really doubt it. He won some late victories on the West Coast and Midwest, but in terms of numbers those wouldn't have taken 6m down to 4, especially with her comfortable numbers in CA. Her lead reached the final value and kindof stabilised around it, just like the (non-super) delegate lead.
The superdelegates aka unpledged delegates, contrary to popular belief, have never subverted the will of the pledged delegates. It's less than perfect, but nothing corrupt about it, the process is laid out for all to see. If you want the nomination, win more pledged delegates than anyone else. Obama slightly lost out on popular vote to Clinton in 08 but trumped her by 100 pledged delegate votes. He got the superdelegates at the convention.
I'm fairly sure he won something like 7 primaries in a row, some with quite a big margin like Oregon or Washington prior to NY. Cba to track the numbers step by step as it seems a lifetime away, and this all feels like Groundhog Day. You are welcome to do if you want. The 9m figure is wrong and I own it.
Sanders's lasting all the way have all to do with funding. He to his credit built an even more impressive grassroots funding operation than the OFA and never ran into problem of long shots having to end their campaign early because of a lack of fund. Traditionally none would last after March 15 at best.
That's probably all true and I don't think it's a great idea for her to run again, but a lot of people think becoming the first female president is her destiny.
Do you think Al Gore regrets not running again against Bush?
I don't need to, I followed the whole thing as it happened at a Democratic political forum from the day Sanders announced until Trump was elected.
Gore never striked me as a person who is driven by personal honors. He probably regretted it in the sense that he could have beaten Bush instead of an even more uninspiring candidate than Clinton in Kerry so the country would be spared 4 more years of W, but not as in not getting into the WH.
Clinton's ambition is a lot more personal. I think she believes she can do a good job instead of wanting it for the sake of it like Trump, jarring as it is for some who believe she is driven purely by avarice and corruption, but I also have no doubt getting there have been her lifelong goal for the status of the first female president.
Sanders did have a 6-7 win streak bout midway through the campaign but those were all relatively small states with smaller vote totals. Clinton would have countered any popular vote loss here in one foul swoop later on in New York and California when she won by ~750,000 votes across both. Both of these large state wins easily negated any momentum Sanders built up and don't really point to her having a 6m lead at any point in the race.
I did a few searches for a Democratic primary popular votes tracker, turned out none exists. Anyway, I'm not going to dig for the numbers state by state and date by date.
Back to the so-called closeness of the race, here is my positions argued in numbers. Anyone questioning whether I just jump on the train, feel free to dig out my posts in the old thread.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/
Back to the so-called closeness of the race, here is my positions argued in numbers. Anyone questioning whether I just jump on the train, feel free to dig out my posts in the old thread.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/
Wiki has something.
Clinton - 16,914,722
Sanders - 13,206,428
Not really that big as I thought it'd be.
I meant the live tracker state by state as it happened, since we were arguing over whether she had 6m lead at one point or not.
Anyway, its by the by. Doesnt have much of an impact in the overall point, which is the race wasnt close.
There was something I was reading about how the Clintons are so self-assured about their own cleanliness, it took them very long to figure out why Obama had objections to her continuing in CGI while she was SoS, or why people were suspicious of her speeches. She/they genuinely see themselves as incorruptible and perfect, not ordinary mortals. This was probably in Shattered or one of the new Hillary 2016 books.
Hillary is the only one of the right side of 70 out of those 3.
Biden is 74 and Sanders 75. They would both be in their 80s before their first term as president ended, so that fact alone will go against them if they decide to run for nomination again.
As much as I love Kamala Harris (and I do, believe me) she won't win, and it would be wrong for the Dem's to get behind her.
It pains me to say, especially as a black woman, but I wholeheartedly agree with @Zlatattack - the dem's need a white male to be the next candidate. Ideally youngish late 40s/early 50's who has some centrist views - married with kids, if he came from poverty even better.
If Hillary didn't win, a comparatively unknown black woman has no chance against Trump.
The sooner we realise that America is a fecked up country when it comes to race, the sooner real changes can be made.
The Dem's will need the support of a large amount of Trump supporters if they are to win, and Kamala Harris will just be seen as a less capable Obama.
@vi1lain it's unfortunate but it seems America is regressing, especially in areas like racism and equality. 2009 seems like a whole world away.
This is a bit of a tangent, but i'd like to take the opportunity to ask you this question. As an ethnic minority I expect elected officials from a similar ethnic background to have a better understanding of the problems faced by our community and to represent that in the office they hold. As a black American do you think Obama did enough for black America?
This is a bit of a tangent, but i'd like to take the opportunity to ask you this question. As an ethnic minority I expect elected officials from a similar ethnic background to have a better understanding of the problems faced by our community and to represent that in the office they hold. As a black American do you think Obama did enough for black America?
Isn't @vi1lain British?
Ooh sorry, i don't know. I just assumed she wasn't. put 2 and 2 together and made 5.
I'm not a black american, but I do have perspective from family members & friends and such.
Personally I think he did a good job, given the situation he inherited. He wasn't elected to be the leader for black people, he was elected to be the leader for America, which is still majority white.
Also the problems that black americans face has been handed to them over hundreds of years - that would have never resulted in major changes in the 8 years he was given, it's just not realistic.
But unemployment among black americans decreased faster than the overall unemployment rate, the median income of black households increased, poverty rate for black americans fell faster, high school graduation reached its highest rates, more black people enrolled into college since he got elected, I think i read that black women entrepreneurs are the fastest growing business owners in America in recent years.
These are the kind of changes you'd want any president to be making to all demographic groups, but considering the black americans specifically outperformed in certain areas you have to say that he at least did some good for black americans.
He couldn't fix it all, but I think he did a good job.
The crucial factor in Trump's EC win over HRC was winning 2008 or 2008+2012 Obama voters. So it seems a little weird to say that a minority candidate cannot win, given that these were...Obama voters.
There are ofcourse hardcore racists who make up a huge part of the electorate. Short of reanimated Strom Thurmond, no Democrat will ever appeal to them. It is the former Obama voters and the huge numbers that stay home (disproportionately young, poor and minority), that need to be the Dem target votes. In the UK Corbyn seemed to have some success with non-voters, and Bernie-like numbers with young voters.
There are ofcourse hardcore racists who make up a huge part of the electorate. Short of reanimated Strom Thurmond, no Democrat will ever appeal to them. It is the former Obama voters and the huge numbers that stay home (disproportionately young, poor and minority), that need to be the Dem target votes. In the UK Corbyn seemed to have some success with non-voters, and Bernie-like numbers with young voters.