Except that Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate, not your average run of the mill "minority candidate".
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
Except that Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate, not your average run of the mill "minority candidate".
So these voters, whose guiding force in this election is racial resentment and affinity with Trump's racism, voted for their enemy because he was charismatic?
I'd expect it's more a case of getting your base out. I doubt that many switched from Obama to Trump. I don't think Hillary mobilised enough of her base in battleground states.
I don't understand whatever point you're attempting to make. Mine is that spare an exceptional, once in a life time type politician like Obama, America will continue electing white males until another wave or two of baby boomers die off and social norms become a bit more heterogeneous.
Can't find it right now but the evidence of a switch from Obama to Trump in Ohio, Penn, Wisconsin, Michigan, is very convincing.
Mine is that the campaign and content might be a little more important than identity, at least for voters who're not solidly Republican. Running Warren on a Bernie-like platform would be an interesting experiment.
I don't think the Dems should touch the older crowd of candidates. Warren will be near 70 if she were to run.
I find it strange when some Democrats complain about race continuing to play a major role in the U.S landscape (I'm not suggesting it doesn't) when they're the one party who advocated very prominently the idea of identity politics. It's a delicate issue and one which the Left may rue in years to come:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/left-sin-richard-rorty/535278/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/left-sin-richard-rorty/535278/
Race kinda played a big part in the U.S landscape because of things like slavery & native-american genocide.
The issue isn't identity politics, the issue is why identity politics was needed in the first place.
@Raoul
We won't have an election as an experiment to test Warren's popularity, but we do have polls. Which tell us:
Ofc, the not sure numbers point to lower name recognition, but those are bad numbers against a terribly unpopular incumbent.
Edit: the ~double digit lead for Bernie over Trump has been constant through the start of 2016.
We won't have an election as an experiment to test Warren's popularity, but we do have polls. Which tell us:
Ofc, the not sure numbers point to lower name recognition, but those are bad numbers against a terribly unpopular incumbent.
Edit: the ~double digit lead for Bernie over Trump has been constant through the start of 2016.
@Raoul
We won't have an election as an experiment to test Warren's popularity, but we do have polls. Which tell us:
Ofc, the not sure numbers point to lower name recognition, but those are bad numbers against a terribly unpopular incumbent.
Edit: the ~double digit lead for Bernie over Trump has been constant through the start of 2016.
Sadly these numbers don't price in the beating each of these Dems would take if they actually ran against Trump. Once his propaganda machine gets going, the likes of Bernie and Warren would have significantly higher negatives.
This was said since about August 2015 in regards to Bernie, but whatever. It's far away, and there are too many variables.
It was correct then as it is now. You can't create hypothetical matchups based on polling since the candidates haven't done any negative ads on each other. Once they do, the numbers will swing wildly.
Trump second term assured.
Some good data for their next election strategy - don't target the bottom right in Philly subrubs.
She's actually going to use "It's her turn" as the campaign slogan?
@Red Dreams
I guess this is as good as place as any to continue...
The DNC did not get their candidate through as you put it, their primary voters did. Unless you suggest the DNC completely ignore the 2-3 million people who voted for Hillary ahead of Bernie in the primaries, there was no way Bernie could have won the nomination.
I understand all the points about southern states, etc, but unless you suggest the DNC only run primaries in swing states in the future, there is not much to be done about that.
I guess this is as good as place as any to continue...
The DNC did not get their candidate through as you put it, their primary voters did. Unless you suggest the DNC completely ignore the 2-3 million people who voted for Hillary ahead of Bernie in the primaries, there was no way Bernie could have won the nomination.
I understand all the points about southern states, etc, but unless you suggest the DNC only run primaries in swing states in the future, there is not much to be done about that.
Just heard her talking about how creepy it was to have Trump stalking around her. I was amazed the organisers of the debate didn't stop that - good TV though, I suppose. Now there's a man in the WH who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Cry/laugh
same ol garbage from her.
go away.
go away.
Also does she call her husband Clinton?
Why do I get the impression both of them are going to do this again in a couple of years.
Last edited:
If she runs again, I'd put my house on Trump doing 2 terms.
Don't presume Trump will still be around by then.
don't presume the USA will be around.
Reminded me a bit of Al Gore during his debates with Dubya, at one he followed him around, during another Gore kept sighing/groaning audibly at everything Dubya said.
Reading the exerts it is just more of Hillary blaming someone else for her failures. She entered two Presidential Campaigns as a favorite, lost them both. Once in the primaries, once in the General. She needs to realize that maybe, just maybe it might be her that is a huge part of the problem.
I will grant her that the hate she gets from the right is way over the top, but when she can't hold her own party, she can't blame a vast right wing conspiracy on that.
She sums up that smug liberal attitude that has played a big part in the rise of populist politics. This entitled way of treating people with different viewpoints as intellectually and socially beneath you.
Agreed. It also explains Wasserman-Schulz's smugness when she and her DNC stooges attempted to stack everthing in Hillary's favor and against the Bern.
Bernie's definitely running - he has been touring Iowa, Wisconsin, upstate NY, Michigan, and going repeatedly to West Virginia. She has re-hired most of her campaign team.
There's also Kamala who is a definite.
My hope is that Warren runs from the left wing of the party with Bernie's endorsement. She should appeal to all Hillary and most Bernie supporters.
However, nationally, Bernie remains their best bet.
Harris has somehow become the darling of the party elites for no reason whatsoever, other than the fact that there are few other viable candidates considering a run. Her best shot may be to slowly latch onto Bernie's coat tails and eventually get some VP consideration....because let's face it, if Bernie runs this time, no other Dem is going to stand a chance.
Padding with a fecking facebook meme. At least they know the books audience. And rustlers.
. At least they know the books audience. And rustlers.
Slow arse, everything is already posted.
Sorry, this one's real.
Sorry, this one's real.