Case in point, your crazy is worse than my crazy
I’m in neither camp but would’ve loved seeing what a Sanders administration could’ve been. Problem is that the system is broken and it allows the aforementioned clowns to thrive
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
Case in point, your crazy is worse than my crazy
I’m in neither camp but would’ve loved seeing what a Sanders administration could’ve been. Problem is that the system is broken and it allows the aforementioned clowns to thrive
Erm.... this women won 3 elections
and the UK in the 1980's was far more conservative than todays United States.
The US is far more mysoginistic and right wing than the UK was in the 1980s. After you listen to radio news in red states you'll realise that Fox News is comparitively centrist. Even the Daily Mail wouldn't go anywhere near to the right that these networks goto.
Obama was right when he said she was held to a far higher standard than any candidate before her. They interviewed women who said they believed a woman shouldn't hold the position of President.
Thatcher was also the establishment party against the non-establisment party
Hillary was defeated because she is the archetype of the establishment politician who is content with the status quo at a time where the US was more desperate than ever for something different.
There's a lot of trump voters out there who would have voted for sanders.
The democrat stance seems to be:
"hillary lost because she was a woman."
"does that mean we can't talk about her warhawking, wall street loyalties and reluctance to make anything more than cosmetic change?"
"We can, of course, as long as you remember that the main reason you react so strongly to those positions is because they are held by a woman."
"hillary lost because she was a woman."
"does that mean we can't talk about her warhawking, wall street loyalties and reluctance to make anything more than cosmetic change?"
"We can, of course, as long as you remember that the main reason you react so strongly to those positions is because they are held by a woman."
Did you not read the article just posted?
Would she have won against Trump if she was a bloke? Probably.
Would she have been the undisputed choice of the Dem party machine if she was a bloke? Probably not.
Would she have been the undisputed choice of the Dem party machine if she was a bloke? Probably not.
Bingo.
Exactamundo although I'd add that Hillary's history in politics, even dating back to her husband's tenure as Governor is littered with scandals. I mean, in any other industry no one could've survived much less have a career after so many scandals - yet, in politics you're never quite out of it since people have short memories & the bar keeps getting lower and lower for what is acceptable
This notion of Hillary losing because she's a woman is just as lazy as it is ridiculous.
If the Dems ran with someone like Liz Warren, she would have wiped the floor with Trump.
The problem with Hillary was that she equally disliked both by the left and right, if you're going to struggle to galvanize the progressive vote in an election where Donald feckin Trump is the opponent, then you've got problems. Trouble is the DNC failed to heed that when they decided to rig the primaries in Hillary's favour, hence where we are today.
If the Dems ran with someone like Liz Warren, she would have wiped the floor with Trump.
The problem with Hillary was that she equally disliked both by the left and right, if you're going to struggle to galvanize the progressive vote in an election where Donald feckin Trump is the opponent, then you've got problems. Trouble is the DNC failed to heed that when they decided to rig the primaries in Hillary's favour, hence where we are today.
Think it's a mistake to put it all down to establishment/anti-establishment. You could easily see someone even more firmly embedded in the Dem establishment like Biden having won that race. It was about appeal in the end, Trump had it for the groups he needed by promising to bring back the old days (and lying), Sanders had it through his integrity on social justice. Obama, obviously, had it by the bucket load. Clinton had it in the primary but not in the general (she was unquestionably popular with locked in Dem voters, it should be said).
You're assuming all the Hillary voters would have voted for Sanders?
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9495
Chain of emails from May 2016, started by Jeff Weaver, Bernie's campaign manager, which outline - very specifically - the fact that Sanders' campaign knew of the campaign finance swindle within Clinton's campaign from the outset.
Why did Sanders' team try to play the primary clean for so long? It's all well and good being principled but it cost him hugely. He'd have won that primary if he took her out at the knees on a range of issues, but was too principled/meek to do so.
Chain of emails from May 2016, started by Jeff Weaver, Bernie's campaign manager, which outline - very specifically - the fact that Sanders' campaign knew of the campaign finance swindle within Clinton's campaign from the outset.
Why did Sanders' team try to play the primary clean for so long? It's all well and good being principled but it cost him hugely. He'd have won that primary if he took her out at the knees on a range of issues, but was too principled/meek to do so.
Last edited:
You're assuming all the Hillary voters would have voted for Sanders?
I think a lot more of Clinton voters would've stayed Democrat in the event of a Sanders primary win rather than what we saw with Sanders voters in the General.
The problem is that someone like Liz Warren or Sanders would not have got nearly as much campaign funding, and there's no way to know what'd have happened with them once the GOP goes full attack mode on either of them.
wikileaks? Basically the Putin-funded anti Hillary wesbite?
Why do you have that assumption? Because they did in 2008?
Sanders, I'm pretty sure, would have. He had an extremely good operation on that front, and was matching Clinton step for step during the primary.
LOL. The authenticity of the emails are beyond question. Why criticise the source of the leak and not the content? It's the content which is important here. No need for deflection nor discrediting the source.
The same reason why you (from the tone of your post) believe the opposite. It's just a remark and a gut feeling on my part. Neither of us have an idea, nor anyone else for that matter. It's all hypothetical at this stage, not to mention immaterial.
Fair points, but again, we'll never know. Sanders' growth on the campaign trail in early 2016 was astounding. Has there been a campaign grow so quickly, and organically, ever? Who knows what may have happened once the Left knew he was our candidate. I think he would have united the movement, particularly against a rival like Trump.
He got a lot more small donors than she did, but she wiped the floor with the big donors.
The DNC would rather lose another election to Trump than let Sanders take over the party, he's not a Dem and everyone knows it.
Obama pretty much had very similar policies to Hillary (a little less hawkish), but there were very little big differences. Sanders wanted to rip up the playbook and offer "no minute abs" (in Hillary's words). Like it or not, there's a very significant portion of the Dem base who wanted her and only her, I'm not sure they'd have all turned up to vote for Sanders.
Like you said, it's immaterial to argue about it now. Now there were all sorts of stories about why Hillary would not go with Warren as her running mate, one of the biggest reason was that she'd have turned a lot of the big donors away.
Will those same donors be happy with Sanders, who has even more extremist views than Warren? I sincerely doubted.
You're assuming all the Hillary voters would have voted for Sanders?
With trump as the alternative, I think that's a given.
In terms of the overall money taken in, though, they were basically level. Think he'd even overtaken her at one point, if memory serves. Until she'd all but clinched the nomination, anyway.
In terms of affecting turnout/turning voters off, I'd assumed that would happen myself as well, but the recent election over here in the UK has given a pretty convincing example of the converse happening as a general election campaign develops. Obviously, the UK and the US have very different political climates, and different reactions to the word socialism, but he was also more popular in the US than Corbyn was here in the UK.
Far from a given when you look at what happened with those ultra-progressive young voters in Sanders' coalition.
Except for the fact that people on Hillary's side made that assumption too and we all know how that went.
She had a ~2:1 fundraising advantage over Trump, since the Kochs et al (everyone except the Mercers) decided to concentrate down-ballot. She spent those considerable resources hiring the genius of Mook, Sullivan, etc who crunched the numbers and told her to target suburban Republican women rather than old industrial areas.
I don't see Bernie raising as much as Hillary, nor do I see him wasting his time targeting Republicans.
And then there's the favourability, H2H polls, etc.
I don't see Bernie raising as much as Hillary, nor do I see him wasting his time targeting Republicans.
And then there's the favourability, H2H polls, etc.
You're assuming all the Hillary voters would have voted for Sanders?
That is a very reasonable assumption.
She did rip him a new one in the debates. She won those easily. But most voters don't watch and / or give a feck about debates
More Sanders voters backed Clinton than did Clinton voters back Obama in ‘08, so I’m not sure why this point keeps getting brought up to make Sanders voters seem spiteful.
That wasn't my intention, just pointing out that you can't treat any voters as a given.
R/the_donald is having a field day with this recent news...
A Clinton supporter has done a twitter thread where she's claiming Brazile is lying.
Would be surprised if Politico did not do some vetting and fact checking before publishing the article.
Would be surprised if Politico did not do some vetting and fact checking before publishing the article.
This is the thread
They only published a snippet of her upcoming book. They don't, I'm sure, have to vet anything in that regard.
I strongly disagree with that. Had a friend talking about this the other day. Hilary had massive strategic weaknesses as a candidate that got swept under the rug.
1) Lack of Charisma
This is massively important. The famous study from the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate (radio listeners thought Nixon won, TV viewers overwhelmingly thought Kennedy won) showed how important charisma is in US Presidential elections. The more charismatic candidate has won every US Presidential election since then. You cannot win the US Presidency without being charismatic.
Obama vs. Romney/McCain = Obama more charismatic than both
Bush II vs. Kerry/Gore = Bush more charismatic than both
Bill Clinton vs. Dole = Bill more charismatic
Bill Clinton vs. Bush I and Perot = Bill more charisamtic
2) Hubris
Shown by her lack of campaigning and lack of even understanding the upper Midwest blue collar that went for Trump. Going with this is the Democrats have long relied too heavily on polling and not enough on focus groups despite Frank Luntz proving how much better focus groups are than polls. Also going with this one we can put her corruption of the DNC and overall Machiavellian nature of the Clintons and how her associates demonized young women that were supporting Bernie.
3) Personal Baggage
From a strategic point of view, I can't think of a worse candidate to run against Trump's misogyny because Hilary stood by and defended her husband who was guilty of many of the same things as Trump was accused of. She is literally a man of vigour and esteem. If it was a man in the same position (who stayed with and defended a wife who cheated and made him man of vigour and esteem while potentially using their position of power to take advantage of women) he would have been crucified by Trump and the Troll Right. Like it or not, the criticism of "grab her by the pussy" had zero traction in the election because Trump could easily flip it to, Bill Clinton did the same or worse and Hilary stood by his side and defended him.
Trump could not have flipped that issue on Elizabeth Warren.
4) Her Policies
That and her rhetoric did not invigorate her base as Trumps did. Pro-Iraq war, pro-Wall Street, her and Bill being the biggest supporters of private prisons and mass incarceration. She was simply out of line on most issues from the most passionate liberals.
There were more things but those are the major strategic weaknesses of HC as candidate.
Last edited:
Also, I don't think Brazile is alleging anything illegal...just loaded for one side.
In either case, a judge supported the DNC's claim in response to a lawsuit that they were under no obligation to be impartial (since it is a private organisation).
I'm not sure some Bernie supporters realise what it means to upend the establishment in the way he was attempting. I don't think I realised how bad it can get either, since I got caught up in the surprise of the campaign. Almost every rule, norm, procedure, etc is designed to keep wealth in control of politics.
In either case, a judge supported the DNC's claim in response to a lawsuit that they were under no obligation to be impartial (since it is a private organisation).
I'm not sure some Bernie supporters realise what it means to upend the establishment in the way he was attempting. I don't think I realised how bad it can get either, since I got caught up in the surprise of the campaign. Almost every rule, norm, procedure, etc is designed to keep wealth in control of politics.
Number 3 has absolutely no place in an otherwise solid post. man of vigour and esteem ffs.
Wasnt this the whole reason the DNC chair who was there before Brazile resigned? She was a cnut of the highest order just like the candidate she was supporting.
I realize that is now a charged term and I probably should have left it out but I am analyzing this as I would as a political strategist. And it is a valid strategic concern. Have you seen the documentary Get Me Roger Stone?
The disinformation operators have absolutely zero qualms about using anything and everything from the most distasteful outright lies. If I was advising the DNC last election, I truly believe it would have been a mistake to ignore the counter-attack that Trump effectively used against Hilary whenever the misogyny got brought up.
I am not saying that I like it or personally agree, but as a strategist if I look at Hilary using that misogyny angle against Trump, the counter is very obviously going to be something along the lines how her husband did many of the same things and she stood by him and defended him. Or going even further as the Bannon-Stone crowd loves to do. Its just not a strong strategy for Hilary Clinton to use against a political opponent whereas another cleaner candidate could wield it more effectively.
That counter is going to resonate with a lot of people because Hilary was so unpopular for so long among close to 50% of the population. If Obama was making that criticism of Trump then Trump has no clear retort that can gain traction, even among his base. I really think it would have been poor strategy for none of her advisers to bring this up and adequately prepare for it.
This is actually why I didn't get into politics as work because analyzing distasteful issues like that is kind of important.
EDIT:
I realized that I should also clarify the personal baggage and policies really overlap as well. She has too many issues where she supported one thing then tries to go the other way so the counter is always going to be "but why did you support this back then". And these aren't issues where its easier to flip and just new data changed my mind. They are more long lasting issues that reversing opinion on just begs the question of trust.
A candidate with a pattern of defending her husband from misogyny but now attacking another for it, supporting mass incarcerations and private prisons when it was politically expedient but now reversing that stance when its not, supporting Wall Street and corporate welfare going back to the 1980s when she was on Wall Mart's Board but now wants to reign in big banks because liberals do, bought into the propaganda for Iraq War when the mood it but now ensures that wouldn't happen again, etc just loses trust on many angles. Sadly, while distasteful the personal angle is/was one of them and a powerful one in some cases if the candidate is unprepared as in this case.
Last edited:
Based on numbers these are nobodies but it's always fun to see what they're up to:
https://www.facebook.com/OFDUS/posts/887430571423815
If/when it gets taken down:
https://www.facebook.com/OFDUS/posts/887430571423815
If/when it gets taken down:
Last edited:
Hillary voters are moderate, unlike many sanders voters. They are accustomed to voting for the lesser evil.
So the supporters of the furthest left candidate decided to go to the far right out of spite, but the more centralist supporters are more likely to go left than go right?