Imagine thinking Hilary is the right person to run.
fecking hell, she's literally one of the few Dems who were capable of losing to Trump.
fecking hell, she's literally one of the few Dems who were capable of losing to Trump.
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
In my opinion 75% of the electorate is politically illiterate. Hillary was a poor candidate but would have made a decent president due to her experience and ability to deflect republican stupidity. She would have kept us on a saner path but probably contribute to a more divisive country but we know from the Obama years that this is really the Republican modus operandi. You could debate her flaws in 2016 and never reach consensus but at the end of the day a man that mocked the disabled, is accused of multiple sexual assaults, known to be colluding with a foreign power for political gain and just a nasty nasty cnut won. That is a fecking shocking eye opener on the flaws of the myth of the USA.
This country's shit stinks more then ever when you observe the filth that the Republican party has become and the galling lack of fight and political savvy from the other party. Some talk a good game but get rolled everytime by people that don't even believe in basic science.
I want a youngish dem candidate with Sanders or Warren as a vp pick. I also want the Democratic party to make all candidates to make it simple and progressive. Forget about running against trump (it may even be Pence if Mueller slam dunks that orange rubber ball) and tell people exactly what to expect from a Democratic majority. Raise minimum wage nationally, a medicare for all option, legalized marijuana, a workable migrant worker visa program and a number of other issues that can galvanize progressive left, center left and center right if there are any left. And when elected, without fanfare, scrub that motherfecker right out of the books and set the example on corruption.
the dems should run anna wintour to piss off trump the most
The DNC had the right to not back Sanders - he wasn't a member of their party. He should have ran as an independent and got financial backing from a billionaire or group of wealthy people. He could have done a Perot 92 but couldn't fund his own campaign to start with.
love to have a country where office seekers need to gain favor with wealthy patrons
He may view himself as an independent but is voting with the Dems almost 100% of the time. They have also supported him in various ways before. So he is a de facto democrat.
Unfortunately, that's how it is and not much you or I can do to change that. And doubt these new SCOTUS implants will do much to reverse a certain case.
Sanders is a populist candidate and could raise his own funds from his fanbois... but is that enough to compete with the DNC and GOP candidates?
But he isn't affiliated with their party.
They practically back him in his reelections so he is not affiliated in the sense that he does not have a membership card but in reality he is.
If you're going to have a rigid two-party system, then you need to regulate for the fact that figures from outside the party will want to stand when it comes to a Presidential race. As has been said, Bernie's fairly closely affiliated to the Dems in certain respects and had no chance of winning as an independent. Running to be their candidate was the sensible move and helped to widen ideas within the party.
Not to mention he also backed Hilary once he lost the primary, so was willing to vote Dem when it came down to it, even if he disagrees with them on plenty.
Not to mention he also backed Hilary once he lost the primary, so was willing to vote Dem when it came down to it, even if he disagrees with them on plenty.
Funding wasn't a problem for him despite lacking big donor support:
Breakdown:
Caveat: this doesn't count PACs, where she outraised him (he didn't have any significant PACs).
And why would those 80k change their minds?
I'm not saying she lost badly. I am saying that Trump won those voters in swing states because he tailored policies towards them. Since his election, he has not done anything particularly surprising, considering the campaign and has actually, if we're being objective, actually pursued the policies he promised pretty aggressively. Economy (for now) is doing well.
So what reason would those 80k people change their mind?
I'm just struggling to understand the reasoning tbh. Pit the same candidate against someone she lost to 4 years ago without any real change in circumstances..where does that happen?
It's not 'unfortunate', it was a completely cringeworthy embarrassment. She lost to Donald J Motherfecking Trump, the single most ridiculous and stupid candidate ever to run for President. This shouldn't have been close, it should have been a landslide the likes of which the US has never seen. Hell, the orange idiot did everything he could to hand her the election, from pussy-gate to outright racism he managed to show his full Trumpness at every turn, and she still couldn't beat him because of that goddamn server business and her complete inability to connect with voters.
We warned Democrats not to nominate her, she is a god awful politician with the charisma of a tax collector moonlighting as a traffic warden, but no, they just had to do it anyway, because 'its her turn!'. But she's so genuine and warm one on one! Brilliant, just fecking brilliant, that is clearly going to win over a nation who will only ever see her on TV. And now some people are genuinely, without a single glint of irony, suggesting that she should run again?! The woman who called a significant chunk of American voters 'deplorables' in the middle of a national campaign?
Are you fecking kidding me?!
So you want the Democratic party to be a socialist party
I would like to see democratic socialism given a good run out in certain areas of society but i know its all talk when the profit motive rules all in this country.
Trump's trade war has already caused a lot of tariffs by the EU and China on a lot of red state products, the Russia involvement in the 2016 election is clearer by the day, many of his closest associates are getting indicted and there's every possibility that Mueller may end his presidency.
There are millions of reasons why someone may have changed their mind.
Having a different, lesser known candidate is not always going to work, we've seen that when Al Gore refused to run against Dubya for a 2nd time. Did Kerry do any better? No!
Politics in the US is almost like sports nowadays, people back their side through thick and thin, the GOP could nominate a serial killer and their base will still turn up. What we need is for the Dem side to turn up.
What would you have done if you were in charge of the DNC? Hillary won the primaries by pretty big margins (bigger than when she lost to Obama). It's just absurd that the same people who complained about the superdelegates seem to think those very superdelegates should have given the nomination to Bernie despite the fact that Hillary had million more votes countrywide.
The demographics of the country still favors the Dems, the increased anti-Trump sentiment on their side should be enough to drive her over the line.
He sold them some snake oil!
Putting Hillary forward again would be akin to madness, Neil Kinnock did so very well against Thatcher the second time didn't he? Has there ever been an example since Nixon of a failed candidate returning in later years to win The White House?
I do not think the superdelegates should have handed the nomination to Bernie, but I certainly do think they shouldn't exist in the first place. Those superdelagates, many of whom declared before the race had barely started, were being reported in the media as part of the delegate total, making it seem right from the start as if Hillary had a commanding lead. Even when Bernie was rocking in the early states, those superdelagate numbers stifled his momentum and may well have prevented people thinking he had a real chance to win. Superdelegates are a stupid solution to a theoretical problem, and the worst part is that they could never actually be used for that intended purpose anyway without basically destroying the party.
You know what though, realistically I don't think he'd have beaten her anyway. He started with basically no name recognition, no funding or campaign infrastructure and as much as we love an underdog story, that kind of thing doesn't really happen at the national level of politics. It does however piss me off to this day that the DNC couldn't resist making sure, and in the process alienated a huge number of progressive Democrats and independents who had been swept up in the Bernie excitement. Those voters STILL voting in higher numbers for Hillary than Hillary voters in 08 did for Obama, but if they hadn't been made to feel cheated, then even more would have voted.
Kinnock was up against Major in his second election as Leader, not Thatcher.
Other than the Mueller point (which is seen as a witch hunt by many of this supporters), none of those points are new. None are surprises. They were all there in the open when Trump first won the nomination and then somehow won the whole election. He's called teflon don for a reason. His supporters know about his sexual history. They know about his business history. They know about his trade rhetoric. They know about his NATO rhetoric. They know about the Russia stuff. They know about the Iran stuff. None is new information.
I don't get how people aren't more angry at Hilary tbh. She lost what was surely one of the most winnable elections ever? Against one of the worst candidates in America's political history?
I'm not saying that a lesser known candidate would necessarily win. Personally I think there's a very good chance he will win a second term. But he isn't losing to Clinton in 2020.
No excuses, but the Comey letters didn't exactly help. But yeah, she blew a huge lead in a spectacular fashion and should rightly go into obscurity.
I agree with all of that, the DNC messed up the whole process, but Hillary would have won that nomination anyway
Did they really know about the Russia stuff as they do now?
Anyway I think the biggest issue with Hillary is that she helps to drive GOP turnout like no other Dem candidate (other than Obama who can’t run again) would, by doesn’t attract Dem turnout like Obama can.
However I don’t see any Dem candidate who’s definitely going to be a better choice at the moment.
Hopefully the economy crashes in time for the next election cycle.
Not a thing to wish for, ever, even if it's inevitable.
"A recession is a survivable event" is such a privileged statement. Recessions hurt and kill the most vulnerable people in societies. What really needs to happen is for economics to stop being measured by how the markets are looking and start being measured by how it affects people. If the Democrats secretly want a recession to use as political ammunition against Trump they're still by far the lesser evil but they're an evil nonetheless.
That's one of the reasons why right wing parties keep winning elections. Poor people die as a result of their policies, and good luck voting from the grave. It's also why any democrat who is against single payer healthcare and a living wage should be primaried.
Are poor people even majority left wing?
Trump could change the US flag to that of Russia's and the GOP base would still be galvanised to vote for him if Hillary was in the running. She's toxic and unelectable irrespective of who her opponent is, or what the current economic climate is at the time. Pretty much any every other potential Dem candidate is the better choice by default.
As a general rule, I'd say poorer folks in most countries are significantly to the left of the 'left' party in their political system.
It's just simple cycle of life, a recession will happen sooner rather than later, and if a side benefit of a recession is to get rid of Trump, that'd be good.
How exactly is she unelectable considering she won the popular vote by quite a big margin and only lost the electoral college by some 80k votes?
But you could just as well argue that this is the worst time for it to happen as Trump is destroying the safety nets (such that they are in America) that help poor people survive tough times.
Trump hasn't done too much to destroy the safety nets other than healthcare though?
Probably yes, but if we're realistic the DNC and party establishment play a huge part in determining which candidates get the visibility and support to become viable candidates. It was obvious that they'd decided it was Hillary's year long beforehand, and other potential serious contenders had been scared off. No-one wants to run and look like a fool, and if the party machinery is all behind one candidate then it would take a brave person to run against it, especially if they have high aspirations for the long term. It's noticable that the serious talk about Biden running only came after Hillary had been struggling against Sanders, and it looked like there might be an opening for a late spoiler.
It just concerns me that anyone senior in the party thought she was a good candidate. Her lack of big stage charisma combined with all those years of GOP manufactured baggage ensured she was going to start with a mountain to climb. Who thought that was a good idea coming on the back of 8 years of a Dem president, seriously? Throw in the nonsense with the server and she was doomed from the start against anyone not called Trump. I think that pissed me off the most to be honest. Halfway through the primaries and we had the leading candidate under FBI investigation, and that didn't prompt the party establishment to quietly tell her to drop out. I mean come on..
I’m not sure that’s true. Regardless of how much most of us dislike him, Trump is very charismatic to the deplorables who turned out in record numbers to support him.
Hillary probably could have won it against a normal candidate like Rubio or Jeb Bush.
As for the DNC deciding early that she was their candidate, that’s also no surprise to anyone considering how influential the Clintons are in the party and how well connected they are to donors and superpacs.
you really are sad
and then you have rich libs complaining that poor people vote against their own interest