Even if that's what she thinks, I don't really see why she feels the need to say it out loud. If Warren gets the nomination, this will sound bad to all the dem voters who like the Clintons.
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
Even if that's what she thinks, I don't really see why she feels the need to say it out loud. If Warren gets the nomination, this will sound bad to all the dem voters who like the Clintons.
Because she’s a fecking moron with a superiority complex.
Probably because its spot on. The conditions to pass Sanders' or Warren's plans simply don't exist at the moment. The Dem party doesn't even support M4A, so it wouldn't be a stretch to predict it would be a non-starter irrespective of who is elected.
Last edited:
Well, I’m not American, and I’m far from an expert on American politics, but don’t you think that there’s a chance that the party would follow suit on Warren or Bernie’s healthcare proposals, were they elected? I know I’m just a Dane who knows exactly zero Americans, but surely having a name like Hillary dismiss the idea like this is bad if you want to move the public opinion towards it. The conditions will come if the public wants it enough. Hillary saying it’s impossible doesn’t help that mission in any way.
And even if it’s dead, I still don’t see the benefit of such a statement for anyone other than the republicans. If Warren gets the nomination, that is.
Biden and now Hillary saying Warren's plan is too expensive sets a huge hurdle for Warren.
But Warren painted herself into a corner by talking in terms of Trillions. She is going to get attacked on all sides, especially her own.
She does not say if Insurance companies will be gone.
Its always easier to relate to an individual than talking in terms of abstract numbers when explaining what benefits them.
Bernie simply says Yes. Your payroll taxes will go up.
But that cost will be far offset by savings in the 3 major costs going away, which he says is already a Tax. Premiums/Co-Pays and Deductibles.
Hillary is clearly running again.
The Dem party aren't united on healthcare and so its highly unlikely they would have the votes to move M4A through Congress if Sanders or Warren were to somehow win the Presidency. I believe there are only about 14 sitting Dem Senators who are for M4A with the rest supporting some form of a re-strengthening of Obamacare. So when only 30% of your own party support the policy then that's not good enough. It would take 100% support by the Dems to barely squeak it through, and people like Sinema, Manchin, Klobuchar and a host of others simply aren't going to go for that. Therefore, there's a higher chance that Warren or Sanders would be reduced to strengthening Obamacare than getting M4A through. We are still at least 2-3 cycles away before the climate changes to the point where the public see the value proposition over the fear mongering.
We are about 3 cycles away before the climate change cannot be reversed and then it wont make any difference whatever happens.
Saying things won’t work in politics is self-fulfilling once people listen to you. Sadly people listen to Hillary. The more people that say M4A won’t work the more people on the fence will think it won’t work and won’t be tipped in favour of a candidate calling for it. Be that voters or people in Congress. Saying this shit would undermine candidate warren in the general trying to get elected and president warren in the White House trying to get shit passed.
Party unity only goes one way I see.
Party unity only goes one way I see.
A President that does not have to compromise with corporations will be able to get Single Payer done.
Only Sanders can do it. By going direct to the people.
Only Sanders can do it. By going direct to the people.
...And somehow bypassing or dismissing the Senate in the process. Genius!
that's not what he meant. sanders has repeatedly said that a mass movement is the only way to defeat the gridlock and the obstruction. he's right and there is historical precedent for it.
indeed.
A president that does not have to compromise with corporations (which has never existed in modernity if at all) will be able to get an economic+social sea-change through Congress that their own party doesn’t support (and which they’d be unable get past the Senate within their 2-term limit due to GOP seats baked in, regardless)?
Where is the historic precedent for that?
He's talking about creating a mass movement similar to the won that Roosevelt had to pass the new deal. Basically had supermajorities in both houses for 6 years in a row. There's no way to accomplish anything in the current framework. Not actual medicare for all, not warren's watered down version, not whatever bandaid biden wants to put on it. The republicans will block everything. We need to sweep them out of office en masse.
The only candidate who has a theory on how to accomplish this is Bernie. The only candidate who has even acknowledged the need for this is Bernie. You get the likes of Biden and Buttchug talking about how once Trump is gone the GOP will work together for the good of the country. Its insane and delusional. Then you've got warren who is the perfect technocrat that might be able to accomplish something in a country with actual working checks and balances but all of her plans are useless in the face of Republican obstruction. Bernie's plans absolutely will not get accomplished in a first term. They probably won't get accomplished in a second term. But he is building a true working class movement that can demand more from elected officials and kick out the ones who stand in the way. The democratic party is openly hostile to mass movements. You can see it in how Obama dismantled the progressive base that had helped him and his party win dramatic victories. Only a true mass movement can sustain the pressure needed to enact real change.
Bernie’s plans absolutely won’t get accomplished in his second term, either. FDR needed the greatest economic depression this side of the Bronze Age collapse or the Black Death combined with the worst global war aside from maybe the Mongols sweeping west to get his initiatives through.
Regardless...why are we in the fecking Hillary thread again? Gah... it’s pointless...
Maybe not. Probably not. But he's at least got a theory for building the movement to go forward. And it starts with the type of people who make up his base. Nurses, teachers, cashiers, farmers etc. Those are the people I want to fight with, not tenured professors and CPAs that make up Warren's base.
FDR didn’t have anything resembling a mass movement.
His economic response to the GD was starkly similar to Obama’s. Bailed out the banks, gave them $1bn, let big corporations kept the power to fix price in anti-monopoly legislations. What he had was the ability to keep the people on side with his fireside chats, and an uneasy yet still effective coalition of Old South Democrats and the northern business type he represented, and it was of little surprise that black and Native American people saw none of the New Deal’s benefits, due to this coalition.
People love to bring up ‘I welcome their hatred’, but most of his New Deal accomplishment had already been done before that speech. The rich rules America and the only way to break that would be pitchforks on the street, not elections.
His economic response to the GD was starkly similar to Obama’s. Bailed out the banks, gave them $1bn, let big corporations kept the power to fix price in anti-monopoly legislations. What he had was the ability to keep the people on side with his fireside chats, and an uneasy yet still effective coalition of Old South Democrats and the northern business type he represented, and it was of little surprise that black and Native American people saw none of the New Deal’s benefits, due to this coalition.
People love to bring up ‘I welcome their hatred’, but most of his New Deal accomplishment had already been done before that speech. The rich rules America and the only way to break that would be pitchforks on the street, not elections.
A mass movement of voters swept him into power and gave him enough support in Congress to enact his policies. That's what I mean. Actual grass roots movements voting in people to enact their goals and pressuring / defeating those who stand in the way.
As for pitchforks, it may soon come to that.
That’s surprising, thanks for the explanation. I was under the impression that M4A was pretty much the official line of the party and that the majority of the public wanted it. I can’t believe that so few of them actually support it when it is, imo, the only reasonable thing to do.
As unlikely as it is, if it came to that , it won't be because of that particular issue.
Q: Is Hillary Clinton worried that Warren might steal her thunder by becoming the first female president?
Imagine the outrage if Bernie wasn't running and Hillary was, and in the media Bernie doesn't pledge support for her lukewarm hotdog water policies of she was elected
If not for the brilliance of James Comey she would have won, and presumably then be considered smart?
The false equivalency between her and a f'cking monster like Trump is insulting.
Regardless of what Hillary thinks or wants to do - she s fecked with Bloomberg entering the race unless they come up with some kind of joint ticket pact perhaps.
Because she's in bed with the people it would affect the most. A corporist backs corporations, shock horror.
No she still would have been stupid. It should never have been close. Shes been an overwhelming favorite twice and lost both times. First to a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama and second to a rapist with dementia.
Shes a monster and a very stupid one at that. Millions of peoples lives are worse for her actions. Thousands are people are dead for her actions. She is one of the most destructive forces alive today and her entire career is a shrine to how many people that were destroyed for her own personal goals. The blood she has on her hands ranges from the multiple women her husband was credibly accused of raping, the 500,000 dead Iraqis, the Libyans sold in an open air slave market, the tens of thousands of americans who die every year from lack of healthcare, the civilians murdered in the Honduras coup and countless more. She is an absolutely monstrous person and I'll celebrate when she finally dies.
Trump and Clinton are more alike than appears at a casual glance.
We are about 3 cycles away before the climate change cannot be reversed and then it wont make any difference whatever happens.
Stop being so optimistic, it's already too late.
Exactly this. One is just less open about what they are.
The democrats in Ireland would be a right leaning party.
At its core America is a 2 party dictatorship. Yes you allow extremes from both sides but the main point of politics is to keep the status quo. It's fine to allow dissenting voices once there's no chance for those voices to enact change.
As long as politics in America is laden by money it probably doesn't matter who you have in government on a country wide basis.
As long as politics in America is laden by money it probably doesn't matter who you have in government on a country wide basis.
Fixed it for ya.
No no no. This is not historically accurate at all mate.
FDR might not have been as progressive as some wanted but he was FAR more experimentalist and open to building from the bottom up than NoDrama ever did. Please study the impact FDR had with:
- Social Security Administration
- Works Progress Administration
- Tennessee Valley Authority
- Public Works Administration
- The Federal Emergency Relief Act
I don't have the time to break all this down but the bold is just massively off base and pretty much ignores a huge bulk of what Roosevelt did. Check this out if you have the time
Wow, out of interest why is she single-handedly bathing in the blame of the Iraq War?
The simple question to ask is who does the Democratic Party represent as it is now?
Currently it certainly does not represent working people.
Just look at the clowns they are pushing. Biden, Pete? Now Hillary and Bloomberg.
Even Warren the so called 'progressive' the party is somewhat ok with is what she is being called. A policy wonk who cannot see the forest for the trees.
Her health care plan reflects this.
You cannot serve two masters.
Currently it certainly does not represent working people.
Just look at the clowns they are pushing. Biden, Pete? Now Hillary and Bloomberg.
Even Warren the so called 'progressive' the party is somewhat ok with is what she is being called. A policy wonk who cannot see the forest for the trees.
Her health care plan reflects this.
You cannot serve two masters.
What FDR accomplished can never be repeated in today s society. Not with today's polarized political climate, the power of special interests and greatly increased power of the states and local government.
At the moment its not about repeating what FDR did for the left.
Its about doing on the left what the conservatives have been doing since Goldwater and building the infrastructure that will make a difference 10-20 years down the road.
Elect Bernie and to lesser extent Warren represent the seeds of a Goldwater on the left. Its not about "Instant Gratification Everything I Want Right Now" as the phony corporates keep strawmanning with but rather about beginning to push the Overton Window back in the opposite with a "Goldwater on the left". Clinton/Biden won't move the Overton Window one inch, they will simply consolidate the movement to the right as they have over the last 30 years and sprinkle some identity politics on top as some sort of imaginary "compromise, let's all work together to feck over the bottom 90% to benefit the top 10%" sugar coating.
I doubt she would get in. She is the sort of person who would get it in both orifices - from the left, who view her as a neoliberal and from the right who view her as a Clinton.
That's an odd question. I didn't say single handedly. I also wonder why you singled that out and not, say, the coup in Honduras which obviously she isn't singly to blame for.
I think you got the wrong idea about what I meant. FDR was obviously much more combative and no one can deny where his allegiance were, but his approach at the very least at the beginning of his presidency was conciliatory towards the oligarchic interests, much the same way Obama did, it wasn’t all fire and fury and getting the working class behind a movement, Al Smith once said you can’t get FDR to commit to any position. It’s only when he becomes increasingly frustrated that they were trying to undermine him every step of the way even with the willingness to play ball that he started trying to pack the court and become decidedly populist in his rhetorics.No no no. This is not historically accurate at all mate.
FDR might not have been as progressive as some wanted but he was FAR more experimentalist and open to building from the bottom up than NoDrama ever did. Please study the impact FDR had with:
- Social Security Administration
- Works Progress Administration
- Tennessee Valley Authority
- Public Works Administration
- The Federal Emergency Relief Act
I don't have the time to break all this down but the bold is just massively off base and pretty much ignores a huge bulk of what Roosevelt did. Check this out if you have the time