What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
I'd rather save 11 minutes of my life and do something else. I will say that the conspiracy nutters have been after her for ages on the Saudi connection - mainly as a way to other her as an agent of ghastly state like Saudi while she worked for Hillary.
Watched the documentary "Clinton Cash" yesterday, which is a well documented and professionally made documentary, not some tinfoil basement production, and wow, just wow.
She is even more dodgy than I could ever imagine.
She is even more dodgy than I could ever imagine.
It is the biggest poitical failure I have seen. Not only did she lose to the worst presidential candidate in recent times but she had the backing of literally everyone and had way more money pumped into her campaign than Trump did.
It's a Breitbart production.
Breitbart is as factual as most left-wing MSM, it is just that their agendas differ.
In fact they are better than most, since they as opposed to most doesn't try to hide that they have a spin on stories that favour one side of the political landscape.
They are very open about their political sympathies, which allows the reader of the news to put on certain glasses when reading them.
There was a study in Norway that showed that more than 90% of newspaper journalists either vote "arbeiderpartiet" (our labour party, just a bit more red) and "Sosialistisk Venstreparti" (Socialistic leftistparty is the translation) and even some voting "Partiet Rødt" (that literally means the Red-Party).
This will be reflected in their coverage and their spin on things, we might trick ourselves into believing it isn't so, but humans are biased, and journalists no less or more than others.
Sweden is even worse, where you will get hounded out of the media picture for having opinions that diverse from the governments very leftist views. That is why they have the most alternative news sites and ones that no are almost as big as their MSM in number of readers.
There was a study in Norway that showed that more than 90% of newspaper journalists either vote "arbeiderpartiet" (our labour party, just a bit more red) and "Sosialistisk Venstreparti" (Socialistic leftistparty is the translation) and even some voting "Partiet Rødt" (that literally means the Red-Party).
This will be reflected in their coverage and their spin on things, we might trick ourselves into believing it isn't so, but humans are biased, and journalists no less or more than others.
Sweden is even worse, where you will get hounded out of the media picture for having opinions that diverse from the governments very leftist views. That is why they have the most alternative news sites and ones that no are almost as big as their MSM in number of readers.
The mistake of Hillary?
Being part of the American Political Establishment since WW2.
Being part of the American Political Establishment since WW2.
Being nakedly biased isn't commendable.
I'm actually watching this tripe. About six minutes in and it's cutting between Hilary speaking and lions eating a wildebeest.
I especially liked the part about their brilliant work in Haiti. They done fecked up there. The oil pipeline is also some magnifique work.
Stick with it, it gets better.
Stick with it, it gets better.
I will. I'm really determinedly procrastinating from the studying I should be doing.
EDIT - It's not improving. It's making Michael Moore look unbiased and scientific.
EDIT II - It just reminded me how fond I am of hearing 'Obama' pronounced in an Irish accent. This is the highlight so far, comfortably.
Last edited:
Her mistake was putting her political ambitions ahead of the progress of the country and being a stiff "political" personality who's been part of the clearly corrupt system for a long time. Where she goes from here is the same purgatory reserved for her husband and the likes of Tony Blair.
no, it makes fox news seem sameI think she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I dont know how far back and how deep this hate for her goes exactly, but I suspect the Democrats - a bit like the Labour party - didnt realise that the financial crisis and the depression that followed changed everything. The New Deal / New Labour was for another time when all people could see was growth and stability extending into the distance. A tech bubble here or a mini crisis there didnt change anything, you lower rates, people borrow more money, keep spending and growth continues. The rising tide lifts all boats. OK so inequality is growing but things are still basically getting better for the poor, if the rich are getting richer, faster, its not ideal but its better than everyone getting poorer.
It was seductive while it lasted - and even after it came off the rails we were left with the impression that this was how people thought and this was how people voted. You cant be socialist anymore, you'll get wiped out! You cant tax corporations, theyll just relocate to a lower tax jurisdiction. People dont want to pay more tax, they wont vote for that - even if they are poor, they ASPIRE to being rich, and they wont want to pay more tax when they are. So even though this model of unfettered capitalism has now failed, we need to clear up the damage, put it back on the rails and start it up again, because it worked well for years and anyway, what are we going to replace it with? 80s style socialism? That doesnt work either.
I think that was Clinton's logic and that was/is the Labour - PLP - logic. You cant go to the left because it doesnt win elections (it didnt for a long time). So you need to be centre / centre right.
But the problem is, things have changed. People are still fuming about 2008 (bailing out the banks), theyre still fuming about how unevenly the hardship has been felt since then, with food banks and unemployment and the cost of living and the rest of it. And so they are not going to vote the same way they would have in 92 or 97. Obama managed to convince people he was a genuine "change" candidate in 08, I dont know exactly how to explain his victory in 2012 in the context of everything above except to say people just like the guy and presumably didnt blame him for the fact that change wasnt really coming - they (rightly) blamed Congress for that. He managed to mobilise minorities in a way that Clinton just couldnt, she couldnt arouse that level of enthusiasm and hope.
By 2016 they'd had enough. They needed something that was more than just a rhetorical expression of hope and change, they wanted something that was a more angry, anti establishment, anti corporate expression of hope and change. Clearly they have completely misdirected those hopes, but Clinton did not offer what they wanted, so they either decided to try and tear down the system with Trump, or didnt vote at all. I do think Sanders would have beaten Trump because he spoke to these sentiments in a much more constructive way.
This has caused some change in me personally as well. Because I have to admit, here in the UK, I accepted this idea that people are basically not left wing and a real left winger could not win. I had serious reservations about Corbyn. I still think he lacks the charisma and inspiration of someone like Sanders, but in light of what happened with Trump I am in the process of reevaluating. Maybe he does have a better chance of beating the Tories than a soft left candidate. Just like I think someone like Elizabeth Warren, from the little I know of her, maybe has a better chance of beating the Republicans than Tim Kaine. Because people are pissed off and something has to change.
I think the left has some serious work to do now, taking the best out of old fashioned socialism but modernising it to make it relevant in the 21st century context, in terms of social media and technology and globalisation which really isnt reversible at this stage. I dont think Corbyn has really done that yet, but maybe he can do it. And maybe people in the Democrat Party in the US can lead the way in this too.
It was seductive while it lasted - and even after it came off the rails we were left with the impression that this was how people thought and this was how people voted. You cant be socialist anymore, you'll get wiped out! You cant tax corporations, theyll just relocate to a lower tax jurisdiction. People dont want to pay more tax, they wont vote for that - even if they are poor, they ASPIRE to being rich, and they wont want to pay more tax when they are. So even though this model of unfettered capitalism has now failed, we need to clear up the damage, put it back on the rails and start it up again, because it worked well for years and anyway, what are we going to replace it with? 80s style socialism? That doesnt work either.
I think that was Clinton's logic and that was/is the Labour - PLP - logic. You cant go to the left because it doesnt win elections (it didnt for a long time). So you need to be centre / centre right.
But the problem is, things have changed. People are still fuming about 2008 (bailing out the banks), theyre still fuming about how unevenly the hardship has been felt since then, with food banks and unemployment and the cost of living and the rest of it. And so they are not going to vote the same way they would have in 92 or 97. Obama managed to convince people he was a genuine "change" candidate in 08, I dont know exactly how to explain his victory in 2012 in the context of everything above except to say people just like the guy and presumably didnt blame him for the fact that change wasnt really coming - they (rightly) blamed Congress for that. He managed to mobilise minorities in a way that Clinton just couldnt, she couldnt arouse that level of enthusiasm and hope.
By 2016 they'd had enough. They needed something that was more than just a rhetorical expression of hope and change, they wanted something that was a more angry, anti establishment, anti corporate expression of hope and change. Clearly they have completely misdirected those hopes, but Clinton did not offer what they wanted, so they either decided to try and tear down the system with Trump, or didnt vote at all. I do think Sanders would have beaten Trump because he spoke to these sentiments in a much more constructive way.
This has caused some change in me personally as well. Because I have to admit, here in the UK, I accepted this idea that people are basically not left wing and a real left winger could not win. I had serious reservations about Corbyn. I still think he lacks the charisma and inspiration of someone like Sanders, but in light of what happened with Trump I am in the process of reevaluating. Maybe he does have a better chance of beating the Tories than a soft left candidate. Just like I think someone like Elizabeth Warren, from the little I know of her, maybe has a better chance of beating the Republicans than Tim Kaine. Because people are pissed off and something has to change.
I think the left has some serious work to do now, taking the best out of old fashioned socialism but modernising it to make it relevant in the 21st century context, in terms of social media and technology and globalisation which really isnt reversible at this stage. I dont think Corbyn has really done that yet, but maybe he can do it. And maybe people in the Democrat Party in the US can lead the way in this too.
1) She's uninspiring, dull and boring as watching paint dry.
2) The way Democrats ran their primaries and railroaded her blatantly in favour of other candidates made think this was a "establishment" move and not a popular leader.
3) Lack of radicalness. She did not have a single plan to revamp any of the problems that got people interested. The fact that Trump was way too radical didn't help her either. "Anyone but Trump" only take you so far.
And some issues:
4) Obamacare - Still divides America and I know lot of people voted Trump for his intention to repeal this.
5) Muslims/Terrorism - Trump managed to blur the lines and Hillary did nothing to clarify the distinction.
For all it's popularity, I think the Mexican Wall was probably the least contributing factor in Trump's campaign.
2) The way Democrats ran their primaries and railroaded her blatantly in favour of other candidates made think this was a "establishment" move and not a popular leader.
3) Lack of radicalness. She did not have a single plan to revamp any of the problems that got people interested. The fact that Trump was way too radical didn't help her either. "Anyone but Trump" only take you so far.
And some issues:
4) Obamacare - Still divides America and I know lot of people voted Trump for his intention to repeal this.
5) Muslims/Terrorism - Trump managed to blur the lines and Hillary did nothing to clarify the distinction.
For all it's popularity, I think the Mexican Wall was probably the least contributing factor in Trump's campaign.
Sh'e probably retire from politics and concentrate on the Foundation.
Dems will move forward to Michelle or Sanders for next election.
Dems will move forward to Michelle or Sanders for next election.
It's more what it represents: simple solutions that people can understand and chant, with a handy scapegoat built in.
People keep saying this, but why? They just had a wife of a former President LOSE to possibly the worst candidate for President the US ever had. Obviously that is not the reason she lost, but why revisit that road. It would also through away one of the sticks they tried to use to beat Donald with, his lack of experience. You go from one election where you belittle a candidate for it, then in the next you put out a candidate who has no experience in government and you hope that it works out for you as well as it did the Republicans?
On the plus side she would be a better pull on the black vote then Hillary was, which would help turnout which might turn some battleground states around. But given how the right feels about Obama it could also serve to energize a large portion of their base.
Given Jeb's hilariously poor performance in the primaries and Hillary's defeat(and even her problems in the primaries), I think part of the message the American people have sent a message about how they feel about Presidential Family Dynasties for the time being.
Michelle is pretty popular but itd show a spectacular lack of imagination to go with her, especially as she doesn't appear to have any interest in the role.
Surely it'll be Elizabeth Warren.
Surely it'll be Elizabeth Warren.
What is the reason for this? Is it to expensive, not effective enough, or is it more a case of American people in general disliking things paid for over the tax bill?
As I've understood Trump wants to keep some of it, but make it more affordable. Which probably will mean worse coverage, but a more accessible price point?
Last edited:
It's not the "wife of a president" that makes me say that.
- One of the few highlights of this failed Democrat convention is Michelle and her speeches. She's not afraid to tackle certain issues head on and has always come across as a strong woman.
- She's probably more popular than Clinton already and doesn't have the baggage of Bill and the Foundation.
- Obama has a decent rating as well.
- Works well with the African American community and women voters.
All she needs is more shaken up agenda probably a bit more forward than what Clinton put up now and I think she has a decent chance of winning...moreso if Trump goofs up.
Warren/Sanders are too radical and will not be that popular with the big money democratic backers. And I doubt they have a functioning plan to improve the economy or enough clout to push through their policies.
It would.
Speeches with platitudes and nice words while being a big donor lapdog is done and dusted. What respectable allies could she turn to if she wanted to launch a campaign?
People want radical. And Trump just won spending a fraction of the money Clinton did. A leftie could win generating a buzz on social media and rallies, bollocks to the adverts.
What is Michelle's plan for the economy then?
Dude, I just posted an opinion that she'd be a probable candidate. I'm not her campaign manager. And way too early for those kind of discussions.
I doubt that. I still consider Trump to be an exception and not the new rule.
Fair enough, you may be right. I think the change is in response to new technology, it isn't changing back imo. Time will tell.
That's on the money thing.
On radicalism it probably depends what happens with Trump. People might miss the boring old certainties. Or they might feel Trump sold them out and they never got what he promised, in terms of NAFTA etc. In which case a more socialist agenda might be what they want.
Probably worth considering whether Biden would've won this election (well, electoral college), and whether that colours our interpretation of what's needed in future.
What do you think? I heard someone discussing this very question and their answer was yes, probably he would have got his message across to working class voters in the rustbelt better than Clinton did.
Obviously hard to tell one way or the other, and hindsight is wonderful particularly without the forensic scrutiny of a campaign, but I'd say he could probably have won over enough people, yeah. I don't think he'd have accepted ignoring Michigan and Wisconsin, certainly, and without the boat anchor of the emails you'd think it would be a win. Incidentally I also think Sanders would've stood a good chance, but those combined thoughts tell me that this wasn't so much a rejection based primarily on policy as on identity, so we should be wary of reading too much into the policy side of things until there's been some solid studies done.
Yep, I think he'd have been ideal. Has the experience of Hilary, but would've ultimately probably appealed to a lot of voters in the swing states that Hilary lost by a margin.
Whenever I hear someone reasonable defending Trump it's almost always on the basis that Hilary was just as corrupt, that she was a criminal, and that her husband wasn't any better than Trump when it came to the sexual assault allegations. Irrespective of their truthfulness it's what people believed...and that was influential. No one could have reasonably said Biden was as bad as Trump without being a die-in-the-wool Republican already.
Yeah, he would have suffered some similar weaknesses in terms of voting record, trade deal support (would've been harder for him to flip flop on TPP in particular) and general identity as an establishment politician, and he's more prone to the odd gaffe than she is, but in all you'd have to say it would be a net vote winner by a fair amount.