|
Shbobdb posted:Plus there was the polling. I had misgivings about Clinton's strategy but the polls suggested that what looked like bad ideas to me were in fact good ideas. I figured that Hillary had learned from '08 and that her technocratic methods were, in fact, viable. This is the biggest thing for me. I was shocked she had the same kind of idiots she's had for years and didn't learn anything and really had thought she had shed that prior to starting her campaign. Frankly it makes her judgement look incredibly suspect and doesn't really make a good sell for her actually theoretical presidency.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
Radish posted:This is the biggest thing for me. I was shocked she had the same kind of idiots she's had for years and didn't learn anything and really had thought she had shed that prior to starting her campaign. Frankly it makes her judgement look incredibly suspect and doesn't really make a good sell for her actually theoretical presidency. Her presidency was always going to have been a dumpster fire but it still would have been better than Trump's presidency. I'm not convinced Trump is going to be worse than W but he's going to be up there in terms of "worst Presidents ever".
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I'm not convinced Trump is going to be worse than W but he's going to be up there in terms of "worst Presidents ever".
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Radish posted:This is the biggest thing for me. I was shocked she had the same kind of idiots she's had for years and didn't learn anything and really had thought she had shed that prior to starting her campaign. Frankly it makes her judgement look incredibly suspect and doesn't really make a good sell for her actually theoretical presidency. The only people whos judgement looks suspect after this election are all the people who supporter/voted for her after she spent her career showing you she's an electoral fuckup waiting to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:It might be worth it for the GOP to have that whole "Yes, you can draw a sitting president into a court case" thing from Clinton blow up in their faces with Trump. Respect the office, traitor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Let's not forget that a whole bunch of shitlords were too embarrassed to say they supported Trump and that gave out massive false signals. Combined with hundreds of endorsements from previously conservative people and newspapers, former Republican officials in the military, government and business, and past precedent, decisions were made that were wrong and harmful to the overall campaign but not illogical or based on *magic*.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Let's not forget that a whole bunch of shitlords were too embarrassed to say they supported Trump and that gave out massive false signals. Combined with hundreds of endorsements from previously conservative people and newspapers, former Republican officials in the military, government and business, and past precedent, decisions were made that were wrong and harmful to the overall campaign but not illogical or based on *magic*. That doesn't excuse the sheer hubris demonstrated by the campaign in ignoring certain states and ignoring parts of other critical states. There is a real disconnect in the campaign's strategy to run up the score across the country while at the same time neglecting the more rural areas of Pennsylvania. It also doesn't excuse how after the DNC, the campaign never really sold Hillary to the country at large. I thought some of the segment's presenting Hillary's work in the 70s and 80s as a champion of good were effective in defining who she was under the veneer of 30 years of smears. However, the campaign's overarching message focused instead on Trump. Having seen the details of how it all played out, Colin Powell, who knows Hillary and her people better than anyone in this thread, was right in saying that she destroys everything she touches with her hubris.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
It does excuse it because every visible sign except "donald trump is campaigning here more frequently" showed that those states should have been reasonably safe (and as my next paragraph highlights, they were still very close). Also, and not to beat the dead dead dead horse, but this election was decided by <100,000 voters in a few states and Hillary still got 66 million votes. Saying she wasn't "sold to the country" is kinda silly when she got the same number of votes as B-Rock the Islamic Shock. What you're saying is like 80-90% hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:It does excuse it because every visible sign except "donald trump is campaigning here more frequently" showed that those states should have been reasonably safe (and as my next paragraph highlights, they were still very close). LOL. Hillbots coming out of the woodwork to argue "Actually, she ran a good campaign!" Complete with a dolchstosslegende, like Gore (another useless technocrat who ran away from the base as quickly as possible during the campaign).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:LOL. I voted Bernie, but I stopped being a baby and supported the straight D ticket after Super Tuesday when the Bernie thread here turned into the crazy-person network. Someone has to be the voice of reason here, stating the obvious facts like "horrendous campaigns don't get 66 million votes and lose by smaller margins than attendance at a college football game." But if it makes you feel better you can masturbate while yelling "neoliberal" over and over again at me on Skype for a reasonable fee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
I almost feel bad for Hillary, because even if she ends up mayor she's going to join histories list of has-rans who are remembered for doing an embarassing thing. John Ellis Bush! Bush will be remembered for getting trolled into losing an easy primary, HRC is going to be remembered for the War on Pepe
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:I voted Bernie, but I stopped being a baby and supported the straight D ticket after Super Tuesday when the Bernie thread here turned into the crazy-person network. Someone has to be the voice of reason here, stating the obvious facts like "horrendous campaigns don't get 66 million votes and lose by smaller margins than attendance at a college football game."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:I I voted for Clinton, but I can't blame people who opted to sit this one out. It's dumb for down-ticket reasons but for some reason people don't care about that unless they are political wonks. I've never known an IRL Bernie supporter who voted for Trump and most voted for Clinton (those that didn't were in sufficiently safe blue areas it didn't matter anyway). The illusion of Bernie-babies is a toxic lie created by the Clintons to justify their own failure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Good campaigns don't lose to the least popular person to ever run for president. The least popular guy to still get 63 million votes. Who cares if he is the least popular ever when he got more loving votes than Romney or McCain or Bush.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Loser George Washington only got 43,782 votes in the popular election. Compare that with Walter Mondale, who got 37,577,352 votes. Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Loser George Washington only got 43,782 votes in the popular election. Compare that with Walter Mondale, who got 37,577,352 votes. So this is where we are in the election conversation I guess. 2012 and 2008 not comparable to 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:The least popular guy to still get 63 million votes. Who cares if he is the least popular ever when he got more loving votes than Romney or McCain or Bush.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Its important to remember that Hillary Clinton lost to a person with zero political experience who was recorded on camera saying that he approaches random women and "Grabs them by the pussy" as a way of hitting on them. You cannot do that and have any argument that your campaign was in any way good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
Democrats were in their bubble and either didn't realize or refused to accept how intensely loathed Hillary Clinton is. The hatred from the right is mostly for idiot reasons like Benghazi or Vince Foster, all bullshit, but there were early signs of how unpopular she is, like the run Bernie gave her, the way she would get slaughtered among independents in states where they were able to vote, things like that. And she polled worse against Trump than Bernie did too, but we were told by the wise pundits to ignore these things, and Democrats insisted on running her, from the rank and file to the party itself which gave her virtually every single superdelegate and endorsement to prop her up, not to mention how she had the DNC in her corner. Imagine if Elizabeth Warren and Bill DeBlasio had endorsed Bernie, with whom they're more aligned ideologically in some ways. Imagine if the party hadn't voluntarily cleared the field in the first place, and some other major figure like Biden had run against her. The most insane thing about it though was running someone under an active FBI investigation. People said she was already vetted and her negatives couldn't get any higher but they were wrong, because when you've got a candidate already widely seen as corrupt, that person being involved in an ongoing criminal probe really doesn't help matters. Millions of regular people said yeah, Trump is an unpresidential dick, but Hillary is bad too, or just as bad, or even worse. People around here find that hard to believe, but it's true that many people felt that way. I mean, she had the second highest negatives of any presidential candidate ever, right? Maybe that should have been a bigger warning sign. Again, how the gently caress do you run someone under even a "nothingburger" investigation? How is that not a disqualifying risk and weakness to voters and party operatives alike? Ffs that's some arrogance to think you can wave that away. Then there's all these other things that socialists like me like to talk about, like it being a change election and her not being populist enough, the poo poo-smeared means-tested olive branches she offered, her complete and utter hawkishness, her poo poo campaign that ignored large parts of swing states to try to run up the score elsewhere, and I hate her for all those things, and she sure could have done better there. That's part of why she lost. But stale policy and poo poo campaigning alone wasn't enough to sink her, which is good for the Democratic Party if it wants to insist on lurching along in the corporate center as the lesser evil alternative, but it's so frustrating that in the end, Trump was forced onto America largely because this hubristic woman was armed to the gills with carrots and sticks and yes-men and stubborn insiders and oblivious coastal dwellers loyally in her corner. Every time an ominous sign appeared indicating that maybe she was the wrong nominee for the Democrats, some dipshit only employed at Vox or WaPo or wherever because they're a loyal hagiographer was there to beat it back and assure us that actually Hillary was the most qualified candidate ever and the safest possible choice and anyway look how bad Trump really is. People closed their eyes to a risk they ultimately should have definitely been able to see coming. Fast Luck fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
What carries water for a Clinton apologist? A well, actually
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What carries water for a Clinton apologist? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
cheese posted:Its important to remember that Hillary Clinton lost to a person with zero political experience who was recorded on camera saying that he approaches random women and "Grabs them by the pussy" as a way of hitting on them. You cannot do that and have any argument that your campaign was in any way good. And yet Bernie lost to her, so what does that tell you about his campaign? Checkmate, athiests.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:And yet Bernie lost to her, so what does that tell you about his campaign? It tells me the DNC Rigged the primaries against Bernie. Maybe the Russians hacked the DNC info, and Putin looks back fondly on the USSR, but not that fondly. It's possible that DWS was some sort of Manchurian candidate brought in to undermine the faith of Democratic voters, but that seems unlikely. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:It tells me the DNC Rigged the primaries against Bernie. Maybe the Russians hacked the DNC info, and Putin looks back fondly on the USSR, but not that fondly. It's possible that DWS was some sort of Manchurian candidate brought in to undermine the faith of Democratic voters, but that seems unlikely. The idea that the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie is a myth. A myth that a conservative news site most likely came up with and later on Trump helped push, in fact. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/25/donald-trump/no-donald-trump-bernie-sanders-wouldnt-have-won-ev/ quote:The post’s headline is "NOTE TO SANDERS SUPPORTERS: Bernie Would Have Won If Not for Super Delegate System!" It makes a flawed argument that Sanders would have nabbed the nomination if all of the Clinton superdelegates backed him instead. Hillary had all sorts of issues but a rigged primary wasn't one of them. Hell, she even won the popular vote in the primary so even if the delegates were taken off the table she still would have been the candidate going forwards by a pretty hefty margin. Archonex fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:It tells me the DNC Rigged the primaries against Bernie. lol ok
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:And yet Bernie lost to her, so what does that tell you about his campaign? It tells you that somebody with decades worth of connections within the party and eight years of preparation for the election in question and the entire party apparatus on their side that also cleared the field for them is going to have a massive advantage in an internal party election over some outsider who threw their hat into the ring like six months before the start of the election season and had to cobble their campaign together from scratch, especially when the voters for said election in many cases had to register before they really knew that a viable opponent was running against the anointed candidate that was obviously going to win by default. Given all this the fact that Bernie did as well as he did should have been a massive warning sign for the Clintonistas, but as with every other warning sign it was ignored and people who brought it up were yelled at. tl; dr: Pretending that the 2016 Dem primary was some kind of fair fight that demostrated the relative popularity of the candidates or the competence of their campaigns is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
Archonex posted:The idea that the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie is a myth. A myth that a conservative news site most likely came up with and later on Trump helped push, in fact. While this is all true, it touches upon a larger issue: the narrative that Hillary was not only the inevitable nominee, but also the inevitable winner of the GE, backfired spectacularly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
It's almost like it was a 2-way race for the nomination (outside the very early days when it was like a 5 way race) and the bottom tier consolidated behind the sole remaining alternative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
In a crowded field Sanders probably would have come off as a kook like Dennis Kucinich and not have gained much traction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:It does excuse it because every visible sign except "donald trump is campaigning here more frequently" showed that those states should have been reasonably safe (and as my next paragraph highlights, they were still very close). What you're basically saying is that it was okay to take those regions for granted and not do the hard work to make sure they actually voted that way. Obama never did this and even pointed out that he carried Iowa by visiting every VFA and town fair he could, something that Hillary's campaign did not do. In areas where the Obama team worked hard to get out the vote in advance of and on election day, such as African american parts of Florida, Hillary's campaign neglected. Hillary won the popular vote, sure, but the way she got there, by diverting attention to solid blue urban areas, contributed to her loss. Would that popular vote total look as pretty if the campaign didn't invest in that entirely aesthetic effort? Ultimately, winning the popular vote by the whole number she did does not equate her campaign to Obama's, where she loses Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maine's second district, all places Obama carried twice because he worked his rear end off. Also, compare her 100,000 rust belt loss margin to Gore's Florida margin. You can't pretend the hollow popular vote number obviates the fact that this is the worst electoral vote loss for a Democrat since 1988. The electoral vote result, in spite of the popular vote, indicates that the campaign hosed up big in areas that have been blue since then, due in part to the fact that Hillary's ground game, as well as the overall narrative she constructed for herself, were garbage. Also, this isn't really hindsight because the extent of the campaign's gross neglect only became aggregated and reported after it happened! I think we all should have been a bit weary about this going into election day, especially in light of Elcee Hastings's late October statement about Hillary's neglect of african american communities in October. Slamming this and the campaign's abysmal ground game in Michigan, which both defied the campaign orthodoxy recently successfully used by Obama, is just calling it for what it is: bad campaigning. Lastly, for what it is worth, I don't think anyone can ever know if Bernie would have won the GE because had he faced Trump, the resulting campaign would have been very different, perhaps trading Hillary's rust belt problems for problems elsewhere. However, the fact that he lost the Democratic primary isn't necessarily indicative of his performance of the more open electorate of the general election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:In a crowded field Sanders probably would have come off as a kook like Dennis Kucinich and not have gained much traction. That depends entirely on what the other candidates were offering. If you hadn't noticed, 2016 was a year when the electorate wanted things shaken up, which favoured outsider candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:That depends entirely on what the other candidates were offering. If you hadn't noticed, 2016 was a year when the electorate wanted things shaken up, which favoured outsider candidates. The electorate elected someone who had never held elected office before, and probably would have done so against someone who was a Senator for 10 years, a Congressman for 16 before that, and a Mayor for 10 years before that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
So the Washington Post makes a compelling reason for why Clinton shouldn't run for mayor of New York (beyond the fact that it's something that Mike loving Bloomberg allegedly wants. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/06/the-hillary-for-mayor-story-proves-that-we-learn-nothing/?tid=sm_fb I really think the best part of this is the statement about how her doing something like this is harmful for the party in the long run since it keeps new blood away. And I think that's glaringly obvious about why the Democrats current presidential bench is loving empty. Because it was kept clear so that in theory she could waltz into victory. But her Hubris really does destroy everything she touches
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So the Washington Post makes a compelling reason for why Clinton shouldn't run for mayor of New York (beyond the fact that it's something that Mike loving Bloomberg allegedly wants. Well that and she'd lose to whatever repub that ran against her cause she's an idiot
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The electorate elected someone who had never held elected office before, and probably would have done so against someone who was a Senator for 10 years, a Congressman for 16 before that, and a Mayor for 10 years before that. Yes, Sanders was clearly a part of the establishment. You might as well toss in that Sanders owns a third home now and he's now a 1 percenter. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The electorate elected someone who had never held elected office before, and probably would have done so against someone who was a Senator for 10 years, a Congressman for 16 before that, and a Mayor for 10 years before that. If you discount all the objective evidence, then sure. Besides that, are you seriously arguing that Sanders is part of the Democratic establishment? And even assuming that is true for the sake of argument, are you seriously arguing that dry facts would trump perception in TYOOL twenty-loving-sixteen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Archonex posted:The idea that the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie is a myth. A myth that a conservative news site most likely came up with and later on Trump helped push, in fact. The rigged primaries BS has since been shown to be Russian agitprop, which of course led to 0 Bernouts rethinking their position. http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044 quote:According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
If Hillary tries to do that she's an absolute rear end in a top hat and loses any sort of benefit of the doubt that she's in this for anything other than personal glory. There's no reason New York needs her as a mayor. If I didn't know better it would seem like this is her trying to stupidly pad her resume for the 2020 run she probably still thinks she's owed. As said it's also keeping an aging, unpopular politician as a major force in a party that frankly is scrambling to regain any national power. I'm not sure I can believe it because there's just has to be no way she's that much of a dick. I guess surprise me again Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:The least popular guy to still get 63 million votes. Because of how bad your candidate was 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
Being part of the establishment doesn't mean you're some sellout piece of poo poo who has no morals, belief structure, empathy or soul. You don't have to be an "outsider" to want to change things for the better or maintain the status quo where appropriate and being establishment is often more practical for achieving tangible goals. Why take it as an insult that Sanders, a lifelong politician is an establishment politician? Frankly, the terms "establishment" and "outsider" are two of the most annoying words (misused) in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 16:23
|
|