|
Paracaidas posted:First off, congrats! Thanks! I would argue that Beto, Gillum, and Abrams all have conviction and authenticity in spades as well, even if their actual political positions are to the right in varying degrees of AOC. Conversely, a lot of the people running for President in 2020 are or will be perceived to lack authenticity, though I imagine someone like Booker will have conviction to spare.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Weigel checks in from South Carolina, where this cycle brings up an entirely new questionquote:None of the Democratic Party's black hopefuls is running a campaign yet, although Booker, Harris and Patrick have now made trips to South Carolina and former attorney general Eric Holder will be in Charleston early next month. In conversations at this week's campaign events, black voters did not worry that any of the black candidates they were hearing from could win; they worried about too many of them piling into the campaign. Stay for bonus early stump strategies! Booker harping on criminal justice and Harris floating more economic arguments. Also:
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 13:37
|
|
posted:
|
Deval Patrick should be utterly irrelevant to this discussion because he hasn't held elective office for four years, and Eric Holder has way too many (perceived) strikes against him from his time as Obama's AG. Harris and Booker are probably going to be the only serious contenders by the time SC actually rolls around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Deval Patrick should be utterly irrelevant to this discussion because he hasn't held elective office for four years, and Eric Holder has way too many (perceived) strikes against him from his time as Obama's AG. Agreed (out of that group)-Holder has made clear that he's seeking to leverage media attention towards his NDRC efforts and Deval... I don't really have a read on his endgame. Interesting that Bakari appears to have jumped on board though. South Carolina is the contest I'm most interested in during the primaries, given the performances of last cycle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Holder could probably make a strong play for the Please More Technocracy crowd. him and Bloomberg fighting like hell for those ~700 votes with a median net worth of $3m would be really funny to watch, if nothing else
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:(It actually freaks me the gently caress out because when I checked the closest to the '3 year out' mark polling for Sanders he was 61-32) Sanders has been campaigning nonstop since 2015 though (so he has high name recognition / everyone knows who he is and what he stands for) while Hillary had a break from being directly in the public eye for a few years before the primary
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Obama didn't end the 2008 election less popular than he started it, and the GOP called him a terrorist. The GOP has been calling Sanders a commie for 2 years and he's still popular as hell. Hillary Clinton's favorability polling didn't magically collapse, she dynamited it by fighting against healthcare, education, and a living wage, by outrageous cheating and corruption, by taking money from billionaires while reassuring them her promises to the people were lies and she'd governor in their interest, by pushing TPP and then unconvincingly lying about no longer supporting it, and on and on. The lesson to take from that isn't "popular progressives will always magically become unpopular" it's "don't be so obviously a corrupt warloving corporate tool if you want to be liked by democrats"
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Hillary's popular ity always declined in every race she ran in, including her Senate campaign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Of course, in the real world,   
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Hillary's popular ity always declined in every race she ran in, including her Senate campaign. It's a peculiar phenomenon called "good appointed official, lousy elected official".
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
In terms of policy Hillary was about exactly the same as Obama if not slightly to the left. So if you like Obama more than you like Hillary, there's more than policy differences going on, and you should look inward at that. That said, it's time for the neoliberal consensus to finally, definitively end. So, despite voting Hillary in the 2016 primary I'm really looking for a true leftist this time if there is one. I'd like it to be someone other than Sanders himself because you know, old.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:In terms of policy Hillary was about exactly the same as Obama if not slightly to the left. So if you like Obama more than you like Hillary, there's more than policy differences going on, and you should look inward at that. Campaign Hillary was to the left of Elected Obama but significantly to the right of Campaign Obama (Campaign Obama supported a public option and opposed the health insurance individual mandate, while Campaign Hillary supported the mandate).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:So, despite voting Hillary in the 2016 primary I'm really looking for a true leftist this time if there is one. I'd like it to be someone other than Sanders himself because you know, old. Tough poo poo, there's no one better, suck it up and vote for maple grandpa. We'll get a younger one for 2024 if he dies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Campaign Hillary was to the left of Elected Obama but significantly to the right of Campaign Obama (Campaign Obama supported a public option and opposed the health insurance individual mandate, while Campaign Hillary supported the mandate). I don't know why Obama gets credit for either lying or caving immediately here. Is the argument "Obama moved right after election, therefore Hillary would move right by the same amount, and so despite campaigning from Obama's left she'd govern from his right."?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Tough poo poo, there's no one better, suck it up and vote for maple grandpa. Hot take: If Sanders/Avenatti vs Trump/Pence were a boxing match, the ref would stop it.  that's a ticket with something for everyone, even the folk who balk at Sanders' age.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I don't know why Obama gets credit for either lying or caving immediately here. He doesn't, but the (arguable, at least) presumption is that Hillary would have made a rightward shift of similar degree once elected, and thus ended up further right than Elected Obama once in office.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Tough poo poo, there's no one better, suck it up and vote for maple grandpa. We'll see who winds up actually running. I'm telling you right now I'm voting for the furthest left still in it when the FL primary comes along. My primary votes so far in my life have been Kerry, Edwards, and then Clinton, so I've screwed that part up in the past and I'm moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:It's a peculiar phenomenon called "good appointed official, lousy elected official". Saying HRC was a good SoS is a bold assertion Hieronymous Alloy posted:Hillary's popularity always declined in every race she ran in, including her Senate campaign. In her Senate seat run she carpet bagged into a safe blue district where the Dem was retiring, muscled aside the local candidate and then still nearly blew it when Giuliani entered the race. Luckily his life imploded and he was replaced at the last second with a no name Republican (whom Giuliani had pushed aside) who gaffed his way into a Hillary win. Then in 2008 HRC managed to lose to a black guy with one Senate term under his belt (its an exaggeration, but the 'experience' question was half her campaign) and in 2016 she faced serious challenge from an old guy who self identifies as a (democratic) socialist, has exactly one speech, and started his protest campaign late with no real plans or institutional knowledge for going national. And then she lost to Donald Trump. She's incredibly bad at campaigning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Tough poo poo, there's no one better, suck it up and vote for maple grandpa. It's His Turn
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:It's His Turn Oh, waddup, it's the dude who shows up in USPOL to post anti-AOC tweets whenever he feels mad at the left. Don't worry, I'm sure when we elect the lovely centrist you desire the most, everything will be fixed forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Is the argument "Obama moved right after election, therefore Hillary would move right by the same amount, and so despite campaigning from Obama's left she'd govern from his right."? Dude she voted for the Iraq War and campaigned on going to war with Russia, she would govern like the neocon psycho she is
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Yeah this is a good example of the kind of own goal Hillary scored against her own favorability. A private server that went against departmental rules, used to dodge FOIA requirements, and wiped after use. Totally unnecessary and looks absolutely horrible, but done anyway on the gamble that Republicans are unelectable post-2008 so everything is permitted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:In terms of policy Hillary was about exactly the same as Obama if not slightly to the left. So if you like Obama more than you like Hillary, there's more than policy differences going on, and you should look inward at that. I don't think this is entirely accurate, she lobbied against the Iran deal as SoS for example. I would say she was definitely to Obama's right on foreign policy at bare minimum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Of course, in the real world,
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Dude she voted for the Iraq War Very fair. Maybe I was wrong about you Vi... VitalSigns posted:and campaigned on going to war with Russia Oh never mind. Frightening Knight posted:I don't think this is entirely accurate, she lobbied against the Iran deal as SoS for example. I would say she was definitely to Obama's right on foreign policy at bare minimum. Yeah, OK that's true. I was talking about domestic policy only where she was all but explicitly campaigning as Obama's third term with a min wage increase. It's absolutely fair to look at her record and conclude she'd be more hawkish on foreign policy. However, even there I think the different is fairly slight. Obama didn't close gitmo, didn't stop drone strikes, etc. I think the word is that Clinton was the push for ousting Qaddafi but Obama OK'd it. So, again, I think if you're cool with Obama and not cool with Clinton, it's very likely something beyond policy disagreements. As a former moderate dem voter, I'm willing to say the Clinton was not the right pick for 2016, and she did herself no favors by running a poo poo campaign, and I'm further I'm willing to say the party absolutely needs to move left. I will never stop believing that people were ESPECIALLY unfair to her, however, especially as compared to other recent Democratic nominees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:As a former moderate dem voter, I'm willing to say the Clinton was not the right pick for 2016, and she did herself no favors by running a poo poo campaign, and I'm further I'm willing to say the party absolutely needs to move left. I will never stop believing that people were ESPECIALLY unfair to her, however, especially as compared to other recent Democratic nominees. I think, if you want to talk about sexism, that Hillary Clinton is basically the posterchild for the idea that powerful women, if they want to remain powerful and relevant, will inevitably have to take responsibility for the lovely action of men in their lives and whitewash them, carry a torch for them, and ultimately tarnish their names and reputations to protect lovely men. Hillary Clinton, in 2016, was in many ways paying for the reality that Bill Clinton was a lovely president and she was perceived as complicit in that. I made a joke earlier about Kristen Gillibrand being the alternate universe version of Hillary if she wasn't stuck with Bill, but I genuinely wonder what Hillary Clinton's career would've looked like if she had married a guy less lovely than Bill Clinton. I don't think any of this absolves Hillary Clinton for her actions or that she did not have agency, but I think you could write an entire book about her career as one that had promise that was largely wasted so that a mediocre white man could have success instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Frightening Knight posted:I think, if you want to talk about sexism, that Hillary Clinton is basically the posterchild for the idea that powerful women, if they want to remain powerful and relevant, will inevitably have to take responsibility for the lovely action of men in their lives and whitewash them, carry a torch for them, and ultimately tarnish their names and reputations to protect lovely men. Hillary Clinton, in 2016, was in many ways paying for the reality that Bill Clinton was a lovely president and she was perceived as complicit in that. I made a joke earlier about Kristen Gillibrand being the alternate universe version of Hillary if she wasn't stuck with Bill, but I genuinely wonder what Hillary Clinton's career would've looked like if she had married a guy less lovely than Bill Clinton. There's a greek play in here somewhere. For me, there's no doubt that Hillary is among the smartest and most competent mainstream dems. That maybe doesn't say a whole lot, because the mainstream democratic party is broken and needs replacing. But I think it's pretty hosed up that a decisive number of people figured that out right when a woman was the nominee. Bill was a lovely president by the standards we've decided on now. And maybe some of you were at that standard before I was, but then Obama was a lovely president by the same metric. Anybody buying into the post-Reagan neoliberal consensus is. It just seems like the grading system changed while she was the nominee and I can't help but think her sex has something to do with that. And maybe its for the best at this point, provided we can hobble along another 2 years. I'm not saying Hillary is good. I'm saying she's not appreciably more bad than Bill, or Al Gore, or John Kerry, or Barack Obama. But she's treated as much worse. Edit: Although I don't think it's entirely sexism. I think the Russian disinformation campaign had a lot to do with it too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I will never stop believing that people were ESPECIALLY unfair to her, however, especially as compared to other recent Democratic nominees. No this is very true, for various reasons (her lack of charisma, America's misogyny, her starting her grifting career before she achieved her electoral objectives not after) she didn't get the pass for her horrific policies that more charismatic men like Obama, Bill Clinton, the Bushes, etc got for their equally bad or worse acts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Totally unnecessary and looks absolutely horrible, but done anyway on the gamble that Democrats are unelectable post-2016 so everything is permitted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Frightening Knight posted:I think, if you want to talk about sexism, that Hillary Clinton is basically the posterchild for the idea that powerful women, if they want to remain powerful and relevant, will inevitably have to take responsibility for the lovely action of men in their lives and whitewash them, carry a torch for them, and ultimately tarnish their names and reputations to protect lovely men. Hillary Clinton, in 2016, was in many ways paying for the reality that Bill Clinton was a lovely president and she was perceived as complicit in that. I made a joke earlier about Kristen Gillibrand being the alternate universe version of Hillary if she wasn't stuck with Bill, but I genuinely wonder what Hillary Clinton's career would've looked like if she had married a guy less lovely than Bill Clinton. Hillary failed the DC bar exam and then decided to move to Arkansas with Bill (where she passed the bar). Bill and Hillary have always empowered each other's lovely decisions as a true power couple. Without Hillary I don't think Bill would have gotten much further than state legislature, but I equally believe that without Bill she wouldn't have been more than a state AG. Hillary may be great at subverting power structures and installing lackeys, but she needed someone charismatic to get her in the door. Those two deserve each other. And I do think its weird how many people point to her time as First Lady as proof of her experience, then turn around and claim she had nothing to do with Bill's policies. I guarantee you that HRC had input on every one of Bill's landmark lovely decisions, up to and including looking the other way for his mistresses because her ambitions needed to keep him around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Hillary failed the DC bar exam and then decided to move to Arkansas with Bill (where she passed the bar). Bill and Hillary have always empowered each other's lovely decisions as a true power couple. Without Hillary I don't think Bill would have gotten much further than state legislature, but I equally believe that without Bill she wouldn't have been more than a state AG. Hillary may be great at subverting power structures and installing lackeys, but she needed someone charismatic to get her in the door. Those two deserve each other. That's interesting, I didn't know about the bar exam thing. Also I was thinking more in terms of how she was involved in Bill's tenure as governor and remade her public persona for his benefit in Arkansas. By the time she was FLOTUS she was already very involved with Bill's lovely politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
The bar exam is 100% crappy and incredibly easy to fail. I know a lot of super smart folks who failed it. It's more of test of how well you can keep it together for two incredibly stressful, 11+hour days. And we know she eventually figured that out. I mean I passed it in my first go, but I don't think I'm smarter than Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:And I do think its weird how many people point to her time as First Lady as proof of her experience, then turn around and claim she had nothing to do with Bill's policies. I guarantee you that HRC had input on every one of Bill's landmark lovely decisions, up to and including looking the other way for his mistresses because her ambitions needed to keep him around. If Bill were allowed to run for another term and had chosen to in 2016, he would have beaten Trump. If Obama were allowed to and chose to run another term, he would have beaten Trump. They would have gotten passes that she didn't for the same bullshit. That's all I'm trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
The DC bar was apparently especially difficult at the time. Nowadays, at least in my state, it people who fail the bar are typically those you would expect from looking at their graduating class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:If Bill were allowed to run for another term and had chosen to in 2016, he would have beaten Trump. If Obama were allowed to and chose to run another term, he would have beaten Trump. They would have gotten passes that she didn't for the same bullshit. That's all I'm trying to say. But do you think John Kerry, the guy who got swiftboated by an opponent who got a cushy stateside job from his daddy, could have beaten Trump? Or could Al Gore, the man who was parodied as a robot throughout his run, have beaten Trump?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Nowdays there's virtually no reason to take the DC bar, DC has reciprocity with every other state, just take (literally any other bar exam) and apply for reciprocity once you pass. Take the bar somewhere like Alabama then waive back into DC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:But do you think John Kerry, the guy who got swiftboated by an opponent who got a cushy stateside job from his daddy, could have beaten Trump? Or could Al Gore, the man who was parodied as a robot throughout his run, have beaten Trump? I think Al Gore probably could. Or, to put it another way, I think W was a better GOP nominee than Donald Trump, and the 2000 election was uh kinda close.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I think Al Gore probably could. Or, to put it another way, I think W was a better GOP nominee than Donald Trump, and the 2000 election was Kinda close huh? So not at all like the 2016 election then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I think Al Gore probably could. Or, to put it another way, I think W was a better GOP nominee than Donald Trump, and the 2000 election was I mean, considering that the GOP base was much more enthusiastic for Trump than Bush, I feel like Trump is a better GOP nominee for their purposes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
My thesis here is that the common thread that unites Bill and Barack was overwhelming charisma, strong campaign work ethic and an ability to articulate a vision even if they didn't plan on executing it. The common thread uniting Gore and Kerry is that they were unable to build a convincing persona and ended up as doofuses who got dunked on by their dumber but more charismatic opponent Which thread do you think Hillary belongs with? And to connect this with 2020, the Dems should stop running easily dunked on wonks with binders of detailed charts and graphs. You can hire people for that. But authenticity and charisma lets you actually lead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 22:23
|
|