|
Hillary is a bad campaigner who would have made a terrific president. To be fair, she got more votes than any white man in US history. She merely lost by thin margins in the wrong states. I love her, she's a really great person and a terrific stateswoman, but I really hope she doesn't run again. I doubt she will; you can tell she hates campaigning and she'll be too old anyway. For historical precedent, note that no losing Democratic nominee has run in the next presidential primary for decades, since Humphrey in '72: Kerry didn't run in '08, Gore didn't run in 04, Dukakis didn't run in '92, Mondale didn't run in '88, Carter didn't run in '84, McGovern didn't run in '76. Hillary will not run in 2020.
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:but i think in the end her loss was due to strategic errors that exposed serious flaws in how the democratic party's professionals conduct campaigns. had their resources been better allocated and their messaging more effective, they probably would have won ABSOLUTELY. I campaigned my rear end off in Florida, and we did a fantastic job on the ground where they sent us, squeezing every last vote out of the blue counties. But this war was lost by the generals, and they lost it in the air with their ineffective advertisements and weak messaging. If I'd been a strategist, you would have seen much better than that weak-tea "children are watching" ad. We would have seen attack ads targeting Donald Trump for faking donations to veterans' charities and pocketing the money for himself to buy Tim Tebow helmets and huge portraits of himself and relieve his own debt. "Donald Trump pretends to support veterans. Don't believe him." If I'd been a strategist, you would have seen attack ads highlighting that most economists say Donald Trump's policies will result in another recession, with the tagline: "Don't let America be Trump's seventh bankruptcy." If I'd been a strategist, you would have seen positive ads highlighting the fact that, contrary to Trump's grim and psychotic vision of the current state of the country, and though we still have a lot of room for improvement, things were a lot better than they were 8 years ago. "Gas prices under $2.50/gallon? Thanks, Obama. 20 million more people with health insurance? Thanks, Obama. Unemployment down to 5%? Thanks, Obama." and then you would have had Hillary say "But we've still got more work to do. We've got to get better jobs, which is why I support raising the minimum wage to a living wage. We've got to get equal pay for equal work. We've got to get our country growing again from the bottom up." If I'd been a strategist, you would have seen attacks on Trump, and the hypocritical Republicans, who claim to support "traditional marriage" and then go and vote for a guy who says "til death do us part" every decade when he cheats on her with a newer model he found in a catalog. The "traditional marriage" folks voted for a guy who thinks being a celebrity gives him the right to grab and kiss married women. Compared to Donald, Bill's a boy scout, and if Hillary had had an unguarded moment at the debate when the subject was brought up where she pointed out that Bill's adultery hurt her, too, but she loves him and they worked out their issues, then that would have won over at least a few dozen thousand white women in the midwest. But... she's always wearing that bulletproof vest, literally and figuratively. And, hell, maybe I would have engaged on the trade issue, too, and I wouldn't have told her to pretend to dislike TPP because of how the wind was blowing. Free trade sucks, sure, but fair trade that protects the environment and the rights of workers is something that she shouldn't have been ashamed to support. TPP has a few kinks to work out, but it is absolutely the best trade deal we've ever made. She shouldn't have run from it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
She could also have pushed the infrastructure issue, if that's to your liking. Less traffic is good for everybody. There was no reason for Trump to co-opt that so easily, it was OUR issue and the GOP shot down the jobs and infrastructure bills in 2010.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
mugrim posted:You would have lost too. The issue wasn't that Trump didn't have enough bad press. Especially in the Rovian era of attacking your opponents' strengths: Trump was allowed to get away with the "patriotic" and "honest" mantles despite being a selfish lying hypocrite. We should have gone after the evangelical vote for his infidelity (brazenly forgetting about Bill), we should have gone aggressively after veterans and patriots and painted Trump as somebody who only thinks he has to "make America great again" because he's trying to use the White House to restore his own lost fortune. We painted him as the wrong kind of villain. quote:It's that Democrats didn't get out and vote. Obama had 69m voters in 2008 where there were 28m fewer eligible voters. Clinton will be lucky if she matches his number, despite the national eligible voters being like 13% higher. Every Democrat knows Trump is a piece of poo poo and after 2008 there's a fuckton of legacy Democrats, many of whom helped campaign. Hell, lots of republicans do too. But Clinton didn't give people anything to vote for. She proposed crazy bureaucracies for new college students combined with hilariously tone deaf ideas for everyone who already has debt (all of which doesn't even begin to address private loans). She couldn't even come out for a 15 dollar minimum wage or single payer. And it's not like she's oozing charisma so she can bullshit her way in. She did come out for $15, after the convention as part of the compromise with Bernie. It was part of her platform. That's another thing: she didn't push that issue NEARLY enough, to the point where many people think she didn't even support it at all. She never even attacked Trump for once saying there shouldn't be any minimum wage and flip-flopping on the issue! And such an attack ad (or debate line) would have killed two birds with one stone by highlighting her own support for it. The plan for existing public student debt involved halving interest, and for private student loan debt involved refinancing and subsidized forgiveness. It sounded unsexy. It was bureaucratic boondoggle. But it would have worked, dammit. quote:Everyone who voted FOR Hillary just because we hated/feared/disliked Trump (I'm in that bucket) already did so, but that's not quite the huge population you think it is that will vote solely for that reason. Some conservatives won't vote for that reason, which is part of what we saw with republican turn out. But getting out the vote means getting people to drive cars, volunteer, and make sure every possible voter who's touched the campaign gets to the polls. The issue is you need to win Democrats who only vote for poo poo, and Clinton gave them nothing to vote for. Obama ignored many promises, but the promises he made during the campaign were pretty simple. Close Gitmo. Get a public option. End the war in Iraq. I should have been clearer, because we're actually in the same boat on most of this. I pushed very hard for 8 long months to infect others with much-needed enthusiasm for Hillary for this exact reasoning. I refused to hire (paid) canvassers unless they expressed some enthusiasm for her; hating Trump alone sent their application to the recycling bin. At the doors, we were pushing: $15/hr minimum wage. 2 years free public college tuition for middle-class students. Expansion of civil rights, protecting the environment. (And, to the right audience, Keeping guns out of the hands of terror suspects.) It was completely different from what they said in the air, and our ground game was VERY effective where they sent us. We got tons of votes out of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties. Where my office campaigned, we did very well. I can't tell you how many times I recited, trumpeted her litany of accomplishments that sadly went almost completely unmentioned nationally: "As Secretary of State, she visited 125+ countries and built up important connections restoring America's reputation around the world. She got enough other countries to pass sanctions on Iran that it brought them to the table for the nuclear agreement, which is great for peace. In the Paris agreement, she negotiated for China to agree to curb its emissions for the historic first time. As Senator, she secured additional healthcare for heroic firefighters and police and helped rebuild New York after 9/11. As first lady of the US, she was the key player in SCHIP, which has insured dozens of millions of children and saved many lives. And as first lady of Arkansas, she vastly improved their public education system. She's been pushing for children and families her whole life, starting with when she worked for the Children's Defense Fund." (This is similar to her own once-or-twice recited list, except the couple of times she did it was chronologically ascending instead of descending, which through experimentation I learned was more persuasive. Otherwise, people zoned out after "Children's Defense Fund") I recited this to every canvasser I hired on their first day. I wrote them down and hung them up on the wall. I rattled them off to people at their doors and on the phone and saw their eyes light up at the moment the persuasion "clicked." Hell, even an advertisement with just that list would have made a huge difference in reminding people they were fighting FOR something. There's no living person in US politics (Presidents aside) who's accomplished more than Hillary. I challenge anybody to name one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
The only possible candidates in 2020 are going to be younger, progressive Dems. All the viable Baby Boomer "establishment" centrists will be too old. Therefore it's stupid to worry about "neutralizing" Bernie Sanders (because he'll probably love the eventual nominee) and also stupid to worry about getting rid of the establishment, because the future begins to progressives–– starting this year with Ellison. Seriously, who should progressives worry about? Schumer 2020? Who's the "establishment" pick to be afraid of? If we learn ONE loving thing from this election is that Democrats shouldn't spend more energy ripping apart other Democrats than they do ripping apart Republicans. It got too ugly and negative in the primaries this year; it would have damaged the eventual nominee either way, and that should never be repeated.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Heaven Spacey posted:How the gently caress do you even constructively engage with people like this? Ostensibly, they're on our "team", and yet their devotion to a failed candidate and destructive worldview weighs us down like ballast. There must be some way to compromise with people like this who just think YEAH BLUE TEAM and don't realize that yes, democrats can suck, too. Google your local Democratic party (town or county) and start going to meetings. If you attend regularly and speak up you acquire power, especially if you bring a group of friends with you. But before you do, you should ditch the anti-unity bullshit. Democrats can suck, too, but a sucky Democrat is a billion times better than a good Republican in this era. For example, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is supposed to be "one of the good ones" and she's still worse than the worst Democrat. Go ahead, name the best Republican and worst Democrat you can think of, and compare their records.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Serf posted:I think we shouldn't be too comfortable with the idea that the establishment is too old and will just roll over. They could very well nominate someone like Cory Booker. Plenty of Clinton supporters would also champion her again for 2020 because a) the margins were very narrow so of course she could win if she tried harder! (lol) and b) we're like really, really bad at learning. Oh, no, Cory Booker! He likes the idea of charter schools and doesn't completely loving hate the banks, he might as well be a Republican! I was a field organizer for Hillary, I can tell you with a high level of confidence that her most diehard fans and ground-level advocates don't want her to run again and aren't even considering the possibility. They've taken pride in the "love-based" campaign she ran and made peace with the fact she'll never be President. She's not running. I'd put money on it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:it's a good thing you're getting me all hyped up to vote for <insert democrat here>, steve I don't need to water the flowers before a rainstorm. The Trumpcession/Trumpression will do that job for me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
If Trump doesn't turn dictator and rig the elections and we win in 2018–– I.E. we gain a ton of governorships and we don't lose seats in the Senate–– then 2020 will be a cakewalk no matter who we nominate. It could be loving Lieberman and all the progressives will be knocking doors out there in full force. Trump is the shittiest person to ever be elected President, is already the shittiest President-elect ever, and will be the shittiest President ever. He's skipping intelligence briefings. He's throwing money at any company threatening to outsource. His cabinet is the Legion of Doom. Even if he does a fantastic job (he absolutely won't), that 4.5% unemployment rate is going to go back up and all Dems have to do is shout "WHERE ARE THE JOBS, DONALD? WHERE'S THE WALL, DONALD? WHY HASN'T MEXICO PAID FOR IT?" and hammer him on all his broken promises and inevitable failures, and we should be all set. GlyphGryph posted:I don't hate the guy, far from it. He seems like a good person and I'm happy to have him in the party. But... He explicitly defines himself as "strongly fiscally conservative". He doesn't like unions. He doesn't seem to have much of an understanding of how to appeal to people in more rural areas. He is like the epitome of city centered, big business politics. Supporting him seems like a mistake in the current climate. Maybe in four years that will change, but his being pushed this early by people who want him annointed appears to have less to do with him and the good things about him and more to do with the fact that the big money people think he'll do what they want, because he's "one of them", rather than because they think he's the best candidate (or at least it feels like that to me based on where I've seen him being pushed the hardest). That's good reasoning and I respect it. I don't think anyone should ever be deemed "inevitable" ever again, either. Maybe I'm tickled by the idea of history repeating itself: an idiotic rich white douchebag makes a huge mess in the White House and then a purple-eyed charismatic young black Democrat spends the next eight years picking up the pieces. Just repeating that trend over and over until the end of time. Cory Booker would be a great candidate if he simply runs as Obama 2008 Redux, because in 2020 this country will be begging for Obama back. I don't know that I'll vote for him in the primaries. I hope we get a good selection of candidates out there. The also-rans should be more interesting than O'Malley, Chafee, and Webb.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
The margins in PA, MI, and WI were so thin that you could blame almost literally anyone for Hillary's loss and be correct. Macedonian teenagers, Wolf Blitzer, Caitlyn Jenner, Jimmy Fallon, Anthony Weiner, Colin Kaepernick, a butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo... if any of these people had behaved in a different way it probably could have changed the election.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Donna Brazile also played a central part in two elections where Dems won the popular vote and lost the EV. This time, she couldn't have hosed things up worse: refusing to learn her lesson from '00, she was worried about the "PR nightmare" of losing the popular vote and winning the EV, so she poured resources into increasing turnout in NoLa and Chicago while Michigan and Wisconsin starved. Time to retire, Donna.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:one one hand it's heartening that she learned from the 2008 primary to not let her campaign devolve into two factions one of which is led by idiots who don't know how anything works At least this time Mark Penn was nowhere to be found.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Serf posted:the republicans will say the only people affected will be welfare queens and shut that argument down entirely That's short-sighted. The argument wins in the long run, when people actually do start dying from Trump's actions on health, the environment, and foreign affairs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:And so Democrats return to the well-trodden trail of depression politics and why-botherism. That's actually perfect
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 17:01
|
|
