What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?

Red Dreams said:
I would like to see perhaps a Newsom/Gabbard ticket.
But tbh I mention Newsom because he seems a fresh liberal face. Honestly I do not know a heck of a lot about him. But others have mentioned him.
Gabbard ticks a lot of the boxes. She is inclusive. Not afraid to say what she thinks. Some say she is islamophobic. But I have not seen anything highly negative there. Her religion has been mentioned. But I think that is not an issue. Sanders is an atheist.
Click to expand...

How about the Dems go populist and run Mark Cuban.
 
Raoul said:
How about the Dems go populist and run Mark Cuban.
Click to expand...
1122-mark-cuban-steve-bannon-tm-wm-3.jpg


He's jumped the shark I think
 
Raoul said:
How about the Dems go populist and run Mark Cuban.
Click to expand...

Honestly I have not thought too much about 2020. I'm still shocked a vacuum is going to be in the White House. And angry that Obama and the Dems made this very stupid mistake. Now even whatever Obama did may well be undone.

We have taken several steps backwards. As I have said elswhere, I am not prepared to prejudge Trump. We simply don't know what he is going to do.
But pretty much the Dems defaulted.

And here we are.
 
Personally I would prefer someone who has come up through the legislature/congress.
People who know how the system works. Have a voting record. Have taken political positions especially when it has been at a political cost.
Profiles in Courage?

There must be people like that out there.

Gabbard is someone who has interested me for example. I'm sure there are others out there. People who are willing to embrace those who do not agree with them.
We do not need to agree with everyone. But if you are seen to be willing to fight for all, people begin to belive.

Obama showed how to do this.
 
Red Dreams said:
I left the thread because it had become a Hillary cheerleading thread.
I was never a Bernie follower. I agreed with most of what he said.
If I was his follower, I would have listened to him and voted for Hillary.

Many who voted for him, did not listen to him. That is why she lost.
Click to expand...
Spot on!
 
Hillary lost for many reasons. There were 25 years of attacks against her. Even if most of that is pure lies, it's really hard to defend against it. She shouldn't have run.

Obama is another main reason for Hilary's failure. He came into power creating a lot of enthusiasm. Yes we can! At the end, what could he do? Very little. Yes, he says the right things, but what are the fundamental changes he has created? Almost nothing. A lot of people got disillusioned and didn't bother to go vote because of that.
 
nick2004 said:
Hillary lost for many reasons. There were 25 years of attacks against her. Even if most of that is pure lies, it's really hard to defend against it. She shouldn't have run.

Obama is another main reason for Hilary's failure. He came into power creating a lot of enthusiasm. Yes we can! At the end, what could he do? Very little. Yes, he says the right things, but what are the fundamental changes he has created? Almost nothing. A lot of people got disillusioned and didn't bother to go vote because of that.
Click to expand...

Strange how you cite 25 years of attacks against Hillary but oddly ommitted the 8 years of GOP obstructionism under Obama, which was compounded by Trump's campaign to expose him as not having been born in the US.
 
Raoul said:
Strange how you cite 25 years of attacks against Hillary but oddly ommitted the 8 years of GOP obstructionism under Obama, which was compounded by Trump's campaign to expose him as not having been born in the US.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. Personally, I like Obama a lot. Both as a person and as a President.

However, the truth is that he did not accomplish anything of value. Would you be convinced by Hillary that she would accomplish what Obama couldn't? Why? Given her past?
 
Raoul said:
Strange how you cite 25 years of attacks against Hillary but oddly ommitted the 8 years of GOP obstructionism under Obama, which was compounded by Trump's campaign to expose him as not having been born in the US.
Click to expand...

Actually it was 6 years of obstructionism, because for two years Democrats had both houses and the White House and they did nothing. That's a major reason that cost them: people became disillusioned and didn't go to vote this year.

The only good thing was Obamacare (which again is quite questionable).

They did not even try to prosecute anyone from the previous administration or from wall street for the lies, the wars, the torture, the great recession. The Democrats promised a lot in 2008 and delivered very little.
 
nick2004 said:
Actually it was 6 years of obstructionism, because for two years Democrats had both houses and the White House and they did nothing. That's a major reason that cost them: people became disillusioned and didn't go to vote this year.

The only good thing was Obamacare (which again is quite questionable).

They did not even try to prosecute anyone from the previous administration or from wall street for the lies, the wars, the torture, the great recession. The Democrats promised a lot in 2008 and delivered very little.
Click to expand...

The Dems could've done more in the first two years but Obama mistakenly believed he could compromise on some of his policies to be inclusive and bipartisan, and in the process played directly into the GOP's strategy. The obstructionism unfortunately, began immediately by way of delegitimization and time wasting, then bled into the Obamacare fight.
 
Silva said:
1122-mark-cuban-steve-bannon-tm-wm-3.jpg


He's jumped the shark I think
Click to expand...

Cuban leans Dem for the most part. This was just one of these odd situations where various personalities are cross-pollinating.
 
Wasn't there a meeting with top GOP figures before Obama was sworn in? Apparently they resolved to oppose him on absolutely everything, even if what he proposed was in the interests of their own constituents. That isn't politics, it's fundamentalist insanity. The voting record of the GOP in recent years is also close to 100% -- they agree on everything unanimously. As someone pointed out, that level of conformity should be impossible for any actual political party. I think Obama's presidency was underwhelming, but I also wonder how much he realistically could have actually done that he didn't do faced with this level of opposition -- a lot of it just angry white men seething that a black man could become POTUS.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
The Dems could've done more in the first two years but Obama mistakenly believed he could compromise on some of his policies to be inclusive and bipartisan, and in the process played directly into the GOP's strategy. The obstructionism unfortunately, began immediately by way of delegitimization and time wasting, then bled into the Obamacare fight.
Click to expand...

At the beginning, that's what I thought, too. But now I think I was naive to believe that. Two years is a very long time. You can try to find a compromise for a month, three months, six months ... but two years??? No. Now I believe that Obama simply decided to find his place among the elite. For the next two decades, he will be giving his wonderful speeches and being paid a lot for those. The same thing that happened with Bill Clinton.


(And this explains a lot. For example, the Dakota Access Pipeline, about which the president said ... absolutely nothing.)
 
nick2004 said:
At the beginning, that's what I thought, too. But now I think I was naive to believe that. Two years is a very long time. You can try to find a compromise for a month, three months, six months ... but two years??? No. Now I believe that Obama simply decided to find his place among the elite. For the next two decades, he will be giving his wonderful speeches and being paid a lot for those. The same thing that happened with Bill Clinton.


(And this explains a lot. For example, the Dakota Access Pipeline, about which the president said ... absolutely nothing.)
Click to expand...
They had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for about 40 days.
 
Ubik said:
They had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for about 40 days.
Click to expand...

So what? What is your point? In 8 years, Obama could pass nothing, but we should blame the republicans? He wasn't able (using the power of the presidency) to inspire people to flip any senate seats... At the end, he did very little in all areas, even though he was a well liked person. Thinking about it... if for 8 years he really wanted to do something and they didn't let him do anything ... he should have resigned! Such an extraordinary act would be more honorable and effective than being lame duck president for eight years.

And if the republicans are to blame for Obama's ineffectiveness, how would Hilary do any better? She is not well liked, not even in her own party. She is a red flag for many republicans. The Democrats lost both houses. Why did Hilary believe that even if she became President she would do any better than the lame duck Obama?
 
nick2004 said:
So what? What is your point? In 8 years, Obama could pass nothing, but we should blame the republicans? He wasn't able (using the power of the presidency) to inspire people to flip any senate seats... At the end, he did very little in all areas, even though he was a well liked person. Thinking about it... if for 8 years he really wanted to do something and they didn't let him do anything ... he should have resigned! Such an extraordinary act would be more honorable and effective than being lame duck president for eight years.

And if the republicans are to blame for Obama's ineffectiveness, how would Hilary do any better? She is not well liked, not even in her own party. She is a red flag for many republicans. The Democrats lost both houses. Why did Hilary believe that even if she became President she would do any better than the lame duck Obama?
Click to expand...
My point is that you said they didn't have Republican intransigence for two of the eight years, and I was correcting you.
 
nick2004 said:
So what? What is your point? In 8 years, Obama could pass nothing, but we should blame the republicans? He wasn't able (using the power of the presidency) to inspire people to flip any senate seats... At the end, he did very little in all areas, even though he was a well liked person. Thinking about it... if for 8 years he really wanted to do something and they didn't let him do anything ... he should have resigned! Such an extraordinary act would be more honorable and effective than being lame duck president for eight years.

And if the republicans are to blame for Obama's ineffectiveness, how would Hilary do any better? She is not well liked, not even in her own party. She is a red flag for many republicans. The Democrats lost both houses. Why did Hilary believe that even if she became President she would do any better than the lame duck Obama?
Click to expand...

Please stop spouting utter drivel.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Wasn't there a meeting with top GOP figures before Obama was sworn in? Apparently they resolved to oppose him on absolutely everything, even if what he proposed was in the interests of their own constituents. That isn't politics, it's fundamentalist insanity. The voting record of the GOP in recent years is also close to 100% -- they agree on everything unanimously. As someone pointed out, that level of conformity should be impossible for any actual political party. I think Obama's presidency was underwhelming, but I also wonder how much he realistically could have actually done that he didn't do faced with this level of opposition -- a lot of it just angry white men seething that a black man could become POTUS.
Click to expand...

The electorate actually voted out Republicans willing to reach across the aisle and replaced them with Tea Party fundamentalists. I can't think of any president who saw this level of antagonism, even when his party had a minority in congress. Maybe Andrew Johnson, but he was sympathetic to the rebel states post Civil War, and deserved it.

I think Obama could have used an influential congressman like Ted Kennedy in his latter years. The likes of Pelosi, Reid, Schumer... just couldn't effect real influence.
 
Raoul said:
How about the Dems go populist and run Mark Cuban.
Click to expand...

What understanding of the need of ordinary people does Cuban have?
He has not served in any capacity.
One of the reasons Hillary lost was because she was out of touch with the needs of ordinary people.

And where the Democratic party and the electorate itself is does not reflect someone like Cuban.
 
Red Dreams said:
What understanding of the need of ordinary people does Cuban have?
He has not served in any capacity.
One of the reasons Hillary lost was because she was out of touch with the needs of ordinary people.

And where the Democratic party and the electorate itself is does not reflect someone like Cuban.
Click to expand...

So basically, he's completely electable then.
 
What did Hillary do wrong ? This lays it all out on a silver platter.

 
Red Dreams said:
wrong conclusion.

These are the type of people we do not want anywhere near the presidency.

EDIT:

Winning and wanting to serve are two seperate things.

What surely we have learnt from this last election.
Click to expand...

I think we are no longer in a post left v right construct now. We are in an establishment v populist construct. Political background doesn't matter as long as you connect with people, their needs and aspirations. To that end, having a governance background is far less important than it has been in the past. This may not be good new for establishment elites like Booker, Newsome et al
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
I think we are no longer in a post left v right construct now. We are in an establishment v populist construct. Political background doesn't matter as long as you connect with people, their needs and aspirations. To that end, having a governance background is far less important than it has been in the past. This may not be good new for establishment elites like Booker, Newsome et al
Click to expand...

I agree. It is a populist v establishment era now.
But the Democratic party having moved left has rejected the corporate candidate. Cuban will therefore be a less damaged version of Hillary. With the fight going on in the DNC, it is highly unlikely a corporate candidate will be nominated.
Newsom has served and is sufficiently left to perhaps satisfy both parts of the party. If he picks Gabbard for insistence, he will be strengthening his case.

Booker is a pure corporate stooge.
 
Raoul said:
I think we are in a post left v right construct now. We are in an establishment v populist construct. Political background doesn't matter as long as you connect with people, their needs and aspirations. To that end, having a governance background is far less important than it has been in the past. This may not be good new for establishment elites like Booker, Newsome et al
Click to expand...


its not good for anyone if people like Trump end up in power
 
Red Dreams said:
I agree. It is a populist v establishment era now.
But the Democratic party having moved left has rejected the corporate candidate. Cuban will therefore be a less damaged version of Hillary. With the fight going on in the DNC, it is highly unlikely a corporate candidate will be nominated.
Newsom has served and is sufficiently left to perhaps satisfy both parts of the party. If he picks Gabbard for insistence, he will be strengthening his case.

Booker is a pure corporate stooge.
Click to expand...

In terms of looking ahead to 2020 - the only person I can think of who can match Trump is Cuban. He doesn't have to pretend he's a politician and can get in the mud with Trump, who by then will probably be wearing a bit thin with the public. There's a genuine opportunity there.
 
Raoul said:
In terms of looking ahead to 2020 - the only person I can think of who can match Trump is Cuban. He doesn't have to pretend he's a politician and can get in the mud with Trump, who by then will probably be wearing a bit thin with the public. There's a genuine opportunity there.
Click to expand...

The point I am making is what do we Want?
Do we want someone who wants to unite the nation or someone who is only focused on defeating the other guy.
We failed with that second strategy.
 
Red Dreams said:
The point I am making is what do we Want?
Do we want someone who wants to unite the nation or someone who is only focused on defeating the other guy.
We failed with that second strategy.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as uniting the nation, so I would propose option B: defeating the other guy.
 
Raoul said:
There's no such thing as uniting the nation, so I would propose option B: defeating the other guy.
Click to expand...
This is true. You want as broad a message as possible, but in the end it's unlikely anyone tops 53%. No-one's cutting through the current heightened polarisation anytime soon.
 
Red Dreams said:
The point I am making is what do we Want?
Do we want someone who wants to unite the nation or someone who is only focused on defeating the other guy.
We failed with that second strategy.
Click to expand...

The home run candidate for the left would be a Bernie style, "I don't give a feck" populist who is about 20-30 years younger than Bernie. This person would get massive millennial support, which by then will probably comprise a massive portion of a swelling anti-Trump coalition.
 
Raoul said:
There's no such thing as uniting the nation, so I would propose option B: defeating the other guy.
Click to expand...

Obama reached out to everyone.
True. Not everyone listenen to him. But this time round many of those who did vote for him voted for Trump. These were not racists.
The point I am making is, we need to be seen as wanting to serve the country, rather than trying to win the election.
The second strategy failed misreably.
 
Red Dreams said:
Obama reached out to everyone.
True. Not everyone listenen to him. But this time round many of those who did vote for him voted for Trump. These were not racists.
The point I am making is, we need to be seen as wanting to serve the country, rather than trying to win the election.
The second strategy failed misreably.
Click to expand...

Reaching out to everyone is one thing, being accepted by everyone is entirely another. Like it or not, we are in a bifurcated political system for the next few cycles until demographic changes decisively swing things to the Dems. Until such time, we will be dealing with what we have since 2000 - occasional periods when one party has both the Congress and WH and other periods when it is split. To put it in slightly more macabre terms, older white baby boomers need to gradually die off and be replaced by heterogenous younger voters before the ship is fully on the right track. Until then, we will remain bifurcated.
 
The Demographic changes do favour the Dems. They simply thought they did not need one section of the population.
The fact is even then, the Dems would have won if they had a more likeable/trusted candidate.
This failure highlights the need to look at all regions.
Once again. If the objective simply remains to 'win', we lose...even if we 'win'.

You Can unite the nation, even if all people do not agree on all things.
People want the same things.
Better lives, a safe retirement, better future for their children.
 
Raoul said:
In terms of looking ahead to 2020 - the only person I can think of who can match Trump is Cuban. He doesn't have to pretend he's a politician and can get in the mud with Trump, who by then will probably be wearing a bit thin with the public. There's a genuine opportunity there.
Click to expand...

The trouble is that the voters are fickle. Its perfectly likely that by 2020, Trump will have screwed a ton of things up and the electorate will swing back to wanting the highly qualified expert to fix it all. Which could also mean a GOP primary of course.
 
Kentonio said:
The trouble is that the voters are fickle. Its perfectly likely that by 2020, Trump will have screwed a ton of things up and the electorate will swing back to wanting the highly qualified expert to fix it all. Which could also mean a GOP primary of course.
Click to expand...
Not a single one of them has the balls.
 
As for the original question, what's next for her - I hope nothing. She's got nothing to offer anymore and should just disappear from the political scene.

One need to look no further than election night, to get a glimpse of Hillary's cowardice. She couldn't even come and address her own supporters, people who'd given a year of their life to campaign for her. Instead she sent Podesta to Javitz center, and Podesta comes out and says "as far as we're concerned the election is still on, a lot of states are too closed to call, what we want is for you to go home, we will be here in the morning counting overnight", right as she's giving her concession speech.

Hillary didn't even have the guts to face her core supporters. She's a coward. And a hypocrite.

Her supporters claim she should have president because she's fought all of her life for us. She's not done anything. She named a street and a building when she was a senator and she destroyed the Middle East. She didn't even care enough about you to be able to come on stage and say thank you and goodbye. She deserves nothing.
 
Suedesi said:
As for the original question, what's next for her - I hope nothing. She's got nothing to offer anymore and should just disappear from the political scene.

One need to look no further than election night, to get a glimpse of Hillary's cowardice. She couldn't even come and address her own supporters, people who'd given a year of their life to campaign for her. Instead she sent Podesta to Javitz center, and Podesta comes out and says "as far as we're concerned the election is still on, a lot of states are too closed to call, what we want is for you to go home, we will be here in the morning counting overnight", right as she's giving her concession speech.

Hillary didn't even have the guts to face her core supporters. She's a coward. And a hypocrite.

Her supporters claim she should have president because she's fought all of her life for us. She's not done anything. She named a street and a building when she was a senator and she destroyed the Middle East. She didn't even care enough about you to be able to come on stage and say thank you and goodbye. She deserves nothing.
Click to expand...
Really doesn't help your argument when you exaggerate everything to absurd degrees. She destroyed the middle east? Her only achievement is naming a street? Come on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.