Looks like someone else agrees too
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/349548-clintons-score-settling-frustrates-democrats?amp
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Looks like someone else agrees too
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/349548-clintons-score-settling-frustrates-democrats?amp
Well no cause 60m+ people voted for him regardless of the difference in the swing states.
"Judging by the stance of the leadership of the Democratic Party and much of the media, Hillary Clinton’s devastating loss in the presidential election of November 2016 was all the fault of pernicious Russian leaks, unwarranted FBI investigations and a skewed electoral college. Rarely blamed was the party’s decision to run a deeply unpopular candidate on an uninspiring platform."
She lost because, after 25 years as a Washington insider, she couldn't credibly offer anything other than a variant on business as usual. Trump can't either but he had no political history and, unlike a traditional candidate, he is perfectly happy saying that black is white. There are echoes of Brexit where Remain were arguing for the less than perfect status quo based on the fact that it's in the broader national interest to remain while Leave were without scruple and, in their own unspecified way, promising to make Britain great again.
I can understand why people thought they had nothing to lose by voting for Trump or Leave but it's not a great advert either for the last 30+ years of free market capitalism or democracy.
I can understand why people thought they had nothing to lose by voting for Trump or Leave but it's not a great advert either for the last 30+ years of free market capitalism or democracy.
The fact that she can say what Bernie said was a pipedream or pie in the sky says she has no business being in the Democratic party.
...or a candidate who had no message except that 'Trump was bad'.
There was an attempt to listen and nominate a DNC chair that would have been willing to listen to voters rather than the 'corporations' but Perez was pushed instead.
It is never the voters fault. It is the duty of political parties to formulate plans that will help the electorate in their daily lives and sell that manifesto to the people. The democratic party and Clinton never did that. They ignored that part of the campaigning deliberately. You have to give voters something to vote for, not vote against. Hillary was telling people to vote for her because she isn't Trump. It just doesn't work that way. People saw through it right away. She was a corrupt lying politician with bad judgement who flip flopped on almost every major issue in her political life. Iraq War, trade deals, same sex marriage etc.
100% correct. Bernie had the decency to endorse her after the primaries and actively campaign for her. She's now stabbed him and his supporters in the back and insulted them. The very same Bernie supporters who voted for her after Bernie brought them into the political fold. If she thinks progressive policies are pipedreams, she has no business running for office, especially after she called herself a "progressive" after the Iowa primaries.
It is a well known fact that the many Bernie supporters who were butthurt switched to Trump or refused to vote for her that cost the election.
Why does that change the simple point that Bernie was more popular than Hillary globally? The US is to the right of most of the developed world. Hillary is not a liberal in the context of most countries.
I don't buy that left is good view you're implying, i happen to agree that magic abs doesn't work.
Hillary vs. Bernie in Europe would be roughly "centrist conservative vs. social democrat". Considering Hillary's baggage, it's not hard to see that Bernie is more popular.
That's ok, if you prefer the conservative side I don't agree with anything you have to offer either.
The mistake you're making is attaching 'supporters' to the candidate as if they're a crowd he controls. He managed to pull in people that would never have voted for Hillary in a million years, energize them and prepare them to vote Democrat if he had won the primary. So we're supposed to be shocked that when he didn't win, they didn't just line up to vote for her anyway? The importance of Sanders was his ability to reach voters that the Democratic party had lost, if he'd made it to the general then those voters would have been ticking the D box.
You are repeating yourself.
Vote For What? People vote for someone and their vision. She had none. All she said was Trump is bad?
All she had was blind ambition. People like her are empty. They offer nothing.
As I have said. It is never the voters fault.
You can't lose votes you never had. Acting like you are entitled to someone's vote instead of trying to earn it tend to have a negative effect.
Novel idea eh?
Earning the vote.
bloody ell.
Earning the vote.
bloody ell.
I think she did have a message; whether it resonated or not in contrast to Trump and Bernie's is of course another matter.
For example: when it comes to the various foreign policy matters Trump is facing, Hillary would've been far better at dealing with them than Trump or Bernie.
I listened to her during the campaign. No change was her message. Really?
Of course she would have been better than Trump. Any of us would have been better than Trump.
I wont agree she would have been better than Bernie in foreign policy. She had experience.
Poor experience. She was a disaster as SoS.
Whereas Bernie's foreign policy experience involved a teenage kibbutz in Israel and honeymooning in the Soviet Union.
Hillary was 8 years as a U.S. Senator (including 6 years on the armed services committee) and 4 years as Secretary of State - it's virtually impossible to have more foreign policy cred than that.
I think that is one issue she had is that for some voters, not just Republicans, there was the narrative out there that she felt entitled to the nomination and of course a win in The General. I think it was in part built off the way the Dems allocated their Super Delegates so early and of course Social Media spreading that she felt entitled.
I think what Red Dreams is saying though he stint as Sec of State was not a good one in his opinion, so that experience was actually a negative.
Unless he buys into the right wing Benghazi propaganda, I don't really see where he has a point.
That's all your view based on knowing a lot about both candidates. I provided proof that Hillary would have won a landslide. All you have is conjecture.
I didn't say I prefer conservative, but neither do I think communism is a solution. I'm not saying Bernie is a communist but there's a balance between the far left and center.
Those very groups he reached out to ended up costing her and the world. Perhaps if she walked the primaries, those people wouldn't have cared about the election and her blue wall may have held.
Then the world wouldn't have Trump
Trump is bad is a big enough reason. No?
You obviously forgot my views when those hearings were going on.
I saw it as the witch hunt it was.
When Libya was brought up she threw Obama under the bus. So true to her 'character'.
I am in no way saying she would have been a worse president than Trump.
But that is irrelevant to these discussions.
People vote for someone. Not against someone else.
I agree about the last bit. Hillary would've made a better foreign policy President than either Trump or Bernie. Bernie would've made for a better domestic policy President than either of the other two, although a vast majority of his policies would've never seen the light of day under a GOP Congress.
You posted a poll showing she'd have easily beaten Trump. Well no shit Sherlock, it doesn't take a poll to tell us that. The guy is a joke outside the US.
Seriously, they were never going to be Democratic voters without Sanders, you can't lose what you never had. If he'd never been in the race, those same people still wouldn't have voted for her.
On a wider point, you're hoping that a huge number of people wouldnt have cared about the election if they hadnt seen a glimpse of a candidate they felt actually had something to offer? You're sure that's a moral maze you want to walk into?
Surely you jest. The U.S. is clearly to the right of the world's geopolitical median and Hillary would be considered the right of center candidate and Bernie the centrist.
Hillary was a hawk. She would have been in perfect agreement with Graham and McCain. She wanted a no-fly zone over Syria. Crazy.
The point of electing someone running on a vision is getting a mandate from voters and work with congress to get it done. Be it Health Care or Education.
If the candidate thinks it is a "pipedream", why run?
Let others who have courage And vision run.
Nothing hawkish about a robust and engaging foreign policy, whether on Syria or elsewhere. In case you haven't noticed, that's been the norm of every previous U.S. President, including Obama.
When you hear Bernie talk, its quite obvious he hasn't given much thought to foreign policy matters because he's been too busy devising ways to deal with health care, eduction etc
Its obvious to most of us who understand what a no-fly zone is, that it is the route to a military conflict. Bernie opposed this. So he obviously understands. You may define it as a "robust and engaging". Yeah. It will be engaging alright.
Last edited:
Nonsense. The U.S. ran Operations Northern and Southern watch for many years with no conflicts at all. Bernie has feck all foreign policy experience so his do nothing approach would basically just allow the likes of Kim, Assad, and Putin to run roughshod over U.S. and NATO interests. He's more like Bannon in that regard.
Diplomacy is not "Do Nothing".
Anyway we must disagree on what constitutes 'good foreign policy'
Anyway, we are getting off topic here.
She was a very poor candidate who offered nothing. Why she lost.
Hopefully the DNC has learned. It would seem they are tired of her and do not want her to run again.
The motive of her book can be debated. Sounds more like blame everyone and everything rather accepting responsibility. In that at least she has been consistent.
She is quite correct in the basic premise that female candidates are generally frowned upon. Any male candidate with her record would likely have been lauded as experienced and credible.
She was given extra hoops to jump through as a woman but the mainstream media (NYT, Wapo, CNN, NBC) accepted her credentials and experience.
A male candidate with her resume (Iraq, DADT, Welfare, Crime, Libya, Syria, Honduras) would have been as much targeted from the left as she was.
Honestly for me, that was and is not an issue. Most people have moved on from that I think. But if there is data to support what she says, well.... what can I say.
Iraq? DADT ? Syria? Is there something she did on this that would be disqualifying?
Thing is, we know the isn't really true. This is a pretty good intro into this type of phenomenon and has citations you can explore further:
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/think-youre-not-biased-think-again
As much as people like to pretend otherwise, I think we can probably say that the election result was close enough that had Hillary been male (with an identical record) then even if it wasn't an issue for you it would probably be enough to swing the election.
The Harvard test referenced there is available here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
Last edited:
Well, Bernie's been right on the most important US foreign policy issue in the past 15 years, the Iraq war. And if he was president, he'd have a SoS to help him. Hardly like it would be a clueless cabinet when it comes to foreign policy.
One of the things that Bill Clinton did right during his Presidency was control the message. Saw an interview with James Carvelle and George S where they talked about from the very start of his Presidential run they actually studied the Reagan Presidency, not for policy but for how he managed to control the message no matter what was going on. They succeeded very well.
With Hillary in both her Presidential runs, her campaign did not do that. Thus they were able to be perceived as blundering, not having a message, etc etc etc.
With Hillary in both her Presidential runs, her campaign did not do that. Thus they were able to be perceived as blundering, not having a message, etc etc etc.