She was the wrong candidate to win the rust belt against an 'outsider'. She was too 'wall street' and Trump did a good job of pretending to be for the workers in those states.
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.
She was the wrong candidate to win the rust belt against an 'outsider'. She was too 'wall street' and Trump did a good job of pretending to be for the workers in those states.
You need a dose of reality. Even with all the accusations HRC still won the popular vote. The DNC's job is to support a winnable candidate and they did just that. You cannot expect a party to pave the way for someone who wasn't even a democrat till recently. Also, your use of lingo such as "most popular politician" is just pure cringe. Nobody even knew him till the last elections.
Last edited:
Popular vote doesn't matter when the election isn't fully determined by who wins the popular vote.
Although I do think winnable candidates can come from either wing of the party; charisma's ultimately what matters. Bernie would've stood a better chance of beating Trump than Hilary, but then Obama would've also beaten Trump resoundingly. In spite of the fact he's fairly similar to Hilary ideologically, he was a much better speaker than her and that's largely what matters.
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes. Those were such small margins in what turned out to be the key that she could easily have won them with a better campaign strategy.
The questions is he couldn't have got to the position to be in the election, by all accounts she won the primaries by pretty big margins, and unless you believe that the Dems should do away with primaries and just rely on head to head polls to select their candidate, any potential B v T matchup is just purely hypothetical.
Again, he retains his relatively high approval because there was very little mud slinging at him, no one knows how it would have turned out.
As pointed out above, spending a fraction of what her campaign did trying to win a landslide in those 3 states could have turned the tide.
Hillary was a winnable candidate. Trump won 18 states by fewer than 250,000 votes; Hillary, 13.
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, 0.2%, 0.7% and 0.8% (10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes). Are you sure a better strategy couldn't have made that less than 1% of difference in those 3 states?
How did she win the popular vote though? surely, she isn't the right candidate and hated by everyone left, right and centre.
She was a winnable candidate but I'm not sure it matters because she ultimately didn't win. Obama would've certainly won with far more comfort than she did. She was lacking in charisma and even if she was a winnable one was clearly a bit shit.
Obviously she wasn't hated by everyone but she ultimately didn't win in areas where it mattered. Which means, however broken the US system may be, that her winning the popular vote isn't that relevant; a candidate who could've hypothetically finished with a lesser percentage than her on the popular vote while still winning enough swing states to win the election would've clearly been a better one.
When has 'warhawking' and 'wall street loyalties' hurt any politician other than Hillary? They haven't and every politician from Trump to Obama to Bush had those same ties.
Because she actively sought to win the popular vote by as large a margin possible, for some inexplicable reason, rather than try lock-down swing states which were still up for grabs. Brazile revealed as much: the Clinton campaign continued to pump millions into states she was winning by double-digits instead of intelligent campaigning for an electoral vote. For somebody who was the 'most qualified candidate ever', it was a monumental oversight.
And yet now that they know him, he is the most popular one. I didn't expect the party to pave a way for Bernie in 2016 at all, and the level of unity in spiting him didn't come as a complete surprise either. But now they need to learn their lesson about what worked and didn't, and take advantage of this asset that they have who may not live for much longer.
About that dose of reality: the Democrats have lost a thousand seats at state and Congressional levels since Obama took power. They have never been this powerless since before FDR. Their strategy is not working. And all indications are that they are doubling down.
Their strategy seems to be to concede vast swathes and states to the Republicans (who themselves don't bother to moderate themselves or compromise, but start right and move further right). They concentrate on urban areas and on white-collar workers who economically benefit from the GOP but are perhaps repulsed by the bigotry. Now, their presidential nominee becomes the only hope to stop an overwhelming tide of both bigotry and right-wing laws, and, will, by the destiny of demographics, always win.
Clinton's loss, to the most unpopular candidate in history, has shown how dangerous that thinking is.
That's all very well, but on Nov 5, 2016, the Dems thought they'd have everything they wanted, their favored candidate in the White House, and most of the world thought it was a foregone conclusion.
It's all very well to claim she was a bit shit with the benefit of hindsight.
I think everyone is well aware of the mistakes that have been made. The only person out of the loop is Brazile with a cheap attempt to sell her upcoming book. The other issue is Bernie Bros unable to move on from the whole issue. Their insistence on blaming her at every turn and opportunity. Which goes back to the point several posters have already made in this thread, she wouldn't have had to face such backlash and vitriol had she been a male candidate.
Last edited:
It's hardly hindsight though when claims were regularly voiced during the campaign as to the suitability of her candidacy. Claims like suggesting the FBI's investigation into her wasn't exactly helping weren't new. Nor were claims that she couldn't connect with a lot of voters, or that she wasn't a particularly great or engaging speaker.
Obviously she was a winnable candidate, but any candidate should've been winnable against Trump. That's the baseline. The starting point. My general point was that more charismatic candidates, whether on the left or centre, would've beaten Trump. Which means I'm sort of agreeing with both you and berbatrick. The Dems should listen to voices on the left and should be willing to implement some of their workable ideas that can grab voters and present them with something new and interesting, but by the same token a relatively centrist candidate in 2020 should win comfortably if they're charismatic, likable, and don't have a lot of dirt on them.
But the fact was that at the beginning of the race for the party nomination, everyone thought she had it in the bag and basically no one challenged her (except Bernie who's not really a Dem).
In fact, the biggest problem with the Dems right now is that they still have no one to take over, they desperately need someone to come out of nowhere like Obama did for 2008; if we end up with Bernie v Hillary again in 2020.
Before Brazile's article, the latest news from the DNC was that it had removed Bernie supporters from all important sub-committees. Before that, the Obama put up Perez against Ellison explicitly to stop the left getting some minimal power within the party (even though many senators etc were ok with Elison). Party donors and PACs then attacked Ellison as a Nation-of-Islam supporter.
There has been no indication, other than from a few individuals on specific issues, that the party is even thinking about moving left to counter Trump.
Yes, but instead of looking at that, or how she won the popular vote you should be looking at why she lost, or how she lost. I get your love and admiration for her, but accept that half your party loved someone else and want different things, also accept that she turned many off. She didn't unify the party she did more to divide it. To be fair, as I said, Bernie just showed how un-Liberal the Dems really are. He's more like a European Liberal (Socialist UGH) and Hillary is more your typical US Democrat, but I think it's time to admit that the more the country grows and evolves that the more European style thinking is growing in your society.
I'm not American, and I just happen to prefer the US being run by a centralist like Hillary than socialist like Bernie. Obviously both are preferable to a fascist like Trump.
As the GOP goes further right, there's no need for the Dems to go further left...
The way Trump's approval rating is going, low 30s just 9 months in, possibly lower than Dubya by 2020, Hillary could well be able to win it with the "It's her turn" slogan they considered.
As the GOP goes further right, there's no need for the Dems to go further left...
The way Trump's approval rating is going, low 30s just 9 months in, possibly lower than Dubya by 2020, Hillary could well be able to win it with the "It's her turn" slogan they considered.
Good luck
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-not-popular-hillary-clinton-even-worse-approval-rating-polls-661070
But the fact was that at the beginning of the race for the party nomination, everyone thought she had it in the bag and basically no one challenged her (except Bernie who's not really a Dem).
In fact, the biggest problem with the Dems right now is that they still have no one to take over, they desperately need someone to come out of nowhere like Obama did for 2008; if we end up with Bernie v Hillary again in 2020.
Would be shocked if Hilary stood again 2020. I'd actually be kind of angry if she did because she already knows she's not overly well-liked and already having being beaten by Trump is a terrible starting point. Suppose newcomers often can emerge from nowhere.
In 2011, her approval rating was up in the 60s, 3 years before the election doesn't matter at all...
Bernie's only really a 'socialist' in American terms. In general I'd say he's pretty much centre-left democratic socialism. He advocates a lot of socialist policy but that's a far-cry away from full-on, outright socialism.
I doubt she'd do it again, the only way I can see it happening is if there's some definitive proof that she was cheated out of it in 2016.
Even then I reckon that ship's sailed. She's just not a particularly good candidate.
Of course, but I actually like her hawkish stance in terms of foreign policies.
Anyway, 2016 was so bad on so many levels for everything, best we just forget about it ever existed.
If there was proof that she was cheated out of it, it'd be the return of the heroine to claim her rightful destiny story...
Anyway, probably won't happen...
Ok, fair enough but Bernie isn't a Socialist and I find it infuriating that that is used as a label to beat him with. He just wants equality and fairness, he's really not a socialist.
Well, maybe if he'd stop describing himself as such
Really, really doubt this. Imo Hillary had by far the better chance of winning the general election between the two simply cos she falls more in the middle than Bernie. This is even taking into account that many Americans find her dislikable.
Errr... he calls himself a socialist, who am I do disagree.
Well, maybe if he'd stop describing himself as such
He's a Communist according to the majority of the USA. He has Socialist policies and leanings but he's not a true Socialist. It wouldn't matter anyway, it's just it's a truly dirty word in the USA. Feck, just look at the way they treat anyone "Liberal" It's insane. I honestly think it's just down to how old and evolved the country is compared to the rest of the world. It's young comparatively really.
The US is such a strange country...
He's a Communist according to the majority of the USA. He has Socialist policies and leanings but he's not a true Socialist. It wouldn't matter anyway, it's just it's a truly dirty word in the USA. Feck, just look at the way they treat anyone "Liberal" It's insane. I honestly think it's just down to how old and evolved the country is compared to the rest of the world. It's young comparatively really.
Well, maybe if he'd stop describing himself as such
The Bernie of Burlington was a Chomsky devotee and in 2016 he had a small sneaky provision in his platform about cooperatives. I wouldn't be surprised if he is around where Corbyn is in private, but he has mostly buried that side since he became a national figure.
Yup, and interesting, and beautiful and amazing, and diverse and also confusing. One thing is for sure, it's not fecking boring, I just wish it had slightly less influence over the rest of the world. But, it's not the devil many make it out to be, I honestly believe its heart is in the right place and that with a bit of encouragement and the right leader it could be the force for good many think and see it to be. I honestly think Obama was a great leader and overall he did more good in the 8 years he had in charge.
Bernie was more popular though and would've stood a better chance in the Rust States that swung it for Trump. A lot of polls had him faring far better than Hilary.
Well, maybe if he'd stop describing himself as such
Aye, admittedly doesn't help in that regard.
Yea, agreed with all of that, this current Trump era is worrying, I made a point not to visit any red state when I was there a few months ago.
I'd agree, you don't insist on being called a democratic socialist unless it's something close to your heart. But as you've long said, his platform was basically social democratic. I'm not sure he cares anything like as much about foreign policy as Corbyn does, but yeah on the domestic front he's probably there.
Yeah, he'd have done better there, I think. Would basically come down to holding Virginia.
Probably. Of course, should be noted a campaign with Bernie involved could've seen different events, different smears etc so it'd have been far from a given, but I reckon he'd have coped better on the whole.