'The peasants are revolting'.
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.
context is key though.
"you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. "
not sure the exact percentage but i would say a good chunk of his supporters are all of those tings mentioned and what the deplorable was in reference to.
As I say, I’m certainly no Hillary fan but for me this is a very good speech and she actually hit the nail square on the head:
That was a moment of clarity and transparency from her in my opinion and I think it hit Trump a little too close to home because he, quite cleverly, extracted a phrase out of it. He then decontextualised and over emphasised that phrase and twisted it around on her. Nobody discussed the finer points of that speech, they just latched onto the part Trump wanted them to.
Whether its true, partially true, or not true at all - its just a dumb thing to say during a political campaign since you should be selling your message to the broadest audience possible (such as what Sanders is doing in the above tweet) and not attacking any segment of the population.
If nazis suported trump (well the did) should she not attack that segment of the population and not want thier vote.
The only chance is a sort of a "new Obama". Many of the dems are established politicians.
That would be different since they are actual nazis. She's ambiguously referring to a massive swath of Americans who simply reject her politics.
Only if you assume that a relevant portion of the electorate is "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic" and that you need their votes to win. I think it's fair to say that pre 2016 we all thought the vast majority of people aren't any of those.
Its juts not an inclusive message. She somehow managed to completely estrange herself from the left as well as piss off a comparable segment of the right (who already hated the Clintons going in) to where she couldn't manage to connect with or inspire enough people to get the job done. Similar to Romney's 47% comment 4 years earlier, except in his case he did it behind closed doors.
I've never been convinced that Hillary even likes her own supporters, let alone Trump's.
Romney was talking about half the country though, saying they're lazy and feeding off the other half. Hillary must have assumed the 'deplorables' are maybe 5% or less. The real mistake was that she didn't recognize that the other 45% didn't want to be told not to associate with someone (the 5%) by her.
Either way, as you say it certainly wasn't inclusive, and given that she lost there's little to defend about it. But I'm starting to think we (the non racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic) should be a lot more vocal when calling others out, and so should the politicians who hold our views and are running for office. Not to win election but out of simple moral necessity. The core Trump supporters ARE deplorable, they hold deplorable principles and do deplorable things.
Yeh but If she's saying that they are deplorable because of xenophobia racism and sexism what's that got to do with her politics
Because there is an ambiguity about the way she said that could be applied to most Trump voters. She gifted Trump and his team a sense of victimhood and grievance that he easily exploited to galvanize his base of support. When you are going into a job interview you simply can't insult any members of the panel (whatever you think of them) and expect to get the job.
Last edited:
Fair enough
Do you not agree her single biggest mistake was that "basket of deplorables" interview?That’s a good one, got any more?
I'd wager it's the majority of politicians from local level all the way to the Hill. It's a power grab desire and maybe enrich oneself along the way/afterwards. Politics has always been this way.
Not really true, I'm sure it would be okay for any candidate to insult David Duke. She just made the mistake of underestimating the amount of people who identify themselves as deplorables in those 3 states.
This was addressed in previous posts. We're not talking about Duke or Nazis. Her comment was ambiguous and amorphous enough to where any large swath of people considering Trump at the time, could've easily though she was referring to them. Big mistake, especially in Presidential race.
That is very true, her biggest mistake in the election cycle, also the truest comment ever.
That's why I said her biggest mistake was being too honest (on that occasion).
She was the best candidate at honesty, decency and heading...uh wait where am I again?
Oh yes, we agree that it was a mistake, we disagree on her motives for saying it. When she stood there and derided half of Trump supporters as deplorables, that was not Mrs Clinton being honest.
It was a statement based on cynical political calculation, like pretty much anything she’s ever said. She said it to appeal to the independent and undecided voters. She probably thought they’d think to themselves, “Oh my god, I don’t want to be one of those deplorables, I’m voting Hillary!”
Whatever went wrong for Clinton, I think she is going make a late surge to get the Dem nomination for 2020, and perhaps get beat again (popular vote, electoral college whatever). There seems no clear leader emerging within the Dem ranks, who a lot of people could get behind.
We'll probably discuss on a new thread about what went wrong for her part 2.
We'll probably discuss on a new thread about what went wrong for her part 2.
No way in hell she runs again.
She'd get a lot of endorsements there
Not again, please.
She could still be of service, just not in the top job.
She could still be of service, just not in the top job.
I hope she does, still the most qualified person for the job.
I was under the impression you didn’t like Trump.
If Democrats want to officially end their existence as a political entity and transition the country to a one party corporatocracy system, then sure, nominate her again.
I hate Trump and nothing will hurt him more than Hillary winning it from him. A lot more than Bernie or any other Dem.
Well, if she runs and runs away with the primary like she did last time...
Are you joking, running away with the primary ? The DNC was actively pushing for HRC , not to mention the existence of the superdelegates .
In what world do you think Hilary would beat Trump?
She did get million more votes than Sanders, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your Hillary hating
In a word where about 80k ppl changed their mind?
Let’s not pretend she lost badly, she won the popular vote, it’s just unfortunate that she lost those 3 states and FL by tiny margins
The way Sanders was treeted by the DNC was a disgrace and a big part why a lot of voters did not vote at all. Without those machinations she would have probably won with a smaller margin , however at least it would have been fair.
That’s all well and good but if you want someone to actually beat Trump, why not go for someone that’s actually got a better chance of beating him rather than the person who is less likely to beat him but would hurt his ego more if it ever came to pass?
What an insane argument to run with Mrs Clinton again.
You are very odd. How is any of that even a factor for a potential candidate.
The fact they let someone who’s NOT a Democrat run in the Democratic Party primary is a bit of a farce to start with.
I have said it many times, I don’t subscribe to the further left the better. I happen to like Hillary’s position on most policies.