OG Shaka Zulu
Member
Colin Powell was right about Hillary. At the end of the day I supported the least racist candidate.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New Clinton postmortem of campaign includes criticism of Sanders policy promises
- Thread starter Inuhanyou
- Start date
- Status
Obama->Trump voters are really fucking racist: https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond
Calamari41
41 > 38
I hear you, it isn't an easy nut to crack. Funny enough, I think that a Trump-style mocking and negative branding is the best way to deal with someone who just keeps adding one to your proposals. Making the guy and his proposals a joke to the nation is probably the best counter to his act.
Like, there's no reason to not use that pony analogy in an actual debate.
Clinton has been in the political and public sphere since she was 18. The idea that she would ever just disappear regardless of circumstances is hilarious.
I don't think this country is functioning properly though. The recession in 2008 should have been the time to fix these problems and change the dynamic and instead we bailed out the system.
I'm not sure if Bernie could have actually got things done, but I think the problems should actually be addressed completely before we get to the point of national catastrophe or "revolution."
Someone actually saying the things Sanders was saying is valuable when our parties have titled towards the right and are sliding. People are content to just maintain and fight back slowly against that tilt. It's going to get a lot worse.
Someone raising expectations for what the government can and should do for its people is the first step to getting actual change.
shawnbuddy
Member
This is the most delusional thing I've read in a while.
Hillary had the unenviable position of running against bullshit artists on both sides. You present people with reality, they're going to notice it isn't as good as the bullshit they've fell for.
Rumblebones
Banned
If Dems think Bernie is to blame y'all ain't learned shit and the midterms are gonna be rough.
Yeah it seems like you have to run a fine line between promising realistic action and promising something that gets people excited.
The problem with Bernie's proposals weren't really how unlikely they were from a legislative standpoint (you've got to start somewhere and negotiate down, that's the essence of politics) but that some of his proposals were simply impossible as stated (like paying for a bunch of his policies by the US having a massively higher rate of growth year-over-year, instead of through taxation.)
BotoxAgent
Member
yeah, Mook was total trash. You can even tell the way he talked in interviews that this guy lacked any passion or insight. But everyone assured me that he's good behind the scenes crunching the numbers :/
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Now this is podracing
This is so good. For sure buying this book now.
Muppet of a Man
Member
The bolded is the stat that matters. Hillary certainly is entitled to think she should go unchallenged by someone who has better ideas for where America should be heading. It's not "wrong" to aim high. That's how negotiation works. Corporate democrats don't get it because it doesn't work for them. Anything but an N+1 iterative model of progress bends them out of shape because it may inconvenience their economic position of power.
Still, the vast majority of Bernie people knew their best option was Hillary in the General, and how they actually voted reflected that. It's just that Bernie had populist/progressive economic ideas that appealed to many otherwise socially conservative interior blue collar voters who would have voted Republican or Independent/3rd Party anyway. That is her mistake. These people in the swing states were not going to vote for who they perceived as a corporatist no matter what this cycle.
Yeah pretty much.
No one thinks Sanders was to blame.
Hello? This is Hailun!
Member
"These people who voted for Obama but not Clinton are incredibly fucking racist".
I know many, many, many people who saw their careers go down the drain after NAFTA in the 90s, who voted for Obama and didn't see the return of blue collar jobs, and were scared to death of what Hillary and the TPP would do that NAFTA didn't finish.
Their vote for Trump isn't justified, but that's their thinking.
But if a Dem tells them they only voted for Trump because they're racist and they'll never vote for a Democrat ever again.
shawnbuddy
Member
But his behavior definitely didn't help. It'd be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
DOWN
Banned
The book is not about Bernie and is not only one page and is not by the Dems as a whole
Euphoria14
Member
So the burning question.
Does she put ANY blame on herself and her campaign or is it everyone else's fault?
Cant read now as I'm at work but I'll read what's available a little later tonight.
Edit - Saw that the excerpts are from one page? Guess that means there are many other pages to pass blame around.
Although putting out books that put any blame at your own party is stupid right now. Creating further infighting is not needed right now.
Does she put ANY blame on herself and her campaign or is it everyone else's fault?
Cant read now as I'm at work but I'll read what's available a little later tonight.
Edit - Saw that the excerpts are from one page? Guess that means there are many other pages to pass blame around.
Although putting out books that put any blame at your own party is stupid right now. Creating further infighting is not needed right now.
JinjoUnchained
Member
I'm looking forward to Hillary's postmortem #78 where she discusses her vote for the Iraq War and her husband's NAFTA policy. Oh, and uh, this...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jt6riM2aDLk
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jt6riM2aDLk
Clearly some people in this thread do, but they are not representative.
Let Bernie go, guys.
It reads like a pathetic livejournal post. Focus on the future, not passing the blame of your failures, to sell books. All she's doing is stealing headlines to cause infighting in her own party. Reading this stuff, it kind of makes me ashamed to know I voted for her in the general.
Let's look at the evidence laid out in that complaint:
1) Someone at the DNC wrote a memo with strategies for defending Hillary against GOP attacks during the general election. The memo was written before the primaries but after Bernie announced
...
...
That's it.
Yes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...iced-whites-and-some-of-them-supported-trump/
"One of the Good Ones" in action.
I mean I think the thing where he traveled around the country campaigning for Hillary probably helped
So, basically like every primary ever? Don't see what the problem is here when every primary challenger in some way has damaged the other candidate. Still, y'all are hypocritical of you buy into this- 'member when Clinton dogwhistled to the Obama is unamerican (in values, not nationality) people during '08? I 'member! If it wasn't a problem then, this shouldn't be a problem now.
Also, why is it never Clinton's fault she lost? Its always Bernie/Obama/Trump/Comey/Russia, her majesty is never to blame.
Also, why is it never Clinton's fault she lost? Its always Bernie/Obama/Trump/Comey/Russia, her majesty is never to blame.
Widdle Puppy
Banned
It's funny how you frame Hillary as an underdog in your post.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
That helped counter the negative attacks he made on Hillary herself.
That's the typical cycle of a primary.
What's not, is the attacks on the party itself, and that's where my criticism resides.
DOWN
Banned
Shes literally said her own actions shifted her lead away from her. Do some research.
Euphoria14
Member
It was HER turn! Everyone else was supposed to just step aside.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Same reason why it's never Bernie's fault he lost the primary, but rather Clinton's, black people not seeing the light, conspiracies, sabotage.
Folks don't like to admit the person they rooted for fucked up.
Those people voted for a Nazi.
I'm not particularly interested in their self-serving justifications for doing so.
If they aren't racist, I assume they're organizing against Trump now that they've seen what they've unleashed, and apologizing profusely to the people around them
But I suspect they aren't. I wonder why?
Hillary in 08 didn't leave her supporters with the lasting impression that the Democratic party was rotten and working against them.
And that was an election where the party actually fucked voters over (Michigan and Florida)
This is a very weird argument to make. Do you think we were all Clinton supporters in 2008? Why would you think that?
Omg move on. Your campaign had a shitty narrative that didn't resonate with people and so many of them went with one that was easier to understand, Trump's.
You could see this coming from miles and miles away with Bernie's campaign and how it resonated with people, but you chose to ignore that because you were arrogant. She was a historically weak candidate in a historically difficult election and she didn't want to believe it, still doesn't apparently.
I voted for her, but I was never once captivated by her narrative or her message. She was completely reactionary rather than visionary.
You could see this coming from miles and miles away with Bernie's campaign and how it resonated with people, but you chose to ignore that because you were arrogant. She was a historically weak candidate in a historically difficult election and she didn't want to believe it, still doesn't apparently.
I voted for her, but I was never once captivated by her narrative or her message. She was completely reactionary rather than visionary.
Unknown Soldier
Member
It's so weird that people think they can already try to rewrite history for something that happened just last year.
googleplex
Member
Means jack shit when you spent an entire year convincing your supporters that Hillary Clinton was a crook, that was rigging the primaries and would go to war as soon as she took office. Then you continue with this message way past the point where you could win the primaries using any sort of math.
Hello? This is Hailun!
Member
"I'm not interested in understanding these people"
You're also not interested in seeing another Democrat win, either.
Did you expect Clinton to not make a book on the campaign? Did you expect her to not discuss one of her chief challengers?
They voted for a Nazi. I understand them fine.
I suspect you do too, which is why you're so invested in convincing people not to understand them.
QuantumBro
Banned
If you're continuing to support the WWE there's no good excuse besides ignorance.
They're an organization that helped promote Trump's image during their events over several decades.
They refused to condemn Trump at all during the campaign. Now Linda McMahon is in charge of the Small Business Administration of the executive branch.
Both Linda and Vince also donated large amounts of money to Trump's sham of a charity organization.
And neither of them have bothered to criticize Trump, instead they're taking photo with him in the oval office.
Sirpopopop
Member
It's a tell-all book. These excerpts are an accurate description of the primary. Nowhere does she say anything that could be resembled as "woe is me." Pointing out a strategy is not "woe is me." It's pointing out a strategy.
Yeah, she was so hard into PUMA that she endorsed Obama rather quickly after suspending her campaign. She was so hard into PUMA that she served in his administration afterwards.
soul creator
Member
I always find it funny that the argument was simultaneously "you have no idea how to pay for something like Medicare For All" and also "your middle class tax-raises that would pay for Medicare For All would scare off everyone!". Which is it?
I often find "it's impossible" arguments to be more often an argument from cynicism anyway, rather than an actual impossibility. It's more a "corporate and other political interests are too damn strong, so there's no point in even fighting them, and this is all we can get" approach. So that's how you get all the "well, maybe we can just tweak the ACA every once in a while and hopefully turn into Switzerland one day" takes. Those same takes also presuppose that Republicans would be open to that approach, which is weird, considering they didn't even vote for the already compromised, relatively corporate-friendly ACA.
Another thing I'd argue that the whole point of something like a presidential campaign is to articulate a vision for what/where you want the country to be. If you compromise during the actual legislative process, that's one thing (especially if you can at least clearly show you were fighting for something more before compromising, unlike Obama for example), but what's the point of compromising when you're trying to GOTV? Who are you compromising with at that point? The point of putting Medicare For All in a platform is that it's a policy that perfectly communicates your vision of "health care should be a right, and no one should ever go broke paying medical bills". And it's an obviously doable policy (not easy, but it's obviously doable, since it literally already exists in other countries). It's not in your platform because you think it'll get instantly passed in your first year of office.
I've seen arguments that candidates should continue to take mass amounts of corporate money because there's no point in handcuffing yourself, yet will turn around and limit themselves to arbitrary notions of "realism" when it comes to any sort of major progressive policy. Even though this kind of "realism" is the kind that often says spending trillions of dollars on war is rational because "something has to be done", while spending trillions of dollars on guaranteeing health care is "irrational" and similar to wanting "ponies". Meaning, not actually "realism" at all, but simply different priorities and agendas by various interests.
I often find "it's impossible" arguments to be more often an argument from cynicism anyway, rather than an actual impossibility. It's more a "corporate and other political interests are too damn strong, so there's no point in even fighting them, and this is all we can get" approach. So that's how you get all the "well, maybe we can just tweak the ACA every once in a while and hopefully turn into Switzerland one day" takes. Those same takes also presuppose that Republicans would be open to that approach, which is weird, considering they didn't even vote for the already compromised, relatively corporate-friendly ACA.
Another thing I'd argue that the whole point of something like a presidential campaign is to articulate a vision for what/where you want the country to be. If you compromise during the actual legislative process, that's one thing (especially if you can at least clearly show you were fighting for something more before compromising, unlike Obama for example), but what's the point of compromising when you're trying to GOTV? Who are you compromising with at that point? The point of putting Medicare For All in a platform is that it's a policy that perfectly communicates your vision of "health care should be a right, and no one should ever go broke paying medical bills". And it's an obviously doable policy (not easy, but it's obviously doable, since it literally already exists in other countries). It's not in your platform because you think it'll get instantly passed in your first year of office.
I've seen arguments that candidates should continue to take mass amounts of corporate money because there's no point in handcuffing yourself, yet will turn around and limit themselves to arbitrary notions of "realism" when it comes to any sort of major progressive policy. Even though this kind of "realism" is the kind that often says spending trillions of dollars on war is rational because "something has to be done", while spending trillions of dollars on guaranteeing health care is "irrational" and similar to wanting "ponies". Meaning, not actually "realism" at all, but simply different priorities and agendas by various interests.
This is pouring gasoline on the fire that's raging through the Democratic party right now. Calls for unity by the Clinton wing are completely hollow.
NullPointer
Member
Yeah. I'd expect this kind of thing to happen with any candidates on relatively the same team.
And Hillary did call out some of Bernie's ideas as impractical during the debates. She just made a point of being more composed and prepared in her arguments than she was with Obama, for instance.
The Silver
Member
Here we go again, Trump will continue to get worse while people still fight about the primaries.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked