You're getting way, way ahead of yourself. She ran a bad campaign logistically and tactically. She didn't listen to her advisers, or even Bill. It wasn't about messaging at that point. It was about making basic mistakes because she was so arrogant and thought she had a commanding lead. Her demonstrated lack of ability in this regard makes her a poor politician, by definition.
-
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
You're getting way, way ahead of yourself. She ran a bad campaign logistically and tactically. She didn't listen to her advisers, or even Bill. It wasn't about messaging at that point. It was about making basic mistakes because she was so arrogant and thought she had a commanding lead. Her demonstrated lack of ability in this regard makes her a poor politician, by definition.
Hello? This is Hailun!
Member
Because if you want to play along with the sham then you should at least play to win.
Going, "oh well we lost because everyone is a racist" and then walking away isn't going to do that.
Megalosaro
Banned
To be honest, the entire political pool right isn't great.
We need a new obama
We need a new obama
GregLombardi
Member
I don't think a poor politician should be looked down upon. In fact, with the age of the entertainers we are entering...or have entered in the last 50 years, I think its time we discard our notions of how we elect important figures.
All the people that voted for Donald over Hillary will likely live to regret it, or to see the horrifying consequences of it. Unless they are > 65.
Seems false. People don't like being racists. I assume calling them racists will make others avoid resembling them. That's generally how social pressure works.
The people I'm calling racist will never know I'm calling them racist anyway. As you yourself have argued, they are impenetrable to all forms of political information or messaging. So how could it possibly matter what I call them?
My point isn't that you shouldn't have to back things up or that Bernie could have done everything he promised.
My point is that it's incredibly dismissive to act like the things he was promising were inherently ridiculous to want. There is a difference between "we cannot immediately achieve this because x, y, and z (but we can try our best)" and "you're being childish if you think this is worth thinking about".
I think you're being kinda patronizing, but I do sincerely appreciate the time you put into responding to my actual point regardless.
Change can happen if people in power care enough to work for it. The Republicans have somewhat managed to pull that off (unfortunately) but the Democrats haven't. Gradual change is nice and all but meanwhile people I care about get fucked over because we can't even consider working towards changing things. Health insurance and human rights and so on are literally life and death for actual human beings so forgive me for not wanting to take what I can get.
Rather, the response to these ideals should be "then you and I need to start doing that work" not "let's take it slow and it might be fine eventually even if the Republicans are actively trying to destroy all the work we've already done".
You can print this on a T Shirt and dance in Times Square and it still won't work.
It will never work.
This threat does absolutely nothing. Stop trying to use it to bludgeon folks from telling this truth.
If anything, that emphasizes the importance of electing experienced politicians.
"Not a politician" bullshit got us Trump.
Father_Brain
Banned
You have a much more generous view of the Democratic establishment than I do, clearly.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
This is what our political climate is now. In order to become popular enough to win we have to have candidates out there that makes wild unattainable promises.
Republicans had their stupid wall, huge tax cuts, repealing the ACA and giving us something "so much better" without ever defining how to accomplish those goals.
It's time for Dems to do the same thing. We need people out there promising Universal Health Care, $15 minimum wage, massive tax hikes for the rich, ect.... The electorate wants those big promises and does not care to hear it's not possible.
Sad reality is if we want to start winning elections again it's what we have to do. We have to stop explaining why these things won't work and just pretend like they will so we can get in power and rig the system like the GOP has to stay in power. Once we do that then maybe we can start figuring out how to keep promises.
Republicans had their stupid wall, huge tax cuts, repealing the ACA and giving us something "so much better" without ever defining how to accomplish those goals.
It's time for Dems to do the same thing. We need people out there promising Universal Health Care, $15 minimum wage, massive tax hikes for the rich, ect.... The electorate wants those big promises and does not care to hear it's not possible.
Sad reality is if we want to start winning elections again it's what we have to do. We have to stop explaining why these things won't work and just pretend like they will so we can get in power and rig the system like the GOP has to stay in power. Once we do that then maybe we can start figuring out how to keep promises.
I'm just going by the stuff they've said and the policies they've attempted to enact!
If you start with the assumption that the establishment Democrats don't actually want to do any of the things the Democratic Party says it stands for, then sure, I guess you've created an ideological conflict.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Tell you what. Every minority in your family who voted for Trump is just as moral an upstanding person as David Clarke.
Your family supports racists
Your family votes for racists
Your family supports the agenda of racists
Your family supports the racist policy to end DACA
Your family supports the racist policies pushed by the GOP
But they minorities, so it's cool?
Fuck that bullshit excuse.
Basic human decency not a tactic.
Again EXACTLY and I mean EXACTLY what 'social-democrats' say against those who do want progress. As if we're taunting them with calls for universal healthcare or action against the banking sector. It's mind boggling, you really can not believe that others are more willing to help the weak than you? Because those that think like this have problems accepting that they are not the most progressive. They can't accept it so we're either scamming people or using tactics/overpromising or whatever.
Fenderputty
Banned
This is bad. If Dems retake the house and then the POTUS and the senate two years after, it will be directly related to the GOP massively over promising and under delivering.
Post-LBJ we've only won the WH after the GOP fucks up bigtime. (Nixon, H.W. pissing off his own party, Iraq War/Great Recession.)
This probably isn't an accident.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
Agree to disagree. I don't like it. I don't think it's "right". But I'm tired of being trounced all over by Republicans that promise the moon never deliver and never face consequences for it.
Wait, this is a terrible dataset! All you just wrote was "Reagan was a good politician!"
Maintenance
Member
Accusing Bernie of slander when she did the gross '08 campaign?
Cute.
Cute.
ChuckHoneywood
Banned
Doesn't one have to actually win competitive elections in order to first become a "great" politician.
Like, isn't that the first step in becoming a "great" politician?
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
I'm not trying to be patronizing, sorry if it came across as such.
I don't mean this to be flippant, but how are those people doing now and how will they be doing after four years of a fully controlled Republican government? Cause that is our reality.
We had mad progress on heath care man, we had made progress on human and civil rights in the past eight years. Clinton would have continued that steady progress and now it is all going down the drain. Blacks didn't just get the right to vote, segregation and Jim Crow laws didn't just disappear because they were immoral, it takes time. You have an overwhelming majority of Americans who do not want to see the change that you and I believe in.
I don't know, I'm not even sure why I'm typing this right now. It's becoming more clear that there is a rift in the Democratic party that might not be repairable. Which is beyond unfortunate cause one drastic difference between the R's and the D's, is that the Republicans always push forward around their man.
Tolerating conspiracy theorists because they agree with you while criticizing the people who call them out isn't a super good look for you.
Don't worry. Bernie is running as the establishment candidate in 2020.
teruterubozu
Member
This postmortem is so not needed right now. It may be a postmortem for her, but the rest of us are all in the thick of this shit.
Flying Toaster
Member
I am looking forward to reading this book. I am curious to see what the Clintons do in the future.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Do you want people to read this and go, "OK"?
I actually just pre-ordered it.
VendettaRed07
Member
I think it's sort of different in that one reason why the GOP hasn't been able to make good on a lot of their promises is because they would have literally killed their own voters in the process. They forgot to tell them that would probably happen when they pitched their ideas.and yet almost all but three of them were willing to do it anyway.
I don't think passing single payer/Medicare for all, higher minimum wages, or free public college tuition for people of certain income brackets comes with the same potential risk or backlash if made into a political reality.
Does "in the thick of this shit" mean all future elections are cancelled and we shouldn't learn what went wrong so we do better next time?
excelsiorlef
Member
Sanders was done when he conceded the South. Super Delegates had nothing to do with that.
He was done in February. He was done before Super Tuesday.
teruterubozu
Member
Read what you will Kharvey.
Disagree with pretty much all of your post, but this is the gist of it IMO.
It's not about how a plan can be achieved in the current political climate, not at all. It's the opposite. Put forward a vision that people agree with. Once you're in a position in power, you strive to get as close to your vision as possible. You can't know in advance how other politicians respond will to that.
To start out with a watered down version of what you actually want because you're afraid of political opposition at best muddles your message, at worst makes it seem like you actually want your watered down version and nothing more. How are you supposed to know where the actual opinions of the person lie without them actually stating it?.
It's useless to pre-emptively estimate what other politicians would or would not agree with, that's a matter of political execution and has nothing to do with your actual position/stances.
Your argument is only valid if, given full political support, it still wouldn't be practically possible or feasible.
That's what a postmortem is for, though. It's so you can identify the problems and not repeat them. It's imperative we do that quickly.
Fenderputty
Banned
Why not sell the merits of the policy that may be able to pass better? Dems have to win and the electorate has to understand that in doing so, single payer and free college isn't remotely likely. It feels like the far left has become the tea party in so many ways. lncluding a complete lack of understanding how our government functions.
Either way. You win in the way you want and you're a one term pony watching or pendulum swing back
Great track record there, GOP
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
At least Hillary is doing something useful for your country after losing to Donald fucking Trump..
Oh wait. No she's not she's trying to make money off a shitty book. Sooner the clintons disappear into their tomb of failure the better.
This is helping no one.
Oh wait. No she's not she's trying to make money off a shitty book. Sooner the clintons disappear into their tomb of failure the better.
This is helping no one.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It wasn't a criticism of you?
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Fenderputty
Banned
I think you're wrong. The only thing people want more their life is their tax money. The dirty little secret the left isn't loudly vocalising. This article is about this very concept.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Basically this. No one who complains about gaf litigating 2016 ad nauseum should support what Hillary's doing with this book. Not only will it make the litigation worse, but Hillary is doing the litigating herself. She's basically ensuring that the crop of candidates in 2020 are going to need Bernie's support because this will only continue to alienate the "Bernie bros" who probably comprise a non-trivial amount of democratic primary voters. The more Hillary blames anything on Bernie, the more defensive his supporters will become. And the more that happens, the more difficult it will be for Kamala Harris or who ever to get the nod unless they have Bernie's explicit support. Obviously it's not impossible to succeed without his support, but why put on the added difficult in the first place? We're only two years out from the first democratic candidate debates.
IrishNinja
Member
yeah...she's not wrong here
this is also true
broncobuster
Banned
Yeah. It's funny how this thread is eliciting these reactions from one page of the book. It'll be interesting to read her full account. For all the posts calling her out on not taking responsibility for the loss, it's like, wait and see what's on those other pages. We also didn't hear these candid thoughts on Bernie's die hard supporters before this.
Officerrob
Banned
Obama was a generational campaigner, don't hold your breath
Doctoglethorpe
Member
Or maybe I'm actually referring to the stream of articles in the past year with headlines such as
"Hillary blames Comey."
"Hillary blames Russia."
"Hillary blames media."
"Hillary blames Sanders."
"Hillary blames voters."
Etc. etc. etc.
I have yet to actually see her say "I fucked up, it's my fault, I'm sorry." She started to once, saying she takes responsibility for her actions, but immediately followed that up with saying it's the other things that actually caused her loss. Yeah, real responsible.
NeoGAF Post: Obama on DACA:
1 post per minute
105 views per minute
NeoGAF Post: Clinton Rehashing an Old Campagin:
4 posts per minute
167 views per minute
Think about those stats for a second
It saddens me that more people are putting their interest and effort in rehashing a campaign tainted more by Russians who hacked the election and gave us Donald Trump rather than put that time and effort into pushing progress forward.
How about we fight back instead of fight amongst ourselves?
1 post per minute
105 views per minute
NeoGAF Post: Clinton Rehashing an Old Campagin:
4 posts per minute
167 views per minute
Think about those stats for a second
It saddens me that more people are putting their interest and effort in rehashing a campaign tainted more by Russians who hacked the election and gave us Donald Trump rather than put that time and effort into pushing progress forward.
How about we fight back instead of fight amongst ourselves?
My personal opinion is that i fully disagree with Clinton blaming everything but her own actions as she has been doing since the election.
I believe fully that you can't shame people for running against you and pointing out your flaws. this isnt a monopoly in thought. your not immune to being criticized for the things you do, nor immune to being challenged.. And not all criticism from everywhere is illegitimate.
In the first place, you can't blame anyone else for being an uninspiring candidate, or not going to states you should go to in order to win because you believe you have a firewall of loyal followers who don't care if you take them for granted.
But beyond that, my personal view is that during the election, Sanders rightly pointed out Clinton and the rest of her family's neoliberal track record
(inside the white house as secretary of state, through her family's businesses throughout the years, her husband, her hedge fund daughter's investments ect)
and conflicts of interest in many areas(goldman sachs, JP morgan chase, her proliferation of fracking and other dirty energies, saudi arabia arms deals, all of her other fund raising money donors 'investments')
and just plain bad foreign policy(the embarrassing pandering the israeli's right wing government before during and after AIPAC, the Libya disaster, voting for Iraq, ect)
in the same way he has called it out after the election against the democratic party proper.
And beyond that, its important to note that Sanders has never promised he would part the sea with his policy proposals if he became president. no one has ever been under any illusion he alone would fix the world. just full throatedly advocate for those important policy proposals and fight to enact them as hard as he could in a position of the bullet pulpit, and galvanize a broad support base to have these things happen eventually, even if not right away.
it wasn't Sanders saying everything was impossible and unrealistic and so there was no point to even advocate such things, it was Clinton who did that.
So while i think its right and fair to hear Clinton's opinion and her view point and discuss that, i think she has maybe taken the wrong lessons from her loss. And i think that actually goes for a decent portion of the neoliberal democratic establishment since the election too.
In rare agreement with the corporate media, i agree with CNN and other outlets view of the situation.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/hillary-clinton-2016/index.html
I believe fully that you can't shame people for running against you and pointing out your flaws. this isnt a monopoly in thought. your not immune to being criticized for the things you do, nor immune to being challenged.. And not all criticism from everywhere is illegitimate.
In the first place, you can't blame anyone else for being an uninspiring candidate, or not going to states you should go to in order to win because you believe you have a firewall of loyal followers who don't care if you take them for granted.
But beyond that, my personal view is that during the election, Sanders rightly pointed out Clinton and the rest of her family's neoliberal track record
(inside the white house as secretary of state, through her family's businesses throughout the years, her husband, her hedge fund daughter's investments ect)
and conflicts of interest in many areas(goldman sachs, JP morgan chase, her proliferation of fracking and other dirty energies, saudi arabia arms deals, all of her other fund raising money donors 'investments')
and just plain bad foreign policy(the embarrassing pandering the israeli's right wing government before during and after AIPAC, the Libya disaster, voting for Iraq, ect)
in the same way he has called it out after the election against the democratic party proper.
And beyond that, its important to note that Sanders has never promised he would part the sea with his policy proposals if he became president. no one has ever been under any illusion he alone would fix the world. just full throatedly advocate for those important policy proposals and fight to enact them as hard as he could in a position of the bullet pulpit, and galvanize a broad support base to have these things happen eventually, even if not right away.
it wasn't Sanders saying everything was impossible and unrealistic and so there was no point to even advocate such things, it was Clinton who did that.
So while i think its right and fair to hear Clinton's opinion and her view point and discuss that, i think she has maybe taken the wrong lessons from her loss. And i think that actually goes for a decent portion of the neoliberal democratic establishment since the election too.
In rare agreement with the corporate media, i agree with CNN and other outlets view of the situation.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/hillary-clinton-2016/index.html
poppedcollar69
Member
imho bernie didn't make any promises that were outlandish, as i recall he was quite upfront in saying that while taxes would increase for the middle class, they would be more than offset by the amount of benefits that could be funded by such increases
in those excerpts hillary's campaign sounds like a bunch of obtuse dinos... 'weh weh bernie is going to raise your taxes!!!!'. it's disgusting 'cause that is literally the line that republicans use to manipulate people into supporting regressive taxation policy.
it's nice that hillary gets to paint herself as a beleaguered parent forced to do all the disciplinarian work while the partner spoils the kids, but it's pretty dishonest
gonna go back and read the thread now
in those excerpts hillary's campaign sounds like a bunch of obtuse dinos... 'weh weh bernie is going to raise your taxes!!!!'. it's disgusting 'cause that is literally the line that republicans use to manipulate people into supporting regressive taxation policy.
it's nice that hillary gets to paint herself as a beleaguered parent forced to do all the disciplinarian work while the partner spoils the kids, but it's pretty dishonest
gonna go back and read the thread now
Seems like a really stupid thing to say. Sanders attacks on Clinton were very mild compared to most other elections, and it's not like her hands are clean. Neither of them got as nasty as 2008 Hillary.
But also, the premise that Sanders campaign and policy platform were damaging is bullshit, assuming you are on the left. The party platform was better and further left thanks to his input. More dems have signed on to Conyers single payer bill in the House than ever before. There's actual support in the Senate beyond Bernie for the first time, including potential 2020 front runner Kamala Harris. That shit just doesn't happen without Bernie's 2016 run and the leftist pressure it put on the party.
But also, the premise that Sanders campaign and policy platform were damaging is bullshit, assuming you are on the left. The party platform was better and further left thanks to his input. More dems have signed on to Conyers single payer bill in the House than ever before. There's actual support in the Senate beyond Bernie for the first time, including potential 2020 front runner Kamala Harris. That shit just doesn't happen without Bernie's 2016 run and the leftist pressure it put on the party.
teruterubozu
Member
Cuz we love self-flagellation.
Because these fights are fake and the real fights are scary and real
The problem is sort of twofold: The Bernie situation happened, but is far from the only thing that went wrong. A book solely focused on Bernie would be a mistake. A book that touches on the Bernie situation as part of a larger scope of issues might actually be invaluable, in that it lets as many people as possible in on what the mindset in the campaign was, where they think they went wrong, what warning signs they were told to ignore, etc. The concept of the book is valid, and getting it out now is important.
The second is that there's no way to look at what happened at the DNC next year and not know we're in for another round of conflict; barring a magical unicorn candidate that walks the perfect middle path, we'll have establishment vs ideals again. Ignoring that until it repeats won't help, and keeping it in mind will hopefully encourage both sides to be more flexible. maybe.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked