Clinton derail from Mueller thread

[Harry Bosch]

No amount of tap dancing changes that Hillary Clinton is the biggest failure of a political candidate in modern American history. He not only lost, but t TRUMP. She lost to Trump That's really that that ever needed to be said.

But we had excuses trotted out for her. It was because of racism, except a black guy had just won back to back presidencies. It was because he colludd with Russia and rigged te election, except now we see there as no collusion. So what excuse is next? The people were too sexist and wouldn't com out to vote for a woman?

No, the fact is that in this election campaign Hillary came across as everything people hate about politicians. She was a Washington insider with all the typical false platitudes and shifty shit working behind her. Trump was just guy who came in and said "fuck the system". He was the protest candidate, Hilliary is such a bad politician that trump somehow actually won. I doubt even he thought he would.

The silver lining of his presidency is that it has woken so many up to being politically activated, and it got the Democrats realizing they can't run the insider same old shit and win in 2020. So bring on the outsiders. The end result could be a shakeup of how politics is done. And that could be fore the better, or for the worse

I think that one of Trump's greatest assets is that he gets everyone to underestimate him. Yea, Trump beat Clinton. He also beat a talented and deep group of republicans. Clearly Bernie would have lost by a larger margin that Clinton. He'd do fine in the costal states. But would have struggled in the bubba states and the south.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Imagine if all those Trump votes had gone to Hillary, her election would have been nearly unanimous.

No amount of tap dancing changes that Hillary Clinton is the biggest failure of a political candidate in modern American history. He not only lost, but t TRUMP. She lost to Trump That's really that that ever needed to be said.

Except that, she didn’t lose to Trump. No amount of “tap dancing” is ever going to change that fact. She beat the shit out of him, in fact, by millions of votes, but the deep state establishment feared her so much they had to take away her trophy and give it to the loser who got his ass throughly beaten by a girl.

Hey, what do you know? Lowering myself waaaay the fuck down to your vapid level is fun!

The deep state supported her, not Trump. She was so convinced she would win she forgot to campaign in the mid-west and ran up the vote count in California instead, so that her election would be more "historic".

I've always wondered just how effective geographical campaigning really is?? I mean we live in the digital age, people can't decide on a candidate unless they met them in person? It's one of the many reasons why I support eliminating the EC (which won't happen). But to be specific, out of HRC's last 71 campaign stops in her last 10 days of the 2016 election; only two were in California. Clearly she should have done a little more in the ME.

 

[funinspace]

No amount of tap dancing changes that Hillary Clinton is the biggest failure of a political candidate in modern American history. He not only lost, but t TRUMP. She lost to Trump That's really that that ever needed to be said.

But we had excuses trotted out for her. It was because of racism, except a black guy had just won back to back presidencies. It was because he colludd with Russia and rigged te election, except now we see there as no collusion. So what excuse is next? The people were too sexist and wouldn't com out to vote for a woman?

Uh, no it was largely said, especially early on, that there was Russian interference. Mueller confirms this interference, that was already obvious, with 26 Russians indicted. You are now just repeating the latest barrage assault spin by Don the Con's BS crew. FFvC worked very hard to make this about collusion, as he was the person largely using that word...

That FFvC didn't collude, but appeared to be a foolish clown who was manipulated by Russian operatives, isn't a great defense/argument. But sure not a criminal in this particular issue.

But yes, HRC did loose to this buffoon (in the electoral college).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The deep state supported her, not Trump. She was so convinced she would win she forgot to campaign in the mid-west and ran up the vote count in California instead, so that her election would be more "historic".

The only risk she took hurt her... she wasted time in Arizona and Georgia... not California. The knockout blow was the purple toned red states. She didn't want a knockout in the popular vote, but the electoral vote. Taking Arizona and Georgia would have been a virtual blow out. And in the end, she neglected the Midwest.

However, her campaigning wasn't completely out of touch, seeing she won the crucial battlegrounds of Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire. That was the bare minimum she needed to win... assuming she got the blue block... but how could she lose the blue block if she won Virginia by more than 5 pts? The two seemed completely compatible because what Trump managed hadn't happened before.

Hindsight is 20-20.

 

[Toni]

The deep state supported her, not Trump. She was so convinced she would win she forgot to campaign in the mid-west and ran up the vote count in California instead, so that her election would be more "historic".

The only risk she took hurt her... she wasted time in Arizona and Georgia... not California. The knockout blow was the purple toned red states. She didn't want a knockout in the popular vote, but the electoral vote. Taking Arizona and Georgia would have been a virtual blow out. And in the end, she neglected the Midwest.

However, her campaigning wasn't completely out of touch, seeing she won the crucial battlegrounds of Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire. That was the bare minimum she needed to win... assuming she got the blue block... but how could she lose the blue block if she won Virginia by more than 5 pts? The two seemed completely compatible because what Trump managed hadn't happened before.

Hindsight is 20-20.

I think the deplorables comment doomed her campaign. It doesn't matter how many people agree with her, she basically wrote off an entire portion of the population as being unworthy of consideration. Sure they were almost entirely white, working class and outside of the big cities. There is a reason that this is one area which struggles with racism and immigration so hard. It's because they often work so hard and have seen their parents and grandparents work so hard yet their relative station has not progressed. The American Dream for them is stagnant. Throw in the opioid crisis and meth and they've lost ground. There is nothing worse than to see your kids' lives destroyed. And then to see good, well meaning people (of whom they feel they are a part of and largely are) step in not to help them, not to help their kids find something to reach for instead of trying to kill boredom and hopelessness through drugs--but to see do-gooders step in and help immigrant families, black families in poverty and step right over them and theirs to do it. To not even see the forces that are destroying families that have struggled for generations? THAT is what keeps racism going. Plus Faux News, of course.

I'm not saying that they are right or that they are entirely right. But I see why they feel that way. Add in that 'nobody helped them' (which is mostly right) and that they only way they got to hold onto whatever they have is by dint of their own labor and some luck and helping 'outsiders' and newcomers just seems like they are being treated as trash. They are no more trash than any other person on the planet. White/working class/rural people feel displaced and ignored and truly struggle to deal with under employment, lack of future for their kids and seeing their kids lost to drugs and at the same time struggling with serious health issues of their own, usually obesity which is related not just to diet/food intake but also to high levels of stress.

 

[PyramidHead]

The outcome of the 2016 election is totally explicable without the Russian factor, so whatever efforts they made were not monumental.

Also, the Congressional elections went the same way as the presidential election in most respects, which would be unexpectedly coincidental if one of those were being unduly swayed by an outside force... unless all the Congressional elections were also being compromised by Russian meddling.

Finally, the far more insidious, open, and widespread meddling in US elections that happens every time by private corporations and by Israel dwarfs whatever influence Russia may have had. And in those cases, you can actually see the quid-pro-quo unfolding, whereas with Russia it's hard to see how Putin could have benefited from American troops accumulating in the Korean peninsula and Trump suspending the nuclear arms treaty. The kind of backhanded dealings we're talking about here were likely just shady business transactions for real estate in exchange for some WikiLeaks dirt.

The only risk she took hurt her... she wasted time in Arizona and Georgia... not California. The knockout blow was the purple toned red states. She didn't want a knockout in the popular vote, but the electoral vote. Taking Arizona and Georgia would have been a virtual blow out. And in the end, she neglected the Midwest.

This is a good take, because it highlights something that people who talk about the popular vote meaning Hillary "won" are unwilling to acknowledge. Hillary was not a newcomer to presidential elections; we can assume she knew that in order to become the president (and not just get the most votes), a candidate has to be selected by the electoral college. In an alternate reality where millions of popular votes could have been channeled strategically across state borders to become electoral votes, her advantage would have meant the presidency. But there is no angle on this that presents her candidacy in a flattering light; either she was unaware of the need to secure the states that would give her what she needed to become president, or as Jimmy says, she was of course well aware that popular votes are meaningless in presidential elections and just failed to campaign effectively in places where it would have made a big difference.

The important takeaway from my comment about Mueller's findings and Hillary's candidacy isn't so much about Hillary herself, but what she represents as a politician. Regardless of whether we can find consensus on why she lost in 2016, we can still agree (I hope) that her brand of candidacy, her "type" of Democrat, does not completely constitute the 2020 race. She's cut from the same cloth as Kerry, Edwards, Obama, Gore, her husband Bill, and her forgettable running mate Tim Kaine: heavily funded by corporate and financial interests, out of touch with young voters, hawkish and imperialist in foreign affairs, center-right on economic issues, and mainstream left on social ones. Of those currently in the Democratic race, only Biden and maybe O'Rourke belong in the same category. Everyone else has moved toward the kinds of proposals that working people have increasingly indicated as their priorities since the latter years of the Obama administration: a higher minimum wage, much higher taxes on the wealthy, universal health care, free university education, and a shrinking of our military presence in the world. None of these were key themes of Hillary's platform if they were mentioned at all.

Since Trump, the working people calling for these reforms have become much more numerous and vocal, coinciding with the same kinds of resurgences across Europe and massive popular labor movements in places like India. The trajectory of this mobilization of the left should be clear to everyone by now, and that's the most damning criticism of Hillary and that type of Democrat: they don't seem to comprehend that it's only going to get harder for them to appeal to voters as more and more reject the tactful, compromising, easily reversible gradualism they advocate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The outcome of the 2016 election is totally explicable without the Russian factor, so whatever efforts they made were not monumental.

They were very monumental as they helped keep oxygen in the Trump campaign. Do you realize how many fuck ups he had in the Presidential run? The fire the Russian trolls helped stoke kept him alive, where anyone else would have perished. Pussygate was IMMEDIATELY followed up by a release of emails.

Secondly, his margin in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania was 80,000... combined! So he won the election by a margin of 80,000 votes out of over 13 million votes cast, which is notably less than a single percent of votes cast. So while the Russian influence can't be said to be responsible for every vote... to consider it responsible for a fraction of a percent isn't unreasonable.

Finally, the far more insidious, open, and widespread meddling in US elections that happens every time by private corporations and by Israel dwarfs whatever influence Russia may have had.

Corporations usually play both sides. So the comparison isn't accurate.

And in those cases, you can actually see the quid-pro-quo unfolding, whereas with Russia it's hard to see how Putin could have benefited from American troops accumulating in the Korean peninsula and Trump suspending the nuclear arms treaty.

You mean Trump fracturing our NATO alliances? Putin definitely gains from that.

The only risk she took hurt her... she wasted time in Arizona and Georgia... not California. The knockout blow was the purple toned red states. She didn't want a knockout in the popular vote, but the electoral vote. Taking Arizona and Georgia would have been a virtual blow out. And in the end, she neglected the Midwest.

This is a good take, because it highlights something that people who talk about the popular vote meaning Hillary "won" are unwilling to acknowledge.

Please, people say Hillary "won" the popular vote because people like you say she ran a terrible campaign. People aren't in denial she lost the electoral college. They are arguing against her ineffectiveness as a campaigner. She couldn't have been that bad if she won the popular vote by nearly three million votes... in addition to the critical battleground states, assuming a blue block victory.

Hillary was not a newcomer to presidential elections; we can assume she knew that in order to become the president (and not just get the most votes), a candidate has to be selected by the electoral college. In an alternate reality where millions of popular votes could have been channeled strategically across state borders to become electoral votes, her advantage would have meant the presidency. But there is no angle on this that presents her candidacy in a flattering light; either she was unaware of the need to secure the states that would give her what she needed to become president, or as Jimmy says, she was of course well aware that popular votes are meaningless in presidential elections and just failed to campaign effectively in places where it would have made a big difference.

Or like Jimmy really said, what happened was unprecedented. It seemed impossible to win Virginia by 5 pts... and lose Pennsylvania?!

The important takeaway from my comment about Mueller's findings and Hillary's candidacy isn't so much about Hillary herself, but what she represents as a politician. Regardless of whether we can find consensus on why she lost in 2016, we can still agree (I hope) that her brand of candidacy, her "type" of Democrat, does not completely constitute the 2020 race. She's cut from the same cloth as Kerry, Edwards, Obama, Gore, her husband Bill, and her forgettable running mate Tim Kaine: heavily funded by corporate and financial interests, out of touch with young voters, hawkish and imperialist in foreign affairs, center-right on economic issues, and mainstream left on social ones.

One has to be smoking serious quantities of drugs to think that anyone can get elected President if they don't have a nudge-nudge relationship with Corporate America.

Since Trump, the working people calling for these reforms have become much more numerous and vocal, coinciding with the same kinds of resurgences across Europe and massive popular labor movements in places like India. The trajectory of this mobilization of the left should be clear to everyone by now, and that's the most damning criticism of Hillary and that type of Democrat: they don't seem to comprehend that it's only going to get harder for them to appeal to voters as more and more reject the tactful, compromising, easily reversible gradualism they advocate.

It makes me ponder about Liverpool. Had Karius not had such a terrible Champions League final, LFC wouldn't have Allison Becker at a Keeper now. Had the Dems not lost to Trump would we not have a shifting Democrat Party? I'd say no. It should be remembered that Clinton did adopt most of Sanders' platform. And any Sanders supporter that didn't vote for Clinton was an idiot.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The deep state supported her, not Trump. She was so convinced she would win she forgot to campaign in the mid-west and ran up the vote count in California instead, so that her election would be more "historic".

The only risk she took hurt her... she wasted time in Arizona and Georgia... not California. The knockout blow was the purple toned red states. She didn't want a knockout in the popular vote, but the electoral vote. Taking Arizona and Georgia would have been a virtual blow out. And in the end, she neglected the Midwest.

However, her campaigning wasn't completely out of touch, seeing she won the crucial battlegrounds of Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire. That was the bare minimum she needed to win... assuming she got the blue block... but how could she lose the blue block if she won Virginia by more than 5 pts? The two seemed completely compatible because what Trump managed hadn't happened before.

Hindsight is 20-20.

I think the deplorables comment doomed her campaign. It doesn't matter how many people agree with her, she basically wrote off an entire portion of the population as being unworthy of consideration.

This, too, is an often repeated narrative, but likewise not true. What she actually said was (emphasis mine):

In fact, if you look at his running mate, his running-mate signed a law that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against LGBT Americans. And there’s so much more than I find deplorable in his campaign: the way that he cozies up to white supremacist, makes racist attacks, calls women pigs, mocks people with disabilities — you can’t make this up. He wants to round up and deport 16 million people, calls our military a disaster. And every day he says something else which I find so personally offensive, but also dangerous. You know, the idea of our country is so rooted in continuing progress that we make together. Our campaign slogan is not just words. We really do believe that we are stronger together. We really do believe that showing respect and appreciation for one another lifts us all up.
...
I know there are only 60 days left to make our case — and don’t get complacent, don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think well he’s done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?

The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Sure they were almost entirely white, working class and outside of the big cities. There is a reason that this is one area which struggles with racism and immigration so hard. It's because they often work so hard and have seen their parents and grandparents work so hard yet their relative station has not progressed. The American Dream for them is stagnant. Throw in the opioid crisis and meth and they've lost ground. There is nothing worse than to see your kids' lives destroyed. And then to see good, well meaning people (of whom they feel they are a part of and largely are) step in not to help them, not to help their kids find something to reach for instead of trying to kill boredom and hopelessness through drugs--but to see do-gooders step in and help immigrant families, black families in poverty and step right over them and theirs to do it. To not even see the forces that are destroying families that have struggled for generations? THAT is what keeps racism going. Plus Faux News, of course.

I'm not saying that they are right or that they are entirely right. But I see why they feel that way. Add in that 'nobody helped them' (which is mostly right) and that they only way they got to hold onto whatever they have is by dint of their own labor and some luck and helping 'outsiders' and newcomers just seems like they are being treated as trash. They are no more trash than any other person on the planet. White/working class/rural people feel displaced and ignored and truly struggle to deal with under employment, lack of future for their kids and seeing their kids lost to drugs and at the same time struggling with serious health issues of their own, usually obesity which is related not just to diet/food intake but also to high levels of stress.

So, she literally was doing the exact opposite of what you said; she was trying to stop others--in this particular case, members of the gay community--from thinking in terms of they are ALL worthless nazi shitheads--and many are--but we--as Democrats--need to see through the surface details to the real people underneath as being fully worthy of our consideration.

It was, ironically, an attempt to quell hatred and instead focus on common ground to a group that was very familiar with being labeled unfairly and having their genuine concerns (and humanity) ignored and shunned. It was an attempt to get the audience to empathize, not just sympathize with the right.

But, of course, the sound bite that was exploited--a trick the right in particular are so adept at--was just the "deplorable" comment and everything else got deliberately distorted or simply omitted.

I expect that of the GOP. I do not, however, expect that of our own people. But then, that is an excellent demonstration of how powerful a tool it is to wield against an opponent. People just don't do their homework; don't go to primary sources. It's as simple as that. And that makes it all the easier to manipulate them.

Now, the most often used response to what I just posted is some variation on, "Well, Hillary should have known that her words were going to be used against her." And, of course, she does. More so than any other politician on the planet, arguably, Hillary Clinton's words are consistently used against her.

But that's a ridiculous and impossible standard to apply to just her. As others have noted, Trump's words are never used against him and they are openly and unapologetically destructive. If Clinton had uttered any ONE of the now thousands of outrageous comments Trump has made, she'd be hanging from piano wire two years ago.

So the problem isn't with her. It's with us not defending her properly. Because what she said above was perfectly benign and honest and straightforward and clearly meant as a way to first ingratiate her to the audience through a common bond (exactly as Trump did, only with racism and hatred) and then tried to help the audience see past their own prejudices and surface opinions to the real people struggling underneath that also needed help.

This is exactly what she did in the pro "gay marriage" speech that got turned against her as being anti "gay marriage" and the anti "superpredator" gang leaders speech that got turned into her calling all black young men "superpredators."

It is known and expected that the average Republican voter is not very well educated and is easily manipulated by authority figures of all stripes. This is the primary reason they always vote against their own best interests. They either aren't educated well enough to dig deeper or just accept whatever someone else tells them is the case to be the case.

Dems, otoh, are supposed to be the "intellectual elite" that the right are always trying to denigrate with that phrase. Yet, when it comes to shit like this--and particularly as it applies to Hillary Clinton precisely because of the massive onslaught that has been nonstop against her for decades--too many of us just accept GOP talking points without even realizing that they are, in fact, GOP talking points.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the deplorables comment doomed her campaign. It doesn't matter how many people agree with her, she basically wrote off an entire portion of the population as being unworthy of consideration.

This, too, is an often repeated narrative, but likewise not true. What she actually said was (emphasis mine):

Jimmy Carter never mentioned the word "Malaise" in his speech. The GOP is really good at selling the message and Trump supporters are among the best at obfuscation... such as convincing themselves Trump is a conservative.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the deplorables comment doomed her campaign...

I'm not saying that they are right or that they are entirely right. But I see why they feel that way. Add in that 'nobody helped them' (which is mostly right) and that they only way they got to hold onto whatever they have is by dint of their own labor and some luck and helping 'outsiders' and newcomers just seems like they are being treated as trash. They are no more trash than any other person on the planet. White/working class/rural people feel displaced and ignored and truly struggle to deal with under employment, lack of future for their kids and seeing their kids lost to drugs and at the same time struggling with serious health issues of their own, usually obesity which is related not just to diet/food intake but also to high levels of stress.

It could have galvanized his supporters, but I'm uncertain how many switched over by that point. Clinton was right. Trump had said a lot of dumb things, mocked the disabled, menstruation, encouraged violence at a rally, etc... and his supporters (brown-shirters) continued to support him. But sometimes being right, isn't enough.

But I don't think it was that applicable. One thing I remember was when intellectual right-wing radio hosts like Prager and Medved (who were against Trump during the primary) asked Trump supporters why they supported him, they never could give a reason. In the end, I think it was many things such as they liked a guy who "spoke his mind" and was against the system (wasn't). And many liked him for the same reason people liked the bully alpha male in High School. A certain type of charisma.

 

[PyramidHead]

Since Trump, the working people calling for these reforms have become much more numerous and vocal, coinciding with the same kinds of resurgences across Europe and massive popular labor movements in places like India. The trajectory of this mobilization of the left should be clear to everyone by now, and that's the most damning criticism of Hillary and that type of Democrat: they don't seem to comprehend that it's only going to get harder for them to appeal to voters as more and more reject the tactful, compromising, easily reversible gradualism they advocate.

It makes me ponder about Liverpool. Had Karius not had such a terrible Champions League final, LFC wouldn't have Allison Becker at a Keeper now. Had the Dems not lost to Trump would we not have a shifting Democrat Party? I'd say no.

I don't know about that. You could be correct, as most Democrats tend to soften their views unless they perceive them as under threat, like their approval of Obama's continuation and expansion of the war on terror, domestic surveillance, immigration raids, and all the other issues they hated about Bush. But I'm inclined to think that the shift still would have taken place because it really began with the economic crash of 2007-2008, not with Bernie.

It should be remembered that Clinton did adopt most of Sanders' platform. And any Sanders supporter that didn't vote for Clinton was an idiot.

I agree with your second sentence at least. But the ability of a candidate to tap into a sentiment in the voters is absolutely essential to electoral politics. Eventually capitulating on some or another issue in her words while having a history of preferring something else made Hillary a hard sell to the left, but in the end 90% of us voted for her in the general anyway (if we voted at all, which I did). It's actually pretty similar to McCain's fatal mistake of admitting to economic ignorance right before the worst downturn since the 1930's. I'm sure that after it happened, he would have championed the same kind of center-right reforms that Obama put into play, including the ones that were cribbed from Romney. That wasn't enough, though, because the voters in the general election didn't want someone who was out of touch and unable to see the writing on the wall. Rural America might have seen the same obliviousness in Hillary, even if she came around on certain policies after being reminded of them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Firstly, didn't support an "expansion of the war on terror". Obama expanded the use of drones... he didn't expand military occupations. Secondly, there have been threads here regarding the legality and problems with using drones. Most people here were also quite disturbed by the metadata surveillance. The general population might not care because "I have nothing to hide", but liberals were not pleased and many viewed Snowden's exposure of that program as a patriotic act.

Rural America might have seen the same obliviousness in Hillary, even if she came around on certain policies after being reminded of them.

Trump provided no details about anything in his policies. We know why these days, and suspected as much back then.

I think it is laughable, to consider that rural America saw through Hillary Clinton's knowledge on economics... when Trump was clearly the king of no-nothings. All Trump could do was see the anger and play to it. He told grown adults what teenagers like to think... it isn't their fault and they are right to be angry because other people failed them. Trump didn't inspire pulling up the boot straps and getting it done. He inspired anger at the system of capitalism, but cloaked it successfully as government that failed the people.

McCain lost in '08 because no Republican was going to win in '08. The US was absolutely done with poor governance and they would see to it not coming back into the US for at least a couple years.

 

[PyramidHead]

Firstly, didn't support an "expansion of the war on terror". Obama expanded the use of drones... he didn't expand military occupations. Secondly, there have been threads here regarding the legality and problems with using drones. Most people here were also quite disturbed by the metadata surveillance. The general population might not care because "I have nothing to hide", but liberals were not pleased and many viewed Snowden's exposure of that program as a patriotic act.

Rural America might have seen the same obliviousness in Hillary, even if she came around on certain policies after being reminded of them.

Trump provided no details about anything in his policies. We know why these days, and suspected as much back then.

I think it is laughable, to consider that rural America saw through Hillary Clinton's knowledge on economics... when Trump was clearly the king of no-nothings. All Trump could do was see the anger and play to it.

Not economics, that was just the parallel I was drawing to McCain, who said he didn't care about economics. Hillary didn't connect with the working class, at least not in the rust belt, partly because she was unable to convincingly channel their anger. Again and again I return to the point that politics has very little to do with explaining facts to people. We tend to have an emotional barometer for whether someone is on our team or not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Firstly, didn't support an "expansion of the war on terror". Obama expanded the use of drones... he didn't expand military occupations. Secondly, there have been threads here regarding the legality and problems with using drones. Most people here were also quite disturbed by the metadata surveillance. The general population might not care because "I have nothing to hide", but liberals were not pleased and many viewed Snowden's exposure of that program as a patriotic act.

Rural America might have seen the same obliviousness in Hillary, even if she came around on certain policies after being reminded of them.

Trump provided no details about anything in his policies. We know why these days, and suspected as much back then.

I think it is laughable, to consider that rural America saw through Hillary Clinton's knowledge on economics... when Trump was clearly the king of no-nothings. All Trump could do was see the anger and play to it.

Not economics, that was just the parallel I was drawing to McCain, who said he didn't care about economics. Hillary didn't connect with the working class, at least not in the rust belt, partly because she was unable to convincingly channel their anger.

Democrats have been pushing for training and helping people in the rust belt for decades now.

Again and again I return to the point that politics has very little to do with explaining facts to people. We tend to have an emotional barometer for whether someone is on our team or not.

But you said people in the rural areas might have seen through Clinton's obliviousness, when Trump was the God of Obliviousness... a guy that hadn't had to work like a normal person their entire life. And the Rust Belters hung on to him... even more than how the right-wing latched onto the "DC outsider" (son of huge DC insider) common ranch boy Texan (Ivy League grad, Maine vacationing) George W Bush.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The Trump camp (and the Sanders camp, unfortunately) pushed the idiotic "establishment" narrative trying to reframe the election in their terms so that they never had to face the real terms (practical terms) that Clinton mastered. It didn't work for Sanders (he lost bigly), but because Trump ran unopposed, it evidently did work on some of the more feeble minded.

So there was a double-barrel shotgun bullshit narrative of how desperately NOBODY needed a change in a non-existent "establishment" that poisoned both the left and the right; the right in large amounts and the left in tiny slivers, but they cut deep nevertheless in a few key states where it affected the EC and that's how it fucked all of us.

At least primarily. There were, of course, many other factors that contributed (racism; sexism; Comey; apathy; etc).

But, again, ALL of that would have been completely avoided had Sanders got out when he should have (March). That single act would have removed all of the subsequent poison and weaponization of the Sanders zombie campaign and none of this nonsense would be an issue.

A unified Dem party firmly behind Clinton would have been able to spend the hundreds of millions they instead wasted on a totally pointless civil war, exclusively on relentlessly countering Trump at every rallying and talking point. For eight months.

And, of course, for those idiots still pushing the "ground game" false analysis that insists physical presence of a candidate mattered (in spite of the fact that it evidently didn't matter in other states), Clinton could have visited every state a dozen times over had she not been burdened with the primary debacle.

Point being that, yes, absolutely, Dems need to do what Repugs are evidently born to do; pick their alpha dog early and then fall in lockstep behind them no matter what. Because the stakes are that high and the outcome is exactly what we are currently dealing with when we don't.

So, as I pointed out repeatedly during the primaries, that is NOT a time to insist that everyone gets to read their high school poetry and daydream about magical ponies and how great it would be if only and how important it is to worship a messiah rather than assess a fucking job applicant. Because that's "establishment."

 

[PyramidHead]

The Trump camp (and the Sanders camp, unfortunately) pushed the idiotic "establishment" narrative trying to reframe the election in their terms so that they never had to face the real terms (practical terms) that Clinton mastered. It didn't work for Sanders (he lost bigly), but because Trump ran unopposed, it evidently did work on some of the more feeble minded.

So there was a double-barrel shotgun bullshit narrative of how desperately NOBODY needed a change in a non-existent "establishment" that poisoned both the left and the right; the right in large amounts and the left in tiny slivers, but they cut deep nevertheless in a few key states where it affected the EC and that's how it fucked all of us.

At least primarily. There were, of course, many other factors that contributed (racism; sexism; Comey; apathy; etc).

But, again, ALL of that would have been completely avoided had Sanders got out when he should have (March). That single act would have removed all of the subsequent poison and weaponization of the Sanders zombie campaign and none of this nonsense would be an issue.

A unified Dem party firmly behind Clinton would have been able to spend the hundreds of millions they instead wasted on a totally pointless civil war, exclusively on relentlessly countering Trump at every rallying and talking point. For eight months.

And, of course, for those idiots still pushing the "ground game" false analysis that insists physical presence of a candidate mattered (in spite of the fact that it evidently didn't matter in other states), Clinton could have visited every state a dozen times over had she not been burdened with the primary debacle.

Point being that, yes, absolutely, Dems need to do what Repugs are evidently born to do; pick their alpha dog early and then fall in lockstep behind them no matter what. Because the stakes are that high and the outcome is exactly what we are currently dealing with when we don't.

So, as I pointed out repeatedly during the primaries, that is NOT a time to insist that everyone gets to read their high school poetry and daydream about magical ponies and how great it would be if only and how important it is to worship a messiah rather than assess a fucking job applicant. Because that's "establishment."

Your response boils down to simply: the left is wrong to value what it does, and shouldn't value it. They mistakenly believe that there is a real problem with being a mainstream establishment Democrat, so they should stop believing that, and start believing that candidates like Hillary are awesome and good. The real thing to believe and value is what Hillary talked about, and instead of being leftists who question institutions of entrenched power, the leftists should have been centrists who acquiesced to it. Because they valued the wrong things, and fought for those wrongly valued things, Hillary didn't have enough time and money to convince people she was better that Donald Goddamn Trump, which by all estimates is apparently an expensive and grueling process that needs the better part of a year to accomplish.

In other words, the left should have just decided to be unified with the party they (mistakenly) thought was going in the wrong direction, and should have simply changed their view into the opinion that the party was going in the correct direction, thereby rendering the primary process ceremonial at best. A unified Democratic party would have had the resources to beat Trump, and rather than that fact revealing conclusively that Hillary as a candidate was unable to unify the party against her opponent, it actually means that critics of a political party's status quo are to blame. If only they had realized that they should have merely been right, instead of being wrong, and stopped supporting leftist principles and values, then the only logical option would have clearly presented itself--stop being leftists. That's how elections should typically go; the voters ought to change their preferences to match those of whoever the party wants to build a unified front around. Cool

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Except that, she didn’t lose to Trump.

President Hillary Clinton is a thing in your reality? How do I visit that reality? She lost the election. She lost to Donald Trump. It is tragic. It is pathetic. It is hilarious.

This is a woman who started her political career by coasting off her marriage to a president and ended it in such a political embarrassment that she had to write a not-her-fault book on and go on a tour to maintain her sanity.

She is to blame for Trump being your President, more Comey, Bernie, Russia, or any random racist she points her finger at.

 

[Elixir]

Except that, she didn’t lose to Trump.

President Hillary Clinton is a thing in your reality? How do I visit that reality? She lost the election. She lost to Donald Trump. It is tragic. It is pathetic. It is hilarious.

This is a woman who started her political career by coasting off her marriage to a president and ended it in such a political embarrassment that she had to write a not-her-fault book on and go on a tour to maintain her sanity.

She is to blame for Trump being your President, more Comey, Bernie, Russia, or any random racist she points her finger at.

I find your analysis lacking. Especially coming from a West Russian (aka Canadian).

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

She lost the election.

No, she lost the Presidency. I know it’s difficult for binary thinkers to evolve on short notice, but try to keep up. The issue is one of voter preference, not esoteric quirks of the EC.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Your response boils down

It doesn’t.

They mistakenly believe that there is a real problem with being a mainstream establishment Democrat

Wrong. That was a political strategy; a false narrative exploited by an underdog candidate. It wasn’t even unique, It was exactly the same gambit Ross Perot tried and exactly the same gambit Nader tried and exactly the same gambit every single third party candidate always tries.

If you weren’t a political newbie—or, you know, simply intellectually curious and knew how to use, say, google—you would know this. Every underdog always tries to bring the bigger dogs down first and foremost, rather than try to raise themselves up.

and start believing that candidates like Hillary are awesome and good.

Again wrong. It’s not a church. It’s a job interview.

The real thing to believe and value

Again, not a church.

and instead of being leftists who question institutions of entrenched power

Every Democrat does this. It is the central purpose of everyone’s existence who are not Republicans.

What newbies like you fail to grasp is that there is only ONE party; the rich. EVERYONE ELSE is fighting to stop them from raping the world. They have all the money; they have all the power.

So what they try to do is paint anyone opposing them as either (a) lunatics or (b) wanna-bes, so that idiots think they are just like them. That allows them to divide and conquer. It goes something like this: You hate us. So all we have to do is whisper that the opposition candidate we fear the most is just like us. You then will hate them now, because you’re too ignorant to understand we just rat-fucked you. Thank you for doing our bidding. Fuck off and die already.

Hillary didn't have enough time and money to convince people she was better that Donald Goddamn Trump

Aside from the argument from confirmation bias yet again, you’re conveniently omitting the fact that instead of focusing on how she was better than Donald Goddamn Trump to Republican swing voters, she was being relentlessly attacked by an equally fanatic/equally obnoxious/equally noisey yet tiny percentage of members of her own party reinforcing the utterly vapid boogeyman of an “entrenched establishment” in the first place and allowing themselves to be easily weaponized by both the GOP—and the fucking Russians no less—in the offing.

THAT is how fucking naive your “leftists” were during the primaries. They didn’t even know they were being used as pawns the entire time against the candidate that the GOP/Trump feared the most.

Spoiler: It wasn’t Sanders.

And because the Sanders bots were equally fanatic/equally obnoxious/equally noisey, yet also tiny, they were encouraged to take to social media and use the medium to do what it does best; make what normally would be ignored as the pointless ramblings of hopelessly naive radical leftist ignoramuses go viral—aka, the new mainstream—so that idiotic nonsense like “entrenched establishment” seems like it actually means something, when in fact, it does not.

It’s as vapid as saying your boss is “the Man” or Sanders is “outside the establishment” or that there is a “deep state” or that someone can be a “friend to Wall Street.” Nothing in the real world is monolithic like that. These are pathetic tropes made up by spin doctors and journalists to sell ignorance.

As in ALL human endeavors, there are white hats, black hats and gray hats constantly on rotation, but one thing that is unquestionable is that anyone running Republican is likely wearing a black hat. Which means the white and the grays are the ones that are going to get fucked, so they are united whether they like it or not.

In other words, the left should have just decided to be unified with the party they (mistakenly) thought was going in the wrong direction, and should have simply changed their view into the opinion that the party was going in the correct direction, thereby rendering the primary process ceremonial at best.

No, they—meaning Sanders—should have fought what he thought was the good fight and let the people decide. Which they did. Nobody wanted him. But instead of accepting that fact and leaving the stage gracefully when it was beyond clear nobody wanted him, he kept going and going and going—and attacking and attacking and attacking—escalating everything into a bitterly divisive civil war, which you bizarrely keep avoiding.

Everything you are talking about—as if it never happened—happened. The radical left got their voice (cue bullshit denialism and the “rigged” system that wasn’t and a radical fundamentalism more akin to religion than a fucking job interview) and Sanders had his say and he was soundly rejected at every step of the way in spite of the desperate attempts by a vocal minority to pretend that wasn’t the case. But it was.

Talk about a horrible fucking candidate. Sanders was never ahead in either raw votes or delegates (rigged! rigged! rigged!) and when the noise FINALLY died, he never managed to get more than 6% of Democrats to give a rat’s ass. The primaries were HIS virgin battleground to prove himself and his idealism and instead at every juncture we all asked, “Ok, that’s great, we agree, but how the fuck are you going to get it implemented?”

Every single time. Idealism defeated by practicalism. Why? BECAUSE IT’S NOT FUCKING CHURCH, IT’S A GODDAMNED JOB INTERVIEW.

Hillary as a candidate was unable to unify the party against her opponent, it actually means that critics of a political party's status quo are to blame.

(A) apply that argument to the primaries and slam that hammer down on the irony-meter (b) address the fact that Clinton WAS able to unify the party against her opponent and WON. She lost the Presidency, not the Vote.

And the “party” that she was evidently not able to unify amounted to 40,000 voters. 65 Million, UNIFIED. 40,000 middle class older white males and their wives in a few select counties in just three normally solidly blue states? Not so unified.

But they would not have been a problem if Sanders had dropped out gracefully and did what all other primary losers gracefully do—and he eventually did anyway, begrudgingly and with one foot in and one foot out as his ego drove it—join in to UNIFY to fight the common ACTUAL enemy.

And I don’t mean they wouldn’t be a problem because they would have changed their votes, necessarily. I mean it wouldn’t be a problem because there never would have been the conditions that conflated to allow for an EC victory/popular vote loss for Trump in the first place.

A year of pointless, bitterly divisive infighting from a zombie-loser who just irrationally and without any legitimate justification beside his own fucking ego simply wouldn’t get off the stage when 95% of the party said, get the fuck out of here is what laid down the conditions for what happened after. Had that never happened, no preconditions.

I don’t give a fuck which Democrat (other than to qualify modern definitions) you want to prop up as a black hat (and if you think Clinton wears a black hat, you’re a total fucking moron who has never studied a goddamned thing about politics), the absolute worst of the worst of the worst will only be a fucking candy striper girl next to any average Republican.

Throw a fucking rock just in the general direction of any Republicans you see just walking down the street any one you hit will be orders of magnitude worse than the absolute worst, most corrupt (modern era) Democrat hands fucking down.

So you can spare us all the appeal to magical ponies religious bullshit, grow the fuck up and start actually fighting the real fight.

Or, by all means, get the fuck out of the DNC and start your own party to do nothing but bleed votes away from the real cause; stopping Republicans by any means necessary. But before you do that, you might want to ask yourself why Sanders never did.

His platform is the DNC platform verbatim. Magical ponies notwithstanding. He didn’t invent it. He isn’t a “leftist.” He, in fact, abandoned his more leftist ideology long ago to be a sucker fish to the Democrats.

And what did he first do with his new found ego driven cache after the election? Tried to convince the Democrats to sacrifice abortion rights and minorities in order to focus on white working class males when it was actually white middle class males that were the problem.

In a few counties. In just three states. In numbers so small that they effectively do not statistically exist in any meaningful way, outside of this one time anomaly. That they now largely regret and it was corrected regardless in the midterms so its a non-recurring, non-issue.

Wow, what a leftist.