I believe very differently.I have faith in Hillary. Had she won the 2008 primary, I am sure she'd still have found some way to fuck it up for Democrats.In 2008, the Republicans had left this country at the bottom of such a deep hole, across the board, the Democrats could have nominated a Mexican lesbian with AIDS in a wheelchair and won.
I think 2020 was far more unique (I know "unique" is not technically comparable, but you know what I mean) than 2024, what with a once-in-a-century Pandemic.2024 was unique as well as inflation had reared it's ugly head after an absence of over a generation. I'm uncertain why Trump lost in 2020. I know why he should have lost.
It was a big reason. KH's flaws as a candidate were other big reasons, the lateness of Biden's decision and thus the compressed schedule also.Harris lost because of inflation.
Hillary certainly did neglect the Blue Wall states.The surprise in 2024 was less her loss and more how it mimicked Clinton's. There was a presumption that Clinton goofed in the Blue Wall states.
She made other mistakes.Harris didn't make those same mistakes... and lost all the same.
Kamala Harris was never particularly popular on the national stage. During her first run, she wasted her early advantages and fizzled out by December 2019. She was unpopular as vice president. She did enjoy a popularity spike after she was first nominated, but that was more of a falling coconut bounce.And with Harris being post Dobbs, it was even a larger surprise to see women literally (actually I suppose that is metaphorically) choose the wallet over the uterus in the General election, where as it appeared likewise in the Mid-terms.. Typically the Dems do better in the General than the mid-term. And more confusing still, the Dems held Senate seats in states Harris lost.
Nevertheless she fucked over Bob Casey, Sherrod Brown and Jon Tester.Harris is repeatedly called an awful candidate, but for an awful candidate, it didn't give Trump any coat-tails for candidates to get across the line in the Senate races.
How would she do that? And what is your belief based on?I believe Godzillary would have stomped on the Teaparty and the obstructionists on Capitol Hill. Which would have saved us from Trump.
Tom
She had a bunch of advantages over Obama.How would she do that? And what is your belief based on?I believe Godzillary would have stomped on the Teaparty and the obstructionists on Capitol Hill. Which would have saved us from Trump.
Tom
As a wife, not as an official. They both only spent a short time in the Senate, but Obama was considerably younger.She had a bunch of advantages over Obama.
She was experienced in DC.
So you are saying that President Clinton was not willing to help Obama out?She had clout and was a top predator in The Swamp. She had Slick Willy to back her up, help her plan stuff, and do her dirty work when necessary.
And that was a problem. DNC tried to manipulate the 2016 primary and it backfired.They practically owned the DNC, far and away the most formidable power in the non-governmental world.
Your American history is pitiful.As a wife, not as an official. They both only spent a short time in the Senate, but Obama was considerably younger.She had a bunch of advantages over Obama.
She was experienced in DC.
So you are saying that President Clinton was not willing to help Obama out?She had clout and was a top predator in The Swamp. She had Slick Willy to back her up, help her plan stuff, and do her dirty work when necessary.
And that was a problem. DNC tried to manipulate the 2016 primary and it backfired.They practically owned the DNC, far and away the most formidable power in the non-governmental world.
How so?Your American history is pitiful.
While Hillary is nobody's definition of "arm candy", she was still just the wife of a president. To count these eight years as some kind of political experience is ridiculous. That makes her no more qualified for presidency than Joachim Sauer for Chancellor of Germany.She was in the White House for 8 years, and not just as Melania style arm candy.
And Obama won one in Illinois. Before that, he was in the Illinois state senate.Then she won a Senate seat, in New York.
None of which shows that she would have been more effective in countering the Tea Party than Obama, or that she would have prevented the rise of Trump.She was super connected (she went to at least one of Trump's weddings) and knew where all the skeletons were and who was vulnerable to what. She was also an extremely ambitious politician.
How was the 2016 primary rigged?As a wife, not as an official. They both only spent a short time in the Senate, but Obama was considerably younger.She had a bunch of advantages over Obama.
She was experienced in DC.
So you are saying that President Clinton was not willing to help Obama out?She had clout and was a top predator in The Swamp. She had Slick Willy to back her up, help her plan stuff, and do her dirty work when necessary.
And that was a problem. DNC tried to manipulate the 2016 primary and it backfired.They practically owned the DNC, far and away the most formidable power in the non-governmental world.
So, this one isn't entirely wrong.How was the 2016 primary rigged?As a wife, not as an official. They both only spent a short time in the Senate, but Obama was considerably younger.She had a bunch of advantages over Obama.
She was experienced in DC.
So you are saying that President Clinton was not willing to help Obama out?She had clout and was a top predator in The Swamp. She had Slick Willy to back her up, help her plan stuff, and do her dirty work when necessary.
And that was a problem. DNC tried to manipulate the 2016 primary and it backfired.They practically owned the DNC, far and away the most formidable power in the non-governmental world.
This is bullshit.There was, among the DNC, what amounted to a betrayal of progressive interests by failing to at least play a "fair" campaign against Sanders.
How you define "Democrat" doesn't matter.Sanders never had much support amongst the Democrats because he isn't and wasn't a Democrat
Bernie Sanders didn't define himself as a Democrat until it was politically convenient and as soon as that ended he went back to defining himself as an Independent.How you define "Democrat" doesn't matter.
Maybe because democrats refused to classify themselves politically as folks whose concerns he represented as "important".Bernie Sanders didn't define himself as a Democrat until it was politically convenient and as soon as that ended he went back to defining himself as an Independent.How you define "Democrat" doesn't matter.
Tom
Agree. She won the primary because she got more votes. Millions of more votes. I met both HRC and Bernie in person. I liked her more. She seemed more genuine to me. So i voted for her. There will never be a perfectly unbiased democratic (or republican for that matter) sytem to elect our candidates. I’m sorry that Bernie didn’t get as much support in the beginning as HRC did. He was the outsider in 2016. Obama was the outsider in 2008. He also was badly treated in the beginning; and yet over came all and won. Dems need to come together!This is bullshit.There was, among the DNC, what amounted to a betrayal of progressive interests by failing to at least play a "fair" campaign against Sanders.
Sanders never had much support amongst the Democrats because he isn't and wasn't a Democrat!
The Clintons allowed him to jump the fence mainly so her coronation was slightly less obvious. Also, I think she used him to float trial balloons about which leftist policies would get the most support, without taking responsibility for proposing them. But she won the primary without resorting to the "super delegates" because she had the solid backing so devoted they voted in the primary election.
Tom
In what way?The Democrats played dirty to maintain a status quo and this is the result.
She would have one the primary either way. By winning it and being shitty, in a way that ceded no political capital to progressive factions, she won the primary in a way that lost her the election.She won the primary because she got more votes.
I don’t agree. Yes she lost some Bernie Bros on the east and west coasts. She lost the election when she lost out on moderates in the swing states.She would have one the primary either way. By winning it and being shitty, in a way that ceded no political capital to progressive factions, she won the primary in a way that lost her the election.She won the primary because she got more votes.
It's not so hard to understand.
Well, there was this:In what way?The Democrats played dirty to maintain a status quo and this is the result.
You do realize that the DNC is a private corporation right? They are not a government agency or anything remotely like that.
Frankly, while I supported a ton of Sanders expressed plans (more than Hillary's platform), I was opposed to Sanders nomination. Not only was I sure that he'd get his butt kicked in the election by any of the stronger Republicans, but he'd also get Obamaed and not accomplish a damned thing. Hillary would have accomplished more of his agenda than he possibly could have done.
Tom
Former Democratic National Committee interim chair Donna Brazile acknowledged sending town hall topics to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, calling it a “mistake I will forever regret.”
Brazile wrote in an essay for Time magazine that she shared potential topics for a CNN town hall with the Clinton campaign in her role as a Democratic operative and the DNC vice chair.
Bernie made a great candidate, he wouldn't have made a great President. Bernie was great to help tell the Democrat Party that the liberals are getting real tired of being ignored.Agree. She won the primary because she got more votes. Millions of more votes. I met both HRC and Bernie in person. I liked her more. She seemed more genuine to me. So i voted for her. There will never be a perfectly unbiased democratic (or republican for that matter) sytem to elect our candidates. I’m sorry that Bernie didn’t get as much support in the beginning as HRC did. He was the outsider in 2016. Obama was the outsider in 2008. He also was badly treated in the beginning; and yet over came all and won. Dems need to come together!This is bullshit.There was, among the DNC, what amounted to a betrayal of progressive interests by failing to at least play a "fair" campaign against Sanders.
Sanders never had much support amongst the Democrats because he isn't and wasn't a Democrat!
The Clintons allowed him to jump the fence mainly so her coronation was slightly less obvious. Also, I think she used him to float trial balloons about which leftist policies would get the most support, without taking responsibility for proposing them. But she won the primary without resorting to the "super delegates" because she had the solid backing so devoted they voted in the primary election.
Tom
Not even "liberals", "progressives".Bernie made a great candidate, he wouldn't have made a great President. Bernie was great to help tell the Democrat Party that the liberals are getting real tired of being ignored.Agree. She won the primary because she got more votes. Millions of more votes. I met both HRC and Bernie in person. I liked her more. She seemed more genuine to me. So i voted for her. There will never be a perfectly unbiased democratic (or republican for that matter) sytem to elect our candidates. I’m sorry that Bernie didn’t get as much support in the beginning as HRC did. He was the outsider in 2016. Obama was the outsider in 2008. He also was badly treated in the beginning; and yet over came all and won. Dems need to come together!This is bullshit.There was, among the DNC, what amounted to a betrayal of progressive interests by failing to at least play a "fair" campaign against Sanders.
Sanders never had much support amongst the Democrats because he isn't and wasn't a Democrat!
The Clintons allowed him to jump the fence mainly so her coronation was slightly less obvious. Also, I think she used him to float trial balloons about which leftist policies would get the most support, without taking responsibility for proposing them. But she won the primary without resorting to the "super delegates" because she had the solid backing so devoted they voted in the primary election.
Tom
