• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

PInk Tape
Banned
(05-20-2017, 12:31 AM)
Come on Joe, I expected more from you.
royalan
Lotus Member
(05-20-2017, 12:32 AM)
royalan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Baron Aloha

If it took the 2016 election for some Democrats to figure out that you have to give people something to vote for...well...then I'm not sure what to say exactly... but a couple of things to spring to mind.

1. At least they are learning?

2. These Democrats need to get off their high horse and stop acting like they are the smartest people in the room. Because if it took them this long to figure that out then, clearly, they aren't.

I both agree and disagree with this for two reasons.

I disagree with the "you have to give people something to vote for" hot take for two reasons: 1) it disregards Hillary's support. Believe it or not, many people actually like Hillary. Myself, the majority of the Democrats I worked with last year, and most of my family, worked our butts off because we genuinely wanted to see Hillary and her style of politics in the White House. 2) I believe that elections are equal parts voting for and against someone. Anti-Hillary hate certainly helped propel Trump into the White House. Obama's "Hope and Change" campaign was as powerful as it was because it drew a not-so-subtle contrast to the horror of the Bush years which would have been continued with McCain in office. And finally my own vote was every bit as much against Trump as it was for Hillary, because I'm black and gay. Marginalized groups very rarely have the privilege of voting "for" someone. Our votes tend to be against the person we feel will fuck us over the most.

But I agree 100% with Democrats needing to get off their high horse. We have policies that are beneficial for most Americans. But we continuously lose the messaging war by refusing to appeal to people's feelings.
ZeoVGM
formerly omg rite
(05-20-2017, 01:00 AM)
ZeoVGM's Avatar

Originally Posted by HariKari

He's 100% right but that's not going to stop people from downplaying her total lack of appeal.

Yeah man, that lack of appeal that got her 3 million more votes than Trump.
Zyae
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:05 AM)
Zyae's Avatar

Originally Posted by ZeoVGM

Yeah man, that lack of appeal that got her 3 million more votes than Trump.

And she lost.
Conciliator
Banned
(05-20-2017, 01:07 AM)
Conciliator's Avatar
but it was Her Time
Neoweee
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:10 AM)
Neoweee's Avatar

Originally Posted by Conciliator

but it was Her Time

Yes, the woman that got 48% of the vote the last time around needed help to get 55% this time, when she was more popular and more qualified.

Biden didn't run because he would have lost the primary. He was a crap candidate all of the previous times he ran for president, and wouldn't have done better as a grieving 73-year-old.

Originally Posted by HariKari

He's 100% right but that's not going to stop people from downplaying her total lack of appeal.

If Hillary has a total lack of appeal, then what do you call Biden's previous runs for president?
ZeoVGM
formerly omg rite
(05-20-2017, 01:19 AM)
ZeoVGM's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zyae

And she lost.

That is completely unrelated to what I said.

I replied to someone who said she had a "total lack of appeal," a factually incorrect statement.
Zasa
Member
(05-20-2017, 01:22 AM)
Zasa's Avatar
He's not wrong, we weren't worthy, Biden :(
shawnbuddy
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:35 AM)
shawnbuddy's Avatar
I agree with royalan. I'm never going to accept "she was the lesser evil" as the default position. I thought Hillary was pretty great and voted for her enthusiastically in the Primary and the general.
kaname-san
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:57 AM)
kaname-san's Avatar

Originally Posted by ZeoVGM

Yeah man, that lack of appeal that got her 3 million more votes than Trump.

Or maybe it was just the fear of trump that got her all those votes. She is easily one of the least liked candidates in history.
Neoweee
Member
(05-20-2017, 02:58 AM)
Neoweee's Avatar

Originally Posted by kaname-san

Or maybe it was just the fear of trump that got her all those votes. She is easily one of the least liked candidates in history.

We are in a partisan time, and candidates are generally going to be reviled by the other side. Obama was the most hated candidate in history as of 2012, and that didn't stop him from winning. Did Obama win because of fear of Romney?
Sirpopopop
Member
(05-20-2017, 03:00 AM)
Sirpopopop's Avatar

Originally Posted by kaname-san

Or maybe it was just the fear of trump that got her all those votes. She is easily one of the least liked candidates in history.

You're being a jerk by dismissing out of hand the testimony of posters within this thread about why they voted for Hillary.
ZeoVGM
formerly omg rite
(05-20-2017, 03:01 AM)
ZeoVGM's Avatar

Originally Posted by kaname-san

Or maybe it was just the fear of trump that got her all those votes. She is easily one of the least liked candidates in history.

She was also a fantastic choice for the job who would have done good things for the country.

So, you know, there's that too.
Neoweee
Member
(05-20-2017, 03:07 AM)
Neoweee's Avatar

Originally Posted by ZeoVGM

She was also a fantastic choice for the job who would have done good things for the country.

So, you know, there's that too.

And could actually answer policy questions.

She's the most technocratic major party candidate of my lifetime.
Brinbe
Member
(05-20-2017, 03:12 AM)
Brinbe's Avatar
I love Biden, but that's just wrong.
cheezcake
Member
(05-20-2017, 03:13 AM)
cheezcake's Avatar

Originally Posted by Paul Graham

People who are powerful but uncharismatic will tend to be disliked. Their power makes them a target for criticism that they don't have the charisma to disarm. That was Hillary Clinton's problem. It also tends to be a problem for any CEO who is more of a builder than a schmoozer. And yet the builder-type CEO is (like Hillary) probably the best person for the job.

I don't think there is any solution to this problem. It's human nature. The best we can do is to recognize that it's happening, and to understand that being a magnet for criticism is sometimes a sign not that someone is the wrong person for a job, but that they're the right one.

I think this is succinct and on point. Clinton was a subpar candidate when measured by her ability to influence voters but would have been a damn good president. But in the realm of politics that unfortunately means very little, and will always mean little without a significant culture shift in the country.
shinra-bansho
Member
(05-20-2017, 03:14 AM)
shinra-bansho's Avatar
Okay, America's Prince Phillip.
_Nemo
Member
(05-20-2017, 03:17 AM)
_Nemo's Avatar
Ok?
TheLaughingStock
Member
(05-20-2017, 03:21 AM)
TheLaughingStock's Avatar

Originally Posted by boiled goose


Haven't you heard? Clintonites are so pragmatic that they make progress by losing every single branch of government.

I believe technically they didn't lose every branch but it was a disaster. Also, I wouldn't generalize all Clintonites because there's a lot of folks on the GOP side parroting similar talking points about how they think vs. everyone else. Nevertheless, Nassim Taleb has a great phrase that sums up that kind of "pragmatist" and their ideology which is Intellectual Yet Idiot.
Meowster
Member
(05-20-2017, 03:21 AM)
Meowster's Avatar
He's not entirely wrong but at the same time, I still think there was no he way he could beat her in the primary.. Democrats have always loved Hillary Clinton and would have done anything to get her there. They'll always vote for her and they really wanted her then. I know I really wanted her. Sucks that this is the way things ended.
ClayKavalier
Banned
(05-20-2017, 03:49 AM)
Run then, motherfucker. I understand he was mourning his son, and I would have voted for him over her, but these kind of what-ifs after the fact don't help anything. This comes across as him congratulating himself for being awesome.
Curufinwe
Member
(05-20-2017, 04:14 AM)
Curufinwe's Avatar
Then you should have run, Joe. Or at least being available as a VP pick.
Unknown Soldier
Banned
(05-20-2017, 04:16 AM)
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
Joe did nothing wrong.

If you want to know a bit about why Biden chose not to run against Hillary, there's about half a chapter in Shattered which covers Biden's vacillating back and forth in late 2014/early 2015 when he was considering a run. Ultimately he chose not to run because Hillary had already basically locked the party down and he didn't have anyone willing to work for his putative campaign because they were all afraid of angering the Clintons.
Mango Madness
Member
(05-20-2017, 04:26 AM)
Mango Madness's Avatar
I mean, she wasn't. She was the pragmatic, unexciting choice, not someone I voted for enthusiastically like I did for Obama in 08.
SolarPowered
Member
(05-20-2017, 04:34 AM)
SolarPowered's Avatar
Reads like a Trump quote lol. Say what you will about Hillary, but she endured treatment that nearly no other presidential candidate has ever experienced despite being one of the most qualified and supported (yeah, the DNC and democrats all had her back, but that does not mean rigging) to ever run for office. Bernie also clawed his way up from being a relatively unknown senator from Vermont to the face of the democratic party alongside Obama. If Biden wanted it that bad and was that ready for the presidency he should have run.
KillLaCam
Banned
(05-20-2017, 10:08 AM)
I mean she wasn't great but she was a billion times better than the Trump Pence combo.

Biden would have been awesome

Thread Tools