-
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.
CNN : Biden: Clinton never figured out why she was running
- Thread starter fantomena
- Start date
- Status
A no name 75 year old socialist who told everyone they could have all the stuff they always dreamed of if it weren't for the fat cat bankers and wall street tycoons.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
You'd have two candidates running on a continuation of the Obama presidency except one of them would be running as more progressive (hint: not Biden). I don't think it's laughable that he could beat her but if you think he would then you're calling it a personality contest entirely.
Also, he belly-flopped in the primaries twice already (once against Clinton!) though I fully concede a two-term Vice Presidency is a significant mitigating factor now.
Prime crotch
Banned
Hopefully this isn't just scapegoating Hillary on stuff that is endemic to the whole party.
Yeah, from the get-go, it felt to me like Democrats got in line behind her because she was 'owed her turn' moreso than because she proved she was the best person for the job.
The party debates leading to the presidency should really start with 6 or so candidates, let a handful of potential candidates with some different strengths and weaknesses play off each other a few times, feel out how well their mesaages land against one another, let the candidate that resonates strongest rise to the top. Here we got 4 candidates, 2 of which stepped aside after only one appearance. Just stunk of the party rushing to coronate a chosen one without making her fight for the crown.
The party debates leading to the presidency should really start with 6 or so candidates, let a handful of potential candidates with some different strengths and weaknesses play off each other a few times, feel out how well their mesaages land against one another, let the candidate that resonates strongest rise to the top. Here we got 4 candidates, 2 of which stepped aside after only one appearance. Just stunk of the party rushing to coronate a chosen one without making her fight for the crown.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Sanders lost by a significant margin, it wasn't close. Let's not rewrite history to make Clinton look worse than she already is.
Biden has run for president multiple times and has never done well. He's not disciplined enough to win and various sites were cocked and loaded with various bullshit articles (via Clinton's camp) on his "problems with women." It would have been embarrassing.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
God damn so much bullshit in so few words. Democrats have been grooming her to run for a long time, but good try there breh
Father_Brain
Banned
Let's not rewrite it to make Clinton look better, either. He was an insurgent candidate with no support from the party; it should never have even been competitive.
Raven117
Member
Wow. Just wow.
Biden would have body slammed Trump.
This here is just a microcosm of what when completely wrong with Democratic Leadership.
DragonSworne
Banned
Obama convinced him not to run.
I'm starting to think Obama is a secret Republican.
SolidSnakex
Member
Because you've got to get people enthusiastic about voting for you. So, you need a message. "That Trump guy is pretty fucking awful" may have worked in some states, but not the ones she needed.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
FFS even if you're kidding; this is the kind of shit that wrecks democrats' chances.
Yeah; I guess I mean in an ideal world; why is being qualified and having good policy not a reason enough.
DragonSworne
Banned
gutter_trash
Banned
This works usually in a Parliamentary System where a leader in waiting waits their turn
But not so much for President
But not so much for President
dr3upmushroom
Banned
Love Trump's Hate.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Nope. Hillary used her rhetoric to defend the status quo and her poor judgement throughout her career. Trump and Bernie used their rhetoric to argue for transformational change in a whole slew of areas. Unfortunately, Mr. Sanders came up way short and had bad ideas about taxes...but his heart was in the right place.
Angelus Errare
Banned
ftfy
Pizza con salsiccia
Banned
Holy shit, I didn't know that.
lol at that link url "team-bernie-hillary-fucking-ignored-us-in-swing-states.html"
DragonSworne
Banned
Biden is a white male rhat didn't have a private email server. Sorry to say this, but Biden would have won.
You can't feed them with hate either but that was what Trump campaigned on and he won.
Biden eviscerated Trump at the DNC with his speech. He wouldn't have beaten Hillary for the nomination but up against Trump he would have secured the popular vote and won the electoral college. No way Pennsylvania and Michigan voting for Trump over Biden.
Thought the same exact meme lol.
SecretMoblin
Member
It was always weird that the "wait your turn" mindset, which is effectively standard operating procedure for the Republican presidential process, infected the Dems this cycle. People around me and all over the place online (including GAF) insisted that it was her time, that she deserved this, that she was the most qualified person ever to run for any public office in the history of humanity, that her divine right to ascension should be self-evident. Non-committal voters who are inherently skeptical of institutional power fucking hate that.
"You can't eat equality" is unprincipled nonsense. We can't abandon our basic values because they're inconvenient in a campaign.
Likewise, the notion that civil rights and economic security are somehow mutually exclusive is similarly absurd.
The takeaway from this election cannot be that Democrats need to laser-focus on the WWC and that minorities will vote for them anyway. That is just as myopic an attitude as the Clinton campaign is being accused of.
Likewise, the notion that civil rights and economic security are somehow mutually exclusive is similarly absurd.
The takeaway from this election cannot be that Democrats need to laser-focus on the WWC and that minorities will vote for them anyway. That is just as myopic an attitude as the Clinton campaign is being accused of.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Biden also isn't racist soooo he would have lost, he would have been supported by Obama. The same Obama many midwest voters who voted for him in 2008/2012 were against him moment he said made that statement on Trayvon Martin (like there have been what? 3 separate studies that show this); given that Biden has expressed the same sentiments as Obama on policing and the struggles of black America. You guys are crazy if you think RNC wouldn't use that as ammo.
Or alternatively, Biden could not speak on PoC issues at all in order to cater to the midwest states and watch his minority turn out be lower than Hillary's which means Trump still wins. If people argue abandom identity politics then turn around and say focus on WWC (this is called identity politics even if you're the default) since minorities will vote DNC anyways...he'll lose.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
He wasn't competitive. He lost by very large margins, Clinton barely campaigned against him. What would the race look like if she had slammed him with ads like she did Obama in 08 lol?
Do I think Biden could have beaten Trump? Yes. But it's irrelevant because Biden couldn't beat Hillary.
plagiarize
Banned
I really hope we don't make that mistake.
And yeah, 'you can't eat equality' is a horrible statement. If you are part of a minority that is massively under paid, then you sure as shit can eat equality.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Let me propose to you that if you take a look at many of the countries in the world who lead in equality, achieved that as a byproduct of equality-type proposals where a self centered majority voted in their own interests and minorities benefitted. Stronger taxes funds a better welfare state. It allows for better trained police, better education and health which gives opportunity to those who didn't have before. This opportunity increases the amount of minorities who are visible in the mainstream across all levels. And this reduces friction, fear and polarization between the mainsteam majority and the minorities.
I propose to you that people in Sweden or Switzerland or Australia or Luxembourg are not any bit less racist than Americans.
You are right. Equality would not help today or tomorrow. It would take decades, perhaps a generation to undo a lot of the damage that exist in America (and always have). There is a track record for other countries that carrying up the entire lower and middle class would have many benefits that would help minorities.
plagiarize
Banned
Factually wrong or not, I can't stand behind a 'what's good for white people is good for minorities' statement. What's good for minorities is good for everyone.
Statements like 'you can't eat equality' sound dismissive as shit, and they sure as hell aren't going to bring out minority voters.
We need more white voters, yes... but we've got to hold onto the voters we already have. And we don't do it with statements like that.
Raven117
Member
Maybe...but I refuse to accept that there was not a Democrat that could have soundly beat Trump.
plagiarize
Banned
It's insane to me when people say Clinton *couldn't* beat Trump.
She certainly *didn't*, but she absolutely had the ability to. It's not like everything went her way and she still lost.
I'm doing what I can. But this, one thousand times.
Angelus Errare
Banned
When has "By helping those well off you help those struggling/by helping the majority you help the minority/by helping whites you help minorities" ever worked in economics? It only smothers the issues those groups go through. Australia is shit for race relations so I'm not even sure why you would bring them up when Aboriginals get treated like absolute shit over there.
Like this mindset is encapsulated in trickle down reaganomics. How exactly has that worked out for the lower class?
Hell looking back through American history will tell you that helping the majority will help the minority...is like completely untrue. But on the flipside helping the minority has always benefited the majority.
You build homes from the bottom up, not top down.
More Fun To Compute
Member
The US presidency has a permanent official leader in waiting position while parliaments do not. If there is a "leader in waiting" it's because of internal deals in a political party that may never actually be honoured.
How exactly is the second closest primary after 2008 a large margin?
Clinton beat Obama by 1.5 million votes in 2008 and still lost. She beat Bernie by 3.6 million.
Clinton beat Sanders by 12%
Clinton beat Obama by 0.7%
John Edwards lost to Kerry and only had 19% of the vote
Bill Bradley lost to Gore and only had 21% of the vote
Jerry Brown lost to Clinton and only had 20% of the vote
It was a close race based on historic results in the Democratic Primary - how people continue to downplay how close this actually was and how the super-delegates and archaic primary rules helped shaped a narrative of Clinton being mathematically a winner after Super Tuesday. In the end the way the primary was scheduled favored her organization but didn't prepare her enough to actually address her issues with voters in the midwest.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
I mean, modest proposal, but it's faulty. Ultimately, helping the most vulnerable helps everyone. The other way around tends to gaslight the issues the most vulnerable face.
Like when an immigrant says to a black person, "how can you be suffering? America is so great!" When they are coming in with resources, or a college degree, or a community to be welcomed into. Just because the nation is doing well, doesn't mean anything will be fixed for the most vulnerable of our population.
As for the examples. Australia... I mean the aboriginal plight alone crosses them out. Hate is on the rise STILL in Luxembourg, despite how well they are doing, and xenophobia plagues both Sweden and Switzerland. So that track record is more a cover up.
Raven117
Member
True, its a little highsight 20/20, regardless...none of it matters.
We now have trumpito.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Because there isn't a democrat who could have "soundly" beaten Trump. Beaten him? OH easily. "Soundly" is just kinda crazy when Trump is basically the cumulation of white resentment of minorities personified; we're talking decades upon decades of baseless fear of PoC backed by media that have framed and reinforced people's views of PoC expressed by Trump. This was magnified by our first black President daring to actually speak out on that very white fear and how damaging it is to PoC.
Keep in mind that DNC has never won the white vote, keep in mind that despite the fact Trump basically told white women he could do what he wants with him and that him and his goons said women aren't entitled to their own body they still overwhelmingly voted for dude.
A democratic candidate could definitely beat Trump, but it wouldn't be some blow out. Once American liberals get over this delusion that love beats racism or that racism is on it's way out, or that people vote logically or any of this nonsense the better DNC will be able to counter such nonsense in the future.
DNC was (and white liberals in general) were shocked that this many Americans bought into racist politics; it was easy for them to ignore it (and minorities pointing it out) when RNC used dog whistles to say their message, Trump got rid of that abstraction and just went old school and liberals were like "ooooh my gawd I can't believe this in 2016!" It's always been there, and it's still and will always be a huge platform for RNC.
And let the church say Amen
EatinOlives
Member
Sadly minorities get shit on when the chips are down regardless of which side is talking.
One of the saddest things to come out of this election is this "but was appealing to minorities REALLY the right move??" narrative coming from Democrats/so-called "progressives". Seems their support for minorities is only contingent on whether it gets them brownie points to win elections. As soon as shit goes awry we're among the first to get jettisoned.
SolidSnakex
Member
The political landscape has just changed. I think Obama's win was a message to both parties. Both Democrats and Republicans tried to beat him up over his lack of experience, which they viewed as making his less qualified. But it seemed like most American's viewed that as a positive. That's not to say that people are just itching to vote for people with less qualifications than others. But rather that it doesn't automatically eliminate someone from an election like some feel it should. It's something that both parties should keep in mind going forward.
I think it's important to watch this as I think it puts that "you can't eat equality" comment in context
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etSoJxFQDnY
He also talked about the same thing on Hardball. So, he basically feels that Democrats are currently doing the opposite of what you feel they may do in the future. I don't think he's in any way implying that Democrats should be laser-focused on white working class workers over minorities. Instead he doesn't think they should be laser-focused on any one group because unlike Republicans, Democrats can actually appeal to everyone. They can appeal to the white working class while also appealing to minorities and the LGBT community. Democrats can actually do all that as Obama and Joe demonstrated quite well during both of their elections. It doesn't have to be one or the other nor should it be.
This is even something that Obama sorta touched on at a press conference. He pointed out how he went into counties to speak to people where he may have lost had he not. And in other cases he still lost, but maybe he only lost by 20% instead of 50% simply because he actually took the time to speak directly to people. It's something that Michael Moore spoke about in July when people accused him of just fear mongering. He said he saw that reaction when Trump spoke to people in Michigan and how he felt that Trump was going to win by tapping into a "Brexit strategy", which would be him winning Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Hillary couldn't even be bothered to campaign in Wisconsin. Seemingly convinced that because they voted for Obama that would automatically mean that they'd vote for her as well. Obama of course campaigned in Wisconsin six times, including the day before the election took place in 2012.
Raven117
Member
Yeah, but 2 million voters, Republican Voters, voted for Mitt Romney than Trump.
In the end, this lies on the feet of the Democrats...plain and simple. And I don't know who more to mad at. Doesn't matter.
And further...Dude...look at the 08 election...Obama won by a true landslide...and was supported by many (not all) white voters. That was a blowout. It can be done.
Are we in a post-racial America? Nope...not even close nor am I saying it is not a pressing issue.
Its more than race though. Its more than identity politics. That's what the DNC missed.
I think Biden would have done a better job at speaking to EVERYONE not just each individual group as identified by a single issue and pandering to that one issue.
In the end...everyone's got to eat.
- Status