Support NeoGAF

[Planx]

And now fundraising is legalized bribes... of course of course.

Guess it's time to exile her to a yurt somewhere.

They already made a distinction between raising funds from a lot of individual donors, which Obama and Bernie were both really good at, and raising money from corporate donors that are probably expecting some kind of specific result for their large donation, which historically Hillary Clinton is good at

Are you in favor of corporate donors being able to spend large, unknowable amounts of money on elections and being able to use those donations or potential future donations as leverage? Or do you want to stop being obtuse?

 

[excelsiorlef]

They already made a distinction between raising funds from a lot of individual donors, which Obama and Bernie were both really good at, and raising money from corporate donors that are probably expecting some kind of specific result for their large donation, which historically Hillary Clinton is good at

Are you in favor of corporate donors being able to spend large, unknowable amounts of money on elections and being able to use those donations or potential future donations as leverage? Or do you want to stop being obtuse?

Take what you can get until you can fix Citizens United.

Given that Clinton did in fact run on the most progressive platform the Dems ever had, worked with Bernie and giving him unprecedented amount of influence in crafting the platform I'm not sure arguing that Clinton was clearly being bribed works as an argument.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Are you in favor of corporate donors being able to spend large, unknowable amounts of money on elections and being able to use those donations or potential future donations as leverage? Or do you want to stop being obtuse?

I'm in favor of whatever gets progressives elected so they can carry out their political platform instead of seeing this country fall back to the Reagan years in terms of domestic and foreign policy. I don't have the luxury of your principles I suppose.

Take what you can get until you can fix Citizens United.

Tell me again how that happens, do we get it done with a GOP or Dem led bench?

 

[RinsFury]

How many years of attacks is Hillary going to have to endure until people are satisfied?

 

[Planx]

Take what you can get until you can fix Citizens United.

Given that Clinton did in fact run on the most progressive platform the Dems ever had, by working with Bernie and giving him unprecedented amount of influence in crafting the platform I'm not sure arguing that Clinton was clearly being bribed works as an argument.

And if she were President right now and were implementing policies that curbed the power and influence of those corporate donors we'd know if that cloud of conflicting interest would block the sunlight of reform

but she's not President so we're just left holding a sack of dirty money that makes us look shady and advances the "Both Sides" narrative

 

[excelsiorlef]

And if she were President right now and were implementing policies that curbed the power and influence of those corporate donors we'll never know if that cloud of conflicting interest would block the sunlight of reform

but she's not President so we're just left holding a sack of dirty money that makes us look shady and advances the "Both Sides" narrative

Can you show me that she wouldn't have been further away from winning the election than she was had she kept Obama's stuff in place?

 

[Polioliolio]

Love it.

Wow. I just realized your chubby doughboy/ghost Trump avatar is Donal Duck's upside down head.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Tell me again how that happens, do we get it done with a GOP or Dem led bench?

I hear Jill Stein will ban fix it when she rolls out her Presidential omnibus that also bans wifi, vaccines and Russian boycotts

 

[Planx]

Can you show me that she wouldn't have been further away from winning the election than she was had she kept Obama's stuff in place?

No clue what you're asking for here

I'm saying that taking corporate money is a lose-lose situation. Either you win using it and you have to worry about those corporate interests taking their money elsewhere when you don't do things that benefit them, or you lose and you've just taken dirty money for nothing. In the first case if the corporate interests abandon your side in the next election now you have to pivot all your fundraising away from seeking corporate donations, which presumably made up a good chunk of change the previous cycle. In the second case you just turn voters away who see corporate influence as a big issue and let the opposition paint you as a corporate stooge.

Unless you take that money and are able to immediately turn it into results that ban future corporate money, but it's still a bad look to be promising to crowds that you'll ban corporate influence and then turn around to accept packets of corporate influence. Really makes it hard to believe that candidate and does nothing to beat back voter apathy

 

[excelsiorlef]

No clue what you're asking for here

I'm saying that taking corporate money is a lose-lose situation. Either you win using it and you have to worry about those corporate interests taking their money elsewhere when you don't do things that benefit them, or you lose and you've just taken dirty money for nothing. In the first case if the corporate interests abandon your side in the next election now you have to pivot all your fundraising away from seeking corporate donations, which presumably made up a good chunk of change the previous cycle. In the second case you just turn voters away who see corporate influence as a big issue and let the opposition paint you as a corporate stooge.

Unless you take that money and are able to immediately turn it into results that ban future corporate money, but it's still a bad look to be promising to crowds that you'll ban corporate influence and then turn around to accept packets of corporate influence. Really makes it hard to believe that candidate and does nothing to beat back voter apathy

My point is she might have lost even worse had she not altered how funds were taken in and I'm sure she'd have been blamed on that front somehow too.

For what it's worth one of the biggest victories (one of the only really) in the 2016 election was in North Carolina where it was corporate influence against the transphobic bathroom bill that caused people to lose faith in McCrory and elect Cooper.

 

[pigeon]

so you think it's not an ethically bad thing to conserve power for one's self at the expense of the stated purpose of a political party and notions of democratic ideals?

Let me retell this little bedtime story from a different perspective.

After Hillary lost in 2008 she realized she needed to work harder and do a better job of connecting with Democrats if she wanted to win in 2016. So she took a job with Barack Obama, worked hard to demonstrate her capabilities and skills, and spent the next eight years building relationships with other Democrats and with Democratic interest groups, listening to their needs, working to advance their goals, and doing all the other work you do to build a coalition and show somebody that you're worthy of representing them in the party.

And it worked! By dint of her hard work, extraordinary preparation, and dedication to progressive principles, she managed to convince basically all the other Democrats in the party that she would be an excellent candidate for president next time around. She was so effective at connecting with people that it was hard to even find a Democrat who wanted to run against her. Nobody wants to run a campaign they'll lose, and everybody knew she was so popular within the Democratic Party that it would be nearly impossible to beat her. Even the sitting vice president decided not to run when it became clear that even Obama had been won over to supporting Hillary after working with her for four years.

Now, which part of that specifically was unethical?

 

[TheChuggernaut]

The primaries will be discussed in great length by post 112.

Why do I have to constantly defend my vote? Why do the 'true progressives' always come into these threads and shit on Clinton? Why is it that nearly nine months after the election we still have a weekly if not daily thread about how shit Clinton is and how she needs to bow out of public life? Why didn't we do that to McCain, Kerry, Gore, Bush, Romney, etc.

Odd, huh.

But for real though

 

[Planx]

My point is she might have lost even worse had she not altered how funds were taken in.

For what it's worth one of the biggest victories (one of the only really) in the 2016 election was in North Carolina where it was corporate influence against the transphobic bathroom bill that caused people to lose faith in McCrory and elect Cooper.

so because the corporate interests came out in favor of the morally correct side on one issue we should be blind to everything else?

 

[excelsiorlef]

so because the corporate interests came out in favor of the morally correct side on one issue we should be blind to everything else?

I'm saying it's more nuanced than ban it all or you're corrupt and taking bribes

 

[ApharmdX]

Why is this a bad thing again?

National and state level campaigns are fucking expensive.

They are, but Hillary's campaign raised something like 190% of what Donald Trump's campaign did, right? It still couldn't save her.

I might argue that for 2020, we are probably better served with Hillary not involved at all over her using her skill to court corporate donors for the Dems... she's a toxic presence now, even with a large swath of the left. Ideally we'd have a candidate like Obama or Sanders who got lots of small donations.

 

[excelsiorlef]

They are, but Hillary's campaign raised something like 190% of what Donald Trump's campaign did, right? It still couldn't save her.

I might argue that for 2020, we are probably better served with Hillary not involved at all over her using her skill to court corporate donors for the Dems... she's a toxic presence now, even with a large swath of the left. Ideally we'd have a candidate like Obama or Sanders who got lots of small donations.

Literally her current plan as far as anyone else has hard is raise money for grassroots activist groups in partnership with Howard Dean.

 

[Planx]

I'm saying it's more nuanced than ban it all or you're corrupt and taking bribes

Do you disagree that it looks like corruption or that the possibility for corrupt leverage exists. Because I don't disagree that a mythical superperson could overcome those inherent issues through charisma and, once in office, political know-how and strong morals. I don't think I've seen a candidate able to effectively do that and the possibility that I will is smaller than the possibility of a normal candidate eschewing corporate donations and winning without a cloud of conflicting interests over them.

 

[xxracerxx]

Literally her current plan as far as anyone else has hard is raise money for grassroots activist groups in partnership with Howard Dean.

How fucking dare her for trying to progress this nation by getting Democrats elected. Who does she think she is?

 

[Planx]

Literally her current plan as far as anyone else has hard is raise money for grassroots activist groups in partnership with Howard Dean.

You mean the Howard Dean that went from politics to lobbying for healthcare companies?

Yeah, no reason to be cynical at all

 

[excelsiorlef]

You mean the Howard Dean that went from politics to lobbying for healthcare companies?

Yeah, no reason to be cynical at all

LOL ok moving on here....

 

[boiled goose]

Let me retell this little bedtime story from a different perspective.

After Hillary lost in 2008 she realized she needed to work harder and do a better job of connecting with Democrats if she wanted to win in 2016. So she took a job with Barack Obama, worked hard to demonstrate her capabilities and skills, and spent the next eight years building relationships with other Democrats and with Democratic interest groups, listening to their needs, working to advance their goals, and doing all the other work you do to build a coalition and show somebody that you're worthy of representing them in the party.

And it worked! By dint of her hard work, extraordinary preparation, and dedication to progressive principles, she managed to convince basically all the other Democrats in the party that she would be an excellent candidate for president next time around. She was so effective at connecting with people that it was hard to even find a Democrat who wanted to run against her. Nobody wants to run a campaign they'll lose, and everybody knew she was so popular within the Democratic Party that it would be nearly impossible to beat her. Even the sitting vice president decided not to run when it became clear that even Obama had been won over to supporting Hillary after working with her for four years.

Now, which part of that specifically was unethical?

Amazingly this illustrates why Hillary lost.

The goal was winning.
But why?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Amazingly this illustrates why Hillary lost.

The goal was winning.
But why?

What do you mean why?

 

[pigeon]

Amazingly this illustrates why Hillary lost.

The goal was winning.
But why?

To advance progressive policy goals?

 

[Gentleman Jack]

"I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost."

Hillary "I take responsibility for my decisions"

Seems like she's taking responsibility.

 

[shawnbuddy]

How many years of attacks is Hillary going to have to endure until people are satisfied?

Probably the rest of her life. First woman who makes a serious effort to intrude in a male-dominated sphere is always hated in her own time.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

They are, but Hillary's campaign raised something like 190% of what Donald Trump's campaign did, right? It still couldn't save her.

It couldn't save her because Benjamin Ghazi, Emails, and that little thing called Russia throwing how much money and support at demonizing her and stanning for Trump all over the internet.

I might argue that for 2020, we are probably better served with Hillary not involved at all over her using her skill to court corporate donors for the Dems... she's a toxic presence now, even with a large swath of the left. Ideally we'd have a candidate like Obama or Sanders who got lots of small donations.

Times have changed basically, couple points.

Obama beat Hillary on messaging and the fact that he was a unicorn, he was perfect and garnered unparalleled support with the voting populace. What I'm trying to say is that it was a one off, I would bet all the money I have that we will not see another "Obama" in my lifetime.

Additionally, it is a bit disingenuous to talk about Obama in this manner. What I mean by this is there is a bit of memory failure happening when it comes to his first campaign and the money he raised. Yes, it is true that Obama received a great deal of small donors. However, the vast majority of the money that was raised was still large donor, i.e. people who donated north of $1000. Only a small subset of donations were under $200, something around 25%. It also glosses over the mega donors he pulled in, looking at you Goldman Sachs.

To advance progressive policy goals?

You mean the most progressive party platform in modern history, the one that greatly including a certain someones ideas!? Yah who would want that, dirty corporate money.

 

[Planx]

LOL ok moving on here....

Dude lobbies alongside Newt Gingrich and uses his legacy to oppose policies that I think are good and I'm supposed to be reassured that he's working alongside Hillary Clinton?

 

[InstigateAndInquire]

Shortly after the election I wished for that perfect fantasy & chain of events where Trump went to jail, Clinton was vindicated and handed the Presidency. That first part may still happen but after seven months where if she even so much as sneezes there is an uproar and even when she's totally quiet she's thrown in the ringer... I can say without a doubt: Clinton is poison. It saddens me a great deal, I admire her on a personal level... but right now at least, it is what it is. I can only hope history is kinder to her than the people are today.

I do have some hope.

 

[Nafai1123]

Amazingly this illustrates why Hillary lost.

The goal was winning.
But why?

My entrance into the world of so-called "social problems"
Must be with quiet laughter, or not at all.
The hollow men of anger and bitterness
The bountiful ladies of righteous degradation
All must be left to a bygone age.
And the purpose of history is to provide a receptacle
For all those myths and oddments
Which oddly we have acquired
And from which we would become unburdened
To create a newer world
To translate the future into the past.
We have no need of false revolutions
In a world where categories tend to tyrannize our minds
And hang our wills up on narrow pegs.
It is well at every given moment to seek the limits in our lives.
And once those limits are understood
To understand that limitations no longer exist.
Earth could be fair. And you and I must be free
Not to save the world in a glorious crusade
Not to kill ourselves with a nameless gnawing pain
But to practice with all the skill of our being
The art of making possible.

Maybe that's why?

 

[shawnbuddy]

So you claim I watch Fox (my TV is used only for sports/Netflix) then call another person sexist.

I see where this is going. Good day.

Tout as unquestioned truth a sleazy cash-in tell-all that's been debunked everywhere BUT Fox News (and similar right wing sources like Donald Trump's syphillitic brain) and then run away when someone questions you. I see where this is going.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Uhmm no. Just her and her daughter.

In for Tulsi Gabbard 2020

How do you feel about politicians who flip-flopped on gay marriage for political gain?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Dude lobbies alongside Newt Gingrich and uses his legacy to oppose policies that I think are good and I'm supposed to be reassured that he's working alongside Hillary Clinton?

https://vtdigger.org/2017/05/17/howard-dean-help-lead-hillary-clintons-new-organization/

Here just read the damn information.

This is what she's doing... Though I'm sure you'll find a way to make it evil.

 

[NHarmonic.]

because she and her staff ran a terrible campaign that lost to a sexist, race bating, lying pig by failing to take him seriously as a challenger

She studied and prepared every debate, and trashed Trump in each one. US was going to elect the orange turd anyway. The reason Trump actually won was that people were worried a person with a vagina was going to run the country. So they didn't care about all the horrid stuff he said and his sketchy shenanigans as long as there was a penis leading the "free world". You can add that to the republican voters and russia hackings and voilá.

 

[Rayis]

It seems very obvious to me that the people mad at Hillary are incredibly naive and think you can get into politics and have a squeaky clean record and not get mired in bullshit just to get things done. Politics is inherently a dirty game.

I always go back to RuPaul's endorsement of Hillary Clinton to illustrate why she was a good candidate.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

It seems very obvious to me that the people mad at Hillary are incredibly naive and think you can get into politics and have a squeaky clean record and not get mired in bullshit just to get things done. Politics is inherently a dirty game.

I don't intend this to be mean, but I think that is because they came of age during Obama's presidency. That is the type of politics and POTUS they are used to. They expect that type of individual and I have some bad news...you don't see that in politics, especially on a national level.

 

[Planx]

https://vtdigger.org/2017/05/17/howard-dean-help-lead-hillary-clintons-new-organization/

Here just read the damn information.

This is what she's doing... Though I'm sure you'll find a way to make it evil.

Yeah found it, second quoted thing from Howard Dean is how he's going to connect those resistance groups to the "donor class" and "validate" these groups to that class. You know, the donor class, the one that might not be happy about groups of left wing activists going around demanding reforms to institutions that make the donor class a lot of money. There could be no possible ulterior motive for a board of directors with (ex?)lobbyists to get left wing groups hooked on corporate money.

She studied and prepared every debate, and trashed Trump in each one. US was going to elect the orange turd anyway. The reason Trump actually won was that people were worried a person with a vagina was going to run the country. So they didn't care about all the horrid stuff he said and his sketchy shenanigans as long as there was a penis leading the "free world". You can add that to the republican voters and russia hackings and voilá.

If the election were 100% about the debates and there wasn't any part where you have to show up to states to give speeches and have your campaign set up GOTV operations I'd agree with you

 

[iPaul93]

The point is, we’ll never move ahead as a nation if we keep following a failed candidate. It’s time to think about Sanders 2020.

Isn't Bernie too old already?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yeah found it, second quoted thing from Howard Dean is how he's going to connect those resistance groups to the "donor class" and "validate" these groups to that class. You know, the donor class, the one that might not be happy about groups of left wing activists going around demanding reforms to institutions that make the donor class a lot of money. There could be no possible ulterior motive for a board of directors with (ex?)lobbyists to get left wing groups hooked on corporate money.

You got it Clinton and Dean a corporate drug pushers trying to get young lefities hooked on corporate smack...

 

[Planx]

I don't intend this to be mean, but I think that is because they came of age during Obama's presidency. That is the type of politics and POTUS they are used to. They expect that type of individual and I have some bad news...you don't see that in politics, especially on a national level.

No, it's the opposite. I saw 8 years of compromise achieving relatively little, and what got done is now being rolled back and I'm left asking "Why should I start off at a compromised position?" Why shouldn't I demand the most I can of my politicians and their policies? Why shouldn't I wait until the last second to compromise my positions to pragmatism?

You got it Clinton and Dean a corporate drug pushers trying to get young lefities hooked on corporate smack...

Glad we're finally agreeing

 

[God Dayumm]

How do you feel about politicians who flip-flopped on gay marriage for political gain?

Hillary? I'm glad she did, it wouldn't be a reality now if politicians didn't change their stance en masse

 

[excelsiorlef]

Glad we're finally agreeing

Hardly

 

[jack_package_200]

Hillary? I'm glad she did, it wouldn't be a reality now if politicians didn't change their stance en masse

I think he was referring to Tulsi, bro.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

No, it's the opposite. I saw 8 years of compromise achieving relatively little, and what got done is now being rolled back and I'm left asking "Why should I start off at a compromised position?" Why shouldn't I demand the most I can of my politicians and their policies? Why shouldn't I wait until the last second to compromise my positions to pragmatism?

Was Obama the first POTUS you voted for?

Because promising the river and not being able to deliver even a part of it is why so many became disillusioned with Obama in the first place. Go ahead, promise single payer that automatically makes you undetectable with a HUGE majority of Americans. I'm sorry, that is a blatant fact.

 

[Jimothy]

Literally her current plan as far as anyone else has hard is raise money for grassroots activist groups in partnership with Howard Dean.

Color me cynical about any group taking money from corporate Democrats.

 

[Planx]

Was Obama the first POTUS you voted for?

Because promising the river and not being able to deliver even a part of it is why so many became disillusioned with Obama in the first place. Go ahead, promise single payer that automatically makes you undetectable with a HUGE majority of Americans. I'm sorry, that is a blatant fact.

Well it isn't a blatant fact and it's harder for positions to be furthered in the public's opinion when your leaders start off by saying that the best solution is politically impossible so why bother trying for it.

 

[Mael]

And I thought Americans didn't understand satire!
*look at thread*
I stand corrected.

 

[CazTGG]

Hillary can run in 2020, the question is whether she wants to or not (last I recall, she said she will never run for political office again). Given that, if there's any woman who's showing signs that they should run for president, it's Kamala Harris.

I can't remember the last time someone lost a primary and then ran in the next cycle. It's unheard of!

George H.W. Bush? He lost to Reagan in the 80's primary but won during 88' since Reagan couldn't run for a third term.

 

[Not]

And I thought Americans didn't understand satire!
*look at thread*
I stand corrected.

*whispers*

"Hillary."

Here they come.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Well it isn't a blatant fact and it's harder for positions to be furthered in the public's opinion when your leaders start off by saying that the best solution is politically impossible so why bother trying for it.

You gonna answer my question or no?

Did you miss the part that said,

Overall, 33% of the public now favors such a ”single payer" approach to health insurance,

So yah, the vast majority do not support a single payer approach.

Republicans overwhelmingly control Congress and even in a wave election in 2018 that isn't going to get us anywhere near single-payer. The point is it is exceptionally easy to promise the sky, the truth of politics is that it isn't gonna happen and promising something you have no chance of doing is rather bullshit. Not to mention promising certain things that are unpopular tend to get you written off immediately by subsets of the voting public.

 

[Tarydax]

George H.W. Bush? He lost to Reagan in the 80's primary but won during 88' since Reagan couldn't run for a third term.

Reagan himself lost to Ford. Nixon was the previous primary loser who got elected. IIRC all of recent history's former primary losers who went on to win the presidency were all Republicans.