Support NeoGAF

[Rockandrollclown]

This was one of the most important parts. You couldn't even get a fucking sign to post in your front yard. The Clinton campaign lost major mindshare and herd mentality. Driving through three connected swing vote states I saw a flood of Trump signs.

Clinton's campaign runners thought all other ways of campaigning were "old school" and TV ads were all that were needed.

I live in Ohio, but in a county that went for Hillary. I saw 1 Hillary sign in someone's yard this election season. You didn't see bumper stickers, signs, nothing. Maybe these things matter. Saw a fuckload of Trump signs/stickers/shirts.

 

[Tarydax]

Warren has BITE that Hillary lacks. I'm still sore that she sat on the sidelines in the Primary.

Warren's endorsement wouldn't have made Bernie campaign more in the South. It would have done nothing for him. Besides, most people outside of that Bernie bubble don't actually like her that much.

I think she's great, but she's even less relateable to the average voter than Hillary.

And how is Gabbard an Islamophobe? Because she spoke out on the atrocities happening in those countries? Namely Saudi Arabia? Is that really worthy of the tag? Can you not criticize Islam without being a phobic? I criticize Christianity daily for the shit that happens here in the USA. Does that make me phobic?

It's like Dude Abides said - Gabbard is a Hindu Nationalist who likes Assad because he kills Sunnis. The fact that she was even considered for a spot in the Trump administration should concern you, but she endorsed Bernie, so you give her a pass. You're proof that there are Democrats who could fall for a racist like Trump, and you wonder why Bernie supporters couldn't do a good job of convincing more minority voters to support him.

If she had endorsed Hillary, you would be calling her a conservative, racist, war-mongering hawk. You don't care about ideology, really - just Bernie.

So much wrong with this.

1: not only does closed Primaries work for Hillary, they can work against her too. Especially for Indepents who went overwhelmingly for Bernie. It's like you don't want her working for votes? Spoiler alert. She didn't work for votes in the GE. She lost.

And why did Bernie lose the primary to such a horrible candidate like Hillary? It wouldn't be because he didn't work for votes during the primary, would it? Because he ignored the South and campaigned almost exclusively elsewhere.

As for Minorities.. really? Bernie didn't work for them? Or he didn't APPEAL to them? What more did he need to do, exactly? Which of the two treated BLM protests with condescension again? Especially when marking them answer for their past? (I.E. Mass incarceration and "bring them to heel")

Well, let's see, he could have started by actually campaigning in the South, by not saying that those states didn't count because they're "conservative" Democratic votes, by not saying that race relations would be better because the economy would be better, by showing he could actually win a debate, and by not whining about the establishment every chance he got.

Oh, and I know you know this already but don't care because Bernie, but the guy did vote for the crime bill you're railing against. He even used his vote as proof that he was "tough on crime."

While Bernie was actually FIGHTING in the civil rights movement, Hillary Goldwater-girl Clinton was not.

No one reasonable cared about what Bernie did when he was young anymore than they cared about Hillary supporting Goldwater in her youth. Marching with MLK is not a replacement for actual policy.

Is this anecdotal? Or actually proven. I'm actually legit curious because I don't want to support ACTUAL islamophobia.

From where I'm sitting, Tulsi dared to be diplomatic and come to reason, and dared to question Trump's strike in a post-true Trump presidency?

Dared to be diplomatic my ass. She straight up questioned if Assad was behind the gas attacks when all evidence points to him being responsible, and then she doubled down. She only criticized Trump because he bombed Syria, a place where a dictator is killing Muslims (which is something she approves of). She has the support of fascists like Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon, and Bassam Khawam. Like I said, if she supported Hillary, you would suddenly find all of that very troubling.

 

[Father_Brain]

hindutva is totes a leftist ideology, guys

 

[BlitzKeeg]

This was one of the most important parts. You couldn't even get a fucking sign to post in your front yard. The Clinton campaign lost major mindshare and herd mentality. Driving through three connected swing vote states I saw a flood of Trump signs.

Clinton's campaign runners thought all other ways of campaigning were "old school" and TV ads were all that were needed.

And yet I still see a shit ton of Bernie signs.

I voted Clinton but would have absolutely preferred Bernie. He was the one actually bringing up the issues like climate change and economic inequality. Meanwhile Clinton just said "look how not Trump I am" which is fine for most sane people who don't drink classic or diet racism, (aka millennials and minorities) but that doesn't work for the majority of the voting public.

Bernie and Trump were both the "change" candidate that everyone wanted. It's just that one of them was a horrific conservative racist and the other was a socialist progressive. Since the country wanted change and the progressive didn't make it to the general election, they went for the horrific racist because most people in the US don't give a shit about race.

Hilary had the wrong platform and ran it poorly. Even if we had Bernie I still don't think we would have won it, but it would have been closer.

Hopefully people realize that the horrific racist was lying to them and actually go with the right side next time.

 

[Abounder]

Dayum.

I'm not sure about that source, but if true, that's rough. And if she tries to run in 2020, she's gonna get grilled

She'll get grilled but she'd lose for other reasons. After all Dems were all-in on a super predator goldwater girl, and we have a birther for president.

But I think Dems will be fine for next pres election. No one will skip the trail as much as Hillary did, it was hers to lose.

 

[shoplifter]

I live in Ohio, but in a county that went for Hillary. I saw 1 Hillary sign in someone's yard this election season. You didn't see bumper stickers, signs, nothing. Maybe these things matter. Saw a fuckload of Trump signs/stickers/shirts.

Same here, and I live in a pretty culturally mixed suburban neighborhood.

 

[Cagey]

Believing the scales tipped in favor of Hillary as the nominee long before the primary season doesn't require one to worship that lovably irascible old socialist Jew from Vermont with clear principles and values and some rather bad ideas and cry foul about a rigged system out to silence him.

The fact is the only remotely competitive adversary in the Democratic primary was, in fact, that lovably irascible old socialist Jew from Vermont with clear principles and values and some rather bad ideas. Hillary and the party apparatus lined up support across the board for Hillary and it was clearly going to be Her Turn in 2016. Even a hypothetical Joe Biden entrance into the race at the very beginning would have been seen as Joe challenging the favorite, albeit not the overwhelming favorite when juxtaposing Hillary v. the four other competitors.

Given her weaknesses as a candidate, both individual in a vacuum and within the context of America in 2016, whether you believe those weaknesses are fair or unfair or accurate or "the result of 30 years of smears and lies", anointing her... and then the only alternative to Hillary being Bernie Sanders was absurd.

The American people deserved better than those two as the choices.

We certainly deserved better than the 17 choices the Republicans put forth and the one that emerged victorious, too, but that's widely understood here.

 

[fantomena]

Hillary lost because of sexism, she didn't go to rural areas which Ive previously read Bill and Obama told her plenty of times she most go to and because she was very unlikable.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Believing the scales tipped in favor of Hillary as the nominee long before the primary season doesn't require one to worship that lovably irascible old socialist Jew from Vermont with clear principles and values and some rather bad ideas and cry foul about a rigged system out to silence him.

The fact is the only remotely competitive adversary in the Democratic primary was, in fact, that lovably irascible old socialist Jew from Vermont with clear principles and values and some rather bad ideas. Hillary and the party apparatus lined up support across the board for Hillary and it was clearly going to be Her Turn in 2016. Even a hypothetical Joe Biden entrance into the race at the very beginning would have been seen as Joe challenging the favorite, albeit not the overwhelming favorite when juxtaposing Hillary v. the four other competitors.

Given her weaknesses as a candidate, both individual in a vacuum and within the context of America in 2016, whether you believe those weaknesses are fair or unfair or accurate or "the result of 30 years of smears and lies", anointing her... and then the only alternative to Hillary being Bernie Sanders was absurd.

The American people deserved better than those two as the choices.

We certainly deserved better than the 17 choices the Republicans put forth and the one that emerged victorious, too, but that's widely understood here.

Why do people deserve better? Those candidates are a reflection of America and a lot of people supported them. Maybe the people need to be better rather than the candidates.

 

[jtb]

Look, winning campaigns are always filled with geniuses and losing campaigns are always filled with idiots. That's just the way it goes. This is magnified by 1000x when the Clintons are involved, since their orbit of "friends" eager to run to the press is a universe unto itself at this point.

For the pre-eminent book critic in the world (for better or, likely, worse) to just blandly restate this Politico-tier access journalism gossip unquestioningly, without any critique of, you know, how good the book is... it's dumb. It's Kakutani at her worst.

The Washington Post had a much better review. Because it was an actual review.

Showcase the juicy bits, and then actually tell us if the book has any actual value.

 

[KingV]

Why do people deserve better? Those candidates are a reflection of America and a lot of people supported them. Maybe the people need to be better rather than the candidates.

Because they were the two most unpopular major party candidates ever.

This would suggest that Nixon had better approval ratings during reelection in the middle of Watergate.... which sure is something.

 

[fantomena]

Why do people deserve better? Those candidates are a reflection of America and a lot of people supported them. Maybe the people need to be better rather than the candidates.

Where do people think politicians and presidents come from? The sky?

Since it was Hillary and Trump that fought in the GE, those were the best the american people could get. Which is kinda hilarious considering both Hillary and Trump are (if I remember correctly) the most unlikable presidential candidates in US history.

 

[jtb]

Because they were the two most unpopular major party candidates ever.

This would suggest that Nixon had better approval ratings during reelection in the middle of Watergate.... which sure is something.

That's not how Watergate worked.

 

[The Greek Freak]

Neither is yours and you seem convinced that Bernie would have won. I don't think there's any proof of that. There's a reason he lost the primary and it has nothing to do with Super Delegates.

You can't cry about Russian media narrative manipulation and then act like two weeks into the primaries places like CNN putting up super delegate counts up talking as if the DNC primary was already over doesn't influence people.

I can't tell you how many morons (both Sanders and Clinton supporters) I saw on Facebook ask why people are voting in the primaries when she already one via super delegates.

Conservatives don't have the monopoly on being influenced and manipulated by dumb ass news stories.

Also you forget how the primaries actually went, many Sanders supporters at the start assumed Hilary would win and were fine at the very least cringing and voting for her.

Then just like 08 her campaign did nothing but plant disgusting hit pieces in the media and imply insane things like him being a massive racist for not supporting reparations (as if she ever would LOL) and being partially to blame for fucking Sandy Hook. It was a flashback to all their birther shit.

By the end of the primary I was wishing I could vote for a non fully insane Republican like boring ass Jeb or Romney just as a middle finger to the campaign and all the places like gaf and /r/ politics that had the attitude of "if you voted for Sanders in the primary go fuck yourself you racist/sexist/commie we don't need you, yaaaaaas queen" but Trump wasn't something I could stomach.

I live in Ohio, but in a county that went for Hillary. I saw 1 Hillary sign in someone's yard this election season. You didn't see bumper stickers, signs, nothing. Maybe these things matter. Saw a fuckload of Trump signs/stickers/shirts.

Same here, my state went solidly for Clinton but I saw 20-30 times more Trump stuff than Clinton stuff. Hell even in November I saw more Sanders stuff than Clinton stuff. Hell in terms of bumper stickers I still see more Obama and even Romney than Clinton.

Dayum.

I'm not sure about that source, but if true, that's rough. And if she tries to run in 2020, she's gonna get grilled

If the DNC pushes her in 2020 the GOP could dump Trump and make literally anyone they wanted President. Might as well put a Koch brother or Putin himself.

 

[KingV]

That's not how Watergate worked.

Watergate robbery happened in spring 72, deep threat leaked to bob Woodward in June 72, Libby at al indicted September 72, Nixon re elected in November 72.


So that's kind of how it did work.

 

[jtb]

That's not how Watergate worked.[/QUOTE

Watergate robbery happened in spring 72, deep threat leaked to bob Woodward in June 72, Libby at al indicted September 72, Nixon re elected in November 72.

Google is your friend.

well, we can agree to disagree on this.

as much as I hate this most awful of political cliches (not unlike the -gate suffix), the "scandal" was the cover-up, not the crime. nixon was still politically insulated from watergate during the campaign. the select committee, saturday night massacre, haldeman's resignation, etc. were all post inauguration.

 

[KingV]

well, we can agree to disagree on this.

as much as I hate this most awful of political cliches (not unlike the -gate suffix), the "scandal" was the cover-up, not the crime. nixon was still politically insulated from watergate during the campaign. the select committee, saturday night massacre, haldeman's resignation, etc. were all post inauguration.

I actually mostly agree with that, it did look like he was going tosurvive it until after reelection.

 

[War Peaceman]

It is so dishonest when Sanders supporters complain that the DNC was more favourable to Clinton than him. Sanders, for all his good qualities, was an opportunist. He joined the Democratic part in order to run for president. He was happy to work alongside but not within them for the longest time. He could have built up positive relationships within the organisation (as Hillary did for many many years) but he didn't.

It should not be a surprise that people in the DNC would favour candidates they know and have worked with for many years. It isn't a stitch up. It is basic logic. The Democratic Party was more than happy to welcome Sanders and assist him (as they should have); to suggest there was a deep conspiracy against him is fantasy. He could have been a democrat for many years. He chose not to be.

Also, Sanders lost to Clinton. His message was simple but didn't appeal to vast swathes of the democratic base. Particularly minorities.

 

[ZOONAMI]

I live in Ohio, but in a county that went for Hillary. I saw 1 Hillary sign in someone's yard this election season. You didn't see bumper stickers, signs, nothing. Maybe these things matter. Saw a fuckload of Trump signs/stickers/shirts.

Dems have a stated policy these days of not spending money on literature for canvassers to handout or mailers or lawn signs or anything else because apparently it doesn't work.

I'm not sure where they are getting the data on that because it seems like a major issue to me. If a Hillary canvasser doesn't even have lit, they can't even hand something out to someone who maybe is busy and isn't all that receptive to talking in person. Or leave something at the door if no one answers.

 

[BotoxAgent]

It is so dishonest when Sanders supporters complain that the DNC was more favourable to Clinton than him. Sanders, for all his good qualities, was an opportunist. He joined the Democratic part in order to run for president. He was happy to work alongside but not within them for the longest time. He could have built up positive relationships within the organisation (as Hillary did for many many years) but he didn't.

It should not be a surprise that people in the DNC would favour candidates they know and have worked with for many years. It isn't a stitch up. It is basic logic. The Democratic Party was more than happy to welcome Sanders and assist him (as they should have); to suggest there was a deep conspiracy against him is fantasy. He could have been a democrat for many years. He chose not to be.

Also, Sanders lost to Clinton. His message was simple but didn't appeal to vast swathes of the democratic base. Particularly minorities.

yup. a lot of Sanders supporters are very delusional

 

[KingV]

It is so dishonest when Sanders supporters complain that the DNC was more favourable to Clinton than him. Sanders, for all his good qualities, was an opportunist. He joined the Democratic part in order to run for president. He was happy to work alongside but not within them for the longest time. He could have built up positive relationships within the organisation (as Hillary did for many many years) but he didn't.

It should not be a surprise that people in the DNC would favour candidates they know and have worked with for many years. It isn't a stitch up. It is basic logic. The Democratic Party was more than happy to welcome Sanders and assist him (as they should have); to suggest there was a deep conspiracy against him is fantasy. He could have been a democrat for many years. He chose not to be.

Also, Sanders lost to Clinton. His message was simple but didn't appeal to vast swathes of the democratic base. Particularly minorities.

Many think the DNC's role is to facilitate the primary and not to put their thumbs on the scale, period, with the exception of candidates that are clearly ratfucking, which Bernie wasn't.

I don't really see why Bernie remains an independent, other than he may think it's important to maintain independence to continue winning election in Vermont. Typically, I would agree that he could get more done as a part of the Democratic Party than as an independent.

 

[ZOONAMI]

It is so dishonest when Sanders supporters complain that the DNC was more favourable to Clinton than him. Sanders, for all his good qualities, was an opportunist. He joined the Democratic part in order to run for president. He was happy to work alongside but not within them for the longest time. He could have built up positive relationships within the organisation (as Hillary did for many many years) but he didn't.

It should not be a surprise that people in the DNC would favour candidates they know and have worked with for many years. It isn't a stitch up. It is basic logic. The Democratic Party was more than happy to welcome Sanders and assist him (as they should have); to suggest there was a deep conspiracy against him is fantasy. He could have been a democrat for many years. He chose not to be.

Also, Sanders lost to Clinton. His message was simple but didn't appeal to vast swathes of the democratic base. Particularly minorities.

Minorities didn't show up like they needed to in the general though, and I'm not sure they really did in the primaries either. A lot of Hillary primary voters were probably white and voted for her on the minority angle despite here having insane unlikabilty numbers. There was never a gaurantee minorities were going to show up. And she didn't campaign in the places where she needed to for the minority vote to make the needed difference. Winning NY was obvious and she spent almost all of her time there. Bernie would have been in MI, WI, and PA nonstop.

 

[The Greek Freak]

Minorities didn't show up like they needed to in the general though, and I'm not sure they really did in the primaries either. A lot of Hillary primary voters were probably white and voted for her on the minority angle despite here having insane unlikabilty numbers. There was never a gaurantee minorities were going to show up. And she didn't campaign in the places where she needed to for the minority vote to make the needed difference. Winning NY was obvious and she spent almost all of her time there. Bernie would have been in MI, WI, and PA nonstop.

Yuuup.

Sure Clinton killed Sanders with minorities in deep red states (especially those with closed primaries)....that really mattered in the fucking general.

Would be like a Republican destroying their opponent with white votes in a CA primary, doesn't matter when it comes to the actual fucking election.

Minorities didn't show up like they needed to in the general though, and I'm not sure they really did in the primaries either. A lot of Hillary primary voters were probably white and voted for her on the minority angle despite here having insane unlikabilty numbers. There was never a gaurantee minorities were going to show up. And she didn't campaign in the places where she needed to for the minority vote to make the needed difference. Winning NY was obvious and she spent almost all of her time there. Bernie would have been in MI, WI, and PA nonstop.

Almost none of my friends or family voted, and those of us that did it was more about fuck Trump than anything else.

State went blue but Hilary Clinton isn't the candidate you take a day out of work, or stand in line for 3 hours to go vote for.

In my lifetime voting % wise of just my close friends/family
- GWB No idea I wasn't living in the state at the time.
- Obame 08 basically 100%. Even my sister's who actively avoid politics were on board with making sure they could vote for the first black president. Not to mention he was charismatic as fuck.
- Obama 12 About 2/3rd.
- Trump 16 Probably less than 20%. "Trump won't win and I'm not voting for fucking Clinton anyways I have shit to do."

 

[Rockandrollclown]

Dems have a stated policy these days of not spending money on literature for canvassers to handout or mailers or lawn signs or anything else because apparently it doesn't work.

I'm not sure where they are getting the data on that because it seems like a major issue to me. If a Hillary canvasser doesn't even have lit, they can't even hand something out to someone who maybe is busy and isn't all that receptive to talking in person. Or leave something at the door if no one answers.

It'd be interesting to see the receipts on that (the study, not that its dem policy). It seems like the exact opposite of what Trump did. All things considered, you almost have to look at Trump's campaign as the epitome of doing things right, when they can get that asshole elected.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

State went blue but Hilary Clinton isn't the candidate you take a day out of work, or stand in line for 3 hours to go vote for.

This ended up being much more important than anyone in 2016 would have predicted. Especially with all the voter suppression going on. Nobody liked Hillary, and you don't go out of your way to vote for someone you dislike.

The best voter suppression tactic in 2016 wasn't anything the Republicans did. It was the Democrats suppressing their own vote by ramming such an unlikable candidate down America's collective throat.

It'd be interesting to see the receipts on that (the study, not that its dem policy). It seems like the exact opposite of what Trump did. All things considered, you almost have to look at Trump's campaign as the epitome of doing things right, when they can get that asshole elected.

What's amazing is that Trump the candidate was doing his best work to sabotage himself, but his campaign ended up being the much better run of the two compared to Hillary's campaign because it focused on simple fundamentals like frequent high-impact rallies in battleground states. Despite having absolutely zero prior experience, Trump was the actual retail politician who put himself and his people out there for everyone to see.

And yeah, I saw Trump signs everywhere. On yards, as bumper stickers on cars, even a huge banner on a wall overlooking a bridge I crossed regularly to get to work. I saw zero Hillary signs during the same period in 2016.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I see we're now at the blame minorities stage...

Be it for not turning out or simultaneously for being in the South during the primary


Btw it's weird that we can all agree that Clinton fucked up hardcore yet somehow in the Primary all the reports of how messy and disorganized Sanders' campaign was by the end will be dismissed as lies or exaggeration.

Why is it y'all can't just say both fucked up


Why does Sanders get the most charitable analysis and Clinton the most demonic... don't answer that I already know.

I'm impressed this became yet another DNC stole the Primary from Bernie conspiracy thread though. Good work...

 

[KingV]

Minorities didn't show up like they needed to in the general though, and I'm not sure they really did in the primaries either. A lot of Hillary primary voters were probably white and voted for her on the minority angle despite here having insane unlikabilty numbers. There was never a gaurantee minorities were going to show up. And she didn't campaign in the places where she needed to for the minority vote to make the needed difference. Winning NY was obvious and she spent almost all of her time there. Bernie would have been in MI, WI, and PA nonstop.

I think Hillary cast her die in the Primary to some extent. She won, obviously, but in doing so, created this whole "racist Bernie Bro" meme that we see even today on NeoGAF. The problem is that Bernie was strong where Hillary ended up losing the election. She really needed to find a way to repair that rift and failed to do so.

Some blame might also lie on Bernie in highlighting some of Hillary's less-flattering talking points, but nobody made her give speeches to Wall Street for fat fees and Bernie didn't make Elizabeth Warren say that donations changed Hillary's policy positions 12 years ago either. Bernie didn't push her to support the Catfood Commission in 2013, Keystone XL, or the TPP (which possibly Bernie should have also supported). So we can blame Bernie for pointing these things out, and really only the Catfood Commission and the Wall Street speeches were complete own goals that Hillary should have anticipated as being electoral problems.

She insinuated she didn't need Bernie Bros votes but she was wrong. I get that she got like 90%+ of Bernie supporters votes... but it might be that she didn't get the "right" 90%. She needed some measure of higher youth turnout and/or rural votes to win, and that was essentially Bernie's coalition in the primary.

Not healing the rift led to shit like the Hillary campaign I event I went to in October. Bernie was there and it was filled past capacity. Outside were Bernie supporters carrying anti-Hillary signs.

Hillary had the whole PUMA thing too, but i think the PUMAs may not have been as electorally as important.

 

[TyrantII]

I see this is the first election loss for many.

It's ok. There will be more.


Just remember, these debriefing pieces are more about assigning blame so the people running these campaigns can move on and find work and not take responsibility being in a losing campaign that may or may not have been helped over the cliff by their own efforts. After all, if they were to be blamed, who would hire them again?

The more interesting thing to me is here comes the NYT with their Clinton vendetta yet again. There is some irony, considering their place in creating the media narratives that surround the Clintons.

 

[Abounder]

Look, winning campaigns are always filled with geniuses and losing campaigns are always filled with idiots. That's just the way it goes.

No one could have predicted just how shitty Hillary would campaign, or that she would ignore a number of warning signs and advice from even the goddamn president. It was hers to lose and only in the aftermath are we seeing just how stupid and lazy she was. There was no genius behind her strategy. The veteran got outworked by a birther rookie.

 

[El_Tiguere]

It is so dishonest when Sanders supporters complain that the DNC was more favourable to Clinton than him. Sanders, for all his good qualities, was an opportunist. He joined the Democratic part in order to run for president. He was happy to work alongside but not within them for the longest time. He could have built up positive relationships within the organisation (as Hillary did for many many years) but he didn't.

The DNC and Hillary did not like Bernie because they are pro-corporate, and Bernie is anti-corporate. The corporate media did not like Sanders because they are pro-corporate, and Bernie is anti-corporate. Democrats in power don't like the progressive movement because they are pro-corporate, and progressives are anti-corporate. It had nothing to do with Bernie licking the balls of the party before deciding to run. It had all to do with corporations protecting their own loyal lapdogs in power, against the rising populist tide around the globe.


With that said, it is a SAD SAD "democracy" when a candidate that stands for principles needs to kiss ass to a party before he is given a fair shot, and posters that argue for that fail at standing up for democracy. Said party no longer stands for democratic principles of letting the policies themselves sway voters... but you can't blame them since they recognized that Bernie was beating Hillary when it comes to policies supported by more Americans. Thankfully, the out of touch older voters were ready to cast aside the wishes of those under 45 (Bernie), for what appeared the "safe" choice at the time. It was anything BUT the safe choice at the time if one bothered to look at the Clintons without 90s rose-colored glasses.

Progressive Icon Tulsi Gabbard licks Assad's taint because Assad bombs Sunnis and Gabbard's a Hindu nationalist who hates Sunnis. Not hard to figure out.

It's like warmongers ring the bell of propaganda, and all the half-asleep compliant voters salivate in compliance. That one article painting Gabbard as anti-Muslim reached so hard in their six degrees to bullshit, that it is sad. When war mongers don't like a sensitive anti-war voice, they will go to great lengths to demonize that person, and posters here are quick to parrot the talking points. Could it be that Tulsi is a US war veteran who has seen enough senseless death and violence, that she would be compelled to do everything in her power before the US plunges into another senseless war for bullshit ulterior motives? You have warmongers on the left calling her a traitor because she is questioning our plunge into another war in the ME? She is the greater American and the greater human being for wanting to find out the truth of what is going on in Syria.

Yeah, because he was blocked by the opposition party. A party whose main goal was to obstruct Obama and make conditions worse for the average American. Those average Americans awarded that obstruction by putting that party back into power after they caused one of the greatest economic debacles in American history. When Obama asked them to expand the wealth back down to poorer Americans, Republicans said no and demanded MORE tax cuts to the top 1%.

Seriously, your criticisms of Obama corporate ties ring hollow when the people you champion are dumb enough to vote for Republicans.

Yet they don't seem to realize that that very same party purposely sabotaged that 7-year economic recovery. Looks like Fox News did its job.

What rings hollow is absolving the Democrats of our shit economic state, while blaming it on Republican obstructionism. Both parties have marched hand in hand for the last 40 years to create our boom-and-bust financialized pro-corporate economy that Americans were disappointed with in 2016. Obama's bail out of the banks (while looking the other way of punishing the bank executives that bankrolled his 2008 campaign), Obama's lack of leadership on the ACA (which ultimately ended up as a scam boosting the profits of the health care sector), Obama's insistence that the economy was amazing when millions had left the work force, millions more were relying on food stamps/disability, millions more were in poverty, millions of middle class families were living paycheck to paycheck, millions of Americans were being crushed by rising costs of the basic necessities... no amount of Republican obstructionism should have lead Democrats to be complacent in all of this bullshit. Bernie Sanders had to come along to say that the economy was not fair, and that many Americans were not happy. He was proven right in November.

Bernie would have won in 2016, as he was leading in the head to head against Trump EVEN DURING THE PRIMARIES, by a much wider margin than Hillary was (who was usually within the margin of error of Trump). Bernie's favorability ratings were already over 50%, while the other two had NEGATIVE ratings in the -30%s. Bernie was already known as a socialist jew with crazy ideas... and voters STILL viewed him more favorably (hell he is currently the #1 congressperson across party lines, even with the barrage of FAKE bullshit narratives pushed by Clinton supporters, such as him not caring for minorities).

More votes in a primary that was rigged from every angle (electoral fraud, voter/registration suppression, false concerted propaganda or lack of coverage from a corporate media colluding with a campaign, manufactured debates so that less people are exposed to his message, etc etc)... more votes under this bullshit un-American coronation of a corporate puppet is not something to be proud of. It gave us Trump in the end.

 

[TyrantII]

No one could have predicted just how shitty Hillary would campaign, or that she would ignore a number of warning signs and advice from even the goddamn president. It was hers to lose and only in the aftermath are we seeing just how stupid and lazy she was. There was no genius behind her strategy. The veteran got outworked by a birther rookie.

And the story would be that 3.5 million popular vote rout and a brilliant strategic microtargeting campaign that beat back a white wave of racism and economic anxiety in rural areas should 200,000 votes changed. The stories in that universe are much different.

Both don't help much to get to the problems at hand in electing progressives and pushing forward better left leaning policies.

 

[perfectchaos007]

When the movie adaptation comes out I will definitely watch

 

[kirblar]

Fortunately, LGBT rights have never just been about the right for same sex marriage. It's a multitude of things.
Some people arrive at positions late. The Human Rights Campaign has found her positions and voting record as a senator to be quite good.

Hillary had some very forward thinking ideas for healthcare, education, infrastructure, green jobs/climate change, etc.

With the rise of far right populism, I'm willing to swallow some imperfections and a slightly checkered past for stability and keeping radical ideologues out of power.
In no way did I feel disgusted for my vote. She and Barack Obama were voices of reason in a time of polarizing anger.

People under a certain age just don't seem to get how fast public opinion on gay people flipped. The position wasn't politically tenable until very recently.

 

[Abounder]

And the story would be that 3.5 million popular vote rout and a brilliant strategic microtargeting campaign that beat back a white wave of racism and economic anxiety in rural areas should 200,000 votes changed. The stories in that universe are much different.

Both don't help much to get to the problems at hand in electing progressives and pushing forward better left leaning policies.

If we want to talk alt reality headlines then Hillary would have only narrowly won and criticism would still be well deserved for nearly losing to a birther/rookie, or skipping WI and flying home every night.

But these what-ifs are fun daydreams. Imagine if the Clintons didn't dick around before Gore's campaign, didn't vote for Iraq War 2.0, or actually worked hard vs Trump...

 

[Black_Sun]

Bill Clinton wasn't caught on tape literally confessing of sexual assault.

The thing is neither was Trump. His words came off clearly. He said they let him do it.

(It's definitely sleazy and creepy but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.)

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Because they were the two most unpopular major party candidates ever.

This would suggest that Nixon had better approval ratings during reelection in the middle of Watergate.... which sure is something.

Where do people think politicians and presidents come from? The sky?

Since it was Hillary and Trump that fought in the GE, those were the best the american people could get. Which is kinda hilarious considering both Hillary and Trump are (if I remember correctly) the most unlikable presidential candidates in US history.

So, the Republican field wasn't good enough, Hillary wasn't any good, and Bernie as her alternative wasn't any good. I think if it's true we had bad candidates across the board, then maybe it's because we have bad voters/electorate. It's hard to lead people who contradict themselves on issues, don't know anything, or don't care about much of anything. And they may be racist, hawkish, elitist, and so on top of that.

 

[xxracerxx]

The thing is neither was Trump. His words came off clearly. He said they let him do it.

(It's definitely sleazy and creepy but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.)

This is disgusting.

 

[Black_Sun]

This is disgusting.

It is what it is.

He's a creep but there was enough vagueness to it that a Republican could handwave it off as locker room talk.

 

[aeolist]

Why does Sanders get the most charitable analysis and Clinton the most demonic... don't answer that I already know.

mostly because of shit like this

 

[Liha]

This is disgusting.

I'm sure the majority of men have already used similar words in men only groups in combination with alcohol.

 

[xxracerxx]

I'm sure the majority of men have already used similar words in men only groups in combination with alcohol.

Not this shit again.

 

[jack_package_200]

I'm sure the majority of men have already used similar words in men only groups in combination with alcohol.

Speak for yourself

 

[The Greek Freak]

People under a certain age just don't seem to get how fast public opinion on gay people flipped. The position wasn't politically tenable until very recently.

If you want to be a coward and wait 30 years to flip flop on not treating LGBT people as if they were scum due to some grand political plan, well I won't say fine but I see the pragmatism.

You don't get to flip like 5 years ago then act like you're progressive when even my fucking grandparents didn't take that long.

I'm sure the majority of men have already used similar words in men only groups in combination with alcohol.

As someone who has been in literally dozens of locker rooms with teammates I know are scummy as shit, LOL NO.

 

[Cybit]

think I might grab this audiobook. who do ya'll think might write the ultimate book about this election, though? I'd like to see Toobin's take.

I thought there's a Game Change 3 coming - so that might be it. That said, this book is good - regardless if you are a Clinton fan or Bernie fan I think it is worth reading. Working on my second readthrough

mostly because of shit like this

Sadly the chapter about mercenaries and missionaries is even worse IMO.

 

[Dude Abides]

It's like warmongers ring the bell of propaganda, and all the half-asleep compliant voters salivate in compliance. That one article painting Gabbard as anti-Muslim reached so hard in their six degrees to bullshit, that it is sad. When war mongers don't like a sensitive anti-war voice, they will go to great lengths to demonize that person, and posters here are quick to parrot the talking points. Could it be that Tulsi is a US war veteran who has seen enough senseless death and violence, that she would be compelled to do everything in her power before the US plunges into another senseless war for bullshit ulterior motives? You have warmongers on the left calling her a traitor because she is questioning our plunge into another war in the ME? She is the greater American and the greater human being for wanting to find out the truth of what is going on in Syria.

Lol. "Anti-war voice for peace" Tulsi wants to bomb the shit out of Muslims.

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/649458891168714752?lang=en

Fucking clown shoes.

Bernie would have won in 2016, as he was leading in the head to head against Trump EVEN DURING THE PRIMARIES, by a much wider margin than Hillary was (who was usually within the margin of error of Trump). Bernie's favorability ratings were already over 50%, while the other two had NEGATIVE ratings in the -30%s. Bernie was already known as a socialist jew with crazy ideas... and voters STILL viewed him more favorably (hell he is currently the #1 congressperson across party lines, even with the barrage of FAKE bullshit narratives pushed by Clinton supporters, such as him not caring for minorities).

Perhaps Bernie could have played up his support for the racist Minuteman Militia during the general and peeled away some rural whites from Trump.

 

[War Peaceman]

Minorities didn't show up like they needed to in the general though, and I'm not sure they really did in the primaries either. A lot of Hillary primary voters were probably white and voted for her on the minority angle despite here having insane unlikabilty numbers. There was never a gaurantee minorities were going to show up. And she didn't campaign in the places where she needed to for the minority vote to make the needed difference. Winning NY was obvious and she spent almost all of her time there. Bernie would have been in MI, WI, and PA nonstop.

Hillary was very popular with minorities in the Democratic primary. Bernie, less so. The minorities who did turn up voted more for Hillary than Sanders. That's a fact. Unless you want to only allow white people to vote in primaries than I don't see the relevance.

I'm not pro or anti-Hillary/Sanders. She clearly made several tactical mistakes. I didn't make any point that Bernie would or wouldn't have won. I don't know where I stand on that. My point was specifically about the DNC and how it would naturally prefer a candidate who has fundraised and supported and worked hard in support of them in the past over an outsider who joined solely to run for President.* It is basic logic and human nature that they favoured Clinton. But they still let Sander run, just as they did Obama.

It seems incongruous to suggest that the DNC is so powerful it could heavily tilt a primary election to Clinton over Sanders, but also massively fuck up an election.

*Bernie has done and continues to do a lot of good in support of progressive values, but has always done so from the outside. There are consequences to this.

The DNC and Hillary did not like Bernie because they are pro-corporate, and Bernie is anti-corporate. The corporate media did not like Sanders because they are pro-corporate, and Bernie is anti-corporate. Democrats in power don't like the progressive movement because they are pro-corporate, and progressives are anti-corporate. It had nothing to do with Bernie licking the balls of the party before deciding to run. It had all to do with corporations protecting their own loyal lapdogs in power, against the rising populist tide around the globe.


With that said, it is a SAD SAD "democracy" when a candidate that stands for principles needs to kiss ass to a party before he is given a fair shot, and posters that argue for that fail at standing up for democracy. Said party no longer stands for democratic principles of letting the policies themselves sway voters... but you can't blame them since they recognized that Bernie was beating Hillary when it comes to policies supported by more Americans. Thankfully, the out of touch older voters were ready to cast aside the wishes of those under 45 (Bernie), for what appeared the "safe" choice at the time. It was anything BUT the safe choice at the time if one bothered to look at the Clintons without 90s rose-colored glasses.

Clinton is clearly more of an establishment pick than Bernie. No doubt. However look at the actual policies she ran on. They were very progressive. In order to court Sanders' supporters she moved left on economic policies. This is good. You should like this! This is how politics works! Perhaps she wasn't as left wing on economics as you'd like - that's fine - but consider that you have to run for the entire USA. You have to compromise and shift things over time. You can argue that Democrats have failed to do so - I would say Clinton/Blair third way politics let down economic progressives, though not social progressives - but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It seems odd that you bemoan democracy when Hillary beat Sanders by over three million. To repeat my point: if the DNC is so powerful that it can turn voters against Sanders in favour of Hillary (over 3 million), why could it not do so for 100,000 in MI, PA, WI? The answer is: Sanders' message was very good and is important to bring forward, but Hillary was better liked!

Bernie could have run as an independent if he wanted. But he wanted the exposure and infrastructure from being a Democratic Party representative. You can't have it all. If you want to change the constitutional arrangement to, for example, a parliamentary system that allows for multiple parties, cool. That is a great idea! But nothing to do with the DNC! They have a hard enough time getting elected as is!

 

[SlimySnake]

mostly because of shit like this

Shes a fucking politician. I can promise you Bernie has a shit list too.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Cant wait to goto the book store and read some of this!

Watergate robbery happened in spring 72, deep threat leaked to bob Woodward in June 72, Libby at al indicted September 72, Nixon re elected in November 72.


So that's kind of how it did work.

Nixon wasnt implicated until after the election. Obviously noone cared enough about libby and hunt to vote for mcgovern.

 

[aeolist]

Shes a fucking politician. I can promise you Bernie has a shit list too.

that is not every politician

 

[Dude Abides]

Now Dick Morris is a reliable source and astute judge of character! Hopefully next we'll hear the real truth about Obama and Larry Sinclair.