Hillary Clinton: Classic or Dud?

xp simon:

I don't think Bernie would have won. There's just too much dirt on him in the oppo files, that the GOP held in reserve and Clinton never campaigned on.

Then again, what I wanted was a fire breathing moderate, without decades of (mostly fabricated) baggage. I believe Liz Warren could have taken 2016.

yeah, again, I don't think Sanders himself is the point. I think what he points to in terms of viable long term strategy for appealing to a broader voter base (and, yknow, improving material conditions for a lot of people) is.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-1yPXCXgAYiYAS.jpg:large

Everybody is also weirdly ready to forget that pretty much all the smart people who do nothing but think about this - Sam Wang, Larry Sabato, other aggregators - were putting odds of her victory in the 95%+ range. They were only undecided about whether it would be the biggest smackdown in 100 years, or the biggest smackdown in 1,000 years.

Yeah, 538, I hear you cry. Outlier 538 was roundly mocked (here and elsewhere) for being Not So Sure. However, that was less about whether she would win but by how much. They saw there was a large pool of undecideds, and registered resultant uncertainty, but still kept their predictions safely Hillarific.

We tend to forget: a 95 percent range still means a five percent chance of Trump winning. Or:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDoncJckows

idk when everyone thinks youre a shoe in to win and you dont win thats now usually a sign to not examine things critically afterwards

painting it as attacking hc or being wise after the fact smacks of an agenda of moral superiority which serves little or no purpose. not to say anything serves any purpose i mean yr president is a ham sandwich.

*not* usually

painting it as attacking hc

lol try reading this thread again

no fkn thanks but cmon ilx politics threads aint for the fine strokes

certain people - you may even be able to guess who they are - explicitly attack hc on the regular

How exactly do you run against a candidate like Trump? Outside of visiting the Midwest, what should she have done differently? The campaign was so strange. Every single thing Trump said or did was national news, while Hillary's dense policy speeches got no coverage whatsoever. Trump could say something stupid like "Obama and Hillary founded ISIS!" and talking heads would debate whether or not that was true for an entire day. Trump could get positive coverage by not tripping over his dick for 24 hours, whereas nearly every single story about Hillary was negative. Trump's supporters didn't care that he was unqualified or a bigot - in fact, they loved him for it. What do you do?

― frogbs, Tuesday, May 2, 2017 9:34 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

would it have killed the Obama DOJ to try to indict some of the banksters post 2008? feel like this utterly fucked them with some of the PWT who voted for trump.

42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump.

these people are morons who live in a fact-free environment and thus cannot be appealed to with logic or well-reasoned arguments. forget about them. turnout voters that *can* be appealed to rationally.

xp

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, May 2, 2017 3:22 PM (twenty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah they voted obama 4 years ago but can never be persuaded to vote dem again.

certain people - you may even be able to guess who they are - explicitly attack hc on the regular

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 22:44 (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

cmon now you couldnt bellysnake antman pubes under this bar

yeah they voted obama 4 years ago but can never be persuaded to vote dem again

they aren't subject to "persuasion", was my point. they can't be relied on.

this continuing desire to identify some reasonable rationale for voting for Trump is so weird. vast majority of his voters were delusional, racist, misogynist, or some combination thereof. I don't want them in our party.

its a fair point, but it comes down to whether you think the aim is to win using logic and reason, or indeed to win in any specific manner at all, or whether the aim is just to win.

and if you reject the latter approach...... oh shit a trump!

would it have killed the Obama DOJ to try to indict some of the banksters post 2008? feel like this utterly fucked them with some of the PWT who voted for trump.

like in what universe do these "PWT who voted for Trump" accurately remember the events of 8 years ago, much less the legal rationale required for indictments, much less what a fucking indictment even is.

xp

or whether the aim is just to win.

the goal is to get a governing majority. (Trump didn't get that - and the Dems are confronting the issue of how to assemble such a majority w out racist/misogynist wingnuts)

ok, but for yr 'without' disclaimer refer to my post again

Your point is well taken, darraghmac. As long as the point is to gather wisdom that may help us advance good and defeat evil in the future. Personally, I remain skeptical that these are the main motives of everyone who traffics in the "Hillary blew [an obviously winnable election]" and/or "Bernie would have won [this obviously winnable election]."

I suck at sports metaphors, but here goes: Imagine you're the commander of a sportsing team. It's the eighth chukker and the only scoreboard you can see says you're four touchdowns ahead.

What is your thought process:

A. "Oh, shit, we're only four touchdowns ahead? That sucks! We need to win by at least eight! So we'd better take lots of risks in the next inning, and unleash the Hail-Larry play where we totally jimjam the opponent's hassenpoop up their Snitch."

B. "Looks like we'll win this BowlCup as long as we play it safe and don't fuck up. So we should probably play conservatively, avoid risks, try to not get our star Seeker injured. Let's just try to keep moving the puck toward the goal-thingies."

C. "This sure looks like a nice lead, but the scoreboard could be wrong. So we'd better take lots of risks. Let's totally hassenpoop the opponent's jimjammers. Quick, call in the left wing and the right drumstick, we're gonna run the untried Hail-Barry play where we shotput the shuttlecock up the crease."

D. "Even though the scoreboard says we're winning, tacheon transmissions from the near future have informed me that we actually lost. We'd better totally change our strategy. Move the wingbangs over to the jibjab, and balk the rubber with a gelatinous wicket!"

And uh she won the most convincing popular vote count in American history, so clearly this election was notIke the others.

― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, May 2, 2017 6:01 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no she did not

like in what universe do these "PWT who voted for Trump" accurately remember the events of 8 years ago, much less the legal rationale required for indictments, much less what a fucking indictment even is.

xp

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:58 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I can't find the tweet but some focus group/study of the voters who tipped the scales for trump were still PISSED bout 2008 and there being no consequences for the people who started it

fp'd you for uncalled-for Quidditch references

xp

yeah no one who had their home foreclosed, and or rented a home that had been foreclosed, then bought out by a bailed out bank, and was then thrown out for not paying their rent, was remotely bothered about any of that.

I don't think Bernie would have won. There's just too much dirt on him in the oppo files, that the GOP held in reserve and Clinton never campaigned on.

― behavioral sink (Sanpaku), Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:25 PM (thirty-three minutes ago)

i voted for bernie in the primary and would've been thrilled to see him get the nomination but he definitely had some significant vulnerabilities that didn't come up in that race for obvious reasons. i have no idea who would've won a sanders v. trump race (before november i would've said sanders, but who fucking knows now that we live in the twilight zone) but i've no doubt trump would've run a more or less explicitly anti-semitic campaign against him, and it would've been really ugly to watch that play out.

voters who tipped the scales for trump were still PISSED bout 2008 and there being no consequences for the people who started it

so they voted for a guy who basically personifies and loves all the people who started it and was all set to hand them cabinet positions. Like I said, parsing this bullshit for logical consistency is not worth attempting. these people are idiots.

like, I don't really believe them that that was a motivating factor in their vote BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE

And uh she won the most convincing popular vote count in American history, so clearly this election was notIke the others.

― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, May 2, 2017 6:01 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no she did not

― k3vin k., Tuesday, May 2, 2017 7:03 PM

you know perfectly well what I mean -- as far as electoral/popular splits go

ymp- fair points against revisionism, but not against criticism after the fact, which is an unavoidable reality of... action, unfortunately.

and if its accepted that doing the right things loses you elections in surprising and dismaying ways every one in two or three i suppose you need to wear that proudly and make a selling point out of it or something.

voters who tipped the scales for trump were still PISSED bout 2008 and there being no consequences for the people who started it

so they voted for a guy who basically personifies and loves all the people who started it and was all set to hand them cabinet positions. Like I said, parsing this bullshit for logical consistency is not worth attempting. these people are idiots.

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, May 2, 2017 4:07 PM (thirty-seven seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and the american liberals living in a country where they don't hold either houses of the legislature, executive power, and are soon to have a conservative court for the rest of their lives are the smart guys in this scenario?

Everybody is also weirdly ready to forget that pretty much all the smart people who do nothing but think about this - Sam Wang, Larry Sabato, other aggregators - were putting odds of her victory in the 95%+ range. They were only undecided about whether it would be the biggest smackdown in 100 years, or the biggest smackdown in 1,000 years.

Yeah, 538, I hear you cry. Outlier 538 was roundly mocked (here and elsewhere) for being Not So Sure. However, that was less about whether she would win but by how much. They saw there was a large pool of undecideds, and registered resultant uncertainty, but still kept their predictions safely Hillarific

this is pure revisionism. the flaws in wang's model were pointed out very early (both here and by 538 [the website with a history of getting elections right]). wang either was too dumb or too lazy to fix his model -- i assume the latter, since he made all sorts of revisions toward the end as it became clear the race was closer than previously thought.

and 538 indeed was uncertain about whether HRC, not just by how much. they were getting mocked for putting her win probability in the 70s, not for saying she wasn't going to win by enough

and the american liberals living in a country where they don't hold either houses of the legislature, executive power, and are soon to have a conservative court for the rest of their lives are the smart guys in this scenario?

in the sense that there's less of a disconnect between their stated interests and their voting patterns, yes.

also sports analogy only works if there are rules that both parties are playing by and there is a working appeal process.

and the scores are decided by votes from idiots and racists.

the sporting analogy maybe doesnt work.

wang's model didn't even have hillary at 95% -- it was at >99%, weeks out from the election. anyone with any knowledge of probability or statistics could have told you that was nonsense. and plenty of people did!

is that the singer from The Juan MacLean

and the american liberals living in a country where they don't hold either houses of the legislature, executive power, and are soon to have a conservative court for the rest of their lives are the smart guys in this scenario?
― -_- (jim in vancouver), Tuesday, May 2, 2017 4:09 PM

No one cared about the Supreme Court we had more important make or break issues like TPP

And uh she won the most convincing popular vote count in American history, so clearly this election was notIke the others.

― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, May 2

gone Trump but for the other side, eh

As we lay this thread to rest i refer you to post #2 from 2001.

thanks morbs. i recommend turning off your tv the next time hillary is on it

@DRUDGE Watch Terry McAuliffe. Watch him closely. He's Clinton ticket to redemption in '20. Vicious, perfect Dem. Will unite behind 'Mac the Knife'

I suck at sports metaphors, but here goes: Imagine you're the commander of a sportsing team. It's the eighth chukker and the only scoreboard you can see says you're four touchdowns ahead.

can we leave the Falcons out of this

too soon

xp J.D.

Mudslinging against Sanders wouldn't need to rely (overtly) on antisemitism, as there are enough children of the Cold War that could be swayed by his pride in socialism or his mid-80s praise of Fidel Castro and the Sandinistas. Or his unemployment til age 35, etc.

Also, if Michael Moore is correct that the Trump vote was a grenade tossed against the D.C. establishment, I'm not sure the flyover electorate would understand that a sitting senator could fill this role. Unfortunately, the marginal vote is no more familiar with civics than Trump himself.

Ideally, the next Dem nominee will be a wonk that can nonetheless speak impromptu, conveying the discontent of the masses with fervor, and not have to rise above decades of calumnies. Clinton only had the wonk down.

his unemployment til age 35

ok where are you pulling this out of

his parents died before he graduated are you saying he won the lottery or something

did he finish college at 35?

After graduating from college, Sanders returned to New York City, where he initially worked at a variety of jobs, including Head Start teacher, psychiatric aide, and carpenter.

both his parents were dead when he was 21 i don't imagine he lived rent free for the following 14 years

hard not to conclude Dud at this point, but fwiw i still like her and think DJP is otm upthread

Sam Wang is a hack fwiw, despite some tenuous connection to Princeton, and shouldn't be read or grouped with others

Mea culpa, I mispoke from my memory of the Kurt Eichenwald piece:

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas...

That Eichenwald piece was ridiculous.