Support NeoGAF

[TestOfTide]

Why even vote at all then if just in 4 years the other side will take over?

Clinton would have fought tooth and nail to keep progressing this country forward on so many issues that the Trump administration is working tooth and nail to dismantle. Fuck thinking that the short term doesn't matter.

She wouldn't even have had a functional Cabinet because the GOP were dead set on obstructing her ability to even confirm a cabinet.

Like, if she had won by BIG margins, THEN it would have made a difference because then the Senate might have flipped. But a close win would have meant she would have not been able to get anything through the senate or house.

 

[Psychoward]

Is an intersectional socialist so hard to find?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: A successful one in American politics? Yes.

 

[pigeon]

Is an intersectional socialist so hard to find?

There aren't that many out socialists in the Democratic Party, since it was persona non grata for like fifty years. Which is kind of the point the class-analysis folks keep making. But in fairness being intersectional was also pretty verboten until quite recently.

The Democrats are still working on catching up to their voters. Somebody's going to have to do a face turn.

 

[legacyzero]

Have we all decided if Hillary simply saying something makes liberal angels cry yet?



This argument would have a ton more weight if the caucuses Bernie won were actually democratic

Hmm.. How bout those closed primaries? Like New York?

Oh fuckin stop. Your embarrassing yourself.

Well, that was a good counter-point. I'm totally convinced now.

The mental gymnastics it takes to think that the main reason that Bernie lost by over 3 million votes in the Primary was because of softball DNC stuff and yet put the majority of the blame on Hillary for losing the GE (and still winning the popularity vote by 3mil) while failing to consider other factors.

Well, when SDs throw their weight around before it even began, DWS and Podesta emails, etc etc. Yeah, If that even effected a handful of votes, it's bullshit. Indefensible.

ftfy

God forbid the guy tries to fix the part of the government that pushes legislation to benefit Minorities, etc.

Oh, and it's not like his record, his past, and support wasn't there for ANYBODY to view at any time

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

The RNC was all-but publicly directing super-pacs to bring down Trump. They were pretty much publicly talking about rules that could be used to steal the nomination from him. And he still won. Acting like the tiny little things the DNC did made it impossible for Bernie to win is nonsense.

The most fucking ironic thing here, and I do mean that is look at this thread and how quickly it turned to shit. It is like clockwork on these threads.

You have the Bernie people saying look at Clinton, she cannot accept why she lost. She cannot take the ultimate blame. She has to blame Russia, FBI, Wikileaks, etc. All the while they do not see that they are doing the same thing for Bernie by saying it was the DNC and the media.

I voted for Bernie, but he lost because he could not and was not going to get minority votes. I voted for him because I agreed with him on an ideological level, but he would have gotten destroyed in a general election.

The thread is about Clinton, it would be really cool if for just one time it didn't turn into a Bernie would have won thread.

 

[kirblar]

Why even vote at all then if just in 4 years the other side will take over?

Clinton would have fought tooth and nail to keep progressing this country forward on so many issues that the Trump administration is working tooth and nail to dismantle. Fuck thinking that the short term doesn't matter.

It's a coldblooded argument that Trump was likely to be a very bad executive and that taking the hit here would line the Dems up way better for success in '18 and '20 (and thus, redistricting) than a middling Clinton presidency that was likely to face a recession. The fear is that we wouldn't get much done and would proceed to make the Gerrymandering problems created by the 2010 wave election even worse if w/ another wave in 2018/20.

 

[BADMAN]

But that was literally the point you made.

You literally said he might have won in a total open primary system...

Sorry that was in response to a previous post. I was trying to point out that Clinton's bigger issue was that she failed to rally voters to vote for her and not against Trump. Bernie being an inpiring candidate that got independents to side with him made her problem a lot worse.

 

[legacyzero]

How does bringing Bernie up in every thread about the general election help anyone?

Because he's blamed as one of the reasons she lost. So Hillary supporters will bring that up when it's convenient, but when somebody comes in to defend him, he's the worst

Bernie would've lost, and he would've lost badly.

Like when Trump had no chance? How's that workin out?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

because it is the candidate's job to win over voters

i mean, duh

a) She won the most amount of voters.

b) Who was unaware about anything from either of these candidates? The problem is many people refused to listen, do their due diligence, or a certain other counter-productive voter that couldn't get behind the person they were 100% vote for because they were still upset about the primaries. (and of course, the enormous, unending presence of misinformation, sometimes participated in by that certain other voter)

c) do better and hold these people accountable for their ignorance. Don't let your contempt for the women overwhelm rationality.

 

[M0nochromatic]

I find it endlessly amusing that even after all this time, and when even Hillary herself doesn't mention him at all in the article, it always comes back to Bernie.

 

[Fenderputty]

Hmm.. How bout those closed primaries? Like New York?

What about them? That they're still more democrstic than caucuses?

 

[danm999]

Because he's blamed as one of the reasons she lost. So Hillary supporters will bring that up when it's convenient, but when somebody comes in to defend him, he's the worst

Nobody in this thread even said the word "Bernie" until the Bernie would have won crowd swept in!

Jesus Christ

 

[Psychoward]

Well, when SDs throw their weight around before it even began, DWS and Podesta emails, etc etc. Yeah, If that even effected a handful of votes, it's bullshit. Indefensible.


God forbid the guy tries to fix the part of the government that pushes legislation to benefit Minorities, etc.

Oh, and it's not like his record, his past, and support wasn't there for ANYBODY to view at any time

So, sorta like the FBI, Wikileaks, Comey and Russia even if it only effected a handful of votes?

Love the last part of your post too where you still can't comprehend why Clinton was more popular with Southerners and minorities and instead choose to casually talk down to minority voters lol.

 

[royalan]

At this point, the people still complaining about Hillary need to just admit that nothing she did short of present herself for a full shaming would be considered good enough.

All data we have on the outcome of the election says she's not wrong.

I mean, I'm sure SOME of this played a part. But those that gleefully disregard the MAIN reasons why she lost will forever entertain me. Blame sexism, racism, stupid people all you want. The fact wont change. She just wasn't a good candidate. How many elections did she need to run in to prove that?

-Not very principled on the issues
-She's a moderate. Very clearly.
-Iraq War
-NAFTA
-TPP
-Corporate Interests
-Campaign focused on platitudes and cliches, and outrage at the dirty man that is Trump.
-Unwilling to appeal to Bernie-crats, After the DNC clearly tipped the scale in her favor, which is being argued in court currently
-Unwilling to appeal to the working class, especially in the Rust Belt, which voted Obama TWICE(Which we should NOT have lost)
-Abandoning WI, even after losing to Bernie there (which was a clue to the greater problem on the horizon)

None of this makes sense, and you really aught to stop repeating it and then claiming you want to have a good faith discussion?

I mean, "she's a moderate, clearly." No, clearly she isn't, and even a glance at her legislative record would demonstrate otherwise. BUT, even if she were, suddenly this country doesn't have a history of electing moderate presidents or something?

She ran on platitudes...so, like Bernie? "Change you can believe in" isn't exactly a detailed white paper.

These rest of this list is just a bunch of buzzwords. I mean, come on...

 

[excelsiorlef]

Because he's blamed as one of the reasons she lost. So Hillary supporters will bring that up when it's convenient, but when somebody comes in to defend him, he's the worst

All those Clinton fans just so can't get over the primary...now listen close as I tell you how the DNC stole the primary from Sanders like that closed primary in New York....

 

[xxracerxx]

Because he's blamed as one of the reasons she lost. So Hillary supporters will bring that up when it's convenient, but when somebody comes in to defend him, he's the worst

Except that it wasn't a Clinton supporter who brought him up first...not too mention it took 62 posts for his name to appear.

They've learned absolutely nothing.

They blame Bernie Sanders for Hillary's lost.

 

[DietRob]

Because he's blamed as one of the reasons she lost. So Hillary supporters will bring that up when it's convenient, but when somebody comes in to defend him, he's the worst

I feel like I've read every reply in this thread. Where did anyone do this? I'll admit I'm wrong if you show me the post. Otherwise bringing Bernie into the thread is on you champ.

 

[Kettch]

I mean yeah, but I don't see too much of a difference there. One leads to the either.

Either way, people need to realize that Trump was never going to be "easy" to beat for anyone - Hillary or Bernie or O'Malley or whoever.

I don't really agree. Trump had a -21 favorability rating on election day and it was even worse for the rest of his campaign. He was a horrible, horrible candidate.

While most of us here would agree that Clinton would have made a fine president, the public clearly did not see it that way. She had a -13 favorability rating on election day and it held pretty steady throughout her campaign as well. She was not a good candidate.

I can't seem to find Obama's pre-election charts anymore, but if I recall correctly he was around +33 on election day. Now, we're unlikely to find a miracle candidate like him any time soon, but there is a very large gap there.

I can't tell you if Sanders or O'Malley would have done better, but we clearly needed someone better. Our safe candidate can't be cruising along just a little above the worst candidate ever.

 

[Steel]

The thread is about Clinton, it would be really cool if for just one time it didn't turn into a Bernie would have won thread.

Any thread about Clinton is a Bernie would have won thread in waiting nowadays. It's insufferable, but there it is

 

[Kin5290]

It's a coldblooded argument that Trump was likely to be a very bad executive and that taking the hit here would line the Dems up way better for success in '18 and '20 (and thus, redistricting) than a middling Clinton presidency that was likely to face a recession. The fear is that we wouldn't get much done and would proceed to make the Gerrymandering problems created by the 2010 wave election even worse if w/ another wave in 2018/20.

It's an argument that is very comforting now that we've lost, but any trauma experienced by those that the Trump administration persecutes until 2020, the empowerment felt by white supremacy groups throughout the country, and the damage done to America's standing in the world and it's soft power, and not to mention the irreversible damage due to climate change, America's loss of power due to China taking prime position in the fight against climate change, and the second and third order geopolitical effects of climate change (like, say, a refugee crisis that makes the Syrian refugee crisis look like Spring Break), are not things that can be easily repaired through redistricting.

Like, Jacobin magazine had an oped commenting on how 5 years of Macron's neoliberalism would only serve to embolden Le Pen and the NF, ignoring that nothing is so emboldening as Le Pen winning in the first place.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Ehhhhh. You had Russia/Comey but Trump also had "Is is this guy forreal?" bullshit coming out of his mouth on a daily basis. Republicans blessed you with the layup of the century and you rolled it off the front rim.

The people in the right places loved that shit, and that's how you win Presidency while losing by 4 million votes.

 

[Mr. RPG]

Except that it wasn't a Clinton supporter who brought him up first...not too mention it took 62 posts for his name to appear.

I am a Hillary supporter.

 

[Psychoward]

Any thread about Clinton is a Bernie would have won thread in waiting nowadays. It's insufferable, but there it is

Like, it would make more sense if Bernie was younger and could actually run in 2020. Then ok, whatever, it may be derailing but at least they have a reason to derail; to get the word out of who they think the next nominee is.

As it is it's pointless, even if Bernie would have won, Bernie himself is now irrelevant to the presidential race. It's time to find new candidates.

 

[BADMAN]

I mean, you're basically using more reasons why he would have lost in the general then.

1) Bernie isn't a household name in comparison to Trump

2) The media did an even worse job at covering Trump in the general than anything in the Primaries

This is all pointless speculation but sure.

1) He became a bigger figure in the public eye after it was already too late for him to win. Being a household name doesn't matter as much when in the general because people are voting between two people who both would have gotten proper screentime from the get go.

2) Again speculation, but I think the media would have given Bernie more screen time than Hillary in the general due to him being a better speaker and having stronger positions. But who knows

 

[ForsakenLotus]

Clearly these were major factors. I just hope that the Democratic Party doesn't shy away from introspection and understanding the key issues that hurt Hilary Clinton and the party overall.

 

[xxracerxx]

I am a Hillary supporter.

Sorry, I took your post to be a Bernie would have won post.

But regardless, you brought Sanders up for no apparent reason.

 

[mnannola]

She lost the rust belt because she wasn't really a change candidate. If the rust belt's job prospects were grim with Obama, what was Clinton proposing that would have changed that?

Obviously Trump was a horrible choice that I'm sure many of them will soon regret, but at least he offered something different. If your life wasn't good under Obama, it probably wasn't going to improve that much under Clinton.

 

[jack_package_200]

I am a Hillary supporter.

If thats true, then why the fuck did you bring up Bernie Sanders?

He wasn't mentioned ONCE in the interview and no once else brought him up.

 

[TestOfTide]

Because he's blamed as one of the reasons she lost. So Hillary supporters will bring that up when it's convenient, but when somebody comes in to defend him, he's the worst

What did Hillary do during the primaries? She focused on attacking Trump and the GOP.

What did Bernie do during the primaries? He focused on claiming the Democrats are all corporate shills and trained his fanbase to hate Hillary more than anyone else.

If Bernie had conceded by March like any rational person in his position would have, I wouldn't put any blame on him. But Bernie spends way too much of his energy attacking the part of the Democratic Party that are Democrats mostly because we are sick of the GOP's social views.

 

[Psychoward]

If thats true, then why the fuck did you bring up Bernie Sanders?

He wasn't mentioned ONCE in the interview and no once else brought him up.

I wonder

I am a Hillary supporter.

Yeah but clearly one who's still got an axe to grind over the primaries and preferred Bernie.

Edit: I voted for Bernie too but there was no reason to bring him up in this thread, the article didn't talk about Bernie, nobody in the thread had blamed Bernie for the loss. I have seen people blame him as one of the factors yes and I can see the argument but there's no reason to derail it before that argument even gets brought up.

 

[paperboywriter]

If emails drowned clintons campaign, what are you guys think would have happened to bernie? The trump campaign would have publicly hanged him for his opinions.
There is no contest, Hillary was by far the better candidate to run against Trump. Cant believe this is even a question.

 

[jack_package_200]

I wonder

Yeah but clearly one who's still got an axe to grind over the primaries and preferred Bernie.

Nice receipts.

 

[madstarr12]

Hmm.. How bout those closed primaries? Like New York?

Well, that was a good counter-point. I'm totally convinced now.

Well, when SDs throw their weight around before it even began, DWS and Podesta emails, etc etc. Yeah, If that even effected a handful of votes, it's bullshit. Indefensible.

Lol, he ran in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY, the rules included states where only DEMOCRATS chose the DEMOCRATIC PARTY nominee. Bernie got as close as he did because of Caucuses, without them, Clinton's margin would have been larger.

 

[Lord Fagan]

There's a whole lot of, "you know," bullshit in here.

I can understand where she's coming from, but she's still bitter about all this. She expects the rest of us accept her explanation of things while kinda, maybe, tacitly admitting this was a popularity contest she lost that shouldn't have even been that much of a contest, in the primaries or the general.

You know?

 

[Mr. RPG]

If thats true, then why the fuck did you bring up Bernie Sanders?

He wasn't mentioned ONCE in the interview and no once else brought him up.

Sorry, I took your post to be a Bernie would have won post.

But regardless, you brought Sanders up for no apparent reason.

Because PoliGAF still seems to believe that Bernie Sanders damaged Hillary's chances of winning, when he was instrumental to Hillary's campaign. He campaigned for her extremely hard and gave her his endorsement when most of PoliGAF said unequivocally that he would never do so. Hillary didn't lose because of Bernie.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

I don't really agree. Trump had a -21 favorability rating on election day and it was even worse for the rest of his campaign. He was a horrible, horrible candidate.

While most of us here would agree that Clinton would have made a fine president, the public clearly did not see it that way. She had a -13 favorability rating on election day and it held pretty steady throughout her campaign as well. She was not a good candidate.

I can't seem to find Obama's pre-election charts anymore, but if I recall correctly he was around +33 on election day. Now, we're unlikely to find a miracle candidate like him any time soon, but there is a very large gap there.

I can't tell you if Sanders or O'Malley would have done better, but we clearly needed someone better. Our safe candidate can't be cruising along just a little above the worst candidate ever.

Clinton would have been a terrible president. She has now lost two bids for president despite having several significant advantages. I don't know why people think she is competent enough to be president.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

There's a whole lot of, "you know," bullshit in here.

I can understand where she's coming from, but she's still bitter about all this. She expects the rest of us accept her explanation of things while kinda, maybe, tacitly admitting this was a popularity contest she lost that shouldn't have even been that much of a contest, in the primaries or the general.

You know?

She won that popularity contest.

 

[The Technomancer]

She's right. Also I'm not sure why this interview happened

 

[kirblar]

It's an argument that is very comforting now that we've lost, but any trauma experienced by those that the Trump administration persecutes until 2020, the empowerment felt by white supremacy groups throughout the country, and the damage done to America's standing in the world and it's soft power, and not to mention the irreversible damage due to climate change, America's loss of power due to China taking prime position in the fight against climate change, and the second and third order geopolitical effects of climate change (like, say, a refugee crisis that makes the Syrian refugee crisis look like Spring Break), are not things that can be easily repaired through redistricting.

Like, Jacobin magazine had an oped commenting on how 5 years of Macron's neoliberalism would only serve to embolden Le Pen and the NF, ignoring that nothing is so emboldening as Le Pen winning in the first place.

Jacobin's isn't a good comparison, mostly because they have a not-so-hidden ulterior motive in being big fans of Le Pen's socialist economic outlook.

It's very true that those things are going to be worse, but it might have been even worse for the country if we got a competent white supremacist in the office in a later election. The US electorate is very reactionary, its very likely an RRR situation was necessary before we're able to take control again.

Because PoliGAF still seems to believe that Bernie Sanders damaged Hillary's chances of winning, when he was instrumental to Hillary's campaign. He campaigned for her extremely hard and gave her his endorsement when most of PoliGAF said unequivocally that he would never do so. Hillary didn't lose because of Bernie.

As they say in Journalism: No one reads the retraction.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Clinton would have been a terrible president. She has now lost two bids for president despite having several significant advantages. I don't know why people think she is competent enough to be president.

Being able to win a popularity contest and being a competent politician are entirely different things.

You think Trump's a good president?

 

[polyh3dron]

She's right.

Which is why she was a flawed candidate.

Squeaking by against Trump isn't a good look either.

This is also true.

 

[Psychoward]

Because PoliGAF still seems to believe that Bernie Sanders damaged Hillary's chances of winning, when he was instrumental to Hillary's campaign. He campaigned for her extremely hard and gave her his endorsement when most of PoliGAF said unequivocally that he would never do so. Hillary didn't lose because of Bernie.

Nobody said that she did in the thread or the article, it seems like in your fight against infighting you're actually continuing the rift between Bernie and Hillary voters rather ironically.

 

[Lord Fagan]

She won that popularity contest.

Not in the counties that mattered.

 

[royalan]

Clearly these were major factors. I just hope that the Democratic Party doesn't shy away from introspection and understanding the key issues that hurt Hilary Clinton and the party overall.

This isn't what keeps me up at night. The DNC won't shy away from intospection. It's happening now, and the last time the party was in this position, we got Obama.

The far more worrisome thing, in my mind, is Russia. They successfully hacked our election and cast the Democratic party into complete chaos. They were successful at this. And all they've learned in the months since is that they can completely fuck with us and get away with it. Obama didn't punish them because he had too much belief in American democracy, and Trump won't punish them because he doesn't give a fuck about American democracy.

Not just as a country, but as a party we have got to find a smarter way to counteract this, because I don't see any reason why Russia wouldn't do it again in our next election, and why it won't be more sophisticated the next time. And the scarier thing? Next time, it'll actually be supported by the current president.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

She's right.

Which is why she was a flawed candidate.

Who's a perfect candidate? '08 Obama? Good luck ever replicating that.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Because PoliGAF still seems to believe that Bernie Sanders damaged Hillary's chances of winning, when he was instrumental to Hillary's campaign. He campaigned for her extremely hard and gave her his endorsement when most of PoliGAF said unequivocally that he would never do so. Hillary didn't lose because of Bernie.

So go to the PoliGAF community thread and do that, there was zero reason to bring it up. That is the point. No one in this thread said Hillary lost because of Bernie. Why does this come up every fucking time.

Hillary said why she lost. Her fault and the external issues working against her, specifically in the two weeks leading up to the actual vote.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Clinton was a shit candidate. Trump was a shittier candidate. Dems can't set the bar that low.

"What are you gonna do? Waste your vote on the other guy? Who is 1000 times worse?!" isn't gonna cut it. Hopefully they get their act together in 2020.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Not in the counties that mattered.

"that mattered".

See, statements like encapsulate a big reason as to why the EC needs to go.

 

[Mr. RPG]

Nobody said that she did in the thread or the article, it seems like in your fight against infighting you're actually continuing the rift between Bernie and Hillary voters rather ironically.

Huh?

There are hardly any Bernie supporters left here anymore.

 

[pigeon]

Because PoliGAF still seems to believe that Bernie Sanders damaged Hillary's chances of winning, when he was instrumental to Hillary's campaign. He campaigned for her extremely hard and gave her his endorsement when most of PoliGAF said unequivocally that he would never do so. Hillary didn't lose because of Bernie.

None of these statements about "PoliGAF" are true.

If you want to refer to individual posters, why not just refer to individual posters?