New Clinton postmortem of campaign includes criticism of Sanders policy promises

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sanders should have used the primaries to support and travel through the country for her. At least he was willing to do it unlike Clinton.

Now there is all the lasting damage!
 
shawnbuddy said:
But his behavior definitely didn't help. It'd be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think it's more complicated than that; the one thing people don't bring up as much as I'd expect was that it was clear by the DNC he'd lost some level of his sway over some of his more fervent supporters. He'd asked his delegates to not boo or be disruptive on the convention floor, and it did basically nothing because at that point they believed he was cowed by The Man and that they'd be standing up for the true principals of Bernie or whatthefuck ever by booing. They boo'd Bernie himself calling for a vote for Hillary.

The thing that's hard to articulate about the Bernie effect is that at some point it stopped being about him as anything other than a figurehead for the ideas and ideals people wanted to hardline; when the post-primary reconciliation came, it was met with resentment and a sense of betrayal and while the votes ultimately moved the way Clinton was discussed didn't.

Like, I think Bernie holding out as long as he did and pushing the way he did amped things up, but the Cult of Bernie ended up outstripping him and causing problems that exceeded the man himself. Which is a problem because for the most part the hardcore Bernie supporters realized Clinton was better than Trump (yeah that was a typo ), but the people in the weird grey in between just heard Trump is a racist and Clinton is a shill and people with pure intentions hate her, so... where's the motivation to vote?

A million things went wrong in that campaign, and two or three of them going right probably would have tipped it. But I think the problem with the Bernie phenomenon went beyond the behavior of the man himself. For all 08 was what it was, I don't remember hearing about disruptions at the DNC to match what happened in 16?
 
Gordon Shumway said:
image.php
Click to expand...

Hahahaha

Well played! I really needed that today
 
pigeon said:
They voted for a Nazi. I understand them fine.

I suspect you do too, which is why you're so invested in convincing people not to understand them.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand anything, and you'll keep losing, and you'll keep crying about it while not ever accomplishing anything.

"I'll just call people Nazis on the internet."

Great political platform.


Sanders had the potential to perform better than Clinton, had the working class politics on top of that. But I guess all of his supporters are also secret racist Nazis.
 
Where were all y’all with these hot “she is damaging herself with how she’s campaigning!” takes back during the election? Everybody swore she was winning and slam dunking but now everybody is an expert and doesn’t want her to discuss factors of their loss because we the experts all always knew she was the problem and was destined to lose
 
Sephzilla said:
BjkwMtm.gif


I'd say Hillary not campaigning in states Bernie won paved the way for Trump more than Bernie did.
Click to expand...
Except now evidence is coming to light of direct election manipulation by the Russians in key blue counties in the states she lost by tiny margins.

Let's not forget in all of this that the election was fraudulent and illegitimate.
 
soul creator said:
I always find it funny that the argument was simultaneously "you have no idea how to pay for something like Medicare For All" and also "your middle class tax-raises that would pay for Medicare For All would scare off everyone!". Which is it?

I often find "it's impossible" arguments to be more often an argument from cynicism anyway, rather than an actual impossibility. It's more a "corporate and other political interests are too damn strong, so there's no point in even fighting them, and this is all we can get" approach. So that's how you get all the "well, maybe we can just tweak the ACA every once in a while and hopefully turn into Switzerland one day" takes. Those same takes also presuppose that Republicans would be open to that approach, which is weird, considering they didn't even vote for the already compromised, relatively corporate-friendly ACA.

Another thing I'd argue that the whole point of something like a presidential campaign is to articulate a vision for what/where you want the country to be. If you compromise during the actual legislative process, that's one thing (especially if you can at least clearly show you were fighting for something more before compromising, unlike Obama for example), but what's the point of compromising when you're trying to GOTV? Who are you compromising with at that point? The point of putting Medicare For All in a platform is that it's a policy that perfectly communicates your vision of "health care should be a right, and no one should ever go broke paying medical bills". And it's an obviously doable policy (not easy, but it's obviously doable, since it literally already exists in other countries). It's not in your platform because you think it'll get instantly passed in your first year of office.

I've seen arguments that candidates should continue to take mass amounts of corporate money because there's no point in handcuffing yourself, yet will turn around and limit themselves to arbitrary notions of "realism" when it comes to any sort of major progressive policy. Even though this kind of "realism" is the kind that often says spending trillions of dollars on war is rational because "something has to be done", while spending trillions of dollars on guaranteeing health care is "irrational" and similar to wanting "ponies". Meaning, not actually "realism" at all, but simply different priorities and agendas by various interests.
Click to expand...

If I was the kind of person to gif response I would respond with one of those gif clap ones

Instead I'll say yes to all of this post.
 
Does nobody remember when Hillary and Chelsea claimed that if we went forward with Bernie's healthcare plan that Republican governors would strip people of their health care? That bullshit line?
 
The Silver said:
Here we go again, Trump will continue to get worse while people still fight about the primaries.
Click to expand...

It's almost like Clinton shouldn't be releasing this divisive post mortem while the wound is still gaping and fresh(and quite frankly currently fighting infection) or something.
 
DOWN said:
Where were all y’all with these hot “she is damaging herself with how she’s campaigning!” takes back during the election? Everybody swore she was winning and slam dunking but now everybody is an expert and doesn’t want her to discuss factors of their loss because we the experts all always knew she was the problem and was destined to lose
Click to expand...

Well, saying anything else was a ban reason on GAF.
 
Rumblebones said:
If Dems think Bernie is to blame y'all ain't learned shit and the midterms are gonna be rough.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I feel so sad for our country, people are still blaming Bernie for Hillary's loss, what the hell? :(
 
shamanick said:
This is pouring gasoline on the fire that's raging through the Democratic party right now. Calls for unity by the Clinton wing are completely hollow.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think Hillary Clinton reiterating her chief complaints with Bernie Sanders' campaign in a book published in fall 2017, will have much impact in the 2018 midterms or the 2020 presidential election.
 
DOWN said:
Where were all y’all with these hot “she is damaging herself with how she’s campaigning!” takes back during the election? Everybody swore she was winning and slam dunking but now everybody is an expert and doesn’t want her to discuss factors of their loss because we the experts all always knew she was the problem and was destined to lose
Click to expand...

Where were we? We were everywhere. Go look back and there are dozens of posts saying exactly that. But we were constantly shouted down.
 
Not the 2016 primary again...

The only good thing is that this is coming out now, and not during the 2018 midterms and 2020 primaries.

The sooner this ends, the better.
 
DOWN said:
Where were all y’all with these hot “she is damaging herself with how she’s campaigning!” takes back during the election? Everybody swore she was winning and slam dunking but now everybody is an expert and doesn’t want her to discuss factors of their loss because we the experts all always knew she was the problem and was destined to lose
Click to expand...

it's pretty normal to change your opinion in the face of facts that contradict your preconceived notions of how things are

refusing to do that is fairly prevalent among centrist democrats though
 
ElBoxyBrown said:
On the contrary they want Bernie to try again, which also isn't learning anything.
Click to expand...

I hope they're just gonna work with him to find a younger candidate that he'd pledge to get behind or something. Let that political capital go to someone who, frankly, we're going to be able to count on existing 10 years from now. Anybody who wants a man who will be 75+ or whatever to run for president deserves whatever shit comes out.
 
Hello? This is Hailun! said:
I know many, many, many people who saw their careers go down the drain after NAFTA in the 90s, who voted for Obama and didn't see the return of blue collar jobs, and were scared to death of what Hillary and the TPP would do that NAFTA didn't finish.

Their vote for Trump isn't justified, but that's their thinking.

But if a Dem tells them they only voted for Trump because they're racist and they'll never vote for a Democrat ever again.
Click to expand...
Have you considered that maybe, possibly, these "many people" you know.... may just not be very nice people if they're willing to elect a racist monster because they might see some money b/c of it?
 
googleplex said:
Means jack shit when you spent an entire year convincing your supporters that Hillary Clinton was a crook, that was rigging the primaries and would go to war as soon as she took office. Then you continue with this message way past the point where you could win the primaries using any sort of math.
Click to expand...

If Bernie's able to convince his supporters that Hillary is a crook, why do you assume he's not able to convince them that she's not a crook but actually great?

You're assigning too much and too little power to him at the same time.
 
Joeytj said:
Not the 2016 primary again...

The only good thing is that this is coming out now, and not during the 2018 midterms and 2020 primaries.

The sooner this ends, the better.
Click to expand...

i don't know why anyone expects it to end. the conflict isn't even between clinton and sanders, it's between centrism and leftism and both sides still have vocal proponents in the party.
 
dynamitejim said:
Yes, this isn't relitigating the 2016 primaries so much as it's litigating the 2020 primaries a few years early. "Bernie would have won" is basically code for "2020 is Bernie's turn".
Click to expand...

I would not be surprised one bit if they ran her again in 2020.


Bernie needs to sit it out as well. Tell Al Franken he doesn't have a choice.
 
shamanick said:
This is pouring gasoline on the fire that's raging through the Democratic party right now. Calls for unity by the Clinton wing are completely hollow.
Click to expand...

This is because the Clinton wing's concept of "unity" is and always has been "get behind me OR ELSE".

Everyone got behind the Clintons except Bernie who actually asked "Or else what?"

Turns out the Clintons never had an answer for that question.
 
Sirpopopop said:
Yeah, she was so hard into PUMA that she endorsed Obama rather quickly after suspending her campaign. She was so hard into PUMA that she served in his administration afterwards.
Click to expand...

If Clinton is not responsible for PUMA because she later endorsed Obama and ultimately after he won, took a job in his administration, then surely Sanders is not responsible for those of his supporters that voted for Trump, given that he later endorsed Clinton and was open to taking a job in her administration (which, of course, never came to pass)
 
Unknown Soldier said:
This is because the Clinton wing's concept of "unity" is and always has been "get behind me OR ELSE".

Everyone got behind the Clintons except Bernie who actually asked "Or else what?"

Turns out the Clintons never had an answer for that question.
Click to expand...

Trump is the OR ELSE in your equation.
 
kirblar said:
Have you considered that maybe, possibly, these "many people" you know.... may just not be very nice people if they're willing to elect a racist monster because they might see some money b/c of it?
Click to expand...

"Some money".

You don't know many working class people, do you?

Actually, you don't know many people in general, do you?


It took people 15 years to claw themselves out of the hole that the first Clinton presidency left them in. "You're racist!" isn't a good explanation as to why they don't want to repeat it.
 
aeolist said:
it's pretty normal to change your opinion in the face of facts that contradict your preconceived notions of how things are

refusing to do that is fairly prevalent among centrist democrats though
Click to expand...
It’s one thing to speak on retrospective analysis. It’s another to act as if it’s fine that you didn’t know at the time because of the data during the campaign, but Hillary also not knowing because her data said the same thing was idiotic and you know better so she shouldn’t discuss how various things went for her team behind the scenes.
 
pigeon said:
If Bernie's able to convince his supporters that Hillary is a crook, why do you assume he's not able to convince them that she's not a crook but actually great?

You're assigning too much and too little power to him at the same time.
Click to expand...

Because he never even attempted the latter and did plenty of the former.
 
iammeiam said:
I think it's more complicated than that; the one thing people don't bring up as much as I'd expect was that it was clear by the DNC he'd lost some level of his sway over some of his more fervent supporters. He'd asked his delegates to not boo or be disruptive on the convention floor, and it did basically nothing because at that point they believed he was cowed by The Man and that they'd be standing up for the true principals of Bernie or whatthefuck ever by booing. They boo'd Bernie himself calling for a vote for Hillary.

The thing that's hard to articulate about the Bernie effect is that at some point it stopped being about him as anything other than a figurehead for the ideas and ideals people wanted to hardline; when the post-primary reconciliation came, it was met with resentment and a sense of betrayal and while the votes ultimately moved the way Clinton was discussed didn't.

Like, I think Bernie holding out as long as he did and pushing the way he did amped things up, but the Cult of Bernie ended up outstripping him and causing problems that exceeded the man himself. Which is a problem because for the most part the hardcore Bernie supporters realized Clinton was better than Trump (yeah that was a typo ), but the people in the weird grey in between just heard Trump is a racist and Clinton is a shill and people with pure intentions hate her, so... where's the motivation to vote?

A million things went wrong in that campaign, and two or three of them going right probably would have tipped it. But I think the problem with the Bernie phenomenon went beyond the behavior of the man himself. For all 08 was what it was, I don't remember hearing about disruptions at the DNC to match what happened in 16?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree that the monster got way out of his control. He did try to reign it in, but couldn't.

It's like something you learn when working in news: corrections ain't worth shit. If you convince people of the first thing, that's what sticks and any changes aren't going to be noticed. After he smeared Hillary with all the evil establishment rhetoric he could, Bernie couldn't wipe it away.
 
soul creator said:
I always find it funny that the argument was simultaneously "you have no idea how to pay for something like Medicare For All" and also "your middle class tax-raises that would pay for Medicare For All would scare off everyone!". Which is it?

I often find "it's impossible" arguments to be more often an argument from cynicism anyway, rather than an actual impossibility. It's more a "corporate and other political interests are too damn strong, so there's no point in even fighting them, and this is all we can get" approach. So that's how you get all the "well, maybe we can just tweak the ACA every once in a while and hopefully turn into Switzerland one day" takes. Those same takes also presuppose that Republicans would be open to that approach, which is weird, considering they didn't even vote for the already compromised, relatively corporate-friendly ACA.
Click to expand...
Many countries have successful multi-payer systems that also provide universal coverage. The reason (directly enacting) single-payer is an impossibility is that you would have to destroy a LOT of private infrastructure to set it up. Your only chance for it is to backdoor it via a public option, and it would become a de facto single payer scenario if private insurers started to abandon the baseline coverage market.
 
pigeon said:
If Bernie's able to convince his supporters that Hillary is a crook, why do you assume he's not able to convince them that she's not a crook but actually great?

You're assigning too much and too little power to him at the same time.
Click to expand...
If you’ve already created a movement against what Hillary stands for, you can’t be surprised that the movement says supporting her afterward would be selling out to a crook. He already did significant damage that can’t be undone.
 
Vox publishes excerpts of a book in which Clinton discusses Sanders' role in undermining her candidacy in the general.

Berniebros: "Hillary blames all of loss on others, accepts no responsibility!"

But of course.
 
Hello? This is Hailun! said:
Sanders had the potential to perform better than Clinton, had the working class politics on top of that. But I guess all of his supporters are also secret racist Nazis.
Click to expand...

No, the people who actually voted for white supremacy are in fact people who voted for white supremacy.

I'm not here to absolve your family members.
 
Hello? This is Hailun! said:
"These people who voted for Obama but not Clinton are incredibly fucking racist".



I know many, many, many people who saw their careers go down the drain after NAFTA in the 90s, who voted for Obama and didn't see the return of blue collar jobs, and were scared to death of what Hillary and the TPP would do that NAFTA didn't finish.

Their vote for Trump isn't justified, but that's their thinking.

But if a Dem tells them they only voted for Trump because they're racist and they'll never vote for a Democrat ever again.
Click to expand...
So are you still not voting for Harris or what

I'm sure all the DREAMers and LGBTQ community will be very happy for your principles and morals
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Men of Culture: Rachel Brosnahan at the Critics Choice Awards 2025
2
55
4K
AJUMP23 replied
From the World of John Wick: Ballerina | New Trailer | 2025
2
55
2K
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Netflix previews new UI changes (and AI, because of course, everything needs AI)
12
450
Bojji replied
  • Locked
what do you think of the new banger 'Trump Gaza'?
39
2K
EviLore replied
First photos from the new Masters of the Universe movie
26
2K
Jenov replied
Top Bottom