The Dem's three modern presidential victories either came in the wake of a recession under GOP leadership or in the wake of Watergate.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bloomberg Poll: Hillary Clinton more unpopular than Donald Trump
- Thread starter Schattenjäger
- Start date
- Status
Yuup.
jimmypython
Member
why people are still talking about her.......
Your political stances give me whiplash.
Oh, you're a conservative. Then I'm obviously not talking to you, because it's pretty clear this discussion is about Hillary supporters blaming her, instead of the voters who actively decided not to vote for her. I don't think anyone is surprised that Trump voters continue to dislike her.
Also, thanks for the invitation, but I'm super not interested in debating whether Trump was a better candidate than Hillary. That's a rabbit hole I do not have time for today.
DrROBschiz
Member
Its funny
There was so much analysis trying to figure out why she lost
When her opponent fucking conspired with a foreign government to get the edge.
Sickening.
There was so much analysis trying to figure out why she lost
When her opponent fucking conspired with a foreign government to get the edge.
Sickening.
Father_Brain
Banned
I have no idea how on earth you've come to the conclusion that I'm a conservative. I'm a leftist, for the record.
And yes, I voted Clinton even though I'm registered in a blue state where she was guaranteed to win, and no, I don't regret it, and yes, I absolutely do blame her and the Democrats who pushed her candidacy (by which I mean Democrats with institutional power, not primary voters) for giving us Trump.
The bolded is nauseating to consider but I think that it's true. The white working class isn't necessarily against economic justice for themselves but the idea that blacks (and browns, and single moms, and LGBT, etc.) might benefit as an aside whips them into a frothing rage. I don't think that the Democratic Party could survive the concessions needed to court these voters in any great number. I think we have to continue to support economic policies that are progressive (which is why I supported Bernie during the primaries) but social justice should continue to be a big part of the Democratic platform. If we aren't willing to stand for our principles then we aren't much better than the GOP.
Ironically that's part of what cost Hillary the election. When she shifted from attacking Trump to attacking Trump voters with the "deplorables" comment, I think that hurt her (even though it was 100% true!).
King Gilga
Member
She lost.
Nobody likes losers.
Especially ones that lose what should have been such an easy win.
Garrett 2U
Member
Agreed. She isn't involved in politics anymore and nobody is going to change people's mind on her.
The most redemption she'll get is when it's accepted by the masses that Russia contributed to a disinformation campaign on her and even moreso if its publicly proven that the Trump team colluded in that effort.
The Clinton peepee tape is real!
So your position is that Clinton was the better candidate with better policies, but that we should blame her for...not being the better candidate and having better policies? At the end of the day, if voters who would have benefited from her presidency didn't take the time to educate themselves of this fact and voted for Trump because they liked his commercials more, that's on them.
Obviously, the Democratic party still needs to react to this reality in the future and try to find a way to reach these people. But the ultimate blame is on the voters.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
And like, let me be clear, I think that the Dems should run significantly more progressive than they are right now for multiple reasons, including it both being the moral thing to do and the upcoming possible backlash wave that we can take advantage of. I'm just skeptical of the sort of prescriptive "running hard to the left is what will make all the disaffected secret progressives turn out and hand us electoral victory".
Why do you act like Charisma, history, and management of a candidacy play no part in an election?
Sure, voters can try to educate themselves on her policies, but if elections were only decided upon by policies the history of the world would look very different. The candidate is the 'face' of those policies and if they do a poor job selling those policies, on being the 'face', then that is on them as well.
Souldriver
Member
Unbelievable. And sad.
Obviously they play a part, but isn't that the fault of dumb voters too? We should all be voting for the politician that is most likely to further the interests of the most amount of people. Is it really the fault of the politician who fits that bill, that a bunch of people decided to just vote for the person they thought was more charming? Is it really fair to say: "Even though you would have been better for the country and any educated person would have realized this after reviewing your policies, it's really on you for not being charming enough."
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
Depends on why, especially with regards to Clinton.
To deflect from massive failures like today.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
It's time to admit Hillary Clinton is an extraordinarily talented politician.
sorry
Sinfamy
Member
How can you say that when Clinton didn't campaign on policy?
Even the Trump campaign had more policy substance.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads
And don't tell me to go to her website.
I agree with you but voting is just a giant popularity contest and not one to really do with policies. The electorate are idiots by and large and couldn't give two shits about policies. It's like when people mention that trump won because he went and visited more States or more rural areas. The fact people voted simple because a candidate visited them tells you all you need to know of the electorate and the system despite Hillary having policies that would help these people. I don't care if a candidate visits me. I'm educated enough to read policies and vote on that
DrROBschiz
Member
Maybe it was as complex and marginal as we think it is
Maybe she carries some of the weight
Then russia and social media BS
And Dumb people buying into Trump telling them what they want to hear
And various other minute factors combining and adding up to her loss
I dunno it seems like we are past the point where analysing her loss is productive anymore
Maybe she carries some of the weight
Then russia and social media BS
And Dumb people buying into Trump telling them what they want to hear
And various other minute factors combining and adding up to her loss
I dunno it seems like we are past the point where analysing her loss is productive anymore
To be clear, I agree with you too. I think the Democratic Party absolutely has to take this into account, moving forward and try to find a way to reach these people.
But at the end of the day, when you ask me who is to blame for the loss of a candidate who would have furthered the interests of the majority, it's the voters, by a wide margin. I don't dislike Clinton for losing the election, because it's the voters who are ultimately responsible for her loss.
How is that related to what I said?
Sure, if you want to talk about television ads, which is all that article refers to.
However, if you want to talk about the actual substance, you're dead wrong:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech
Hillary Clinton was the most policy-oriented candidate last year on either side. Fact. As poster you responded to said, this was not an election about policy.
Theyre both unlikeable but Trump is like a cartoon villain whereas Hillary is your run of the mill pandering career politician, she does what she has to do. Its crazy how likeable she is in behind the scenes stuff and not on stage/camera, I wish she could channel that authenticity into her speech
Part of the charm is convincing people that you are trustworthy and will carry out the policies that are being touted. Again, this nothing new and part of being a politician is, well, the politics. If its nothing but policy then wonks would be the ones running for office.
Besides, convincing people of your character and personage is an important part as it will dictate how you negotiate, manage, and deal with others. All critical aspects of a presidency that policy has nothing to do with.
Now, sure Trump is terrible at this, but he did grab hold of messages to resonate with many voters. If you want to say all Trump voters would never ever vote for Hillary fine.
She failed in her salesmanship of the more than substantial remaining block of voters and failed in her ability to resonate with her own base as well, a group of people who likely agree with her policies. The concept of voters being influenced by the candidate themselves, regardless of policy, is not going anywhere and more than old enough for those running for office, and those who back those candidates, to consider carefully.
Honest question, what agony? His term seems to be a whole load of hot air so far. The economy is still going. Who has suffered so far?
DontBeThatGuy
Member
They never had an intention to vote for Hillary regardless. She campaigned quite a bit in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc... It didn't actually matter. By and large, the less educated sector of Rural America wanted Trump almost immediately when he came out of the gate talking about Mexican's being rapists. They loved that shit. Add in some targeted and extensive misinformation campaigns, and you get to witness the EC holding the majority hostage with shitty ideals and pettiness.
gutter_trash
Banned
that 90s smear campaign
Hockeymac18
Member
Schattenjäger;243806667 said:
I don't love her, either, but I don't hate her. And definitely don't view her as unfavorably as I do Trump, who is a complete and utter imbecile (we have known that he is for a long time, too).
Where does this utter and pure hatred stem from exactly? I've always found it to be so bizarre how visceral some of the reactions to her are. She was very reasonable and very articulate in debates.
It's not just alt-right people, either. I just find a lot of people just don't like her. And often can't fully articulate WHY they hate her so much.
The Maverick
Member
30 year smear campaign by the right. They dragged her name through the mud until it looked dirty.
Are you?
The problem is that people don't want actual authenticity, they want projected authenticity. (aka be good at lying and charming people)
Hockeymac18
Member
Thank you both. I think your answers definitely do touch on some major reasons why so many people have such a strong dislike for her.
legacyzero
Banned
🔥So much this🔥
At least during the debates, and ads being run, Trump was talking to the issues, even is some of the issues resonated to racists (which is always the go-to on this board) he was also talking to workers in america, be it on trade, etc. Hillary lost big there.
Saying WORDS doesn't equal policy substance. Speaking in Platitudes and cliches does not equal policy substance.
So your argument is they are not responsible for voting for a man (or not voting against him) that wants to cause agony to people, because in the end he has proven incompetent, at least so far, to actually get those agony inducing things done?
SolidSnakex
Member
The right didn't make her vote for the Iraq war, they didn't make her make the "super-predators" comment, they didn't make her lie about being under sniper fire and then lie again when she was called out for that, they didn't make her invite Madeleine Albright on stage where she said that "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other women" when referring to Hillary's struggles with young female voters and Hillary then defended that comment and so on. And since the election we've learned about how her campaign was stubborn and wouldn't listen to people who were trying to tell them what could help them. We've also learned that Hillary and her campaign wanted Trump, or one of the other far right Republicans, as she thought it'd be easier to pin the entire party on them. She of course then proceeded to run a complete shitshow of a campaign seemingly thinking she had it in the bag. Let's not forget their big fireworks ceremony they planned but then canned right before election night.
She's given people more than enough reasons to not be fond of her without Republicans saying a word. That's not to say they haven't been actively smearing her character, but it seems far too often Democrats are willing to brush aside what she's actually done that's made her unlikable to people. That's part of the reason we're in this mess we're in right now because of people turning a blind eye to her past and expecting everyone else to overlook everything she's said and done just because they're willing to do it.
No, as a matter of fact it isn't. I was asking a pretty simple question.
You realize this incredibly hot take applies to everyone right.
And it doesn't disprove my point: nobody discussed actual policy more than Hillary Clinton.
And no, a bunch of dogwhistles and chants about building a wall and immigrants taking jobs is not policy.
Night Angel
Member
While this is true, that policy talk was misplaced. Her ads, which likely had the greatest mindshare among the majority of voters, mostly amounted to "Trump bad." Her slogans also didn't really do much to drum up interest. "Make America Great Again" (scoff) sounds better than "I'm with Her" or "Love Trumps Hate" (which is almost an advertisement for her competition).
If you were an invested, politically active person, you'd catch the policy talk. If you were the average voter who thinks about politics once every 4 years, you only saw Robo-abuela and better me than him.
TheLaughingStock
Member
The judgement of the 17 million that nominated Hillary Clinton for POTUS seems to get poorer as time passes.
I must confess I don't quite understand why everyone assumes Springsteen likes Trump. He just doesn't believe the Russia controversy will hurt Trump, I don't think I've ever read him directly defend the dude. Maybe I missed something.
legacyzero
Banned
I'm with you on this. I saw a whole lot of mental gymnastics happening when points like that were brought up in election threads. My main quoms were the high amount of flips flops she's done, some just as the Primary began. Namely TPP. One minutes, it's the gold standard, the next, it's not good legislation. And that's a repetition with her. Political expediency. I was met with "She evolved!" Jesus, how much do you need to evolve on issues, and when is it ok to start question how principled somebody is?
Usual debates always came down to "Supreme court!" As if I didn't know that lol
Move the goalpost all you want. Voters decided where it lies in November. That's the reality of it.
And no, your limited view on what you consider policy sunstance isn't exclusive to all Americans. Sorry. Trump talked heavily about being anti-trade deals. Hillary helped pioneer some of the most toxic ones INCLUDING TPP. That was enough to turn people off.
The only hot take is yelling "RACISM!" And "SEXISM!" As the only reasons we lost. Let alone the primary reasons.
YesThatGuy
Banned
Oh, the US!
You could have someone literally chopping bits of your head with an axe and you would still dislike more the person that told you not to trust the crazy person with an axe, as long as said crazy individual is white, christian, male or capitalist.
You could have someone literally chopping bits of your head with an axe and you would still dislike more the person that told you not to trust the crazy person with an axe, as long as said crazy individual is white, christian, male or capitalist.
- Status