gutter_trash
Banned
Dubya was born in Conecticut, picked up a Texan accent while Papa and Jeb! don't hmmm
fake accents........ Dubya
Hillary Clinton's Team Thinks She's Just Like Your Abuela, Twitter Disagrees
- Thread starter AcademicSaucer
- Start date
- Status
Dubya was born in Conecticut, picked up a Texan accent while Papa and Jeb! don't hmmm
fake accents........ Dubya
thehypocrite
Member
You said "man" not "dudes". I'm still counting this as a W
But in actuality, it's probably not a great idea to say that "everyone being critical of Clinton gets the angry white young man tag throw their way", when that doesn't actually reflect the reality of this thread.
Yeah, I'm guilty of hyperbole there.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Saying that Hillary is not likable is not the political equivalent of saying "she's not hot enough". That's ridiculous. America does not care about substance in political candidates, anymore, and when it comes to the intangibles that define contemporary politics (body language, naturalness, deft use of social media, etc.), Hillary comes up short. You can say that, as a woman, she has more she has to overcome, which is fair, but considering the media sieges enacted upon both her husband and the president she served as Secretary of State under, it's also fair to say that modern pundits have no shortage of material to hammer top political figures with and that she simply doesn't have that intangible charm that allows her to deflect attacks. She's stiff, she has a manufactured quality, and she's kind of a boring speaker. She's never going to be "hip", and she doesn't have to be, because she's doing just fine. Nobody is casting a vote for her because they think she's "one of us", they're casting a vote for her because shes the best-known presidentially eligible centrist Democrat in the USA right now and because she's running her campaign on the grounds that she has a lot of experience in national politics (albeit, not very memorable experience, on her own merits) and will be the one most likely to get things done. If she sticks with that, she'll be fine. Trying to mimic the appealing qualities that an Obama or Biden bring to the table is a doomed strategy that will only alienate people from her and feed into the image that she's just a Machiavellian crook trying to pander her way into power.
My main point was that the poster in question seemed to take issue with a phrase that has been uttered once in this thread as if it was a blanket statement that all Hillary supporters lobby at Sanders supporters every time Sanders supporters speak. I don't think that's true, nor does it really reflect the discussion on GAF. To frame it in such a way is pretty disingenuous.
It's okay. I do it too, more than I'd like.
SolidSnakex
Member
On some level a presidential candidate has to be inspiring enough to get people to go out and vote for them. I'm just saying that there's clearly a different vibe for all candidates this time around compared to 08 elections. The enthusiasm isn't anywhere near the same for anyone. The heat is on Trump, which is pretty telling for every candidate. It says a lot when talk moves to voting to keep someone out of office.
And that's who i'm largely referring to. She doesn't strike a chord with them. And that's why her campaign is so desperately trying to get her to connect with them. People are blaming her team, but it's really more about her. Obama did this shit effortlessly. It wasn't his team making him appealing to younger voters, it was simply who he was. You had people in other countries that were excited to have him come and speak there and some even joked during the election that if he lost they'd take him.
What does "a different vibe" mean, empirically? If we're to say that Hillary Clinton is not an inspiring candidate, it's probably tough to justify her poll numbers in the Democratic primary, or her general leads in head-to-heads of most of her Republican competitors, even 11 months out.
Thus far, there have been no real signs that the Obama coalition will be unlikely to vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee in 2016. And Hillary Clinton being elected would be a historic election from an identity politics perspective. I don't see any real evidence, polling-wise, of an enthusiasm gap. If there was one, wouldn't another candidate have seized upon the opportunity and jumped in? Or wouldn't she be polling worse?
Battersea Power Station
Member
Hispandering is a hilarious term.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
To be fair, it's not really fair to say that Hillary fails because she's not as engaging or effortless as perhaps the greatest, most charismatic American politician since Ronald Reagan. Obama is not a fair measuring stick for comparison. Non-asshole (and probably non-white guy) versions of John Edwards or Anthony Weiner are probably fairer targets for Democrats to try and reach.
We had such high hopes for those two!
Anthony Wiener was the chosen one. I'm pretty sore that he fucked it all up.
I'm not saying he is, but plenty of his followers seem to think he is.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
What a hilarious but borderline offensive display of disconnect with society this is. I love it.
In all seriousness though, even if this wasn't idiotic on its face, whose idea was it to make an article telling you all the ways Clinton is like your grandma? Is that really how you want to portray yourself when you're trying to become president of the United States? I'm just like your dear old grandma!
In all seriousness though, even if this wasn't idiotic on its face, whose idea was it to make an article telling you all the ways Clinton is like your grandma? Is that really how you want to portray yourself when you're trying to become president of the United States? I'm just like your dear old grandma!
Henchmen21
Banned
Hillary Clinton is Mom from Futurama confirmed.
Well, she can be tough and commanding, but then she's kind of a bitch. But then she can be a sweet grandma, but then she's probably too weak.
In terms of presenting your candidate, it's kind of hard. Ideally, you'd like to do both, but you can probably do neither.
Speaking of Carlos Danger, he's still married and together with Hillary's prime bae, Huma? Man I feel the most sorry for her out of all. What an embarrassing period.
SolidSnakex
Member
The signs are her own campaign. She wouldn't be doing all this awkward and cringey shit if everything was going smooth for her in terms of getting the people that Obama had vote for him. She and her campaign know that something isn't working and they're trying to get things there. I'd say her winning says far more about the atrocious slate of candidates on both sides than anything else.
But i'm also someone that really doesn't follow politics super closely. The whole thing is generally off putting to me due to the amount of actual hate that exists within it. I check in every now and then and try to know what the candidates are doing .When I see this group i'm just amazed that it happening after Obama. It's why I said that Democrat's wasted eight years. In that time they apparently couldn't find anyone fresh within the party and instead their top candidate is someone that lost last time. And then you have the mess with the Republican's, who seem perfectly okay with losing every election for the rest of history because they can't accept that society has moved on from the 50's in terms of social issues. It's one of those times that I wish you could just hit a "4 more years" switch and keep the current president and be done with it.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Yes, 11 months from now every headline will be about some lame social media meme her staffers created for her. Not like the world has anything bigger to focus on anyways.
Their top candidate is Hillary because she is adored by Democrats and has extremely impressive credentials. A lot of possible candidates decided not to run because there's little to gain running against her.
Hilary has the approval of the vast majority of Democrats, legislative experience, executive experience, is a household name and is a woman. She's not a second tier candidate the party is reluctantly backing, she's a dream candidate.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
"ISIS wants to destroy us, and you're talking about ABUELITAS??"
I get that you don't follow politics super closely, but if there more perceived weaknesses in Hillary's campaign, another legitimate candidate would have emerged. One almost did this past summer with Biden who does not personally like Hillary Clinton yet ultimate decided against running. If we're to look at her poll numbers, her endorsements, and her fundraising, she's the most dominant non-incumbent in recent memory. The only reason she lost in 2008 (and she did not get "killed" as I've seen stated somewhere on this board, she barely lost) is that she ran against a once-in-a-generation president. It's not like there's just another Obama sitting around. Republicans have been dealing with this reality since Reagan -- every once in a while, you get a once in a generation politician. Democrats got Obama in 2008, but will have to deal with someone much more conventional in 2016. That's fine, and it's to be expected since it's more in line with the norm. And the more conventional choice is still dominant in her own right.
It's also pretty common that someone who did not win the election the previous cycle would be the party's nominee the next four years. That doesn't really say anything about the party's slate, more about the candidate's ability to focus their efforts. Admittedly, this had been much more common with Republican candidates up until now.
Henchmen21
Banned
Wow....and Hillary supporters call us Bernie supporters delusional.
Yeah, because of responses like this one.
You're really going take issue with her credentials?
I think it's a stretch to call her a dream candidate given the baggage that Hillary has accumulated. But, let's remember this gem of a soundbite:
https://youtu.be/C-Vs5dOo86M?t=21s
The only people who are delusional are the ones who take issue with that post.
Henchmen21
Banned
Yes I call it delusional because you actually used the fact she's a woman as some kind of plaudit.
For someone who has been in politics and in as many positions as her and is a woman it's actually amazing how little baggage she has.
You think she'd be a better candidate if she was a man? Electing the first woman president is something that will excite the base and possibly convert center-right women. I think it is one hundred percent a boon.
Henchmen21
Banned
No but the fact you can only see by gender says a lot. If she were a man I would still see her as a lying manipulative crony of wall street.
Edit to your edit: And yet she still can't excite her base as exampled by stunts such as what this thread is about. Go look at her rallies. Like everyone is on lithium. Go watch a bernie rally. Huge contrast.
thehypocrite
Member
Clinton is the focus group tested politician. She checks all the boxes the establishment requires, that's obvious.
To a lot of women (and, fuck, people), having a woman as president is important, since it would symbolically crack arguably the greatest glass ceiling in the country. That's why Obama's presidency was so important. It didn't end racism -- nor would Hillary Clinton's presidency solve misogyny -- but it would be an important and necessary step towards eradicating sexism.
That's not to say that I would vote for a woman candidate solely because they were a woman. I would bet the majority of women feel the same way. I would not vote for Carly Fiorina. But it is important for many women in this country to finally have a woman president, one day.
What in my post are you actually reply to?
thehypocrite
Member
I just made a summary of it.
Henchmen21
Banned
Talk to UK gaf about Margaret Thatcher and see how voting for a women just to break the glass ceiling isn't always worth it. Or hell, there are many feminists who are strictly anti-Hillary (who have been attacked by so called "feminists" just because they won't back Hillary) and ask them why they won't back her.
Is there something you'd actually like to respond to or discuss or just kinda throw out some buzz words tangentially related to what you're replying to?
but i even tell you in that post in the second part where i talk about this did you not read it what is happening
He thinks he replied to you but he just projected his own bias and dislike of Hillary onto your post. lol
thehypocrite
Member
I have some questions for you,
Is there something you disagree with Hillary as a politician? If yes what?
What are your interest on her as a politician? Why do you care?
But again this has nothing to do with the post you decided to jump on to that had nothing to do with my own opinions on her policy and was solely about what happened between 2008 and now.
thehypocrite
Member
Yes it does. You have made every argument for Hillary. Things that are obviously out of alignment with the everday person you even see as a positive. I even highlighted that in the summary and you intently or not continue to disregard them. Thus, I asked the questions in the previous post directly to understand your motivations.
Too personal for you to respond?
How is any of this relevant to the post you responded to?
thehypocrite
Member
Sorry, but your condescending tone doesn't provide sufficient incentive for me to engage your discussion. Thanks for the invite though.
Here is the post in question you decided to reply to:
This is a, I think, rather emotionless look at why Hillary Clinton is such a dominating force in 2016's election and why I don't buy the idea of an "enthusiasm gap", as purported by the poster in question. If such a gap did exist, then we might see it in polling or other actions that other actors in the Democratic sphere could take. We do not, so I surmise that such a gap may be overstated.
You then replied with this, which you believed to be a summary of said information:
That is not a summary of anything I posted. It says nothing of why Hillary Clinton has been dominated in the 2016 cycle or about if there truly is an enthusiasm gap or not. Even if you are a Bernie supporter, you could say that there is an enthusiasm gap because of X Y Z reasons, and give reasons why you think Bernie Sanders would do better to rally support and win an election.
You did no such thing.
You then, when pressed, decided to make it about why I could support Hillary Clinton, instead of anything about the post in question. We're not discussing why I support Hillary Clinton -- something I've articulated in other threads -- at the moment, because you decide reply with a drive-by post that had nothing to do with the post you quote. When pressed, you tried to deflect and make this about something entirely different.
So, again, what about my original post do you take issue with? Is there something there that you actually would like to reply to, disagree with, or extrapolate on?
thehypocrite
Member
You don't see why a samey old politician is unable to generate genuine enthusiasm? Why a focus group tested politician is just another FPS in gaming parlance? She brings nothing new, she's nothing new, not even her name is a novelty that will generate enthusiasm. The only thing different about her is that she's a woman fact that she needs to espouse several times on what will make her different than everybody else.
The good thing for Hillary is that she's the most viable candidate and she should win if she doesn't ruin things for herself thanks to the fact that the GOP scorched earth strategy have made them un-electable, (I hope) and the american public is not in a position to understand the social policies of Sanders. She's expected to win, she isn't an underdog, she's not a newcomer, she ain't fresh either so tell me how she dragging these realities can generate enthusiasm? Just because she's a woman? Cause she would be the 1st woman president of the USA? What good does that made if there's nothing deeper than a facade when she's more of the same? Wine bottles all of them.
For the record, this is actually a response to what I posted. Thank you for that.
If you recall, Hillary almost never talked about her gender in 2008. I think there is a reason she is now, because there is a historic aspect to her presidency that she is hoping to exploit. And you may not think so, but that's a very powerful thing to some people. She's doing this because Hillary doesn't need to win liberals in Oregon and Vermont and Connecticut. They're going to vote for her anyway. She doesn't really need to do much to win over Hispanic and African-American voters by virtue that no one on the Republican side actually has a leg to stand on, but her out reach (not.... whatever this was) has generally been better than it was in 2008.
Where Hillary actually has a shot of winning a larger ECV than Obama is with suburban voters. Suburban voters have largely left the Democratic party -- the reason why, you say, Hillary is "espous[ing]" her gender is a tactical reason. She wants to not just win over Cuyahoga County or St. Louis County, but also the suburban counties in those states. There's a chance that Hillary may not do as well with black voters as Obama did, by nature of his presidency. Her best chance to winning is to try to turn Republican-leaning suburban voters to vote for her. That's why she's doing these things.
One of the reasons that Hillary probably lost in 2008 (among many reasons) is that Obama's presidency has much more of a perceived historic nature than Hillary's did. Hillary's presidency would indeed be historic, and reminding suburban women of that is part of her plan.
But again, if there were examples of an enthusiasm gap, wouldn't we see it? I don't see it in any of her polling, in either the primary or the general (even though general polling is pretty unreliable at this point). Wouldn't we see her Republican opponents pull ahead by huge margins of a lackluster candidate? I just don't see any evidence of that thus far. The idea that Hillary can't motivate people to vote for her seems like much more of an idea than anything rooted in something we can see with numbers.
SolidSnakex
Member
Even though Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate, I feel that someone like Elizabeth Warren would've been met with a somewhat similar response. You had prominent people begging her to run before she completely ruled herself out. I remember Bill Maher straight up telling her that he had a million dollars that he'd donate to her campaign if she became the Democratic candidate. It probably wouldn't have got the to the same level of crazy enthusiasm that Obama was at, but she clearly had a good amount of excitement behind her without even declaring. So it's a shame that she didn't want to run right now since it potentially puts her out of contention for eight years depending on who wins the upcoming election.
I don't think Elizabeth Warren would be nearly as strong of a candidate as you think she would be, and I don't think she really has any interest in running for the presidency, ever. Also, which prominent people were asking her to run? I can't really think of anyone important in the Democratic party who was begging her to run the way that Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid started to orchestrate the rise of Barack.
Personally? The sweet spot for both the base and the establishment was Sherrod Brown, but no one even made a stink about pushing him to run. It was really bizarre.
thehypocrite
Member
The ones doing the motivating to vote for Hillary is the GOP. She just needs to show up do what's expected and not ruin things for herself. Her job is to be the sane, soothing and familiar alternative to the freakshow on the other side.
Agreed. I find the stuff in the OP to be really silly, but ultimately forgettable.
The Democrats's biggest challenge will be to win by a wide enough margin to combat the gerrymandering in the House and win enough senate seats to cushion potential losses in 2018.
thehypocrite
Member
Agree.
ThatGayWolf
Member
Lol context, how does it work?
Debates and press conferences are totally different venues with different levels of formality. Yes it would be just as dumb if Obama had said it after a debate.
As for the "you wouldn't be mad if Obama said it" referencing Hillary's lame attempts at hipness, again, you're ignoring context. The same words out of the mouths of different people do not mean the same things. Who says them matters, and puts the words in context, among other factors.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll