Support NeoGAF

[DominusLeges]

She opened herself up to questions about what sort of ties she had by the actions she took and the many speeches she made for money. Her record stood in stark contrast to her opponent and many people did not like what that contrast exposed. The fact that she still can't understand that there were very valid reasons people would prefer another candidate over her speaks volumes about why so many people preferred her opponent.

Furthermore Bernie Sanders never sugar coated or misdirected when it came to his plans for how to fund his goals. He was up front about just who and how much he anticipated taxes rising for. The analogy in her book is so off base it shows exactly the sort of tactics and logic that made her such an unappealing candidate to so many people.

 

[ApharmdX]

At this point, as fun as these threads are where Clinton supporters get to endlessly savage Sanders supporters and vice versa, I don't really care about what Clinton thinks. That's her opinion, cool. But the fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton, how she ran her campaign, and who she is as a politician, resulted in a Donald Trump presidency by a wide electoral margin. That's her legacy. A legacy of failure and incompetence so profound that it invalidates her entire political career in my eyes. Does she take responsibility for this failure? Nope. It's someone else. Always.

NeoGAF Post: Obama on DACA:

1 post per minute
105 views per minute

NeoGAF Post: Clinton Rehashing an Old Campagin:
4 posts per minute
167 views per minute

Think about those stats for a second

It saddens me that more people are putting their interest and effort in rehashing a campaign tainted more by Russians who hacked the election and gave us Donald Trump rather than put that time and effort into pushing progress forward.

How about we fight back instead of fight amongst ourselves?

These threads, while they seem pointless, are about the future of the Democratic Party. We gotta decide what kind of party we are going to be.

Plus they are fun. It's kinda great to be able to go back and tell Hillary supporters from the 2016 primaries "told you so". We went through a lot of bullshit here. I mean, I voted for her and I would rather she had won, because Trump is hurting the country and the world, but in today's crapsack world we'll take what we can get. Their candidate fell on her face.

 

[excelsiorlef]

He didn't. If you want to stretch the truth then we can say that Hilary Clinton v. 2008 literally fantasized, on camera, about Obama getting assassinated.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/politico-exposes-clinton-campaign-money-laundering-scheme/

PRESS RELEASE
Politico Exposes Clinton Campaign ‘Money-Laundering’ Scheme

MAY 2, 2016

And this was long after he had zero chance

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

She opened herself up to questions about what sort of ties she had by the actions she took and the many speeches she made for money. Her record stood in stark contrast to her opponent and many people did not like what that contrast exposed. The fact that she still can't understand that there were very valid reasons people and referee another candidate over her speaks volumes about why so many people preferred her opponent.

You are talking about Trump right? Cause I think it is pretty clear why they preferred Trump over Clinton, and I really don't think anyone actually believes it was about economic anxiety or her persona/record.

At this point, as fun as these threads are where Clinton supporters get to endlessly savage Sanders supporters and vice versa, I don't really care about what Clinton thinks. That's her opinion, cool. But the fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton, how she ran her campaign, and who she is as a politician, resulted in a Donald Trump presidency by a wide electoral margin. That's her legacy. A legacy of failure and incompetence so profound that it invalidates her entire political career in my eyes. Does she take responsibility for this failure? Nope. It's someone else. Always.

These threads, while they seem pointless, are about the future of the Democratic Party. We gotta decide what kind of party we are going to be.

Plus they are fun. It's kinda great to be able to go back and tell Hillary supporters from the 2016 primaries "told you so". We went through a lot of bullshit here. I mean, I voted for her and I would rather she had won, because Trump is hurting the country and the world, but in today's crapsack world we'll take what we can get. Their candidate fell on her face.

This is some thick saucy shit. Did you actually read this before hitting post?

 

[msv]

Why didn't Obama openly state his true views on marriage equality in 2008 in lieu of his watered down vision?

I don't get what you're trying to say here.

 

[DominusLeges]

You are talking about Trump right? Cause I think it is pretty clear why they preferred Trump over Clinton, and I really don't think anyone actually believes it was about economic anxiety or her persona/record.

No I'm talking about her opponent in the primaries: Bernie Sanders.

 

[JackDT]

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/politico-exposes-clinton-campaign-money-laundering-scheme/



And this was long after he had zero chance

Yeah, stuff like this is why I ended up regretting my support for Bernie in the MA primary. I'm going to think twice before supporting another outsider. To be fair to Bernie and his staff, I'm sure they started from the assumption that of course Trump would lose, so it was the best time to try for single-payer as a platform or whatever.

 

[ApharmdX]

This is some thick saucy shit. Did you actually read this before hitting post?

I mean, this is only an excerpt, but it's a bad look. Hillary gave us the Trump presidency in part because of her failures. Anything about 2016 that isn't her owning her part in that isn't something that I'm interested in. Trump has been a disaster and it didn't have to be like this.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I don't get what you're trying to say here.

You said:

It's not about how a plan can be achieved in the current political climate, not at all. It's the opposite. Put forward a vision that people agree with. Once you're in a position in power, you strive to get as close to your vision as possible. You can't know in advance how other politicians respond will to that.

To start out with a watered down version of what you actually want because you're afraid of political opposition at best muddles your message, at worst makes it seem like you actually want your watered down version and nothing more. How are you supposed to know where the actual opinions of the person lie without them actually stating it?.

My question is why do you think Obama gave a watered down view on marriage equality. Why do the whole, my vision on marriage equality has evolved over two years. Why do you think he did that? Why didn't he just state his true vision from the start.

 

[dynamitejim]

She opened herself up to questions about what sort of ties she had by the actions she took and the many speeches she made for money. Her record stood in stark contrast to her opponent and many people did not like what that contrast exposed. The fact that she still can't understand that there were very valid reasons people and referee another candidate over her speaks volumes about why so many people preferred her opponent.

She opened herself up by releasing decades of tax returns (where were Bernie's by the way?). Her transparency is how people knew about the money she made from speaking fees. Then the rabid Sanders' supporters turned it into some conspiracy where she was making secret backroom deals even though she gave speeches at many different places and that was that.

And that's the exact type of shit the "pony" story is all about and her haters keep proving her right.

 

[B4s5C]

At this point, as fun as these threads are where Clinton supporters get to endlessly savage Sanders supporters and vice versa, I don't really care about what Clinton thinks. That's her opinion, cool. But the fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton, how she ran her campaign, and who she is as a politician, resulted in a Donald Drumpf presidency by a wide electoral margin. That's her legacy. A legacy of failure and incompetence so profound that it invalidates her entire political career in my eyes. Does she take responsibility for this failure? Nope. It's someone else. Always.



These threads, while they seem pointless, are about the future of the Democratic Party. We gotta decide what kind of party we are going to be.

Plus they are fun. It's kinda great to be able to go back and tell Hillary supporters from the 2016 primaries "told you so". We went through a lot of bullshit here. I mean, I voted for her and I would rather she had won, because Drumpf is hurting the country and the world, but in today's crapsack world we'll take what we can get. Their candidate fell on her face.

In my opinion, the Democratic Party will define itself and move itself forward with an engaged and focused base. That can't happen if the base is fighting amongst ourselves. These threads are not real issues that Americans are facing everyday. We should be talking about action for DACA, Medicare-For-All, equality, election reform, etc.

This is no different than the entertainment-style news questions reporters would ask Sanders where he would admonish them for creating an Us vs. Them mentality or asking questions that don't cover the real issues that everyday are a part of our lives.

We need to move on and take action on the goals we want to see enacted.

 

[tbm24]

At this point, as fun as these threads are where Clinton supporters get to endlessly savage Sanders supporters and vice versa, I don't really care about what Clinton thinks. That's her opinion, cool. But the fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton, how she ran her campaign, and who she is as a politician, resulted in a Donald Trump presidency by a wide electoral margin. That's her legacy. A legacy of failure and incompetence so profound that it invalidates her entire political career in my eyes. Does she take responsibility for this failure? Nope. It's someone else. Always.



These threads, while they seem pointless, are about the future of the Democratic Party. We gotta decide what kind of party we are going to be.

Plus they are fun. It's kinda great to be able to go back and tell Hillary supporters from the 2016 primaries "told you so". We went through a lot of bullshit here. I mean, I voted for her and I would rather she had won, because Trump is hurting the country and the world, but in today's crapsack world we'll take what we can get. Their candidate fell on her face.

How are these threads about the future of the Democratic party? Clinton puts out a book about her experience, people discuss the past ad nauseum.

 

[Primethius]

Yes because we all know that the primary spot was deemed hers to begin with. How dare someone more popular challenge her and the DNC?!

Anyways, she's just fueling Trump with this shit. She needs to stop.

Somebody more popular challenged her? Don't think that happened in this time line.

 

[royalan]

I mean, this is only an excerpt, but it's a bad look. Hillary gave us the Trump presidency in part because of her failures. Anything about 2016 that isn't her owning her part in that isn't something that I'm interested in. Trump has been a disaster and it didn't have to be like this.

Then why are you here?

I mean, no offense, but this is a thread about a book in which Hillary gives her opinion on what went wrong in her campaign. Of course she discusses her own shortcomings, as she has in several interviews since the election. However, seeing as this is a whole entire book, she also discusses everything else she felt went wrong. There were multiple factors that contributed to her loss, and those are just the facts.

So if that doesn't interest you... I mean...???

 

[Whompa02]

Huge Sanders supporter here: She's not wrong.

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

Lol, obviously exaggerated for humor, but the basic point is not that far off-base.

Bernie (and to a much larger degree, Trump) were celebrated for offering sound bites and grandiose promises. Meanwhile Clinton tried to be the adult in the room and suffered for it.

 

[KingV]

I mean, this is only an excerpt, but it's a bad look. Hillary gave us the Trump presidency in part because of her failures. Anything about 2016 that isn't her owning her part in that isn't something that I'm interested in. Trump has been a disaster and it didn't have to be like this.

There is one person who Clinton thinks is basically free of all blame for her loss.... herself.

Edit: except in the most perfunctory way.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Nothing is going to matter if we don't do something to prevent Russia from tampering with the election process again.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

There is one person who Clinton thinks is basically free of all blame for her loss.... herself.

You haven't been to poliGAF recently, have you?

 

[Fenderputty]

imho bernie didn't make any promises that were outlandish, as i recall he was quite upfront in saying that while taxes would increase for the middle class, they would be more than offset by the amount of benefits that could be funded by such increases

in those excerpts hillary's campaign sounds like a bunch of obtuse dinos... 'weh weh bernie is going to raise your taxes!!!!'. it's disgusting 'cause that is literally the line that republicans use to manipulate people into supporting regressive taxation policy.

it's nice that hillary gets to paint herself as a beleaguered parent forced to do all the disciplinarian work while the partner spoils the kids, but it's pretty dishonest

gonna go back and read the thread now

"Hey Bernie how you gonna man get your ideas through congress?"

"Millions of youth marching on washington"

"But Paul Ryan feeds off of the garmonbozia created by those (never gonna happen) marches"

"...."

No outlandish promises my ass

 

[Morrigan Stark]

It's funny, because it Hillary did the same thing to Obama.

It was the Clintons that shared childhood photos of Obama in Muslim garb and reading the Quran, reinforcing the secret Muslim narrative.

That's an old lie and shame on you for perpetuating it.

My hot take:

Clinton's fault was being a realistic in a campaign with a con man.

I watched this unfold in real-time during the debates.

Man: "How will you protect jobs in the coal and fossil fuel industries?"
Clinton: "I won't. Those jobs are going away. We need to create new jobs for them."
Trump: "I WILL PROTECT THEM."

Man: "How will you fix the immigration crisis and deal with illegal immigrants?"
Clinton: "We should be a land of opportunity that has mercy on foreigners, even Muslims."
Trump: "I WILL PROTECT YOU FROM SCARY IMMIGRANTS."

Man: "How will you fix health care?"
Clinton: "Obamacare isn't perfect, but we can take steps to improve it."
Trump: "I ALONE CAN FIX IT!"

Over and over and over. With both Bernie and Trump, she tried to educate Americans that the issues were more complex, avoiding the soundbytes, avoiding grandiose promises.

She told the truth... but the truth wasn't POPULAR. Telling coal miners they won't get their jobs back is the truth, but it won't win votes. Telling people who are scared of losing their jobs to illegal immigrants that we'll "work on it" instead of "fixing it" won't give her a vote.

She said the truth, but not what they wanted to hear. Trump played on that and used Bernie's own campaign style against her. The thing is, many Trump supporters didn't even believe Trump... but he said what they WANTED him to say, and Hillary didn't. She came in with a plan, and Trump came in with a DREAM.

"We need a plan to fight ISIS..."
"I'LL DEFEAT THEM IN 30 DAYS, BELIEVE ME!"

And here we are.

100% agree with this take. It's obvious, really.

Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with why she lost the election against Trump... she needs to stop blaming other people for her inelectability. There are just too many scandals, real and imagined, that have surrounded her and her husband.

So, who should she blame for imagined scandals, then? You're saying she should take the blame for lies told about her?

Bill would have wanted her to go to Wisconsin and Michigan. But lol Mook goes, "make a concert in Philly where you are already cemented"

Well, she still lost PA... maybe that concert wasn't enough

Because, despite Donald Trump's wishes, the presidency is not a position of absolute power or godhood. You have to get the Congress to agree to shit before it gets done, and you have to pay for it.

You are literally pulling a "Hillary hates ponies" right now.

Truly astonishing how that pony allegory gets proven right, huh? I mean look at that:

So Hillary thinks Healthcare for everyone is the same as a pony? I'll save my choice words since I don't feel like getting a ban over Hillary.

That's the worst part.

"SINGLE PAYER? THAT'S CRAZY. HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT? THAT'S LIKE ASKING FOR A FREE PONY."

SMH

I dunno, Hillary. The same way every one else pays for it?

...Yeah, you don't know, all right.

 

[msv]

You said:



My question is why do you think Obama gave a watered down view on marriage equality. Why do the whole, my vision on marriage equality has evolved over two years. Why do you think he did that? Why didn't he just state his true vision from the start.

The reasoning wouldn't have anything to do with it being impossible at least. I'm guessing it was his way of getting as many votes as possible - avoid 'controversial' subjects.

 

[Maxim726X]

She opened herself up to questions about what sort of ties she had by the actions she took and the many speeches she made for money. Her record stood in stark contrast to her opponent and many people did not like what that contrast exposed. The fact that she still can't understand that there were very valid reasons people and referee another candidate over her speaks volumes about why so many people preferred her opponent.

Obama is also getting paid for giving speeches.

Is he also a soulless corporate shill?

By the way, one of these speeches leaked and were put on YouTube. It was the same 'rah rah' bullshit that all of these speakers give. I'm not exactly sure what people think politicians give in return for these speaking events, but since so many do it... Probably not much.

 

[Cipherr]

Disagree with pretty much all of your post, but this is the gist of it IMO.

It's not about how a plan can be achieved in the current political climate, not at all. It's the opposite. Put forward a vision that people agree with. Once you're in a position in power, you strive to get as close to your vision as possible. You can't know in advance how other politicians respond will to that.

To start out with a watered down version of what you actually want because you're afraid of political opposition at best muddles your message, at worst makes it seem like you actually want your watered down version and nothing more. How are you supposed to know where the actual opinions of the person lie without them actually stating it?.

It's useless to pre-emptively estimate what other politicians would or would not agree with, that's a matter of political execution and has nothing to do with your actual position/stances.

Your argument is only valid if, given full political support, it still wouldn't be practically possible or feasible.

Diametrically opposed viewpoint to this. So I don't think we will ever agree. I absolutely abhor 'Politicians' who get up and pitch dreams they know damn well they have no real political path to achieve solely because it excites people.

I know it excites people. I still think its morally wrong to hinge a campaign on pie in the sky, applause lines, when internally you aren't planning on going anywhere near that, and instead will just aim 20 layers below the actual plan you pitched and settle in. In part I believe this is one of the many reasons politicians are viewed as liars and con artists. Never saying what they truly mean.

I don't like the idea that you have to treat the electorate like children and bait their interest with unachievable aspirations. And I wholly disagree with rebranding those immediate unachieveable aspirations as "Visions". I think a better way to achieve something, or a currently unachievable goal is to work at it step by step. Increments is how we got to where we are historically speaking. Large, sustainable, consecutive gaping leaps in progressive political policy is almost an oxymoron.

When people say they want to aim at $12 now and $15 later, thats a plan for stepped and incremental progress. Not a "watered down policy". Can you imagine viewing historical movements like Feminism through the lense you are describing? It would have been unbelievably damaging.

It's useless to pre-emptively estimate what other politicians would or would not agree with, that's a matter of political execution and has nothing to do with your actual position/stances.

This part in particular bugs me. It feels like an inability to discern long term goals from immediately achievable goals. An attempt to mesh them into one rather than accepting the general truth that these things move slowly.

 

[royalan]

Diametrically opposed viewpoint to this. So I don't think we will ever agree. I absolutely abhor 'Politicians' who get up and pitch dreams they know damn well they have no real political path to achieve solely because it excites people.

I know it excites people. I still think its morally wrong to hinge a campaign on pie in the sky, applause lines, when internally you aren't planning on going anywhere near that, and instead will just aim 20 layers below the actual plan you pitched and settle in. In part I believe this is one of the many reasons politicians are viewed as liars and con artists. Never saying what they truly mean.

I don't like the idea that you have to treat the electorate like children and bait their interest with unachievable aspirations. And I wholly disagree with rebranding those unachieveable aspirations as "Visions". I think a better way to achieve something, or a currently unachievable goal is to work at it step by step. Increments is how we got to where we are historically speaking. Large, sustainable, consecutive gaping leaps in progressive political policy is almost an oxymoron.

When people say they want to aim at $12 now and $15 later, thats a plan for stepped and incremental progress. Not a "watered down policy". Can you imagine viewing historical movements like Feminism through the lense you are describing? It would have been unbelievably damaging.



This part in particular bugs me. It feels like an inability to discern long term goals from immediately achievable goals. An attempt to mesh them into one rather than accepting the general truth that these things move slowly.

Amen.

This is what guides my choice every election.

Don't insult my intelligence and tell me what I want to hear. Tell me what you're going to do.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

The reasoning wouldn't have anything to do with it being impossible at least. I'm guessing it was his way of getting as many votes as possible - avoid 'controversial' subjects.

You don't see any similarities between that and "Free HC, college, $15 minimum wage, etc."

 

[Bronx-Man]

Hillary, go on Chapo

 

[pigeon]

This is some thick saucy shit. Did you actually read this before hitting post?

Let me try to be really clear about this one.

Everybody who voted for Trump supported a white supremacist. My feelings about that I'm pretty sure are on record.

However! Lots and lots of voters also just didn't feel like voting for Hillary.

The election was very close, so it's impossible to point to one factor as the cause. Comey was a major issue. So, obviously, was Russian hacking.

But so was the fact that the Democrats nominated a presidential candidate who was under active FBI investigation! Cmon! If I said that to you absent names and identities you would all immediately agree that it's a dumb idea!

Nobody made Hillary marry a guy who became a heavily divisive president who's also potentially a rapist. Nobody made Hillary take a bribe from a cattle futures trader. Nobody made Hillary call black people superpredators. And nobody made Hillary set up an external email server so that she could continue using her Blackberry instead of changing devices, then wipe the server herself before sending it to State to fulfill a perfectly legal FOIA request.

Those are all things Hillary Clinton chose to do! She may have believed, in each case, that there were good, solid reasons. But she still needs to own the consequences of having done so.

The Democrats made a huge mistake in 2016 -- they sent up one candidate, without a real backup plan. Not to be grim, but Hillary literally collapsed during the campaign. She's old as hell. She could have died! What would we have done then? It was incumbent on them to actually have a candidate they liked running besides Hillary. Then, once it became clear that the email investigation was going to be a major problem, she should've passed the nomination off gracefully.

They own that. Hillary owns her record. Bernie can only be held responsible for himself.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

The problem is sort of twofold: The Bernie situation happened, but is far from the only thing that went wrong. A book solely focused on Bernie would be a mistake. A book that touches on the Bernie situation as part of a larger scope of issues might actually be invaluable, in that it lets as many people as possible in on what the mindset in the campaign was, where they think they went wrong, what warning signs they were told to ignore, etc. The concept of the book is valid, and getting it out now is important.

The second is that there's no way to look at what happened at the DNC next year and not know we're in for another round of conflict; barring a magical unicorn candidate that walks the perfect middle path, we'll have establishment vs ideals again. Ignoring that until it repeats won't help, and keeping it in mind will hopefully encourage both sides to be more flexible. maybe.

I see her reasoning for it but, as with much of 2016, I don't think she's terribly keen as to how it will be received by the public. Excerpts of this book are going to be torn apart by the right and the left, I would imagine. And at the end of it, I don't think we'll have come closer to bridging the gap in the party.

 

[Cymbal Head]

Saw this on Vox:

Shouldn't that meme be more like this:


BERNIE: I think America should have a pony.

HILLARY: A pony is unrealistic. We need to focus on the sick gerbil we have instead of trying to get a pony.

HILLARY SUPPORTERS: Bernie bros want a pony because they're racist and sexist.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Lol, obviously exaggerated for humor, but the basic point is not that far off-base.

Bernie (and to a much larger degree, Trump) were celebrated for offering sound bites and grandiose promises. Meanwhile Clinton tried to be the adult in the room and suffered for it.

It's sad, yeah, but it's proof she learned nothing from 2008. Americans are by and large dumb and want to be coddled by their politicians to a certain extent.

Future democrats need to run campaigns on hope, anger, or charisma. Hillary brought none of those unfortunately.

 

[royalan]

Shouldn't that meme be more like this:


BERNIE: I think America should have a pony.

HILLARY: A pony is unrealistic. We need to focus on the sick gerbil we have instead of trying to get a pony.

HILLARY SUPPORTERS: Bernie bros want a pony because they're racist and sexist.

This doesn't make sense.

There was not a single policy proposal in Hillary's platform that would not have led to lower/middle-class Americas being better off. ALL of it was an improvement over the path we were on with Obama.

I mean, guys, the damn website is still up.

 

[tbm24]

I see her reasoning for it but, as with much of 2016, I don't think she's terribly keen as to how it will be received by the public. Excerpts of this book are going to be torn apart by the right and the left, I would imagine. And at the end of it, I don't think we'll have come closer to bridging the gap in the party.

Pretty sure she's been used to that for the past few decades, hence the book coming out.

 

[poppedcollar69]

In her forthcoming book, Clinton noted that the Vermont independent "isn't a Democrat."

"That's not a smear, that's what he says," she wrote. "He didn't get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party."

After outlining how she disagrees with Sanders' view of the Democratic Party, Clinton concludes, "I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were, too."

I liked this part from OP linked article though:

yeah well the democratic party is trash, and has improved recently only because he ran so

Wow this page was incredibly shocking.

Spoiler

https://twitter.com/pixelatedboat/status/904883299318808576

gold

But they really weren't critiques or debates. Just from the OP alone:

Bernie:'You've been bought and sold by corporate lapdogs!'
Hillary: 'Show ONE instance where you believe this has affected my voting'
Bernie: '...'

That is the very definition of character assassination. You would expect that from Repubs, but there's no measured policy debate here for two Democratic opponents to be arguing.

this is true. while her voting record doesn't necessarily explicitly reflect this, she is a centrist that hasn't made decrying the abuses by bad corporate/financial institution actors a priority. and speaking personally, that is important to me

and that she wouldn't discuss her speeches to those entities was and is quite damning http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/277302-clinton-doubling-down-on-transcripts

yeah i get it you don't wanna go on the defense here but that ship has sailed. if you don't release that info, it's extremely damning. if you do release it and there's damning shit in there, that's on u

Well said @ both of these.

agree

I couldn't give two shits about Bernie. It doesn't change the fact that she lost the election. Maybe actually campaigning in some states might have helped her as opposed to automatically putting them in the W column? She underestimated the Bernie Bros, underestimated Trump and his deplorables, and underestimated the idea of "common sense" of the American people.

She underestimated and it lost her the election. If she wants to attack Bernie for losing? Fine, but it amounts to a hill of beans at this point.

film adaptation of this book to be titled 'Hill of Berns'

I voted for Hillary but why go down this path? To sell a few more books? To prove a point? This does nothing create more friction within the party. It is not as though any good will come from this.

feels like this book is only gonna be encouraging the hillary stans movement, but to what end? seriously though what's up with these hillary stans, there was a guy that kept popping up in my facebook stream that creamed his pants every time she went outside with a pair of designer sunglasses on, or drank a pepsi

Hey, listen to this misogynistic BernieBro attacking her character back in 2008.

fuckin dragged

The establishment's super delegates throwing all of their weight behind Clinton at the start tipped the scales so heavily in the media's presentation of the primaries that it helped make voting for Bernie seem absolutely futile. It skewed the voting process from the very start.

yeesh im so relieved that somebody gets it


ok done with page 5

 

[TurnipFritters]

Shouldn't that meme be more like this:


BERNIE: I think America should have a pony.

HILLARY: A pony is unrealistic. We need to focus on the sick gerbil we have instead of trying to get a pony.

HILLARY SUPPORTERS: Bernie bros want a pony because they're racist and sexist.

This is not a great analogy for your point because you're framing her as someone who's concerned about the well being of the sick and vulnerable while Sanders is looking a rich people stuff.

yeah well the democratic party is trash, and has improved recently only because he ran so

Sanders's actual voting record is indistinguishable from a rank and file Democrat though?

 

[msv]

Diametrically opposed viewpoint to this. So I don't think we will ever agree. I absolutely abhor 'Politicians' who get up and pitch dreams they know damn well they have no real political path to achieve solely because it excites people.

I know it excites people. I still think its morally wrong to hinge a campaign on pie in the sky, applause lines, when internally you aren't planning on going anywhere near that, and instead will just aim 20 layers below the actual plan you pitched and settle in. In part I believe this is one of the many reasons politicians are viewed as liars and con artists. Never saying what they truly mean.

I see, we have a different interpretation of the 'pie in the sky' message. I disagree with a practically feasible vision of how a country should be run is 'pie in the sky'. If there are political roadblocks that make it infeasible, you can always mention them. Which brings me to your point below.

I don't like the idea that you have to treat the electorate like children and bait their interest with unachievable aspirations. And I wholly disagree with rebranding those unachieveable aspirations as "Visions". I think a better way to achieve something, or a currently unachievable goal is to work at it step by step. Increments is how we got to where we are historically speaking. Large, sustainable, consecutive gaping leaps in progressive political policy is almost an oxymoron.

Isn't this what _you_ are doing here? You're treating the electorate like children in assuming they won't grasp that republicans hold the house and whatever you promise, it won't mean a damn thing unless you win midterms in 2018 as well? Going by your argument anything beyond status quo is 'pie in the sky'...

When people say they want to aim at $12 now and $15 later, thats a plan for stepped and incremental progress. Not a "watered down policy". Can you imagine viewing historical movements like Feminism through the lense you are describing? It would have been unbelievably damaging.

Vision versus execution. A watered down vision leads to people only guessing as to what you're about.

This part in particular bugs me. It feels like an inability to discern long term goals from immediately achievable goals. An attempt to mesh them into one rather than accepting the general truth that these things move slowly.

It's actually an attempt to separate them. Vision, or the end goal, or most desirable solution, whatever you want to call it, shows where you actually stand. The short term goals are merely speculation, there are too many factors. Besides, with Republicans in control, there are no short term goals. The only short term goal would be 'win mid terms'.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Shouldn't that meme be more like this:


BERNIE: I think America should have a pony.

HILLARY: A pony is unrealistic. We need to focus on the sick gerbil we have instead of trying to get a pony.

HILLARY SUPPORTERS: Bernie bros want a pony because they're racist and sexist.

You don't actually believe this, right.

 

[gutter_trash]

Well, she still lost PA... maybe that concert wasn't enough

.

Philly was a shoe in, but she lost the rural areas of PA.

Old Bill would have had her put her boots into the muddy soil in those areas.

The Philly crowd were already in the bag

 

[msv]

You don't see any similarities between that and "Free HC, college, $15 minimum wage, etc."

What's your point here? I'm gleaning that your argument is in the way of 'Don't reveal goals that I think might lose votes'?

 

[DietRob]

Why not sell the merits of the policy that may be able to pass better? Dems have to win and the electorate has to understand that in doing so, single payer and free college isn't remotely likely. It feels like the far left has become the tea party in so many ways. lncluding a complete lack of understanding how our government functions.

Either way. You win in the way you want and you're a one term pony watching or pendulum swing back

I feel like that's what we have been doing and it's obviously not working. It isn't working on the state level, it isn't working on the national level, and it isn't working on the presidential level. The vast majority of the electorate does not care to hear the message after it comes out of the democratic 'policy machine'. That is where we've been fucking up. For example we take the 'dream' of a $15 minimum wage run it through the 'policy machine' and figure out that it can only realistically be a $12.53 minimum wage. We then go and try to explain the complex reasons why to an electorate that doesn't care.

Instead promise the $15 minimum wage. Get your ass elected into office then work like hell to make it happen. When it comes back as being only $12.35 fuck it we did our best and it's progress.

We have to dumb the message down. We have to start making popular promises without running them through the machine. Back in the primaries I didn't support Bernie because he did this. Now I'm realizing that it's the reason he had such a loud and supportive base.

We've tried the rational and policy oriented path. It's boring it doesn't excite the base. It's not a winning strategy. Time to try something else.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Shouldn't that meme be more like this:


BERNIE: I think America should have a pony.

HILLARY: A pony is unrealistic. We need to focus on the sick gerbil we have instead of trying to get a pony.

HILLARY SUPPORTERS: Bernie bros want a pony because they're racist and sexist.

Don't quit your day job

 

[Byakuya769]

Shouldn't that meme be more like this:


BERNIE: I think America should have a pony.

HILLARY: A pony is unrealistic. We need to focus on the sick gerbil we have instead of trying to get a pony.

HILLARY SUPPORTERS: Bernie bros want a pony because they're racist and sexist.

No. No, it shouldn't be more like that.

 

[poppedcollar69]

Sanders's actual voting record is indistinguishable from a rank and file Democrat though?

wow so why would hillary have said he's not a democrat and she wishes he was? like what point was she trying to get at, if your assertion is correct?

it just underlines how disingenuous that statement by hillary was. b worked closely with the dems cause thats what you need to do in politics, but his ideals, which got widespread coverage during the primary, are what has improved the dems

 

[Flo_Evans]

So not wanting to die bankrupt from medical bills is a child wanting a free pony now?

Fuck off I regret voting for this piece of shit.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I mean, this is only an excerpt, but it's a bad look. Hillary gave us the Trump presidency in part because of her failures. Anything about 2016 that isn't her owning her part in that isn't something that I'm interested in. Trump has been a disaster and it didn't have to be like this.

I mean, shouldn't you be criticizing Bernie Sanders too then? He lost to the person who lost to Trump!

 

[Hellwarden]

The bitter primary probably had an effect on the election, but it's impossible to say how much. I think that's the key takeaway from the election to be honest. There was no clear straw that broke the camel's back, it was a collection of things adding up.

I wonder if Hillary talks about the mistakes she made in the book.

 

[pigeon]

wow so why would hillary have said he's not a democrat and she wishes he was? like what point was she trying to get at, if your assertion is correct?

Excellent point. Hillary's argument on this page is deliberately disingenuous. She knows that Bernie is to all intents and purposes a Democrat.

it just underlines how disingenuous that statement by hillary was. b worked closely with the dems cause thats what you need to do in politics, but his ideals, which got widespread coverage during the primary, are what has improved the dems

This is all dumb as hell and literally contradictory of your original valid idea.

 

[TarNaru33]

Is she wrong tho?

Yes, because she outright stated one of the biggest policies he proposed was not possible in U.S. Single payer is very possible in U.S, though it is a major hurdle.

All in all the real thing that cost her campaign is the decades of dirt and shit the Republican party through at her, not the Bernie campaign or even the die hard Bernie fans. She needs to accept that she was simply not the candidate that should of ran and the Democratic party made a huge mistake going all in on her knowing the history she had.

I was one of those who didn't think she would lose even with her NAFTA issue in the Rust Belt states. We were proven wrong due to rural areas marching to vote for Trump while the Democrats were more conflicted.

 

[dynamitejim]

So not wanting to die bankrupt from medical bills is a child wanting a free pony now?

Fuck off I regret voting for this piece of shit.

ITT: A bunch of posters being the living embodiment of Clinton's point.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Philly was a shoe in, but she lost the rural areas of PA.

Old Bill would have had her put her boots into the muddy soil in those areas.

The Philly crowd were already in the bag

Bill was actually out there. I live in a Purple area of PA in the suburbs, and we had stops from both Trump and Bill. Trump had a little rally, and Bill had lunch and strolled the town shaking hands. Hillary was nowhere to be found.