2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI supported Clinton in 2008. This is what I wrote when it was clear the race was over
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5859322I am ready to change our focus to the general
-------
I don't post on this side of the forums much, but I figured tonight deserved it. I am an ardent Clinton supporter, and I am from NY. I knew things were tightening up for my candidate right around New Hampshire, actually, but I stuck with her as long as it seemed she had a fighting chance. Obviously, tonight has deflated my sails in one respect, but in another I find myself gearing up all over again.
My candidate came in second this time around, and I am OK with that.
Obama is not my ideal candidate, and I am OK with that, too.
However, the people of this country have spoken in an election that has given more voices to this process than ever before, and I am now ready to start the election battle for all 50 states.
There has been a lot of animosity here, and there are now voices of "unity" speaking out. Consider me one of them. This election is not about popularity, or race, or sex. It is about setting this country back on a Democratic heading, and, frankly, I believe Obama can and will do that.
I still support Clinton, and I hope she finds success during the Democratic revolution that will occur in November.
As of now, I support Obama, for I am a Democrat.
----
Just saying.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)We'll see how this one goes...
Maru Kitteh
(28,339 posts)still_one
(92,166 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)addressing the ideological split we have.
2008 was a battle of personalities: both were New Democrats endorsed by the status quo thinktanks and elites.
2016 is different.
Calm down Jon. Ssssh.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Condescending much? If I were a woman (maybe I am?) that would be sexist
I am trying to point out a substantive difference.
If, as usual, you have nothing of value to add, you don't have to respond.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Op was kind in nature, and you chose to drag it into a cesspool of negativism. She, Trying to keep this thread positive, trying to keep away the negativity gets a vitriolic response from you. So predictable.....unfortunately.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)No vitriol. Then sheshe comes in and tells me to "calm down" when I am presenting the difference between 2008 and 2016. Um, no thanks. Bye.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Response to Recursion (Reply #10)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Response to Recursion (Reply #16)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)Yet always for Obama.
Awesome post, you were for her then. You then embraced Obama. Now we both embrace Hillary. How cool is that?
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)He was exciting and real. Now we can debate his actual record another time, but during the campaign that is what he was. He was also beating McCain in the polls when he secured the nomination. He also didn't have the possibility of an indictment over his head.
2016 does not = 2008.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)herding cats
(19,564 posts)After the awkward Edwards episode, I supported Obama in 2008. I worked for Obama's campaign, was a local organizer, a state delegate and had made monetary contributions and became totally entrenched in the amazing process of working a campaign. It wasn't my first rodeo, but it was the first time I'd worked for, and supported a candidate who actually won the nomination. It was an amazing feeling I will never forget. I was actually going to be working for a presidential candidate this time around who I'd supported in the primary! I still would have supported Clinton/X over McCain/Palin any day. Without hesitation.
Instead I was on our local news for making peace with the local Hillary campaign leader. Who I'm pretty sure had seriously disliked me prior to that. We're still friends today, and she's a very happy woman lately.
Clinton wasn't my first choice, but then neither was Bernie this time around. I'll still support her in the GE over Trump any day.
I understand what you were saying back then in 2008 all too well. Sometimes we lose, and sometimes we win in the primaries. Yet, in the end we're still more alike than different and need to stick together if we're going to fight the Republicans.
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)was not, in 2008, the subject of a federal investigation. Also, Clinton wanted to cut a deal with Obama with for SOS and 2016. Sanders does not. Also, not everyone is willing to overlook a war of choice that de-stabilized the entire Middle East for the sake of Party.
Of course, if all that matters to someone is whether (D) follows a name, no analysis is necessary, but we are talking about supporters of Sanders here, not those who follow the DNC's mandate, hating Hillary in 2008 with a ferocity that is foreign to me, and following and defending her unconditionally in 2016, a syndrome also quite foreign to me.
Instead of ignoring that this primary is very different from the 2008 primary, people need to do a bit more analysis. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280155607 My analysis may not have been perfect or inclusive of all the issues, but it did at least raise issues beyond because...Democrat.
BTW, when did it become clear to you that the race was over? After Hillary conceded? Because a win by her on pledged delegates became MATHematically impossible well before that.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)You can tell from some key phrases like supporting her as long as realistically possible, etc. Replies in the archived thread show that there were still primaries to be had.
I'm all about the math, always have been, always will be. Might not make me popular at parties, but it is my bread and butter.
pampango
(24,692 posts)In 2008 he won. It gives me a totally different perspective on conceding a primary contest.
There are many other differences in personality, policy, etc. History does not repeat itself precisely but patterns and trends are common.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and 2016. My Reply 19 stated specific differences as did the post of mine that I included in Reply 19.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)1) Obama had to plead with Clinton to be his Secretary of State. I was not a big fan of the move at the time, but it is what it is--and not what you claim it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton's_tenure_as_Secretary_of_State#cite_note-cbs010710-3
2) Clinton was AlWAYS much closer to Obama in pledged delegates than Sanders is now. He clinched the pledged delegate lead a few weeks earlier (May 20) than Clinton did because California voted on Super Tuesday that year. He clinched the nomination itself on June 3 by rolling out 60 superdelegate endorsements. Also during that time the status of Florida and Michigan's delegates were up in the air.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)than Sanders is today. But I agree that Sanders today has no realistic chance of getting the nomination. Still, I think Sanders should stay in. He polls better against Trump. He would demoralize the people who support the revolution should he quit now. Clinton is really dangerous in terms of her hawkishness. When many lives are at stake, you do the best you can and hope for the best, even if the probability of success is very low.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Nicely done.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)This year feels different, more animosity, more trolls, more my way or no way people but I can hope we can unify and defeat Trump. A Trump Presidency with a Republican House and Senate will destroy our country. It isn't worth withholding support to "make a point".