2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIt’s time to admit Hillary Clinton is an extraordinarily talented politician
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11879728/hillary-clinton-wins-nominationThis is the paradox of Hillary Clinton: She has achieved something no one else in the history of American politics has even come close to doing, yet she is widely considered an inept, flawed candidate.
These two things are not unrelated.
Twice now we have thought that it should have been easy for Clinton to do what no one has ever done before. Twice now we have dismissed her as a weak candidate and a flawed leader for struggling to break a barrier that no one else has ever come near breaking.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)That's the one thing I said consistently to my fellow weekly breakfast-mate from childhood when we get together and talk about a wide range of things. When we get to the politics side, both of us Bernie voters, I had talked about how Clinton essentially learned every lesson that Obama did from the 2008 race.
She was widely mocked here last summer for her listening tour. But that got her out and connecting with people and her aides took copious notes and did a lot of follow up. That helped to really build some longlasting relationships that expanded virally. It's impressive because most pols really, truly, do not learn from their mistakes and instead just keep repeating them.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)She is adept at behind the scenes power grabs. Winning peoples support, not so much.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Look at all those primaries that she lost badly yesterday.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)You know how much support she had, but Clinton supporters try to pretend the fix wasn't in before a single vote was cast.
TwilightZone
(25,479 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Unless she wants to complete the DLC's goal of turning the Democratic Party into the next big-business, center-right party.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)What do you think she's ever said that's an attack on Bernie's supporters?
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Bernie bros, naive, wanting "free stuff", racist for dismissing wins in the South(despite the DNC saying for decades that the South was too conservative to elect anything other than conservatives), sexist, etc.
She mostly kept her hands clean, but it is her campaign, and her message.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And you still need to get people to turn out to vote for you. Which she did, in massive amounts.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Did john-ellis-bush-bush's former(?) campaign manager run the gop nomination process? The DNC had both thumbs on the scale for Clinton, I don't know why you guys pretend otherwise.
TwilightZone
(25,479 posts)They don't have as many, but they do have them. The RNC also changed the SD rules in 2015; that's part of the reason that they're more than likely stuck with Trump. The irony is palpable.
By the way, this information is readily available. Try Google.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)The Democratic Party used their SD's to "stop grass root candidates" as per DWS.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Already answered above.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)But the point still stands. You get to either say she's a weak, flawed candidate OR that she's a juggernaut with the whole party establishment behind her. Not both.
Spoiler alert: it's the second one. And I've never understood how having the whole party establishment behind her is a BAD thing - she earned it, and it's helped her. That's sort of how this whole politics thing is supposed to work.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)I understand that the Superdelegates were originally put in place to keep candidates that they believed didn't have a chance from being nominated. What happened this time around was that they jumped the gun, declaring unwavering support for a candidate before anyone else announced they were running, let alone before any of us plebes had a chance to cast a vote. Despite not being able to cast their votes until the convention, the DNC allowed the SD votes to be counted in the primary on the news in order to make Clinton appear more "inevitable".
Even if she hadn't interfered in the primary at all, having a candidates former campaign manager run the ideally neutral election doesn't raise confidence in the nomination process. However DWS did interfere on Clinton's behalf. Why would a juggernaut need so much help?
To me "the whole politics thing" is supposed to be an impartial process, which it certainly was not. Where I live, Texas, the only real Presidential vote is the primary(Tx has been "red" since 1980), so having "Team Clinton" fuck with it so much is unforgivable.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)No, in a primary that is NOT how it should work.
That is the entire point.
The 'founding fathers' (as much as I do not like that phrase) did not want there even to be parties.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)that women tend to be good at.
She had spent decades connecting on an individual basis with voters and opinion makers across the country, and it all came together during this primary season.
merrily
(45,251 posts)with every advantage in name recognition, media mistreating Sanders, DNC Debbie delaying debates (say that five times fast), etc. and struggled.
And then...
https://kobi5.com/news/local-news/possible-voter-fraud-shadows-california-primary-28826/
http://www.gregpalast.com/placebo-ballots-stealing-california-bernie-using-old-gop-vote-snatching-trick/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141480818
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-california-primary-lawsuit-registration
And studies show that voters tend to prefer to vote for the winning candidate. They feel it makes them seem right and smart. So, the timing of the AP announcement, on the heels of allegations of massive fraud in the Puerto Rico primary,* probably did damage Sanders, despite all the red herrings to the contrary.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/order-declare-hillary-victory-today-dnc-generates-puerto-rico-fraud-top-them-all
http://caucus99percent.com/content/what-happened-puerto-rico-democratic-primary-volunteer%E2%80%99s-open-letter
Also polls untrustworthy and dishonest and not winning in polls against freakin' Trump.
Come to think of it, that is extraordinary for a career politician.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It takes a lot more than name recognition to get s 65% lead.
merrily
(45,251 posts)more exposure she gets, the more her popularity goes down and the more her dishonesty and untrustworthy ratings go up.
Happened during the 2008 primary. Happened during her book tour. Happened during the 2016 primary.
If you think that is the mark of a talented politicians, good for you.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Not impressed by the sourcing or the veracity.
She won. She won by over three million people. Thats how it works.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)The vanquished always blame their misfortunes on exogenous events and the chicanery of their opponents.
Victors learn from their defeats and try to do better next time
I have been saying for months as an actual Californian, much to the dismay of my nemeses , California is Clinton country.
Self awareness is the first step on the road to self actualization.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Honestly, sometimes, I'm not sure who some of you think you are or to whom you are posting.
When in doubt, ignore substance and scold, even if it means replying multiple times to the same post. Jaysus!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)funny how that works.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)And screaming "fraud" doesn't make her wins illegitimate.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Do you actually think posting like that rebuts anything or convinces anyone?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)her, all of Wall Street pulling for her, pretty obvious cheating by people who count the votes and finagle the voter registrations, and paid shills lying about Bernie on the internet, and she still doesn't have enough pledged delegates to guarantee the nomination.
It's pathetic. And it shows that the DNC does not give a shit about advancing the strongest candidate to the General Election.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Thinks she hit a home run...
DCBob
(24,689 posts)She bulldozed through all that... so far.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)The Democratic party was shoving her down everyone's throats before she even announced. She only had token opposition from candidates who mostly weren't even Democrats and had nowhere near her name recognition. There was nothing impressive about this primary victory.
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)And all I heard about for the last year from many were her "unfavorables"_can't have it both ways.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)This work is a grind it's not big speeches, it doesn't come with wide applause, and it requires an emotional toughness most human beings can't summon.
And I think the author is right, we look at Presidential politics through the lens of male traits because that's what it's always been. I see so many people asking how could Clinton get so many more votes when Sanders had the obvious enthusiasm.... "Look at his rallies!" they declare, but if you read the first paragraph I posted, you see that there was obviously another path to the win, one no one had used before this primary and it worked. It also doesn't hurt that her supporters from 2008 stuck with her (remember, that was an already large number) and she just added on to them this go around.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)A very different approach combined with all that she learned from her race against Obama as well.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)on a right wing character assassination campaign.
It was so successful that even many on the left bought it.
Zorro
(15,749 posts)I have no doubt that many voters have been influenced by the decades of relentless personal attacks on the Clintons.
It's great that the majority of Democratic voters in California recognize the difference between truth and rhetoric.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)She's simply better at politics than Bernie Sanders.
She's whupped him soundly. So much for the "weak candidate" talking point. The ass-beating Bernie took in California puts an end to all that for all but the most foolish of the bitter-enders.
enid602
(8,652 posts)I used to get so mad at her for not going for the jugular in the debates. Now I see the beauty of her approach.
ecstatic
(32,731 posts)who has the courage and confidence to go after her dreams, even if it includes the awkward/unpleasant phase of campaigning. Introverts are often misunderstood.
Native
(5,943 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)she's getting the party back to it's real roots
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)I wish I could see Rush Limbaugh's face right now.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bernie never saw it coming but the Clinton years are baaaaaaaaaaaaaack!
2cannan
(344 posts)Sivart
(325 posts)Maybe...? just a little.....?
merrily
(45,251 posts)I'm afraid I must send you to re-training camp.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)And perhaps we should be grateful, because her roundabout way into the Senate and State Department--her husband's coattails--is the only reason America seems poised to elect a woman.
I don't think we've seen much of her talents. I would like to see her lead rather than follow Big Money's orders.
Perhaps when she is safely president she will finally feel free to make decisions with more of us in mind.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Thank you for putting it so well. I sincerely hope it opens the door to women who dont have Hillary's baked in advantages.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but when that door is open, we'll be infinitely better off. And no matter how good or bad a president Clinton makes, we will be thanking her.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Doesnt come across as genuine, is a shrill speaker, does dumb things (accents) and says dumb stuff sonetimes, and switches positions often, and IMO isnt very intelligent (ie the email thing could have been easily avoided). She slmost blew an overwhelming lead against Bernie
OTOH, She puts/has brilliant people around her. Shes been SOS, nominated for POTUS, and made fortunes by levredging her positions of power.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)She's not a flashy politician or an orator who whips crowds into a froth, like Obama or her husband, but she is a hard worker who does care for the causes she has been invested in for decades. She's also very intelligent and a policy wonk. She's always well prepared and makes no rash decisions.
In Hillary we will get a middle of the road politician who will probably anger at times both the Right and the Left, but who will propel the country forth on an even keel.
She will be a good captain of our ship.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Ezra Klein did a great job in this article
larkrake
(1,674 posts)whoopie for being a woman, no less flawed and no less weak. I dont like her representing my gender. I can be this blunt until the 16th. By then I will have it out of my system. She wont fix one problem and will betray our trust for 4 yrs.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)You might also argue that Trump is a talented politician even though he is wrong about almost everything. Almost nobody believed he had even a remote chance of getting the nomination when he announced, yet he easily vanquished Jebby and all the rest. (I am not suggesting that Hillary is the equivalent of Trump.)
JI7
(89,264 posts)I think she does work hard for what she wants. And she is knowledgeable on issues.
I think Bill Clinton and Obama are better when it comes to political strategy and appealing to large groups.
But she does well with policy discussions.
She also had a great network of friends and supporters . Better than her husband.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)way to do it, relying more on networking and less on rallies.
JI7
(89,264 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Native
(5,943 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)And she utilized that power more effectively beginning in 2008 with 2016 in mind. It's not just her - it's Clinton power and it came from 40 years of hard work and intelligence of two people and their supporters.
As a family, they may be even more powerful than the Kennedys of the 1960s. But I think that is the nearest comparison.
I think the Clintons may be more powerful that the Bushes when they were on top and we saw how that power placed untalented, but friendly idiot in the White House. And no I'm not saying Hillary is like W.
I'll have to think about how to describe the difference but there is a difference between power and talent.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)The Democratic Party never nominated a Greek-American before.
His being the first, despite not being a great public speaker, proves how talented Dukakis is.
(Applying logic of Ezra Klein.)
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)The situations are not comparable.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...are female. The majority aren't Greek-Americans.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)also were uncomfortable with the idea of a woman as President.
But more importantly, female candidates had trouble getting access to the educational and financial resources needed to make such a run.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,195 posts)Elect one, get the other, remember? Having Mr. Third Way himself in there advising her on economic matters doesn't exactly thrill me, but it is what it is -- I wouldn't expect him to relegate himself to anonymity, baking cookies and arranging the doilies on the furniture.
And, with a little more seasoning... CHELSEA 2024!
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)She's no Barak Obama or Bill Clinton.