2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton is a very smart person. She saw the support
Bernie Sanders got during the primary. She is more than aware that a large bloc of Americans wants changes. Now, she's running to get elected in November. If those who supported Senator Sanders get behind her campaign, she'll be likely to listen to what they have to say. I'm sure she wants to gain the support of Sanders voters going forward.
If you want to tell Hillary something that you think she needs to do, you'll be heard more readily if you are not working to defeat her in November. She'll listen more closely if you're on her side, even if you don't support 100% of her positions completely. She's going to be the Democratic nominee for President. Either she or the Republican will win and move into the White House next January.
She's already heard that not everyone thinks she's wonderful. Now, she needs to hear what those people think she should do differently. She may not follow every suggestion, but she's in a position where listening is important to her. You can tell her what you think in many ways, but you're more likely to be heard if you avoid beginning what you have to say with an attack that could have come from the right-wing.
If you say, "You're a liar and a cheat, and you'd damned well better do this," the listening will stop after the first clause. If, on the other hand, you say, "I supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries because I believe his position on {subject} is a better position for the country and the future. Here's why:" you're more likely to be heard and actually listened to.
Candidates listen to supporters, not angry detractors. They listen to people from their own party, not to people expressing ideas and attacks generated by the other party. They shut down when attacked, but pay attention when supported and advised. We need to elect a Democratic President in November. Start there and support the Democrat, and then tell her what you hope she'll do.
That's my opinion. Thanks for taking the time to read it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ruggerson
(17,483 posts)
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)I'm ready to help the Democratic nominee win it.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)You should not have a foundation because it's wrong for a public official to accept money for "charity" from people who want political influence in return. You should work to ban the death penalty. You should get the government completely out of women's reproductive choices. You should work for single payer health insurance. And so on. So far, Clinton has deflected discussion of these issues by making vague statements that reveal little about what "progressive" action she might or might not pursue. I don't think she's very interested in progressive issues because she feels her fence sitting will suffice.
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)wasn't that supportive of same-sex marriage, either. That did not stop LGBTQ voters supporting his election. But, they told him what they wanted, again and again, and he actually became part of the reason people can marry the people they love. That's just one issue. Support the Democratic nominee and tell her what you want, again and again, from that position of support. That's how you do it. Try to keep her from getting elected, and you'll get nothing from her at all.
It's a simple equation, really. To influence people, you have to first show them why they should listen to you. No presidential candidate can possibly be for all things that all people want. There are too many people with specific goals out there. The answer is to work for the better candidate of the two available and then work with that candidate once elected. That's how you gain influence and get heard.
Sometimes a candidate supports what you want already, but that's rare, really. And others would prefer that the same candidate not support that thing. Getting the support you need means giving your support and then convincing the person you helped to elect to support your issue.
What never works is calling the person you need to help you ugly names. Never. Simply psychology, really.
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)She is getting no kick back from charity. OH MY GOD SHE IS IN THE POCKET OF BIG CHARITY!
I agree with you on the death penalty. But the American people will never agree to that, not yet. We need someone to take that issue on like Al Gore took on Global Climate Change. Do you have any suggestions about who that should be? Maybe Michelle Obama? Maybe the Big Dog?
As far as women's reproductive choices, why would you even mention that? She is and always has been the biggest champion for choice.
Single payer, sigh, there is no will or political capital in DC to go there. It is too soon. It would never pass. It would never get out of committee in congress. Hillary said back in 2007 ( I thin it was 2007) that if there was ever a time when the president had both a democratic house and senate with veto proof majorities, then it would be worth talking about.
Again I am 100% for Medicare for All!
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Your post summarizes my complaint about Clinton. She insists her positions and activities are progressive enough because of political constraints, harsh reality, etc. So she waits for public opinion to evolve before she advocates for what has become acceptable. That's probably as close to progressive as we're going to get from our party, but it's not what I want.
athena
(4,187 posts)If we want to ban the death penalty, implement sensible gun control, and pass single-payer health care, we need to do the work. We need to organize at the grassroots level to make the public so informed on these issues that Congress and the Supreme Court will have no choice but to go along.
This, by the way, is what President Obama himself said about gun control: that his hands are tied until the people start to feel more strongly about the issue (or something to that effect).
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)if you can not support Hillary, start organizing for down ticket races, even state legislatures and races for Governor. This is so important for taking back the congress. Gerrymandering is KILLING us. Plus raise money for those candidates. Become a bundler, it doesn't have to be huge amounts. Have a cook out, ask everyone to bring a pot luck dish and a five dollar check for your local congress person or state rep.
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)We need to help people get elected to them.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."she'll be likely to listen to what they have to say."
One might as easily say, "If she listens to those who supported Senator Sanders, they'll be likely to get behind her campaign".
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)Hillary Clinton, like all people who are capable of becoming a presidential nominee, is a person who has thought a lot about positions and has made decisions based on that thinking. Like everyone, she's likely to think well of people who support her, and less well of those who have worked to defeat her. The primaries are over. There's a new race now. But, the equation still applies. Those who support her will have her ear more than those who work to defeat her.
It all depends on what you want to accomplish, really. If you want to make progress, you'll use the tools available to you. If you don't have a power saw when you need to cut a piece of wood, you can still do the job with a handsaw. But, you'll still need a tool to cut the wood or abandon the project.
Presidential elections are binary. There's not a lot of finesse available. You get one or the other of the two candidates. Those are the only tools available, really. Pick the one that will make your job easier. That's my recommendation, if you want your project to succeed.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)is not a plus for any Democratic candidate in my book. In fact, it highlights exactly what is wrong with our system of Government. There is no desire to listen to Bernie or his supporters period. I know it, you know it, so lets all stop pretending.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...in one sense, i.e. you pick one candidate and the other one loses. Although in the primary, you may start with more than 2 candidates. But either way, you only have one winner.
On the other hand, in order to win, a candidate must have the support of voters. In the recent Democratic primary, Hillary did achieve the most votes and delegates, so she appears to have won the primary.
Now we have the general election in front of us. At present it looks like a shoo-in, since Trump is worse than a fool. But of course, the electorate can be worse than foolish also, so we cannot afford to be smug. And Bernie did attract a huge number of new voters, and did generate a huge amount of enthusiasm. If that does not tell Hillary and the rest of the Democrats something, well then, they are truly deaf to the wishes of the population.
Yes I get that there is a large segment of the population who are happy with Hillary. But she and the party also need those voters who wanted Bernie. Even if she wins without them, she will have lost an opportunity to solidify her own position and that of the party with a large voting block. Those people could ensure Democratic victories for years to come. Or not.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Here is the key-word for winning support: UNEQUIVOCAL.
You want my vote? Then I want to be able to trust Clinton.
You want me to trust her? Then she has to become unequivocal in her championing of positions I hold dear.
And that would start with the big trust-winner of them all: "I was wrong".
For Clinton to win my trust, she has to say, clearly, that she was wrong to oppose my marriage rights, and EXPLAIN why she changed her mind. If that is "I changed my mind because the polls changed" I might not like the answer as much as an "epiphanous moment", but at least I would know that she is for once speaking the truth.
For Clinton to win my trust, she has to clearly say: "I was wrong to promote the TPP, and here is why" and explain what she will do to bury that piece of sovereignty-undermining corporation-coddling.
For Clinton to win my trust, she has to clearly say: "I was wrong to give signs to Wall Street that I was for sale, and take bribe-sized speaking fees from them. From here on, my Wall Street policies will be copied straight from Elizabeth Warren's recommendations. Here are some examples, which I promise to implement IN FULL! And while we ladies are at it, I promise to let Bernie have a field day with Citizens United."
For Clinton to win my trust, she has to clearly say: "Third Way is over. It should certainly not presume to rule the Democratic Party anymore. Which is why I have asked president Obama to dismiss the current useless chair, and appoint someone not in the pay of loan sharks and prison industry to replace her with immediate effect."
For Clinton to win my trust, she has to clearly say: "I was wrong on Iraq, wrong on Syria, wrong on Libya. I took the wrong advice from the wrong kind of so-called friends. I disavow those friends, and from hereon, I will take better advice, specifically from such-and-such."
I could go on, but you get my drift. For Clinton to win my vote, she'd have to start disavowing the things she did wrong. "but we must look forward now and by the way I am a woman" will not woo me.
And I might add that playing the Trump card won't woo me either. Why did the party leaders insist on nominating someone who didn't fare well in hypothetical match-ups, as opposed to the Vermont senator who would bury Trump in a landslide? Trump is irrelevant: I don't trust him any more than Clinton.
A (wo)man who is not afraid to admit (s)he has been wrong is a (wo)man who is not afraid to be right.
UNEQUIVOCAL.
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)Hillary Clinton has already admitted to being wrong several times on several topics. Perhaps you missed those occasions.
If you are looking for an unequivocal statement on all of your issues, though, you're not going to get it. If you vote based on unequivocal agreement with your positions, you will never find satisfaction. I guarantee it.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)first you tell me Clinton wants to listen, then you twist my words (unequivocal was the key-word, not "wrong"
and then dismiss me as "just one person with one vote".
If you don't want my imput, why ask for it?
PufPuf23
(8,761 posts)Many members of the Democratic party would like to influence the Democratic party platform and the presumptive nominee to reflect on past actions and policies and find a new approach.
Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be an adaptable and evolving individual who pays attention to public opinion.
One would hope for two outcomes:
1) The reflection on the recent past regards foreign interventions would evolve to where less aggressive and violent methods would be indicated in a general sense.
2) In the case of child soldiers, waivers of the Child Soldier Protection Act would not be a tool used by Hillary Clinton as a Democratic POTUS.
Both these outcomes are on the agenda of anti-war liberals within the Democratic party.
If no one says anything, there is little reason for Hillary Clinton and other political leaders to stop waivers of the Child Soldier Protection Act.
Child Soldier Protection Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Soldiers_Protection_Act
The Child Soldier Prevention Act (CSPA) is a United States federal statute signed into law by President George W. Bush on 3 October 2008. The law criminalizes leading a military force which recruits child soldiers. The law's definition of child soldiers includes "any person under 18 years of age who takes a direct part in hostilities as a member of governmental armed forces."
The law was also intended to prevent arms trade by the United States with suspected countries, although the president may waive this rule in the national interest. President Barack Obama most recently waived the application of this rule on 28 September 2013 to Chad, South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and Democratic Republic of the Congo.
-------------------------------------
Are you for continued waivers of the Child Soldier Prevention Act (CSPA)?
Where is a better place to voice this opinion than at DU?
How would you voice such an opinion?
--------------------------------------
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)Here's one example of her not giving a shit about Sanders' supporters -- especially the younger ones.
https://grabien.com/file.php?id=86279
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as "lying" or whatever.... She listens to the people. Sanders, not so much. Not to me. Not to the black, Latino, gay communities.
Yes. Clinton listened to Sanders supporters as does the Democratic party. With this conversation being had, it allows all of us to broaden our own progressive plan. This is something I am appreciative seeing the last year. Yes, we can be more progressive, because of the voice of the people.
Clinton listens. She is fluid enough to find the energy, that will push us forward.
Now, because she does pay attention, a lot of Sanders supporters and Sanders himself has criticized her but in this instants it is to their advantage. Well, it is mostly and always to their advantage, that Clinton is forever fighting for progression.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
WolverineDG
(22,298 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)What I miss most about childhood is being naive.
athena
(4,187 posts)That's how politics works, you know. You don't elect someone who has all of your beliefs, exactly. You elect someone who is more on your side then the alternative, and then you work to get them to do what you want. Even FDR said, "Make me do it."
If you want someone who has all of your beliefs, exactly, then you should run for office. Seriously.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Asking "who really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argues that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.
Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.
emphasis mine
brooklynite
(94,482 posts)"The Superdelegates haven't voted yet; who knows what they'll do"?
"Wait until the lawsuits"?
"Wait until the indictment"?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)brooklynite
(94,482 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Why should I tell her yet again?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)will be reversed when elected. Just like DWS will be back to pushing against regulation of predatory loans if she is re-elected.
My expectation is that if elected HRC will pass TPP, Keystone, refuse to ban fracking, or offshore drilling, and will be open to more welfare reform and will start talking about the need to reform Social Security.
Politicians don't listen to supporters unless those supporters are writing big checks.
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)We will not know what he does until she does it. That's true of anyone we elect. My point in the OP stands. If people want to influence her in office, they will have a better chance if they supported her campaign. That's obvious, of course, but seems to need to be restated.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)You can make the same excuse for Trump: "Hey we don't know what he would do as president until he does it." I look at her past record for an indication as to what she will do in the future.
To paraphrase an old saying, "The Race Is Not Always to the Swift, Nor the Battle to the Strong; but that's the way to bet."
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)And we can look forward to TPP, more terrible warmongering foreign policy, corporatism, and utter scorn for stuff that actually improves people's lives, like affordable college and healthcare.
oasis
(49,365 posts)
B Calm
(28,762 posts)okay. .
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)My point is that she's more likely to listen to people who voted for her than to people who trashed her.
The War on Drugs isn't high on my priority list for this election, so I can't answer your question.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...if you want change.
No need for hate speech, but no candidate ever changed position because of unquestioning support.
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)When I communicate with elected officials, I get the most serious responses from those I have supported. Where I am, all of my legislative representatives and our state's governor are Democrats I have campaigned for. I have met them all. I send them information and recommendations frequently, and get replies often.
Elected folks pay more attention to those who have backed them in elections. That's just how it is.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)politicians are very aware of engaged people, the massive turnouts turned establishment heads
they conceded to Bernie those spots on platform committee
Where HRC is 'smart' is knowing it will cost her to disregard those engaged people, protesting can turn on a dime
Her historic unfavorables force her hand...
protests are powerful, peruse history will validate that point
DEM convention should be fun, buckle up, it'll be a bumpy ride
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)at least on the floor. Outside, perhaps not so much.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)the 'inside' or the 'outside'?
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)has more impact than what happens outside of the venue. Even in 1968, as horrible as that all went.
Actual elections affect things more than protests that don't elect anyone. Sorry. Hillary will have more influence on this country as President than Bernie Sanders will. There it is.
I expect that Sanders will concede and do as Clinton did in 2008, calling for an acclamation vote at the convention. That will take care of the activities on the floor. If he concedes soon and begins to support Hillary, that will affect the numbers of people engaging in demonstrations outside, as well.
People's expectations about Senator Sanders' upcoming decisions are not always based on reality.
So, are you planning on being in Philadelphia for the convention? I'm not.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)'The 1968 reforms did one very big thing: put the voters, not the party leaders, in charge of choosing candidates. That made come-from-nowhere candidates possible. And since nominees are now picked in primaries and caucuses, the conventions became mainly a performance space - good thing or bad thing?'
outcome of '68 convention through '80, the poser of the people on full display, directly affecting DEM convention process and rules
'1968-72 Rules: A commission headed by Sen. George McGovern produced a set of guidelines in 1972 requiring delegates to "fairly reflect" their state's preferences among presidential candidates. In addition, the makeup of each delegation had to be "in reasonable relationship" to the proportion of minority groups, women and young people in its home state. No more than 10% of a delegation could be named by a state's Democratic Committee. Rules requiring the "timely selection" of delegates, publicizing meetings at which delegates were chosen and public notification of a delegate's candidate preference were enacted.
As a result of the changes, there were challenges filed against more than 40% of the delegates selected for the convention. Perhaps the most notorious battle involved the revocation of the credentials of 58 Illinois delegates led by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and the awarding of their seats to an alternate delegation led by Jesse Jackson. (Sources: The National Journal, August 23, 1980; St. Petersburg Times, July 17, 1988; Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections.)
1976 Rules: A commission headed by Rep. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland replaced the demographic quotas of 1972 with affirmative action requirements to increase participation by women, blacks and other minorities. (However, this specific plan had the OPPOSITE effect, decreasing the proportion of women from 38% in 1972 to 36% in 1976. The proportion of blacks declined from 15% in 1972 to 7% in 1976. After 1976, quotas for women delegates were reimposed.) PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, the distribution of delegates among candidates to reflect their share of the primary or caucus vote, was mandated by party rules. (Sources: The National Journal, August 23, 1980; Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections.)
1980 Rules: A floor vote resulted in passage of a party rule binding delegates to vote on the first ballot for the candidate they originally were elected to support. (This was a defeat for Sen. Edward Kennedy, who was hoping to convince Carter delegates to abandon the president on the first ballot.) As a result of recommendations by a commission under the chairmanship of Michigan party chairman Morley Winograd, the Democrats abolished LOOPHOLE PRIMARIES -- where winner-take-all balloting still had been allowed at the congressional district level. Beginning with the 1980 convention, the Democrats took steps to increase attendance by state party officials and elected party leaders -- governors, senators and members of Congress. (Although such officials' convention attendance had been declining since the 1956 convention, their numbers had dropped precipitously after the 1972 convention.) States were urged to assign at-large seats to party leaders and elected officials. (Source: The National Journal, August 23, 1980)'
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)Much has changed, of course. Today's conventions are pretty boring and predictable, compared to earlier ones. However, they seem more representative than they once did.
I'll be watching this year's convention, too, just as I have all the rest of them. It's fascinating, from a historical perspective. These days, if we want to, we can watch them gavel-to-gavel. I won't be doing that, although I'll have C-Span on in the living room while I work downstairs in my office. When I go upstairs, I'll see what's going on.
Still, the outcome of the 2016 convention is known. The rest is procedural.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)you're incorrect with this statement 'Still, the outcome of the 2016 convention is known. The rest is procedural'
Bernie getting the AMOUNT of seats at the platform committee wasn't a known (expected) outcome, and it will hardly be standard 'procedure' now will it?
you're expecting a 'rinse and repeat' of convention based upon a pattern established over time... do you really believe this convention will follow the same pattern when it's clearly be shown to have deviated with the concession given to Bernie over those additional spots?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Where one candidate and his supporters spent so much time degrading and smearing the party from which they were seeking a presidential nomination.
And in fact, the data shows Bernie did pretty poorly with people who actually identify as Dem party members. I cannot for the life of me understand why that seemed like a good strategy for his campaign.
It turned me from preferring Hillary to absolutely loathing Sanders.
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)never call themselves Democrats. Many have loathed the Democratic Party for quite some time. Bernie, himself, has not been a fan of the Democratic Party much at all.
That's the nature of the 2016 primaries. A lot of people with no real connection to the Democratic Party made Bernie Sanders their champion and, like Bernie, "joined" the party for these primaries. How they vote in the General Election varies. Many will vote for the Democratic candidate as the better of the two choices, but without any real connection to the party itself.
Others will return to voting for the Green or Libertarian candidate or for no candidate at all. This year, about 40% of the primary vote was for Sanders. I'd guess that about half of those votes were from actual Democratic Party members.
I like Sanders. I like Hillary. Each for different reasons. But I'm a Democrat Party member of long-standing and am active in the Party organization where I live. I know all of the active party organization folks in my district. They'll all be campaigning for Hillary. A lot of Bernie supporters will basically disappear from things like the 2018 election, leaving just the hard-core Democratic Party folks to work on that mid-term election.
It's an old story. The difference is that this year Sanders pulled a lot of people out of wherever they were to get involved. I'd love it if they stuck around and helped out in 2018, but I don't expect it.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)But my origami crane collection will get up and start flying on its own before she listens to the same people that her supporters spent how long shitting all over? Nah. Nah, buddy, it isn't worth it at this point. I'd be wasting energy I could be devoting to my music, and inconveniencing electrons trying to send that email. My time is better spent putting in work for Bernie's coattails.
MineralMan
(146,283 posts)Go in peace.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)It is the candidate, who has to convince the voters to
choose her/him. Being nominated does not mean anything
as far as the GE goes. She is not in office now.
Her problem is that she flip-flopped so many times that
most people don't trust her.
She knows very well what attracts voters to Bernie. Nobody
has to tell her that. Bernie supporters have no reason to
"beg" her for anything, because she has shown them already,
what she thinks of them, especially of the younger ones.
She and the party seem to think that they don't need them,
hence the turn to "moderate" repugs.(Sharing their values
for instance).
She sold herself to Wall Street, so now she has to try to
sell herself to the people. Let's see how that will work.
She is just extremely lucky that her opponent may be Trump.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Following the massacre in Orlando, Trump tossed the bait out there. Obama and Clinton, he said in an attempt to provoke a reaction, are too "weak" to even utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
Obama wisely ignored the provocation. He of course failed to respond. Clinton however rose to take the bait. She wasn't "weak". Nosiree, not her! "Radical Islamic terrorism", she stated emphatically, was behind the mass murders at the gay bar, and by doing so she moved the debate onto Trump's turf.
In her eagerness to prove how "tough" she is, she blundered into losing the first round to the orange haired ass weasel.
I hope she learns. IMO, people would rather have a "smart" president than one who talks "tough". We had that with baby bush and I don't think anybody wants to go down that road again.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)She runs as a reactionary. Everything she did in the primary was a reaction to whatever Sanders did or said on any particular day. All she did was hemorrhage support over that entire year.
She needs to be above that crap
