Is there really a correlation between where a candidate gives a speech and where voters turn out? Most presidential campaign news is covered nationally. If Clinton is in New York giving a speech that resonates with me, I’ll vote for her just as much as if she gave the speech in my hometown.
That’s not to say her campaign didn’t make tactical mistakes, but I don’t get the argument that she “ignored” any particular state. Hell, people should have voted against Trump even if Clinton spent the entire campaign at a Holiday Inn in Austin, Texas.
I didn’t say all Trump voters “favored” racism/sexism/homophobia, did I? Again you cannot vote for 10% of a candidate. There’s no ala carte voting. You vote for the entire package. Of course there may be things that you aren’t in favor of in your candidates platform, but you don’t get to sidestep responsibility for voting for it. That isn’t the same as “favoring” everything they stand for.
If I vote for a candidate that advocates everything I want, but also advocates nuking the middle east. If that candidate wins, and then nukes the middle east, I bear responsibility for that, even if I claim “I didn’t vote for nuking the middle east”.
I disagree. She was a highly flawed candidate and the Democratic establishment are fools. Hillary is highly unaccomplished, not only in her political career but clearly so as a candidate, and it should have been obvious. The potential for her to have been a better president than Trump is faint praise. Her husband and Obama are still adored by the Democrats despite only marginal and unsustainable success. Kennedy is worshiped in the same manner despite serious missteps and given credit for results only produced by LBJ. Yes, all candidates are flawed, but the Democrats cannot even form a unified front for the best of their candidates and leave us with disastrous successors to their administrations like Nixon, Reagan, Dubbaya, and now Trump. Hero worship and houses of cards are a Republican trademark that the Democratic party should learn to avoid. The Republicans at least stick to their reprehensible agenda and line up behind their candidates on election day. The Democratic establishment lined up behind Hillary before the primaries even started, there was no public discourse on the subject, and they conspired to remove the decision from their own party members. They were indeed fools and we will once again pay the price for that behavior.
How would you account for the Democratic establishment being fools? Remember, these are people who have enormous experience and track records of success in electoral politics. That’s how they got to be the establishment to begin with. What would account for fools becoming the leaders of the Democratic Party, getting elected and/or appointed to important positions etc.?
The notion that the Democratic establishment is fools has to overcome a very very strong opposing presumption.
[Beyond that, I don’t think too many people other than the Democratic establishment thought Clinton was especially flawed either, before the unexpected rise of Sanders provided a tantalizing alternative. I remember discussions on this board, for example, and the consensus was pretty much that Clinton had it wrapped up. (FWIW, I myself was something of a dissenting voice on that.) People were not saying she was a deeply flawed candidate who would only win if the DNC apparatus conspired to hobble other candidates. Hindsight is 20-20.]
Bull-fucking-shit. I get it far more clearly than you apologists do. I heard over and over before the election, “yeah, he’s [insert your own variation of ‘a horrible human being’], but at least he won’t put a liberal judge on the Supreme Court” or “at least he’s not Hillary” or “at least he’ll get something done” regardless of the fact that all change isn’t good change. Except, of course, for the one’s hero-worshipping him, which is even worse.
Do you know what I didn’t hear? “Trump will save my job.” Yep, it was part of his platform, but that was NOT why the majority of Trumpers voted for him. It’s an excuse for a small minority that apologists like to trot out as if it applies to any and everyone who voted for him. Slee’s example was not representative of some huge sampling of suddenly unemployed workers (hello, one of the lowest unemployment rates in 50 years?). Bottom line, it’s a rationalization just like any other.
I really don’t want or need your ‘help’ (as if I’m some poor waif that just doesn’t get it, another characterization that some people like to make because it makes them feel superior). Rationalize it to yourself all you want, the fact remains and does not change. Deal with it.
So now your defense of the candidate is that she was weak-willed and was willing to vote for a war that she thought was a bad idea because voting against it might interfere with her being reelected. In other words, you’re helping to demolish the claims that she is honest or trustworthy, and saying instead that she believes that her reelection is more important than avoiding a mistake that cost over $2 trillion dollars, 4000 American lives, and half a million Iraqi lives. In other words, that she’s a career politician who values reelection over principles, just like I said before.
If the democrats are so weak and spineless that they’re just going to whine and give in to Republican bullying, why should I bother to vote for them? Even if she won, Hillary (or some hypothetical other candidate) was going to face a hostile, Republican-majority congress that had no problem trying to bully Obama for eight years, so I would say that any candidate hiding behind ‘wahh, the Republicans called us mean names so we had to kill half a million people to make them stop’ isn’t worth voting for. That means I should either stay home or vote third party, since the Democrat will just roll over anyway. It amazes me that you guys manage to put together arguments defending Hillary that actually make her look worse than what I was arguing.
And as far as who’s to blame, I blame EVERYONE in power who decided to support the war for supporting the war. It’s just that Republicans don’t try to paint themselves as the peace party, or try to campaign as being opposed to the Iraq war the way that Democratic supporters of the war do, so there’s no argument about the blame. And the fact that we’re talking about the weakness of the DEMOCRATIC candidates keeps slipping by you guys.
So does this same logic apply to the Republican establishment, and to people with track records of success in electoral politics like W Bush and Trump? Or do you still just call them ‘fools’ even when they keep trouncing the ‘definitely not fools’ democratic party establishment? There seem to be a lot of things that Democratic defenders on this board want to have both ways.
The last time a candidate who was the choice of the Democratic party establishment won their first presidential election was four decades ago in 1976. Reagan and Bush I won 3 elections handily, and B Clinton was practically an unknown in national politics who got the nomination in a race that the party considered a sure loss and had pretty much written off, then won a resounding, unexpected victory. His second term was a ‘duh’ choice for the Democrats, and then they went on to lose to W Bush twice. After that Obama the unexpected outsider came in, brushed aside anointed choice H Clinton, then solidly won two terms, followed by the party’s anointed choice H Clinton taking the primary and losing badly to Trump.
Neither ‘establishment’ side are fools. It’s the electorate.
And, btw, let’s rewind here. Of those 40 years that you mention, half of them have been under Democratic Presidents. Sounds to me like you’re busy trying to prove Republican superiority using faulty logic, denigrating Dem victories while the big, bad Republicans couldn’t do any better.
If you’d read my actual post instead of knee jerking, you’d see that what I denigrated was the Democratic party establishment and their ability to select candidates. Like I said and you ignored, both B Clinton and Obama were NOT the choice of the Democratic establishment when they ran, and everyone that the Democratic establishment did choose for a first run since Carter actually lost. (Choosing to stay with the incumbent gives them no credit for lack of foolishness).
No, I think the Republican Party establishment is also not fools, and for the same reason as applies to the Democrats.
But that applies collectively. There are exceptions to everything and there could be individual members of the establishment who are fools. I’m not sure if you would consider Trump to be a member of the Republican Party establishment, but he is a fool (as regards to politics) in any event.
So he’s a fool as regards to politics, in spite of the fact that he managed to win the presidency over the opposition of both parties non-fool establishments? Democrats also need to be more realistic about their opponents. I don’t think Trump is some sort of intellectual giant, but he’s clearly much better at politics than people want to give him credit for. Seriously, the chain of thought that goes ‘this guy trounced us soundly, let’s call him dumb’ doesn’t exactly win elections.
It’s still the same problem of Democrats trying to logic and reason their way to victory. Trump doesn’t have to be “correct” or “nice”. He just has to strike a chord with a largely uneducated and disenfranchised base of supporters. Rust Belt coal miners and steel workers didn’t want to hear Hillary talk about retraining. They want their jobs back. Whether that is a reasonable request is largely irrelevant.
He lucked out. There are factors other than intelligence and skill at politics that contribute to whether or not someone wins an election. Trump was lucky in that his shtick happened to be the flavor-of-the-month at the time he ran.
Because the establishment’s choice of candidate is all that matters in an election. Nevermind that two of them actually won the popular vote, and one (Kerry) came within one state of victory and decided against challenging the results in that state. It’s all the Dem establishment’s fault.
Let’s just ignore the myriad of factors that go into winning a presidential election, and simplify it to ‘the establishment must be idiots.’ Yeah, right.
He’s better at getting elected than Hillary was because he’s a consummate con man. He’s in no way better at politics. He knows nothing about it; witness his so-called step-all-over-itself administration. He’s a rube with no clue in DC.