It’s the modifier that makes it a problem. As someone who would have done a creditable job, she was a terrific candidate. That fact casts your assertion that
into doubt.
It’s the guy who actually got the job who was terrible. Which is why he shouldn’t have been allowed to have it.
He shouldn’t have even got the nomination. The US political system is pretty broken again.
No argument there.
Right, and that reality is smeared by a misinformation machine that is weaponized specifically to make any candidate a terrible candidate.
Biden barely squeaked by, as he was subject to the same propaganda that was gobbled up, by both the right and the left.
Let me make this clear. It does not matter who is nominated on the left, they will be considered to be a terrible candidate by the time the general election rolls around.
If you were interviewing a candidate for an office job, would you really consider someone to be a bad candidate because someone who doesn’t like them tells you rumors, gives you out of context quotes, and makes various claims about them that are simply not true?
If not, then why would you do the same for a political candidate? If so, then I really hope you never are in a hiring position.
The problem is, is that much of the public doesn’t do well at evaluating either candidates for employment or public office. That’s how we end up with people like Trump.
The reality is that you can decide how to react, you have agency. You can ignore the bullshit coming from the disinformation machine, and concentrate on the actual policy positions she puts forth, or, you can use them to color your feelings about her, and take out of context soundbites as well as things just made up entirely out of whole cloth into account.
And the sad “reality” is that far too many people do that latter. It truly is the voters who are failing our democracy.
Right, and that’s you “bragging” about voting for her, in spite of her being such a terrible candidate. If you left off the “such a terrible candidate” part of the brag, then you may help to convince others to vote for her as well. Putting the “terrible candidate” part on discourages others to vote for her.
Out of curiosity, did you think that Biden was a terrible candidate as well? I mean, he barely managed to squeak out a win, after the incumbent had aptly demonstrated his hatred and his incompetence, yet still got nearly half the voters.
How would you define a “good” candidate? Is there anyone in any level of national politics that you would call good? What would it take to make them bad?
In fact, I still haven’t seen what it is that made Hillary such a bad candidate. People keep repeating that, but when pressed, they either cannot come up with something that makes them feel that way, or they pretty much repeat a right wing talking point about her.
Anyway, this whole perfect is the enemy of the good thing is why I predict the downfall of our country within the next 4-6 years.
How about the Republicans who do vote? Do they bear any responsibility at all? How about independents who voted for Trump? How come the only people Democrats seem to be capable of getting mad at are other Democrats?
It’s more their fault, sure.
But anyone who sat at home, or voted third party, is also to blame.
Those who voted for Hillary, but discouraged others to do the same, carry some of the responsibility.
I catch shit for this when I bring it up on Twitter, but if we can blame Hillary here, we can give an extra helping of blame for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
When she first rejected Obama’s nudge to retire in 2013, she was an 80-year-old with cancer in remission. Instead of retiring, selfishly decided to roll the dice, knowing she wouldn’t live to see if it went sour. As punishment we got abortion-hating handmaiden Amy Coney Barrett. We’ll have to live with her, but RBG won’t.
Everybody who worships her should have taken warning at her friendship with Scalia. Nobody could be friends with that villanous gasbag and have any principles that matter to the people they govern.
You’re ridiculous.
I’m being a realist about HRC who was a bad candidate that managed to lose to worse one.
As far as Biden, he was a reasonable compromise. He should have run in 2016, was a better choice than HRC. Someone below age 70 would be nice though. Maybe we can try that soon.
And where the hell do you get I discourage anyone from voting for HRC in 2016 over Trump? That is pure fantasy on your part.
Right, and that’s you “bragging” about voting for her, in spite of her being such a terrible candidate. If you left off the “such a terrible candidate” part of the brag, then you may help to convince others to vote for her as well. Putting the “terrible candidate” part on discourages others to vote for her.
I just love this argument that we need to watch our language carefully on the SDMB to avoid giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
(imaginary NY Times story)
The Democratic Party leadership spent last night on conference calls and emergency meetings, desperately trying to stem the collapse in donations and volunteer enthusiasm resulting from well-known Internet personality What Exit’s criticism of candidate Hillary Clinton. A despondent Barack Obama, visibly struggling to hold back tears, said that Exit’s repeated public urging of everyone to vote for Clinton was insufficiently enthusiastic to give the party a chance of carrying key swing States.
This is an obscure message board, not a Sunday morning news show. Let’s not berate our friends for failing to prioritize pushing the Party line over giving their own actual opinions.
What is the source of your assessment for HRC being a “bad candidate”, other than the fact that she lost? What was bad about her? She won the popular vote, for crying out loud. She was literally more popular than her opponent. How does that square with the “bad candidate” talking point?
I grant that she carried the baggage of a quarter century of Republican smear tactics. But if we decide that’s the rubric of a “bad candidate”, then guess what kind of behavior you’re enabling.
Clinton was a bad candidate because most people disliked and distrusted her, due to a sustained right-wing smear campaign against her.
Obama was a good candidate because most people liked and trusted him, despite a sustained right-wing smear campaign against him.
Is this really that hard to understand?
I suppose for the same reason that you just made that all up.
I didn’t say that Republicans don’t bear any responsibility, not independants. Anyone who voted for Trump certainly does.
But so do those who didn’t vote for Hillary.
As far as your little dig about getting mad at other Democrats, if you voted for Hillary, then I’m not mad at you. If you didn’t, I’m still not mad, just disappointed.
The faction that I do see get mad everytime is those who refuse to accept responsibility for their participation in democracy. Ask them to vote for Hillary, and they act like you just shot their dog. Ask them to stop repeating right wing talking points about hillary, and they act like you just killed a family member.
I can tell that your post was written in anger. Why don’t you answer the question that the only people you seem to be capable of getting mad at are other Democrats?
Apparently.
Also don’t forget, HRC was not a very good communicator. Al Gore suffered from a similar issue. Obama and Bill Clinton were outstanding speakers.
Again, this is false. She won the popular vote. Naturally this doesn’t make her president, but it undermines the claim that she wasn’t likeable. She was literally, measurably more likeable than her opponent. There are numbers.
The right-wingers are going to smear anybody who looks like a front-runner. If you keep mindlessly repeating that candidates are bad because of right-wing smear campaigns, then you’re rewarding right-wing smear campaigns. It’s just an absolute shit way to assess candidates.
In What_Exit’s defense, my sense is that he’s using the term “terrible candidate” in an after-the-fact manner, and didn’t call her that before 11-8-2016.
I see this from time to time, but I wonder what guarantee that anyone nearly as progressive as she was would have been confirmed at that time. With a hostile senate, it’s likely that the seat would have been unfilled for the next 4 years. At very best you replace a strong progressive voice like RBG with a slightly center left like Merrick Garland.
Because we’re better people than they are, so we actually have expectations that can be disappointed.
Or maybe look for some younger energetic candidates that are also good speakers that can motivate the base. You know, like Obama or Bill Clinton.
Maybe someone more like AOC. She’ll be old enough in 2024.
Gretchen Whitmer is only 50.
I thought Perfect was the enemy of good or something?
Wouldn’t Garland be far better than what we got?
And how was she a bad candidate? Try to answer without repeating any right wing talking points.
If he had lost, would you have said that he was a bad candidate?
Maybe, but I don’t know that I would ask someone to do so right after the death of their child.
Yeah, sometimes I feel like I’m still living in my parent’s house.
Any time you told people that Hillary was a terrible candidate. You don’t think that that is discouraging?