Clinton was exposed against Obama and that should have been a warning to the Democratic party. Claims of a “vast right wing conspiracy” aside, many of the scandals attached to her were entirely of her own making. As someone noted earlier, Clinton was around too long and she never got rid of the sense that she was corrupt and, more importantly, insincere.
True. The contrast with W, who actually had to beat a popular incumbent in a statewide election is striking.
[QUOTE=Omar Little]
Actually know her. Partial business and social interactions.
[/QUOTE]
Cool. If you don’t mind. From what I have read, she is rather reserved, unlike Bill. And apparently, her Southern accent which she has lost, does come back in private.
To look at the numbers that (cited in the pit thread) they say clearly that it was her failure of charisma, the demotivation of the “voters of Obama” and not a gain by Trump.
I said
The numbers from this article, It Appears As Though Hillary Clinton Was Ultimately Done In By Low Democratic Voter Turnout, which is showing the American voting data that you have the confirmation it was indeed the collapse in the enthusiasm and the support of Mrs Clinton’s own party and not an explosion of the support to Trump.
Also agraphical presentation of the numbers to show (image file png)
These are numbers that would I think encourage the actually charismatic potential opponent to take heed for they say not that large numbers turned to Trump, but that only there was large demotivation and it seems well understood she was not ever the good campaigner or the charismatic politician who motivates.
even to put this on the dislike of women seems wrong.
Do people have the notion that Clinton was blown out in the 2008 primaries? Because it was an incredibly close race.
She’s hobbled by a lack of charisma (and the vision thing as H.W. would say). She’s a wonk. She’s be a fantastic Prime Minister-type, but the ability to run for office is difficult for her - she kind of reminds me somewhat of Angela Merkel (who probably has even less charisma than Clinton).
Well, they couldn’t run for President simultaneously, and she thought (correctly, I think) that she should have some experience in elective office before running for the top job.
That’s a pretty fundamental misunderstanding about how modern PM’s are selected and elected, You need to be party leader and you need to (at least normally) win a general election.
Nor is charisma necessary, George HW Bush, Dubya, Reagan, Carter, Nixon et al were not particularly charismatic, but won elections.
People seem to have a notion that Clinton was blown out of the 2016 Presidential race. She actually won the popular vote by 1%.
But for some reason, people just have this negative perception of Clinton while are completely willing to overlook the negative reality of Trump.
Yes, I know how Prime Ministers are selected. I was saying that that role would be great for her, in terms of leading a party.
Did you just say Reagan wasn’t charismatic?
I’d also quibble with Dubya as well and Carter.
As a long term Democrat who voted for Bill twice, I agree with most of this. I was appalled by how Bill and Hillary treated Monica Lewinski who was an intern for godsakes. I was appalled, as a New Yorker, when Hillary flounced into the state and was given the Senate seat. I was appalled when the Clinton’s went from “dead broke” to multi-multi millionaires by “giving speeches”. I couldn’t believe it when Obama appointed her Sec of State and kept her in the political arena:smack:
I voted for Bernie in the primaries. I voted for her in the election only because of Trump:eek: We have a Trump presidency in large part because of the hubris of Hillary Clinton.
I think people are focusing on things like charisma and ignoring her stance on substantive issues. On war, she’s a definite hawk today, and was in favor of the Iraq war until her favor became irrelevant. On LGBT issues, she was opposed to gay marriage during her entire time as senator and her first run at president, only switching in 2013. On race, she was in favor targetting ‘super predators’ (code word for urban blacks) until now when she’s against it. On the economy, she’s a darling of Wall Street and supported Bill in gutting economic protections. And she’s been a big proponent of gun control (voted for the AWB and campaigned for a new one), which is an issue where blue collar Democrats and potential Democrats dramatically differ from her wealthy NY and DC friends.
She has flip-flopped on a number of major ‘progressive’ issues, and stuck to her guns (no pun intended) on a divisive issue that it’s pretty obvious she wasn’t going to succeed at anyway and that’s big in swing states. I think it speaks volumes that most of what I heard in favor of her boils down to ‘at least she’s not Trump,’ ‘she has a vagina’, ‘you’re racist/sexist/etcist if you don’t support her’, and the like. That message fails to energize the people who would vote for her anyway, turns off a lot of people who might vote for her anyway, energizes a lot of people who might like Trump (‘if I’m going to be called a racist anyway, may as well vote for the guy’), and fails to speak to people feeling angry at the political establishment and facing economic devastation in their towns.
I agree that she’s not a really good campaigner, and think that while she’s a successful politician (Senator and Sec of State are big) she’s really only good at appealing to a narrow band of people, especially other politicians. And I think that she had a lot of substantive problems with her actual positions and (lack of) message.
She lost the 2016 Presidential race as the heir-elect of her party against a reality TV star who’s preferred business model is declaring bankruptcy, who was de-endorsed by every living president, and who essentially went to war with his party.
Reagan and Carter were both very charismatic. I don’t like Reagan at all, but he was extremely good at appealing to people, a lot of people really liked him.
That’s a truly amazing statement to make about Reagan, who was famed for his charisma. He wasn’t nicknamed “The Great Communicator” for nothing. The man was a professional Hollywood actor.
W. Bush was charming, to be sure, as was Carter. I’d agree Bush 1.0 was not, but he rode on Reagan’s coattails and once those were gone so was he. Nixon’s a strange case. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were/are very charismatic.
But the theory is about who is “more” charismatic in the eyes of the decisive voters: the bar can be damn low. You don’t need to be Elvis.
(Nixon was another geologic age as far as this is concerned. )
I have opined to my friends and colleagues for some time now that Hillary Clinton should never have been put into politics by the powers that be in the Democratic Party. She’s a relatively poor politician. Her one saving grace was that she was the most notable female politician at the time (2000), who had some public sympathy in her favor as being the wronged woman in the Clinton-Lewinsky mess. The Democratic Party sold its soul to her in a desperate attempt to create the first female President, and they tried to ride that horse far longer than they should have.
But my real objection to her isn’t that she’s lacking charisma (which she does, indeed lack). Nor, that she’s private, or insular, or whatever you want to call it. My real objection is that she’s average at best at doing whatever job she’s elected/appointed to do. She was a seat-warmer in the Senate, for the most part. As Secretary of State, she accomplished little of note, and while she’s not responsible for Ambassador Stevens’ death, her general lack of intensity in running the Department led to the decisions which left him exposed. Her saga with the emails is a classic example of her basic ineptitude for doing her job; the description that she was “extremely careless” says it all.
Thankfully, neither party at this point has an heir-apparent to the throne. I seriously doubt Mr. Trump will create one, and the Democrats haven’t bothered to cultivate one. We might see a return to the parties ending up with politicians at the helm of the ship who actually do a good job at politicking. Not that I’m holding my breath.
Right, but no one cares about that shit. I talked to a number of Trump supporters from all walks of life. Their arguments are dumb as shit. But they all come down to this vague sense that Hillary is “corrupt”, “inept” and that she is part of a grand evil dynasty of career politicians who are royally fucking over the middle class. They vote for Trump because in their mind, Trump offers nothing but upside. There is just this cognitive dissonance between how Trump acts and what they believe he actually is.
Hillary never created a brand for herself the way Trump did with his “Make America Great” again campaign. Ironically, as much as Hillary tried to campaign against voting for fear and divisiveness, she inadvertently made her campaign about fear of Trump and ended up isolating anyone who considered voting for him.
Yes they do. No, not the ones yelling “Crooked Hillary!” But she obviously failed to excite her base to some extent. I wonder how many Bernie supporters or even independents stayed home or voted for Johnson or Stein because they didn’t like where Hillary stood on the actual issues. Probably some non-zero number, which could have really helped on Tuesday.
Reagan was definitely charismatic, even more than Carter. W has his charm as well. HW Bush probably rates at average in the charisma department, which is demonstrated by beating a wonky Dukakis but losing to a charismatic Bill Clinton. Nixon is the only real anomaly, and the social upheaval of the late 60s and early 70s, as well as his high intelligence, is possibly a good explanation for how he managed to win in spite of a lack of charisma. Other than Nixon, I think the most charismatic candidate has won every presidential election since 1932. You’d have to go back to Hoover and earlier to find another (other than Nixon) exception, and it probably holds true even then, I just can’t make the claim since I’m not as familiar with the losing candidates that far back.
She never really had a southern accent, and yes she is much more reserved than Bill. I haven’t spoken to her since she left the administration. I saw the President last year when we were in Philly at the same time.
why would she have a southern accent when she grew up in Chicago area? I know she lived in Arkansas as an adult but that’s after most people get their accent.
Coincides with my observations in the very limited interactions I’ve had with both.
Some people tend to unconsciously absorb some elements of the accent of their new surroundings after prolonged or sustained immersion, but it resets quite quickly if you are re-inmersed in a different one.