Well, if we’re trying to understand why these specific people did what they did, we’re probably not going to succeed. The best way to do that would be for the OP to ask those people. We can only speak of things in general.
There was a lot of Hillary hate on facebook during the last year when the smart asses in blue states were agitating for "purity"and trump was seen as a “wild card”. I knew someone who was into all that and voted for Stein. If you ever talked to him he would come out with a russian talking point automatically.
It turned out they were talking with a bunch of russian bots on facebook, and having their little purity fantasy. Not too smart, asses.
Be careful what you wish for… While Bernie could not beat Hillary in the primary, I think it is possible he could have beat Trump in the general. Hillary had baggage that Bernie did not.
Your confidence in Trump not withstanding, I do agree with you about Hillary with this. I think we dodge a bullet in that Hillary was ready and willing to engage Russia militarily. This was the one substantial silver lining in 2016. There are other, potential, silver linings but they have not materialized yet.
It’s not that I have some supreme confidence in Trump’s electoral prowess or anything like that. Hes eminently beatable. It’s just that leftists saying “Well, if this is how you treat one of ours who is centrist and reasonable, then we’ll offer up someone who is much less palatable to you; see how you like that” doesn’t seem like a very intelligent strategy to get what they presumably want.
The thing is, though, that so many conservatives were absolutely incapable of recognizing Clinton as centrist and reasonable, because they were so heavily invested in their longstanding folktale narrative of Evil Witch Communist Murderess Vampire Hillary.
I’m not much cop at counterfactual handicapping and I don’t really have a clear idea of whether Sanders would have done better or worse than Clinton against Trump in the general election. But I do know that it was absolutely not an issue of Sanders being “much less palatable” to conservative voters in terms of a rational comparison of his positions to Clinton’s.
To a large swath of conservative voters, there was NOBODY less palatable than Clinton, and rational evaluation of political positions had nothing whatever to do with it.
I think this is close to the mark. I never hated Hillary but I completely get why she’s not likable. My problem with Hillary is: 1) she fucking lost, and 2) she’s processing her post-election grieving in public, which makes her look pathetic. She lacks self-awareness, which dogged her during her political career and does so even now in her post-election life as a private citizen.
:dubious: Pathetic all the way to the bank, perhaps:
Why shouldn’t Clinton take advantage of this opportunity to make a boatload of bucks telling a story that many people are obviously interested in hearing? Why treat it as the personal flaw of a woman not handling her emotions properly, instead of an astute business decision that’s paying off for her very well?
Sarah Palin also published her (best-selling) personal memoir after losing a national election, and although the book was widely mocked for its shallow content I don’t recall anybody claiming that she looked “pathetic” just for having written it.
I’ve never been much of a Hillary Clinton fan and have no interest in reading her book, but I am even less a fan of the people whose only idea for Democratic policy seems to be lashing out at her. If you can’t “heal” with Clinton still in the room and still making money from many supporters’ continuing interest in her, then feel free to just sit there continuing to bleed and sulk. Nobody cares.
Why on earth not? After the centrist and reasonable Mitt Romney the Republicans offered up the much less palatable Donald Trump. Are only Republicans allowed to be vindictive and to be rewarded for it?
In theory they have the same info, but in reality they don’t.
Here’s something that I don’t think enough people understand. While Hillary does elicit an extra-nasty response, it really doesn’t matter if it’s Hillary or someone else. If a person has a D next to their name, they hate America, love terrorists, hate the troops, love killing babies, and want to take away everything you own and make America socialist. I deal with these people every day in my stupid red state and everything they say is just so fucking stupid. I just got back from visiting family where I had to hear it from every adult in the room.
I don’t care if a person is conservative but I’m fucking sick of them living in cookoo land.
I don’t know. You can try it and found out. In fact, I’d be delighted if you’d try it, I just don’t think it’s very smart.
Like I said, though, there seems little reason to believe that Republican voters in general nowadays are reacting to candidates based on rational assessment of their positions on the conservative/liberal spectrum (much less their fundamental competence or intelligence).
Democrats need to recognize that there is no sense in trying to appeal to Republican voters based on what a reasonable, reality-based adherent of conservative positions would rationally prefer. That description simply doesn’t reliably apply to Republican voters any more.
If the conservative media tells them that your candidate was born in Kenya, or is secretly Muslim, or murdered Vince Foster, or ran a child sex-abuse ring out of a pizza parlor, that is what a significant portion of Republican voters will believe, and what a significant number of Republican politicians (even the ones who don’t themselves believe the myths) will encourage their voters to believe.
What you or any other halfway-rational Republican thinks would be “smart” for Democrats to do to attract Republican votes is no longer relevant to the world we live in.
I think I’m grateful to be lumped in with the “other halfway-rational Republican[s]”
Not to mention the 1.2 million people who voted for Jill Stein because they couldn’t hold their nose long enough to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton.
Ooookay then.
Despite the undeniable entertainment value such would afford, who, or what kind of candidate, do you think the Dems should nominate? Who, IOW, is someone who doesn’t appeal to rational conservatives, but does appeal to liberals? And what would his/her/its/their positions look like?
Just writing off half the country and relying on turn out doesn’t seem to have worked for them all that well circa 2016.
Regards,
Shodan
The OP asks for reasons, as if the emotion were driven by reasons. But it isn’t. On the rare occasions when a purported reason is offered, it’s patently a rationalization, typically even contrary to the facts.
The reason is simply that haters gonna hate.
If I could pick anybody, I think that Michelle Obama would fit that bill nicely. Dems would turn out in huge numbers. As would independents. Can’t imagine many rational conservatives would bother even voting in such an election with the current incumbent.
But that won’t happen because she won’t run. So who else?
Maybe Bernie will have another go, but I hope not. Gavin Newsom would be another one, but he’s more of a moderate. Joe Biden has great appeal to a lot of disenfranchised Trump voters but I’m not sure how many rational conservatives would get behind him as he’s pretty liberal on financial regulations and healthcare, IMO.
You could change Republican to Democratic and conservative to liberal, and send this to conservatives and they would agree with your statement. The folks on the far right and far left that are pulling their respective parties further from the center are doing no one any good. Neither are people who say f those idiots on the other side, we’ll just to it all our way.
Yep this.
You see it most clearly with the russia scandal; everytime something breaks they can’t actually report the news on Fox, and so they go back to clinton over and over.
And of course Conway and Sanders are using this tactic too, which is even more shameful.
The last Conway interview I saw was excruciating: “Kellyanne, the question was about Trump’s approval numbers…” “Yes and look what you said about Clinton’s poll numbers in the run-up to the election, but the american people knew she was a liar, she did the disatrous deal with Iran, something something Clinton Foundation…”
More like: When Party X tries to define what Party Y’s viewpoints ought to be, based off of Party X’s logic, then more often than not Party Y will reject it. Because it will often be a thinly disguised version of a Party X platform.
There is no shortage of conservatives who say things like, “If liberals were *truly *liberal, they’d do…X, Y and Z.” Unsurprisingly, in the minds of conservatives, *true *liberals would…behave conservatively. “*True *liberals would stand up for the rights of the vulnerable unborn and protect the rights of the unborn. *True *liberals would permit hate speech in the name of free speech. *True *liberals would support gun ownership in the name of personal liberty. *True *liberals would…”
I’d be happy if folk would extend this beyond my tiny sample. I just am not sure I can recall a non-officeholder receiving such nastiness. I’m not saying folk of various persuasions don’t have plenty of reasons to dislike Her. But we’ve lived in Chicago’s western burbs for 30+ years. The total number of instances in which my wife’s social circle called someone a cunt = 0. We’ve known this other guy 30+ years. The number of times he expressed a strong political opinion before = 0. What has happened, such that a middleaged, middleclass wife and mother would think (even after some wine) that a bookclub discussion with friends and neighbors called for such language?
I readily acknowledge that many liberals had little favorable to say about W, tho IIRC the most unpleasant words were saved for the likes of Cheney. But it impresses me as different to be criticizing an incumbent, who is responsible for ongoing policy. Similarly, I’m willing to differentiate what I perceived as unjustified and apparently race-related criticism of Obama - another incumbent.
I believe this is related to something I perceive as related to Trump. Not sure if he is responsible, or merely typifies it - the lowering of the acceptable level of political discourse. The manner in which he conducts himself seems to be making it more acceptable for folk of various stripes to express themselves in extreme manners.
Meanwhile, makes for an interesting social situation. How to immediately respond to someone who expresses their political/social views in such a manner, and how that might change the way I wish to associate with that person in the future.