Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsClinton likely to win Presidency... so media invents new definition of "winning", just for her.
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/06/pundits-new-lament-clinton-might-win-she-won-t-win-right-way/210258But instead of admitting they misread her run (how do you accumulate 13 million primary votes and not connect with people?), some have decided to change the rules -- to move the goal posts midway through the game -- and suggest that even if she wins the presidency, Clinton will have won it the wrong way, and that in some bizarre way her victory wont be legitimate.
...
According to Fournier, Clintons victory and her presidency will only matter if she completely transforms American politics. And if she accomplishes that without any help from Republicans, of course.
...
Meanwhile, over at Politico, Todd Purdums recent piece, How Hillary Could Win the Electionand Lose the Country, harped on many of the same points Fournier made in The Atlantic. Yes, Clinton can win, but shes winning the wrong way:
" It is entirely possible to be the winner and still not get much of a mandateto enter office as a kind of default president who gets in because no other candidate is electable but who doesnt have the faith and loyalty of a large portion of the nation.
Specifically, Purdum deducts points for Clinton lacking a clear vision (a new animating idea). Yes, as Purdum quotes from a recent Clinton speech, shes fighting for civil rights, voting rights, workers rights, womens rights, LGBT rights, and rights for people with disabilities. But to pundit Purdum, it seems boring.
--------------
Did these pundits lament that GWB won the 2004 election by a razor-thin margin and then went on to brag that this victory gives him a mandate?
Did these pundits lament when Mitt Romney became the republican candidate by default in 2012 because the other guys were just horrible and embarrassing?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 633 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton likely to win Presidency... so media invents new definition of "winning", just for her. (Original Post)
DetlefK
May 2016
OP
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)1. Republicans worked hard to earn the disgust this country feels for them.
Fournier has never been able to admit that. He is one who pushes the "both parties are equally guilty" meme.
procon
(15,805 posts)2. Women, like blacks, are just too scary to be allowed into the privileged
white man's private power club. As Hillary's lead widens, watch how the media will begin to transform Trump from an idiotic buffoon, into a wise sage deserving of becoming the next fearless leader.