General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsVery simple explanation for why Schumer and other Dems are distancing themselves from Hillary
She's unpopular, especially for former candidates and presidents.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/finally-a-poll-trump-will-like-clinton-even-more-unpopular
From the same poll:
Former Vice President Joe Biden is just one percentage point below Obama and at his highest level since the poll started asking about him in December 2009.
It doesn't really matter in the world of politics whether it's fair or unfair that Clinton is unpopular. There's a reason Tr*mp brings her up in his tweets all the time.
At least 20% of those polled have a positive view of Obama but a negative one of Clinton, despite the fact their policies are virtually identical.
Ligyron
(7,681 posts)Don't know about that one...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is still not over the 2016 election.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Most will, but I don't expect her popularity to rise anytime soon.
BeyondGeography
(39,427 posts)Every time Trump's followers get bored, he takes a shot at Hillary and they wake up. One need only look at how many more likes his HRC-related tweets get. Additionally, Dems most certainly have polling that shows them getting low marks for being perceived as not owning up to the reality of the 2016 result. Otherwise, Schumer, who has been one of HRC's most stalwart supporters for many years, would not have gone there.
pnwmom
(109,049 posts)When both Republicans and many Democrats are using her as target practice, what do you expect?
BeyondGeography
(39,427 posts)I'm sure you disagree, but Schumer isn't just another Bernie Bro. You might ask yourself why a politically smart and longtime HRC loyalist like Schumer has gotten to where he is on this point.
pnwmom
(109,049 posts)onetexan
(13,133 posts)the orange jackass can't seem to get Hillary or Obama out from under his skin. He knows how authentic and clearly more highly qualfied they are than he is, that he is way out of their league, & that he could not have won without cheating.
uponit7771
(90,407 posts)... is that stupid IMHO, more disconnected with DNC base and their love for her.
Also, HRC's poll numbers were great until the GOP spent 100 million of us tax dollars to decrease her poll numbers via Bhenghazi
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Chuck Schumer made one off-hand comment about Clinton.
Can the Democratic party rebrand itself without some separation from unpopular figures from its past?
delisen
(6,066 posts)Baconator
(1,459 posts)The party brand right now is, in fact, weak.
pnwmom
(109,049 posts)and lowers her popularity numbers.
She's not running for office, and she doesn't need us to protect her feelings.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)When women see how Hillary is being treated, even as a private citizen, do you think that'll encourage women to run? It ups the gradient of the hill women have to climb for representation by ten degrees, while men get even more of a downhill run.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It will still be an issue.
Sucks huh?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)She is one person. There are many strong, powerful, smart and accomplished women rising in the leadership ranks of the Democratic Party, names like Harris and Warren, Gillibrand and Duckworth, etc.
... maybe focus on them? Especially since they're actively in office?
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Did you read Elizabeth Warren's Facebook page when she refused to endorse anyone in the primary? It was vile, and it was from people on the left side of the political spectrum. Harris is already being talked about as "anointed", etc. We see how women in public spaces are being treated. Author Sady Doyle is being attacked through her newborn baby because she dared to voice opposition to the Chapo Trap house guys.
The thing about Hillary Clinton, though? You might not see it, most men don't, to be honest. She is being attacked even after she's pretty much withdrawn from the public arena, and after she has stated that she takes the blame for her loss. It's telling all women that if they dare presume to get out on the public stage, they'll not only be attacked while on it, even by those who should (on paper) be on the same side as us, but that we'll never get a break after if we try. We will always be hunted if we speak out.
Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, and Duckworth are exceptional women - because that is what women (and other minorities, of course) have to be in order to even manage to think about entering politics. As I said, this hounding of Hillary Clinton makes the hill to climb steeper for all women, and that makes the down-hill slope men have to walk to get to the same place even easier to traverse.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)hell, there were threads on DU not so subtly insinuating, all of a sudden, that she - Senator Warren, for fuck's sake - was a racist.
I guess that there was driven by misogyny, huh.
lapucelle
(18,467 posts)repugnant Republican female senators."
Some of the people that are opposed to this [i.e., repealing Obamacare] there are some female senators from the northeast, Farenthold said. If it was a guy from south Texas I might ask them to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style.
https://thinkprogress.org/gop-congressman-blames-health-care-struggle-on-repugnant-republican-female-senators-ca4a2f32c5d7
pnwmom
(109,049 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The manner in which you have approached this is deceptive.
Schumer gains not one single thing from his comment. He created no distance. What a deceptive argument just to take a swipe.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Republicans--including Tr*mp--are all talking about how the Democrats are moving on from Clinton.
That's free publicity.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)He did no such thing. There is the deceptive part of your argument.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I clearly didn't say it was deceptive because I disagree. What a strang retort.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)because you didn't agree with what I wrote.
newsflash: people can honestly disagree with you.
what part of "he helped publicly distance the party from an historically unpopular presidential candidate" is so obviously false it could only have been written out of dishonesty?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-popularity-poll_us_596e5bc5e4b0000eb1967c73
Baconator
(1,459 posts)Seems at least plausible...
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)R B Garr
(17,082 posts)that were designed to achieve the results of lowering her approval ratings. That's why they smeared her. It didn't just happen in a vacuum.
And Schumer just tossed his hat in the very same ring.
It's obvious that he is just trying to appeal to the Clinton haters.
LuvLoogie
(7,141 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,414 posts)than to live as Reek, castrated, meek, and living in constant fear. Even if they give him some sort of redemption arc it doesn't matter.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Reminder that Schumer has been very effective leading the Democratic resistance to Tr*mp inside DC and especially the Senate.
His goal is fighting Tr*mp and winning elections, not salvaging Clinton's reputation.
Reminder that in politics if one wants a friend, buy a dog.
kacekwl
(7,047 posts)ran away from Obama ? ALL I see is a party that doesn't support its own positions and makes me more likely to do the same. Example, Bernie Sanders.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)kacekwl
(7,047 posts)and Schumer' s statement is wrong and unnecessary. Hillary was the candidate pushing the Democratic party position and bashing her shows everyone that the Leadership by pushing her away you push those positions away.
kcr
(15,335 posts)Why would we take the fist that the GOP beats us with and then beat ourselves some more, saying "Yep! It's true! We suck!" And right when Trump and the GOP are imploding! It makes no god damned sense. The we-have-to-own-our-mistakes crowd don't get that the GOP never pull this crap. You'll never see them doing it. It's weak kneed bullshit. We don't need to beat ourselves up to win.
Thank YOU! I agree completely with everything you said!
bdjhawk
(421 posts)She was the DEMOCRATIC nominee and negative comments reflect on our brand. There is no point to putting her down and basically agreeing with tRump and the other racist, woman-haters that are spewing negativity. Her beliefs/policy proposals are right in line with most Dems and what we should be reminding the general public of. As tRump and the Repugs look to screw over all but the top of the 1%-ers, our message should be a constant message of what it would be like if she was President. While the 30 year non-stop RW war on HRC is to blame, we have allowed it to take hold more than it should have by not attacking back with FACTS to defend her and other Dems.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Tr*mp had nothing bad to say about GOP practices in the past.
Why do they always do this? It doesn't work.
nini
(16,672 posts)Just don't bring her up.
this is all doing the repub's dirty work for them.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)get the red out
(13,468 posts)Can just move on to the next races and then the next Presidential primaries. The party doesn't help itself by staying stuck in the past. RW brainwashing, lying media hate-spewers demonized a good woman who would have been a very good President, then Russia helped cause her to lose on top of that. Just have to work on what happens from here.
delisen
(6,066 posts)Clinton is threatening. she sees the big picture and acts. She takes strong stands. It why Putin hates her: sanctions, human rights...
In fact the oil industry doesn't like her either.
Tillerson probably dislikes her too. she stood in the way of oil profits.
It is always interesting to see big oil and a few in the center and on the left unite against a common "enemy".
ismnotwasm
(42,061 posts)It was a dumbass comment anyway you slice it--it revealed weaknesses of the Democratic Party to the point it shows we are eating our own.
I know there are a number of things to improve. Couple Of Things not to do; Chasing racist white votes at the expense of African American base. Taking party hits off the back of Hillary Clinton. It makes us look weak.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)"at the expense of African-American base" is the key part--Obama managed to thread that needle in a way that Clinton couldn't/didn't.
Republicans eat their own much more than we do. This was a pretty mild statement compared to what their side says about each other.
ismnotwasm
(42,061 posts)To be fair, Democrats are never going to be the lock step Republican Party, and will always have wide variance, but it's a still a variance within perimeters.
Times are changing. AA's have a right not to be taken for granted as per usual. I'm firmly convinced diversity is the future of our party, and leave the Hillary bashing to the bros and to the rightwing nuts. She should be honored as the statesman she is. That being said--I get we need to criticize and analyze. And we need to do it a lot. What we don't need to do is give those assholes on the dark side free ammo. Make them work for it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)vs consciously deciding that (1) the party needs to rebrand itself and (2) the party needs to have a very honest discussion about what it did wrong.
Note, by the way, that this sort of event was probably bound to happen after Clinton's interview at Recode, where she suggested criticism over giving Wall Street speeches after the subprime shitpile was misogynistic (maybe literally the one criticism that wasn't tainted by misogyny) and that she lost because the DNC data team dropped the ball and where she dropped this doozy:
Her trashing of the DNC, especially its data team, in public like that while refusing to admit that she did anything that caused herself to lose was really the last straw for a number of people--most similar to the Kerry "stuck in Iraq" fiasco.
It seems that a lot of the criticism over eating our own should have also been directed at her back when she gave that interview.
ismnotwasm
(42,061 posts)Especially the intense focus on the speeches if not the speeches themselves. I understand not everyone is going to see things that way, so in that, you have a point. The DNC couldn't or wouldn't control the media, the constant pressure, constant bashing of "Hillary Clinton" like she was patent fucking pending. She rode it like a champ--it took a lot, one hell of a lot from all sides, to take her down. That's my overall impression by the way. How much it actually took, in real time,to make her lose. So while yes we need to feel our way through the tough questions, and yes, we don't have the luxury of time to do so--that means to me we have to be careful about the time we have. I'll reiterate, giving ammo to those fuckers is not what I want to do--sorry I'm not being very articulate, I'm typing furiously from work...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)give big bucks speeches to the people who gave us the financial crisis. Any primary opponent would have hit her on that. Candidate Obama in 2008 hit her for less and arguably even in harsher tones. I think people have forgotten how personal the 2008 primary was on both sides, in terms of the attacks.
I don't think it's giving the Republicans much ammo to say "the Democratic party needs to broaden its appeal and learn from the mistakes it made in the past"-getting that sort of thing widely distributed is actually absolutely necessary in order to rebrand the party and help win back disaffected voters.
mulsh
(2,959 posts)time to find newer, fresher candidates. I suggest not wasting time on people who consistently say they aren't interested in running for the office like Warren or Franke for pres. and concentrate on up and coming people like Harris, Gillibrand, Kloblacher, Booker, Coons, Schiff, and many more.
-notice how the women are listed first, that's a hint to my fellow DU-ers who are thinking of viable candidates.
Schumer is looking for face time on TV, bad mouthing Hillary achieves that goal, too bad a clever guy like him has to resort to stunts like that.
jalan48
(13,971 posts)leftstreet
(36,125 posts)The GOPers will be campaigning against 'Teh Clintons!' in the year 3000.
The Democrats have to start somewhere to unring this rusty bell
DURec
vi5
(13,305 posts)....actually think that somehow all of this is going to play out with Clinton still becoming president somehow. I firmly believe that is why people are focusing more effort on the Russian issue than they are on the literally hundreds of other things Trump is doing that can and should take him down and also just as likely to destroy our democracy if they remain unchallenged and unchecked. It's that the Russia issue somehow validates Hillary.
Many don't seem to want to realize that there is literally no possible way this plays out that Hillary Clinton becomes president. Not one. Not a single miniscule, minute, microscopic, sub-atomic chance that she will ever be president no matter what comes out about the election of 2016.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)a DU poll to see how many think there is a possibility Hillary is going to become President.
Hillary SHOULD be President, does not mean she will be.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)The Dems ran away from Obamacare when it was signed into law and the repubs beat on it to whip up their rabid base.
Here they're doing it again and it's against Hillary despite the fact that she still got 3 million more votes, the Russians and tRump's colluded together and Comey yanking the rug out from under her just days before the election.
They can go fuck themselves for all I care.
I have fucking supported the Dems for years back when Big Dog was president.
The Dems should be fighting like hell for the Clinton and Obama's legacies. Stop letting the fucking repukes constantly cram their talking points down everyone's throat.
Most of the problem with the Dems is that they aren't fighting hard enough and sometimes it feels like they're not fighting at all. They're just rolling the fuck over for the repubs.
I'm goddamn sick of it.
Not only that, I'm even questioning why the hell I'm in this party right now.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They aren't fighting for Clinton's for the same reason they didn't fight for Kerry's or Gore. Losing Presidential candidates don't become President and they thus don't have a legacy to defend.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Hillary does have a legacy, but it's not in the presidential realm.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The only reason the idiot in the White House got anywhere close enough to winning is because huge parts of the country feel like their lives are getting worse not better, so they were willing to take a punt on that vile asshole. If we were stronger and selling our message properly that could not have happened.
So how about we stop talking about legacies and the hurt feelings and reputations of millionaire politicians and start focusing on telling the voters exactly what we're going to do to improve their lives.
Skittles
(153,677 posts)BENGHAZI! EMAILS!
that gal is held accountable more than all the men put together
JHan
(10,173 posts)well stop the presses, I'm shocked.
And this is some how a sign that Hillary Clinton should be treated like a leper in the Democratic Party?
"It doesn't really matter in the world of politics" - If our female Democratic politicians are targets of propaganda it matters. It also mattered that America Rising Superpac targeted Clinton way back in 2015 and some on the left fell for their machinations, worse yet we had no response for it. Not only did we have no response for it, America's sexism was exposed in the way "establishment" was hung round Clinton's neck, a woman who has been a liberal reformer as a public servant, like an albatross by progressives and liberals, conservatives and republicans alike. It matters because Ratfucking is bad, ratfucking diminishes our leaders and their accomplishments and no Democrat should fall in that trap.
Warren and Harris will be targeted - Harris less so because she has less of a record to demonize her with which is crazy..
Public Policy Polling: Another poll which oversamples certain demographics, is revealing as well:
So miss me with the newest hot take that HRC should be persona non grata.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/07/health-care-a-mine-field-for-republicans-many-trump-voters-in-denial-on-russia.html
EDIT: I'm all for moving on from last year, that'll be great. But I won't throw a dedicated Democrat under the bus to do so....
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Chevy
(1,063 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)she's not an independent white male voter though, so no one will care.
Chevy
(1,063 posts)a neo liberal corporate shill for her troubles.
she's exactly what a neo liberal shill looks like I guess!?
/sarcasm.
the bullshit we must endure eh.
Chevy
(1,063 posts)probably just got back from a Wall street meeting.
JHan
(10,173 posts)clear sign she's an elitist something something.
Chevy
(1,063 posts)I'm sending mine out today. Schumer should've found a better way to convey what he meant on Sunday. They are really taking certain demographics for granted since November and IMO need some pushback.
delisen
(6,066 posts)and join the fray, thus enabling Republicans and Trump to make her the topic and not the mess they have made.
Why work for the Republican agenda by tearing down your party's candidate--whom Republicans and Putin still fear even though she is supposedly defeated?
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)National exit poll:
* Hillary -- 43% favorable, 55% unfavorable
* Democratic Party -- 47% favorable, 49% unfavorable
So Trump gains more from attacking Hillary than the Democratic Party in general. He figured that out ages ago.
It can be logically argued that the net opinion of our party would have been positive with a more popular nominee. There is not a clean separation.
BTW, Trump in the same exit poll was 38-60 and his party 40-55.
lapucelle
(18,467 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Yet suddenly this little slap from Schumer is seen by some as too much? Crazy world we live in..
BainsBane
(53,164 posts)From what I heard, the "progressives" were outraged that he came out in support of some policy positions they supported, until yesterday.
Hillary Clinton is out of politics. She's said very plainly she will not run again. Of course, Schumer would not have made those comments if she were still in. What he did wasn't hardball. It was an effort to placate critics who don't want his support for issues. If issues mattered, they wouldn't dislike Clinton so much. Since the GE, we've seen them absolutely giddy when Bernie endorsed positions that Clinton had proposed in detail. It's pretty obvious that what matters is not policy or issues but who proposes something. And they believe they are entitled to power, despite not being able to win a single elected anywhere, even in the bluest of districts. Schumer could lie down for every last one of their demands, and they'd still want his head.
Schumer obviously has no idea who he's dealing with.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)He's set em off!
JHan
(10,173 posts)and a lot of them are still bitchin - the name is wrong , it's "uninspiring"... LOL, I mean really?? LOL...Can't please people.
I often say it's best to take personalities out of the thing, it's foolish to characterize Democrats has having no message last year - it's the hot take by the armchair experts but it bears no semblance to reality:
She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administrations record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word job more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word jobs more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in historyone specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.
Whats more, the evidence that Clinton lost because of the nations economic disenchantment is extremely mixed. Some economists found that Trump won in counties affected by trade with China. But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits. In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy. If the 2016 election had come down to economics exclusively, the working classwhich, by any reasonable definition, includes the black, Hispanic, and Asian working classes, toowould have elected Hillary Clinton president.
The more frightening possibility for liberals is that Clinton didnt lose because the white working class failed to hear her message, but precisely because they did hear it."
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/
People want to know why some folks get irritated when we hear "there was no message" - it's because it's an insult to our intelligence.
BainsBane
(53,164 posts)despite having the evidence pointed to them repeatedly. Whatever prompts people to continue to push a false narrative is clearly too important to be encumbered by facts.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I really wish there was a better understanding of this..Also we must have political power for our message to resonate, the minimum wage increase will be incremental after the legislative arm twisting and wage stagnation is a complex thing requiring more than just an increase by a couple dollars in the minimum wage. Did you see Justanothergen's post in AA group? https://www.democraticunderground.com/118762363 A one size fits all strategy won't work.
But we have to control political narratives... The GOP do this VERY well. It's why their swiftboating is so destructive and effective.
andym
(5,453 posts)when she was SS. More popular than Obama at the time. Since 2016 she has been in the low 40's to high 30's. The GOP was aided and abetted by the FBI investigation of her email server and to some extent Wikileaks and the Russians. Some rare politicians wear teflon coating: Reagan and Bill Clinton to some extent. Others (like Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and Hillary) are like magnets for slander and I'm not sure why. It's certainly unfair.
BainsBane
(53,164 posts)She has said very clearly she will not be running for office again. Why is it so important for you to ensure that she is treated with abject contempt? What is the goal?
The only reason such a poll exists is because Clinton hating is a multi-billion dollar industry. Where's the poll about Al Gore and John Kerry, or Mike Dukakis? Lots of Democrats have lost, but few of them generate the profits that pillorying Hillary does. That profit-making beast has to be fed.
Oh, wait. This is about dominance politics, isn't it? It's not Clinton that's the target but the majority of Democrats who voted for her. But guess what, we still have the right to vote, and we still are going to exercise it. No corporate media poll is going to change that. I fully intended to continue to exercise my vote based on policy, qualifications, and competence rather than corporate media image, mendacity, and white male dominance.
UCmeNdc
(9,603 posts)Personal .
She should attack not as a democratic leader but as a private citizen.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Bad bad bad
Demsrule86
(69,046 posts)we can lose every election.
treestar
(82,383 posts)betsuni
(26,094 posts)BainsBane
(53,164 posts)since she is not running for office again. The obsession with Clinton is unparalleled. You'd think they've be happy to have defeated her once and for all. But even that can't satiate them.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)betsuni
(26,094 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)nikibatts
(2,198 posts)Silence is agreement. Every time we allow all those now proved fake stories and negative comments about her campaign go unchallenged we are signaling that we agree. That is not the case. HRC is still popular among my family and friends and they are all over the country. They are angry about what was done to her from both the right and the left. And they are more angry about the current Dems in Congress who continue to bash her and her campaign, especially since they are learning how much fake news and how much Russia targeted and influenced the voters in several swing states.
ariadne0614
(1,761 posts)then maybe the Dems should form a united front, not a circular firing squad. Party leaders would be wise to pivot toward a coherent message based on policies that most Americans already support. The strength of the Democratic Party is the fact that it believes in good government, and knows how to govern. It's time to stop being ashamed of it, and use it as a selling point. By supporting the People's Platform, we can do our part to nudge them in that direction. https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/s4p?source=pda
Panich52
(5,829 posts)Better to just try & get bogus conspiracy crap out of news cycle and look forward, not back as Trump and his cabal & cult would like
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and the pols/pundits who are so reliant on this crutch know they won't be able to lean on it for too much longer...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Note that neither the link in the OP nor the HuffPo link added in #34 quotes or even mentions Schumer.
Note that in the Schumer interview that I assume is the basis for all this outrage, he doesn't mention Clinton.
This is all shit-stirring by headline writers trying to hype a nonexistent intraparty fight. Let's stop falling for this!
I stand ready to be corrected if someone provides a link to some actual words by Schumer (not a headline paraphrase). Unless and until I see that, I'll assume this hubbub is based entirely on a distortion of his statement on Sunday. Here's what happened:
Some Democratic leaders decided that, along with "We're not Trump," it would be useful for the party to have a short statement of positive goals. (This is hardly a controversial idea.) The Washington Post wrote about the plan in this story: "Trump had The Art of the Deal. Now Democrats say their economic agenda is A Better Deal." The Post interviewed Schumer, and its reporting included this passage:
Those findings resonate with party leaders who are still stunned by Trumps come-from-behind victory last year.
When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you dont blame other things Comey, Russia you blame yourself, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in an interview previewing the new plan. So what did we do wrong? People didnt know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) agreed, explaining in a separate interview that the new focus is not a course correction, but its a presentation correction.
You'll note that Schumer didn't even mention Clinton. You'll note further that he identified the issue as "what did we do wrong" (emphasis added). You'll note finally that he used the word "we" twice more in the next sentence.
Slate, however, decided that a misleading let's-you-and-her-fight headline might get some clicks, and reported this development as "Schumer Takes Aim at Clinton: Dont Blame Russia or Comey, 'Blame Yourself'".
Pretty clever, huh? The verbatim quotation from Schumer is juxtaposed with something he didn't say to give a totally false impression. He wasn't reacting to polls about Hillary Clinton's unpopularity. He was reacting to the poll about the whole party's public image, namely not having a program.
All Schumer is saying is that the party should learn from 2016. Yes, our candidate won the popular vote, and we gained seats in the House and the Senate, but we -- we -- could have done better. If the problem is that the party is perceived as not standing for anything, then formulating a concise statement of what the party does stand for is a sensible (and non-misogynistic) response.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He didn't explicitly name Clinton, but he did say "you lost" not "we lost."
Clinton's blamestorming in the Recode interview rubbed a lot of Democrats the wrong way.
Politics is a cold business, when done right.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Suppose I write, "When you post on DU, you must abide by the ToS." That doesn't mean specifically geek tragedy must abide; it's a general statement, i.e., that anyone who posts on DU must abide by the ToS. In some contexts, it might be read as implying that you (geek tragedy) did not abide by the ToS, but that's not the only interpretation (and here, obviously, would be the wrong interpretation).
You write:
As I pointed out, he said "we" three times in the next two sentences. Given the entire context, the reason he didn't explicitly name Clinton is that he wasn't talking to or about her. He was using "you" in the general sense. And I agree with you that he was absolutely right. The negative perception of the Democratic Party is largely unfair, but it is out there, and must be dealt with.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)problem is no one paid attention to that.
Fair?
Absolutely not.
But, bottom line is that if we're going to get swing voters to give us a second look, we need to signal that things aren't the same (even if the policies that those voters want aren't new).
BamaRefugee
(3,488 posts)the HRC polls were taken at the entrance to various Cracker Barrel restaurants along Interstate highways down South.
Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
Post removed