2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"The Sanders Panic -- Democrats are loath to face their real problem"
Link to The Sanders Panic -- Democrats are loath to face their real problem; excerpt:
One of the few liberal pundits not in a full-blown panic is Jeet Heer of the New Republic. There is no reason to panic, he insists. After all, the Democratic primaries were much nastier in 2008, and yet the party won the White House. Of course no one remembers that far back, so Heer offers a history lesson:The problem in 2008 was the racial tinge to [Mrs.] Clintons last-ditch defense: that Obama was a doomed candidate because of his alleged inability to win over white voters. On May 8, she argued that I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on, and cited an article whose findings she summarized thus: Senator Obamas support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. The contrast between Obamas base of black voters with the hard-working white Americans supporting Clinton, made on the eve of a primary in West Virginia, carried clear racial overtones. . . .{Mrs.} Clintons rhetorical strategy of insinuating that Obama was too black to be president was echoed by her campaign. . . . Perhaps the most disturbing comment . . . came from Hillary Clinton herself, who in late May 2008 justified staying in the race by saying, We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. This came after months of worry that Obama, as the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, would be a target for assassination. Two weeks later, on June 7, she finally suspended her campaign.Theres no reason to panic at all. After all, its not as if the Democrats are about to nominate a candidate with a history of saying racist and disturbing things. Oh, wait. Uh-oh . . . To be sure, nobody will remember the things Mrs. Clinton said in 2008, unless perhaps Trump uses them in a campaign ad. True, Heer just reminded us of them, but who reads the New Republic anymore?
The trouble is that Mrs. Clinton is, was and ever will be a dismal candidate. The conventional wisdom holds that Trumps astronomically high disapproval numbers should make him unelectable, Robinson writes. On paper, this should be a cakewalk for any Democrat with a pulse (metaphor alert). ... Still, if any Democrat is poorly positioned to beat Trump, Mrs. Clinton is. ... As the Weekly Standards Chris Deaton sums up:The former secretary of state is viewed negatively by 61 percent of registered voters in a new Fox News poll, up from 58 percent in March. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has a 56 percent unfavorable ratingdramatically better than his 65 percent measure in Marchand a 41 percent favorable rating, the first time hes cracked 40 percent in that measure. . . .If the election were held today, a large number of voters would regard it as a contest between evilsa contest that, according to the poll, Trump would win narrowly, 45% to 42%. Of course voters could come to see one or the other candidate more favorablylikelier Trump than Mrs. Clinton, wed venture, since theyve known her for decades but are still getting used to the idea of him as a politician.
Other highlights from the poll include: {Mrs.} Clinton is viewed as more corrupt than Trump, 49 percent to 37 percent;
Two-thirds of registered voters think Clinton (71 percent) and Trump (65) percent will say anything to get elected;
and more registered voters say Trump is a strong leader than they do {Mrs.} Clinton, with 59 percent saying the designation describes Trump and only 49 percent saying it describes {Mrs.} Clinton.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)and Hillary's campaign is not getting good marks.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)If someone replies with a different opinion, they're "panicked" or "being mean" or "attacking" or "gloating".
Good grief!
Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #3)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I guess usefulness depends on whether your candidate is ahead or behind in the polls cited
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)She's just not very likeable.
tblue37
(65,502 posts)The fact remains that the people who know her best are absolutely devoted to her, so I imagine her presentation difficulties as a politician are just the awkwardness of a naturally private woman whose discomfort in public performances has been made much worse by 3 decades' worth of relentless smears and attacks by what really is a vast right wing conspiracy.
She is simply not a natural politician like Bill. She is a policy wonk, the sort of person who does the detail work behind the scenes. Nor is she a righteous firebrand like Bernie (whom I support, BTW). She is a measured, focused policy wonk. When she has to perform as a public politician, she often does come across as either too hot or too cold, even arrogant sometimes, but I don't believe that is what she really is like--or evidence that she actually is unlikeable.
After leaving the Clinton administration, George Stephanopoulos, who had already begun to criticize Bill's behavior, was asked in an interview how he felt about Hillary. He said that he would crawl across hot coals for her.
A person who can provoke that sort of loyalty must have a lot of good qualities, even if she comes across a bit awkwardly when campaigning.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Raster
(20,998 posts)Nothing to see here.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)But her most famous votes and policies have been disasters.
Response to Yurovsky (Reply #2)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Progressive dog
(6,923 posts)Most Democrats would be panicked if Bernie was going to be their nominee. It's always nice to have a Democratic candidate who thinks Democrats are not Republicans.
NobodyInParticular
(102 posts)If you are passionately anti Bernie, please don't read this post (because you will be jabbing at it since you won't get the point.)
Why Bernie, not Hillary--
The core reason for perhaps a majority of Hillary voters to support their candidate is that "she is a woman and it is time for a woman to lead the country." I think it is wrong to make gender the deciding factor because there is one of far greater importance: it is the candidate's humanity. In every which way, Bernie is by far the greater human being. How do you decide who is the greater member of humankind? It is the quality of caring for one's fellow beings, and this is something that becomes obvious when watching and listening to Bernie--one sees that he not only greatly cares about people but about other living beings as well. Yes, other qualities also count, but there is nothing more important than love and respect for one's peers on this earth.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NobodyInParticular
(102 posts)Take any youtube video in which Hillary is in a heated debate, turn off the sound and observe her body language, especially her face (sure you can do the same with Bernie) : If one is easily able to discern emotions visibly and is willing to register what is there, one may either find oneself raising an eyebrow or locking oneself into a stance in which Hillary is the epitome of compassionate, decent behavior. When one holds iron-clad opinions, there is nothing easier than to keep one's eyes wide shut.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)NobodyInParticular
(102 posts)a never-maturing infant to his/her mommy is cut!