Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Last 2016 Election Thread You'll Ever Wear

24567100

Posts

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    On the other hand, letting the GOP propaganda outfit win and having their message become conventional wisdom among leftists is... let's say frustrating.

    I think that there were legitimate reasons to dislike Clinton from a leftist perspective.

    But I also think that if we hadn't made up our mind who the nominee would be before the race even started, we might not have ended up running someone that Donald frickin' Trump could paint himself as the hero of the everyman in comparison to.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    mrondeauFakefauxDarkPrimusNobodyMr RayLostNinjajdarksunjoshofalltradesdispatch.oUnluckyMatev
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited January 4
    In hindsight, it appears that backroom deals in 2008 laid the groundwork for the subversion of more than a few failsafes in the DNC. For example, one thing that would have entered into considerations for superdelegates for any other candidate is precisely the following (bolded for emphasis):
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.

    Pushing Clinton was as insane as trying to run Nancy Pelosi for POTUS. They're both very accomplished politicians, but they've also doubled as magnificent punching bags for as long as they've been high-profile politicians. However, as a mater of intraparty politics her upset in 2008 seems to have been smoothed over by her appointment as Secretary of State and by giving her a free hand to set the stage for a run in 2016. As I mentioned above, this runs counter to the purpose of built-in failsafes in the DNC: what should have been a filter that would have caught her for a variety of reasons was subverted and instead gradually set up as an engine to propel her campaign over all challengers.

    This also reveals a continuing problem: the same mechanisms still exist in the DNC for presidential races, and they may be just as susceptible to manipulation if left in place as-is.

    Emissary42 on
    mrondeauFakefauxNobodyLostNinja
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    Well, couldn't catch a break and also was sabotaged by the Director of the FBI. Twice.

    If no other lesson comes out of this election I hope that do not appoint Republicans to significantly important posts in a Democratic administration does. It does not provide bipartisan credit or bonafides and can fuck over everything for that non-existent benefit.

    OptimusZedenlightenedbumNo-QuartermrondeauAistanHarry DresdenDarkPrimusshrykePanda4YouEdith UpwardsMr RayGnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthjdarksundavidsdurionsArdolAimDarkewolfeJazzMatevMegaMekTheBlackWind
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Do not appoint Republicans to try and look bipartisan, and don't waste your time courting Republican votes no matter how vile the candidate they put up is.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    mrondeauHachfaceMayabirdtynicshrykePanda4YouFakefauxEdith UpwardsMr RaySleepGnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthFencingsaxMr KhanAstaerethjdarksundavidsdurionsArdoljoshofalltradesdispatch.oAimMarathonDarkewolfeVeagleJazzDeliciousTacosMatevMegaMek
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    What was manipulated? The only credible thing I have ever seen (and I agree with it, because I have a low opinion of DWS) was the debate schedule being limited and put against high rated stuff elsewhere. But if that was the DNC trying to rig things to help Clinton, they were idiots about it. Hillary was always very good in that format.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    OptimusZedNo-QuarterSurfpossumshrykePolaritieGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxArdolOneAngryPossumMegaMek
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    I think that evidence of the DNC actively conspiring against Sanders is pretty thin on the ground. Because they didn't really do it, because it wasn't at all necessary to get the desired outcome.

    The primary was skewed in a much less direct way by every potential challenger with a chance and any real political ambition recognizing that it was foolish to step onto the tracks and get run over by the Clinton train, when they could just position themselves for a run the next time around.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    MrMisterGnome-Interruptus
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Which means they're idiots and cowards (or in Warren's case, don't want the job), as she proved she could be beaten in '08.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    I think cowards is a decent description of large portions of the party, sure.

    But having lost to Barack Obama at the height of his power while running with a sub-standard campaign apparatus isn't really a sign of weakness.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    Gnome-InterruptusFencingsaxMatev
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    Which is again part and parcel of why I'm so pissed off at Sanders. He fanned the flames of those misconceptions both about Clinton and the party and the results of that are going to continue haunting us.

    Even with him endorsing her, there was no way Sanders was ever going to realistically walk back the things he said about Clinton as evidenced by the shitshow protests at the convention.

    SurfpossumHexmage-PASleepGnome-InterruptusAngelHedgieArdolDarkewolfe
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I think cowards is a decent description of large portions of the party, sure.

    But having lost to Barack Obama at the height of his power while running with a sub-standard campaign apparatus isn't really a sign of weakness.

    The party establishment is either really powerful or it's not, you know? Ultimately she needed to get voters on her side. Obama proved she could be beaten. And despite all his obvious ability, he still had a giant handicap that basically prevented him from even contesting Appalachia and Oklahoma.

    The problem was there were no viable candidates to take the shot. The people with the ambition largely share a donor network with her (Cuomo, Gillibrand, Booker).

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    OptimusZedCptKemzikGiggles_Funsworth
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    On the other hand, letting the GOP propaganda outfit win and having their message become conventional wisdom among leftists is... let's say frustrating.

    Going to disagree that Hillary "left" the GOP do anything, on the contrary she ran full on against them she didn't play dead here. She gave him the hardest fight in his political life.

    This is dismissing how strong and influential the GOP propoganda wing is - it's insidious, everywhere and effects the media itself. Not the media put much of a fight from this, they're one of the biggest reasons she lost.

    Obama managing to short circuit their influence, at least for a time, was an anomaly not every politician can do that. If they were that docile John Kerry and Hillary wouldn't struggled as much as they did with them.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I think cowards is a decent description of large portions of the party, sure.

    But having lost to Barack Obama at the height of his power while running with a sub-standard campaign apparatus isn't really a sign of weakness.

    The party establishment is either really powerful or it's not, you know? Ultimately she needed to get voters on her side. Obama proved she could be beaten. And despite all his obvious ability, he still had a giant handicap that basically prevented him from even contesting Appalachia and Oklahoma.

    The problem was there were no viable candidates to take the shot. The people with the ambition largely share a donor network with her (Cuomo, Gillibrand, Booker).

    I think that's the thing. The donor base was lined up behind her, and that made a legit run by most of the potential opposition really tough to finance. Sanders got hand delivered a way around that, which allowed him to run something that looked sort of like a competitive campaign.

    But the likes of Booker and Cuomo couldn't make the pitch to the big donors that they could unhorse the presumptive champ, and the Clinton-leaning donor base was in it to win it, not field Quixotic pet candidates like the Republicans.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    mrondeauFencingsax
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    Which is again part and parcel of why I'm so pissed off at Sanders. He fanned the flames of those misconceptions both about Clinton and the party and the results of that are going to continue haunting us.

    Even with him endorsing her, there was no way Sanders was ever going to realistically walk back the things he said about Clinton as evidenced by the shitshow protests at the convention.

    And the 4 Faithless Electors in Washington.

    No-Quarter
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    Which is again part and parcel of why I'm so pissed off at Sanders. He fanned the flames of those misconceptions both about Clinton and the party and the results of that are going to continue haunting us.

    Even with him endorsing her, there was no way Sanders was ever going to realistically walk back the things he said about Clinton as evidenced by the shitshow protests at the convention.

    The effect of Sanders on Clinton's negatives is hugely overstated by basically everyone that still cares to talk about it full stop.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    mrondeauRaiden333FakefauxCptKemzikMrMisterHachfaceNobodyLostNinjajdarksunKraintjoshofalltradeschocoboliciousMatev
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Cuomo would have been a worse disaster. I would have had a hard time voting for him, even as a vote against Trump.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    OptimusZedMrMistermonikerHachfaceKipling217joshofalltrades
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Cuomo would have been a worse disaster. I would have had a hard time voting for him, even as a vote against Trump.

    Oh god

    I'm not pushing Cuomo or Booker as a potential candidate at all. Gah

    Just pointing out that they'd be hugely reliant on big money donors to get in the race on a relevant level, and that whole crowd settled in neatly behind Clinton with basically no friction.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Basically my point is that the problem of 2016 is directly from 2010.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    I think it was a problem we had significantly before this election. I'd put the genesis of a lot of our problems before 2010, though.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    joshofalltradesMatev
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 5
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I think that there were legitimate reasons to dislike Clinton from a leftist perspective.

    But I also think that if we hadn't made up our mind who the nominee would be before the race even started, we might not have ended up running someone that Donald frickin' Trump could paint himself as the hero of the everyman in comparison to.

    Sure, there are.

    This has more to do with her status as a politician than anything else, Hillary come into primaries as a juggernaut - it'd be foolish to bet against her under those circumstances and she did end up winning. Obama winning the last primary was a fluke, not the average. That's why well connected, wealthy front runners usually win those elections. They're not all JEB!'s.

    Trump was going to go on an attack like that or something similar regardless of who he faced in the general. Every Democrat has weaknesses, and he and the GOP would have exploited them.
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    In hindsight, it appears that backroom deals in 2008 laid the groundwork for the subversion of more than a few failsafes in the DNC. For example, one thing that would have entered into considerations for superdelegates for any other candidate is precisely the following (bolded for emphasis):
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.

    Pushing Clinton was as insane as trying to run Nancy Pelosi for POTUS. They're both very accomplished politicians, but they've also doubled as magnificent punching bags for as long as they've been high-profile politicians. However, as a mater of intraparty politics her upset in 2008 seems to have been smoothed over by her appointment as Secretary of State and by giving her a free hand to set the stage for a run in 2016. As I mentioned above, this runs counter to the purpose of built-in failsafes in the DNC: what should have been a filter that would have caught her for a variety of reasons was subverted and instead gradually set up as an engine to propel her campaign over all challengers.

    This also reveals a continuing problem: the same mechanisms still exist in the DNC for presidential races, and they may be just as susceptible to manipulation if left in place as-is.

    I'm curious what things the filter would stop Hillary from running.

    What mechanisms exactly?
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I think cowards is a decent description of large portions of the party, sure.

    But having lost to Barack Obama at the height of his power while running with a sub-standard campaign apparatus isn't really a sign of weakness.

    The party establishment is either really powerful or it's not, you know? Ultimately she needed to get voters on her side. Obama proved she could be beaten. And despite all his obvious ability, he still had a giant handicap that basically prevented him from even contesting Appalachia and Oklahoma.

    The problem was there were no viable candidates to take the shot. The people with the ambition largely share a donor network with her (Cuomo, Gillibrand, Booker).

    Obama was a special candidate, he isn't someone that's easy to replace. The party establishment is powerful, but they're not unstoppable if a candidate knows how to convert them and has the backing to get it done. Nobody in the last primary had this ability, so they lost. That's not on Hillary's fault, it's on them failing to get their ducks in a row before getting into the ring with the champ. She did get voters on her side, that's why she won the primary and got the popular vote in the general. Unfortunately Trump outplayed her by getting specific votes which mattered on actually winning, which happens too.

    I agree there s a problem with no viable candidates to run against her, but what exactly should the DNC do about this? And why should the ruling faction change this when they already own the party where they are? Unless someone else is going to take that spot from them we're stuck with them in the foreseeable future.

    Harry Dresden on
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    Which is again part and parcel of why I'm so pissed off at Sanders. He fanned the flames of those misconceptions both about Clinton and the party and the results of that are going to continue haunting us.

    Even with him endorsing her, there was no way Sanders was ever going to realistically walk back the things he said about Clinton as evidenced by the shitshow protests at the convention.

    The effect of Sanders on Clinton's negatives is hugely overstated by basically everyone that still cares to talk about it full stop.

    It didn't have to have a huge effect. Just about 100k votes worth spread across three states.

    That's also not considering the effect Sander's rhetoric had on his own likelihood of being named VP, oh what could have been.

    Harry DresdenGiggles_FunsworthDarkewolfe
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    Which is again part and parcel of why I'm so pissed off at Sanders. He fanned the flames of those misconceptions both about Clinton and the party and the results of that are going to continue haunting us.

    Even with him endorsing her, there was no way Sanders was ever going to realistically walk back the things he said about Clinton as evidenced by the shitshow protests at the convention.

    The effect of Sanders on Clinton's negatives is hugely overstated by basically everyone that still cares to talk about it full stop.

    It didn't have to have a huge effect. Just about 100k votes worth spread across three states.

    That's also not considering the effect Sander's rhetoric had on his own likelihood of being named VP, oh what could have been.

    Let me get this straight.

    You're laying the losing margins in traditionally blue states on Sanders.

    Seriously?

    Sanders didn't cost Clinton Pennsylvania. Or Michigan. Clinton cost Clinton those states.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    mrondeauTryCatcherFakefauxNobodyLostNinjajdarksunKraintjoshofalltradesMatev
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Lots of things cost in those states. Sanders painting the entire Democratic establishment as corrupt did not help, no.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    No-QuartermonikerSurfpossumshrykePanda4YouCommander ZoomIncenjucarHexmage-PASleepGnome-InterruptusAngelHedgieGiggles_FunsworthdavidsdurionsiTunesIsEvilArdolAimMarathonDarkewolfeMegaMekTheBlackWind
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    Which is again part and parcel of why I'm so pissed off at Sanders. He fanned the flames of those misconceptions both about Clinton and the party and the results of that are going to continue haunting us.

    Even with him endorsing her, there was no way Sanders was ever going to realistically walk back the things he said about Clinton as evidenced by the shitshow protests at the convention.

    The effect of Sanders on Clinton's negatives is hugely overstated by basically everyone that still cares to talk about it full stop.

    It didn't have to have a huge effect. Just about 100k votes worth spread across three states.

    That's also not considering the effect Sander's rhetoric had on his own likelihood of being named VP, oh what could have been.

    Let me get this straight.

    You're laying the losing margins in traditionally blue states on Sanders.

    Seriously?

    Sanders didn't cost Clinton Pennsylvania. Or Michigan. Clinton cost Clinton those states.

    Also James Comey.

    Commander ZoomGnome-Interruptus
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Sanders not being too far off base probably didn't help, either.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    HachfaceFakefauxSniperGuyMrMisterNobodywanderingYamiB.jdarksunKraintjoshofalltradesUnluckyMatev
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 4
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    Which is again part and parcel of why I'm so pissed off at Sanders. He fanned the flames of those misconceptions both about Clinton and the party and the results of that are going to continue haunting us.

    Even with him endorsing her, there was no way Sanders was ever going to realistically walk back the things he said about Clinton as evidenced by the shitshow protests at the convention.

    The effect of Sanders on Clinton's negatives is hugely overstated by basically everyone that still cares to talk about it full stop.

    It didn't have to have a huge effect. Just about 100k votes worth spread across three states.

    That's also not considering the effect Sander's rhetoric had on his own likelihood of being named VP, oh what could have been.

    Yeah, I mean how could Bernie not have any influence on Hillary in the general?
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Let me get this straight.

    You're laying the losing margins in traditionally blue states on Sanders.

    Seriously?

    Sanders didn't cost Clinton Pennsylvania. Or Michigan. Clinton cost Clinton those states.

    Yes.

    Hillary didn't get into the general in a vacuum, she had a tough primary to get through. I find it very difficult to believe Bernie's performance didn't negatively effect anyone voting for him, and certainly not when the primary ended within a few months prior. The party was not healed fully yet.
    Sanders not being too far off base probably didn't help, either.

    Off base about what?

    Harry Dresden on
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited January 4
    Yeah, is like this thing where Trump's tweets are this unstoppable electoral force in states with low internet penetration.

    A lot of people on those states never forgave Bill for signing NAFTA. There's nothing that anybody could have done about it. "But it isn't fair that Hillary gets blamed for it". Yeah, so? Is not fair either that Trump gets to be president because the DNC leadership just HAD to prove that Hillary wasn't a political corpse.

    TryCatcher on
    OptimusZedFakefauxSleepMatev
  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    edited January 4
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    Which is again part and parcel of why I'm so pissed off at Sanders. He fanned the flames of those misconceptions both about Clinton and the party and the results of that are going to continue haunting us.

    Even with him endorsing her, there was no way Sanders was ever going to realistically walk back the things he said about Clinton as evidenced by the shitshow protests at the convention.

    The effect of Sanders on Clinton's negatives is hugely overstated by basically everyone that still cares to talk about it full stop.

    It didn't have to have a huge effect. Just about 100k votes worth spread across three states.

    That's also not considering the effect Sander's rhetoric had on his own likelihood of being named VP, oh what could have been.

    Right, right, it was all Bernie's fault. I'm sure Clinton being the first Democratic candidate since 1972 to ignore Wisconsin or the trashfire she made of Michigan had nothing to do with it.

    I find it deeply disturbing when I see this kind of sentiment surfacing in Democratic circles lately, this idea that Hillary's defeat is entirely on the shoulders of Sanders, Stein, the Russians, and Comey, and not her own failings as a candidate. It's an outlook that ignores that the Democratic party has been in decline nationally for years, rejecting introspection over the party's methods and ideology and instead placing the blame on external forces. If the Democratic party does not accept its own culpability in what happened in this election it is dooming itself to further defeats in 2018 and 2020.

    Fakefaux on
    TryCatcherOptimusZedmrondeauMayabirdEmissary42MrMisterNobodyMeeqeKipling217wanderingLostNinjaminirhyderGeneral_ArmchairYamiB.Giggles_FunsworthBertezBertezjdarksunchocoboliciousUnluckyMatev
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    Which is again part and parcel of why I'm so pissed off at Sanders. He fanned the flames of those misconceptions both about Clinton and the party and the results of that are going to continue haunting us.

    Even with him endorsing her, there was no way Sanders was ever going to realistically walk back the things he said about Clinton as evidenced by the shitshow protests at the convention.

    The effect of Sanders on Clinton's negatives is hugely overstated by basically everyone that still cares to talk about it full stop.

    It didn't have to have a huge effect. Just about 100k votes worth spread across three states.

    That's also not considering the effect Sander's rhetoric had on his own likelihood of being named VP, oh what could have been.

    Right, right, it was all Bernie's fault. I'm sure Clinton being the first Democratic candidate since 1972 to ignore Wisconsin, or the trashfire she made of Michigan, had nothing to do with it.

    I find it deeply disturbing when I see this kind of sentiment surfacing in Democratic circles lately, this idea that Hillary's defeat is entirely on the shoulders of Sanders, Stein, the Russians, and Comey, and not her own failings as a candidate. It's an outlook that ignores that the Democratic party has been in decline nationally for years, rejecting introspection over the party's methods and ideology and instead placing the blame on external forces. If the Democratic party does not accept its own culpability in what happened in this election it is dooming itself to further defeats in 2018 and 2020.

    It was everything altogether.

    Eternal forces are not to be scoffed at, the GOP has an immensely powerful political machine as well as other factors beyond her control.

    This all adds up.

    No one is suggesting Hillary made a perfect campaign or didn't have flaws herself.

    Panda4YouIncenjucarGnome-InterruptusDisruptedCapitalistnaengwenGiggles_FunsworthdavidsdurionsNo-QuarterDarkewolfeMegaMek
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Sanders not being too far off base probably didn't help, either.

    Off base about what?

    The Democratic party having lost its way and wandered into a brand of corporatist liberalism that had distanced it from the actual needs of the common people. And it having become an insular favor trading organization more than any kind of real, national party representing a constituency on the left.

    This was often interpreted as him railing against "corruption".

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    FakefauxmrondeauMrMisterEdith UpwardsYamiB.jdarksunKraintjoshofalltradesMatev
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    I still can't believe this election was decided on the basis of some fucking emails and nothing at all substantial

    SleepGiggles_FunsworthdavidsdurionsAimDarkewolfeMegaMek
  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    I still can't believe this election was decided on the basis of some fucking emails and nothing at all substantial

    It wasn't.

    Emissary42LostNinjaGeneral_Armchair
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Except of course that's all bullshit. They're just bad at politics, their policy measures are actually pretty good, and would be really good if they weren't watered down by the hundred or so veto points in our asinine legislative process.

    So we get technocratic kludges which fail to demonstrate that the government is actually helping people.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    monikershrykeGnome-InterruptusKraintiTunesIsEvilArdolDarkewolfeMegaMek
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    In hindsight, it appears that backroom deals in 2008 laid the groundwork for the subversion of more than a few failsafes in the DNC. For example, one thing that would have entered into considerations for superdelegates for any other candidate is precisely the following (bolded for emphasis):
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.

    Pushing Clinton was as insane as trying to run Nancy Pelosi for POTUS. They're both very accomplished politicians, but they've also doubled as magnificent punching bags for as long as they've been high-profile politicians. However, as a mater of intraparty politics her upset in 2008 seems to have been smoothed over by her appointment as Secretary of State and by giving her a free hand to set the stage for a run in 2016. As I mentioned above, this runs counter to the purpose of built-in failsafes in the DNC: what should have been a filter that would have caught her for a variety of reasons was subverted and instead gradually set up as an engine to propel her campaign over all challengers.

    This also reveals a continuing problem: the same mechanisms still exist in the DNC for presidential races, and they may be just as susceptible to manipulation if left in place as-is.

    I'm curious what things the filter would stop Hillary from running.

    What mechanisms exactly?

    It's not so much that the mechanisms would have prevented her or anyone from running. It's that the superdelegates were presumably there to prevent badly flawed candidates from clinching the nomination. I mean, we have ridiculous cases like this happening:
    yd1evwj8hf3r.png
    That image sums up the ridiculousness of people having the gall to whine about the popular vote vs the electoral college after the shitshow of a primary the DNC put on. Clinton should not have had superdelegates on-lock in the way that she did during the primary. Period. End of line. Their function is not a rubber stamp, they're supposed to be a sieve to catch bad candidates and prevent them from getting the nomination.

  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    Except of course that's all bullshit. They're just bad at politics, their policy measures are actually pretty good, and would be really good if they weren't watered down by the hundred or so veto points in our asinine legislative process.

    So we get technocratic kludges which fail to demonstrate that the government is actually helping people.

    Policy measures like NAFTA and TPP? Policy measures like means-tested social programs and earned income tax credits instead of a full-throated defense of our social safety net?

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Except of course that's all bullshit. They're just bad at politics, their policy measures are actually pretty good, and would be really good if they weren't watered down by the hundred or so veto points in our asinine legislative process.

    So we get technocratic kludges which fail to demonstrate that the government is actually helping people.

    The Democratic party killed the public option. It wasn't Republicans.

    The head of the DNC had a very cozy relationship with pay day lenders.

    We don't run for something more than half the seats in the country.

    I don't think the Democrats are the devil and we should just burn it all down. But let's recognize the flaws in treating them like universally principled leftists vying for control of the entire country.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    FakefauxmrondeauNobodyTryCatcherDisruptedCapitalistjdarksunKraintjoshofalltradesRchanenMatev
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    I still can't believe this election was decided on the basis of some fucking emails and nothing at all substantial

    It wasn't.

    Unfortunately, yes it was.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Sanders not being too far off base probably didn't help, either.

    Off base about what?

    The Democratic party having lost its way and wandered into a brand of corporatist liberalism that had distanced it from the actual needs of the common people. And it having become an insular favor trading organization more than any kind of real, national party representing a constituency on the left.

    This was often interpreted as him railing against "corruption".

    And overlooks the fact that her FinReg proposals were more substantive and capable of reigning in corporate abuses than his were, as well as all the stuff Perez did that will slowly get dismantled.

    enlightenedbumshrykeGnome-InterruptusAngelHedgieGiggles_FunsworthiTunesIsEvilArdol
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 4
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    Except of course that's all bullshit. They're just bad at politics, their policy measures are actually pretty good, and would be really good if they weren't watered down by the hundred or so veto points in our asinine legislative process.

    So we get technocratic kludges which fail to demonstrate that the government is actually helping people.

    Policy measures like NAFTA and TPP? Policy measures like means-tested social programs and earned income tax credits instead of a full-throated defense of our social safety net?

    The Democratic Party is for expanding the social safety net, especially social security. Again it is not 1996.

    enlightenedbum on
    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    monikershrykeHarry DresdenGnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthiTunesIsEvilArdolMegaMek
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    In hindsight, it appears that backroom deals in 2008 laid the groundwork for the subversion of more than a few failsafes in the DNC. For example, one thing that would have entered into considerations for superdelegates for any other candidate is precisely the following (bolded for emphasis):
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.

    Pushing Clinton was as insane as trying to run Nancy Pelosi for POTUS. They're both very accomplished politicians, but they've also doubled as magnificent punching bags for as long as they've been high-profile politicians. However, as a mater of intraparty politics her upset in 2008 seems to have been smoothed over by her appointment as Secretary of State and by giving her a free hand to set the stage for a run in 2016. As I mentioned above, this runs counter to the purpose of built-in failsafes in the DNC: what should have been a filter that would have caught her for a variety of reasons was subverted and instead gradually set up as an engine to propel her campaign over all challengers.

    This also reveals a continuing problem: the same mechanisms still exist in the DNC for presidential races, and they may be just as susceptible to manipulation if left in place as-is.

    I'm curious what things the filter would stop Hillary from running.

    What mechanisms exactly?

    It's not so much that the mechanisms would have prevented her or anyone from running. It's that the superdelegates were presumably there to prevent badly flawed candidates from clinching the nomination. I mean, we have ridiculous cases like this happening:
    yd1evwj8hf3r.png
    That image sums up the ridiculousness of people having the gall to whine about the popular vote vs the electoral college after the shitshow of a primary the DNC put on. Clinton should not have had superdelegates on-lock in the way that she did during the primary. Period. End of line. Their function is not a rubber stamp, they're supposed to be a sieve to catch bad candidates and prevent them from getting the nomination.

    I would be fine with abolishing superdelegates.

    Clinton had more non-superdelegates than Sanders. By a lot.

    No-QuarterAistanSleepGnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthdavidsdurionsGaddezArdolDarkewolfeMegaMek
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Sanders not being too far off base probably didn't help, either.

    Off base about what?

    The Democratic party having lost its way and wandered into a brand of corporatist liberalism that had distanced it from the actual needs of the common people. And it having become an insular favor trading organization more than any kind of real, national party representing a constituency on the left.

    This was often interpreted as him railing against "corruption".

    And overlooks the fact that her FinReg proposals were more substantive and capable of reigning in corporate abuses than his were, as well as all the stuff Perez did that will slowly get dismantled.

    Nothing I posted has to apply to Clinton directly.

    If the problem was that he's railing against corruption within the party, the reality is that it's there to rail against on some level. We can quibble about what that is, but it's undeniable that Sanders hit a nerve that was already exposed. He didn't create that criticism, he simply brought it to the discussion in a way that it wouldn't have been otherwise.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    mrondeauMrMisterCptKemzikGeneral_ArmchairSleepjdarksunKraintjoshofalltradesUnluckyMatev
This discussion has been closed.