2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary will most likely be the Dem nominee. That's just the fact. And she'd be DAMN good !
Warren is not running and is getting sick and tired of that question. That is just the fact. So enough of that foolishness.
Bernie is a good guy and I really like him, but as a confirmed "socialist" a snowball has a better chance of surviving in hell than he has of becoming President. That is just the fact.
Webb and O'Malley are good guys too, but it just isn't gonna happen. They are good VEEP prospects as are others.
That's most likely it. And that is just the fact. Clinton is TOUGH, has the experience, and is brilliant. Those, too, are the plain facts.
Facts are stubborn things, but that's why they are facts.
And anyone who claims to be a "progressive" who doesn't get behind her, when she wins the nomination, which, again, will most likely occur, is throwing away his/her vote and helping the RePUKElican.
It's so nice to exist in the real world.
Make no mistake, I'm all for a rigorous primary, and I think we'll have one. But this is Clinton's to lose, and she most likely won't. She's my first choice because I think she is STRONG and VERY WELL QUALIFIED. Is she pure? No. But no one really is. Heck, Bernie voted for ObamaCare when some were screaming it didn't go far enough. Some were even calling HIM a sellout. Does that put him outside the purity realm too?
I prefer reality to purity.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
still_one
(92,420 posts)I'm so used to the DONE DEAL!!1 threads, I'm immune.
Clinton had better hope like hell that she can convince those heads to vote for her.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)largely by media buys. Months of negative shock and awe ads will turn-off all but the most motivated voters. It will be a low turnout election. Whoever gets elected will have no real mandate, but also feel hardly any bounds of public opinion. The potential for disaster in this, particularly in foreign policy, should be obvious.
Hope I'm wrong.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Does HRC inspire? Generally the answer is no. She is not a speaker like President Obama, but where did his oratorical skills get him? He was opposed at every turn, for mainly racial reasons, and because current Republican politicians really do not seem to believe in a 2 party system.
Is HRC intelligent? Absolutely. Can she win? Again absolutely. Demographics favor the Democrats on a national level.
You are right on the mark when you say that: "... anyone who claims to be a "progressive" who doesn't get behind her, when she wins the nomination, which, again, will most likely occur, is throwing away his/her vote and helping the RePUKElican. "
The problem with many Democrats, Progressives, and liberals is they let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Every vote for a Green, Socialist, or other marginal candidate ON A NATIONAL LEVEL will have no good impact. They are feel-good votes for the "more progressive than thou" crowd.
All that said, will HRC be good for the country, or will we elect a Compromiser in Chief who will blur the lines between the Democrats and Republicans in the name of pragmatism?
djean111
(14,255 posts)"The problem with many Democrats, Progressives, and liberals is they let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Every vote for a Green, Socialist, or other marginal candidate ON A NATIONAL LEVEL will have no good impact. They are feel-good votes for the "more progressive than thou" crowd."
The problem with this - for me, things like NAFTA and the TPP are not just little wee not-perfects. There is no good.
And, progressives letting the perfect be the enemy of the good - no. In fact, that is just wishful thinking by some, and this must be why they keep posting things about Warren that they hope will turn supporters away from her. Doesn't work. You know why? We understand about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Some of us just do not think Hillary is good. And yeah, she worked for women's rights - and now women would have the right to work in a corporate world where they consistently lose jobs, wages, benefits, the ability to support themselves. Nothing excuses that. The TTP and TTIP will be awful for men AND women.
will we elect a Compromiser in Chief who will blur the lines between the Democrats and Republicans in the name of pragmatism?
Yes. In the name of Third Way Corporatism, actually.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I still believe that a certain percentage of natural democratic voters have voted nationally for non-Democratic Party candidates in states where Democrats could have won if a third party candidate had not siphoned off some votes.
I agree that HRC is the second coming of William Clinton with identical enough positions on many issues that are just not good for the country. But my default position is:
Would you rather have Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor or
John Roberts and Samuel Alito?
Not a great position
djean111
(14,255 posts)But I don't have any confidence that Hillary would not appoint another John Roberts or Alito or someone who "triangulates"
and goes with a Third Way position. I don't understand why everyone assumes that Ms. Corporate would appoint someone in the least bit liberal. I really do not understand that. And it is flung around as if it is a given. No matter how much her TPP looks like utter corporate BS, the fallback position is - think of SCOTUS! Yeah, I am.
emulatorloo
(44,186 posts)I won't be supporting her in the primaries, she is way too conservative for me. However even her harshest critics will admit she's liberal on social issues.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the least bit of examination. This particular one is a cousin of the "purity" falsehood and the "unless someone agrees with you 100% on every single issue......."
They are all lies, all designed to shame and diminish the 99% while they walk away with our wallets, our jobs, whatever they feel like taking.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)whom I've met.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)to consider. In spite of my disagreements with many of President Obama's positions, his election was a tremendous thing for this country. HRC's election would be a tremendous boost for women. I just wish there were more Democrats like Warren, Wellstone, Kennedy, etc and fewer corporate shills.
That said, I would vote for her.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Tough on leftists and the working class
experienced at selling them down the river
and Brilliant at hiding behind Bill.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)...how dare we express hope for another candidate superior to Ms Clinton and what horrible sabotage to push for one...
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)it's where she comes down on the political spectrum .. being a woman I think she feels intimidated by the military, bankers and the corporate oligarchs of this country and will pander to them in a great way .. makes her what we call a ''Third Wayer"
?) Bernie Sanders has two balls Hillary only has one.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)FFS.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Fact v. opinion. Look into it.
tracks29
(98 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
djean111
(14,255 posts)Where she is today is what is important to me. And a person who helped write a corporate giveaway like the TPP, and shills for it, is not the same person who charted to the left of Kennedy years ago. I don't care how many links to old votes and sound bites and little old charts are displayed. I look at the TPP and the hawkishness of today.
Bringing up women's and children's rights? Fine. How will those women and children be affected by the TPP/TTIP? And - do we give the presidency as a sort of prize for that?
FFS, she can't even articulate a palatable message on the crap economy without 200 advisers. When she does, it will just be whatever her advisers have told her to say. There is no THERE there, IMO. She is the Wall Street darling. All the blue links in the world cannot distract from that.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)She may have started the TPP process but she cannot be held responsible for the final product. She left SoS years before it will be finalized. It's is ridiculous to hang anything about TPP on her. And btw, how much time have you spent reading the details of TPP? Have you read it for yourself or are you just parroting what other anti-HRC folks say? Got any evidence that she "shills" for TPP? I doubt it.
Apparently you can't have her positions as established by a myriad of votes over many years count for anything. It is ok for you to use crystal ball thinking as well "... it will just be whatever her advisers have told her to say." It is a weak argument and presumes that she can't, and won't, think for herself. Which is, again, ridiculous.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Oh, and why does she have 200 advisers? There was an link to that info yesterday or the day before.
It's is ridiculous to hang anything about TPP on her.
No, it is not. Also, there have been enough leaks and opinions by Congressmen who have seen it for me to have my opinion.
And if Hillary was just doing Obama's bidding while SOS, why would those years be counted for her.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)200 advisors, really? How about one of those blue links so I and other readers can determine for ourselves just what kind of advisors she has? I bet if she had zero advisors the anti-HRC mantra would be that she's haughty, stuck up and too regal.
Here's a scenario for you - if you led a project for a year, then turned over control to someone else who worked on the project for twice as long and could have changed everything about the project, you would willingly take the rap if the project turned out to be garbage? I doubt it.
So it goes from 100% HRC's fault to she gets credit for nothing?? " ... if Hillary was just doing Obama's bidding while SOS, why would those years be counted for her."
That's what I mean by Fox-worthy, straw man argument and all.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Economic Plan Is a Quandary for Hillary Clinton’s Campaign
With advice from more than 200 policy experts, Hillary Rodham Clinton is trying to answer what has emerged as a central question of her early presidential campaign strategy: how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy.
Mrs. Clinton has not had to wade into domestic policy since before she became secretary of state in 2009, and she has spent the past few months engaged in policy discussions with economists on the left and closer to the Democratic Party’s center who are grappling with the discontent set off by the gap between rich and poor. Sorting through the often divergent advice to develop an economic plan could affect the timing and planning of the official announcement of her campaign.
You can Google Hillary TPP for more info about her role and enthusiasm. I also doubt whether the whole thing has been changed since she worked on it.
In any event, that's pretty much all I have to say to you. You have your opinion, I have mine. And you know what you can do with your Faux-flinging.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)... but rather than pull a typical internet a-hole response I would invite you to read the whole article and then respond as to whether or not it's really casting HRC in a negative light. The first paragraph makes it sound negative, but there are plenty of positives for HRC in the rest of the article including this ...
" ... 200 economists and academics who have offered [emphasis added] Mrs. Clinton ideas and guidance . They include Robert Reich, and " ... Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics who has written extensively about inequality." and a few other knowledgeable folks who would not be all that cozy with Wall St.
I have googled her concerning TPP and about all you get is that her position is unclear.
djean111
(14,255 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Neither possibility sounds promising.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)check the box. The economy today is nothing like it was 10 years ago; some general principles still hold but the specifics and the details of policy need constant revision. The fact that she is consulting experts makes sense. The fact that the ones mentioned in the article have a more progressive outlook would seem to be a positive.
djean111
(14,255 posts)just now is starting to think about the economy? More likely, figuring out what rhetorical stance to adopt. Been there, done that with campaign rhetoric.
In any event, we will have to agree to disagree. I was a big Hillary supporter the first time she tried, and since then have had my eyes opened concerning NAFTA, Third Way, TPP, etc. So nothing from you will change my mind, and looks like you have joined here on a mission to support Hillary, so - best that can happen is, really, ignore each other, n'est-ce pas?
Bye!
daleanime
(17,796 posts)republican candidate.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Some things around DU never change
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)Basically she'll be great, if you're a republican.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)they'd be too fond of her especially after hearing some of her social stances. The R base these days dislikes anyone who isn't ultra-conservative. They hate progressives, and they hate moderates. Everything has to be their way or the highway.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)And the establishment Republicans will pretend to, all the while knowing she is one of them.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Being better on social issues (not economic ones) is all the DLC/Third Way/New Democrats have to offer, and for me it isn't enough.
Ramses
(721 posts)no matter what they call themselves
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)That we'll probably see under-50% voter turnout for only the second time since the Great Depression.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)was in 1996.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)These statements fundamentally presuppose the superiority of the Republican party.
These statements fundamentally presuppose that Democrats, in spite of the enormous popularity of our issues nationwide, are incapable of moving our party even an iota to the left--even though the Republicans accomplished the exact same thing on their end in less than five years.
These statements fundamentally presuppose that wanting something better is a luxury only Republicans can afford. Democrats have to take what we can get and had damn well better be satisfied with it.
These statements fundamentally presuppose that there's no point in hoping for a move away from the nation's rightward drift since the 1980s. As for fighting for it, forget it. We're no match for the Republicans, no matter how many Americans are on our side.
These statements fundamentally presuppose that Democrats are weak. Or at the very least, weaker than the big bad Republicans, with whom we must compromise, no matter how insane the issue in question, because SCOTUS, or something, whatever this week's boogeyman is.
These statements fundamentally boil down to "woe is me, and woe are we as a party". They are pusillanimous.
If you like Hillary, great. Obviously, a lot of well-informed, well-meaning Democrats on here (and elsewhere) do. That's fine, there's room in the tent for moderates as well as liberals. I for one am happy to include everyone in the discussion; and honest to God, I have no beef with anyone who sincerely believes Hillary is the best candidate for America in 2016. We can disagree and still be friends.
But don't bludgeon us with the notion that Hillary is the Great Progressive Hope, if only we fucking retards (tm) would see it. Hillary probably would be an adequate president, but she clearly has no aspirations to making the sorts of changes many of us are clamoring for. And by trying to shut us down, you're denigrating our party. You're conceding all your power to the Republicans--and wallowing in cowardly self-pity.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)But don't bludgeon us with the notion that Hillary is the Great Progressive Hope, if only we fucking retards (tm) would see it. Hillary probably would be an adequate president, but she clearly has no aspirations to making the sorts of changes many of us are clamoring for. And by trying to shut us down, you're denigrating our party. You're conceding all your power to the Republicans--and wallowing in cowardly self-pity.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)by which I meant the same thing but was very inarticulate about it.
djean111
(14,255 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)in only 5 years. The Republicans have been working hard to change this country since Roosevelt was President. One example is that they have always been against labor rights, passing Taft-Hartley after the National Labor Relations Act was passed. There are many more examples.
Since the 1960s the 1% have been completely changing the media message in this country. Anyone remember stories about massive Pentagon waste and corruption in the corporate media? I do. What happened to that reporting?
Republicans have been successful in part, I believe, because the tax rates on the rich are so ridiculously low that they have the money to buy politicians from both parties while the bottom 90% is left with the scraps. Money buys votes.
When Barack Obama ran in 2008, he was the left-liberal hope, or was presented as such by the media. When he spoke many listened to what they wanted to hear, not what he was actually saying. Many were disappointed.
Face it, in a political system where money is the only voice, only corporate acceptable candidates will get the money. HRC is a corporate Democrat. She is not a Christo-fascist like most of the Republicans, but she is not a progressive on most issues. Absent a truly massive movement of energized citizens I do not see how to change this equation.
Response to RBInMaine (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)We are expected to just go with that, and get in line behind the hype.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)how long are you planning to hit people over the head (metaphorically speaking of course) with that assertion?
Splinter Cell
(703 posts)She hasn't won a goddamn thing yet, and we went through all this in 2008. She's the only person in the world that would unite the GOP more than Obama. She wouldn't be able to get ANYTHING done. She's way too conservative, and people around here bitch about Obama not being liberal enough. She's a hawk, and a liar. She's also a race-bater, as shown in the 2008 primary.
I don't give a hot fuckin' damn what you think are the "facts". I won't vote for her. Not in a primary, not in a general election. Period.
She's not acceptable, and that's a "fact".
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I, for one, will be compelled to work in the primary against her without compassion or restraint to destroy her electability...even if it ends up subsequently threatening to cost us the General Election.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)corruption, bribery and fraud will have become still more rampant than it is now. The damage
to our nation might have become too great to be brought under control again. Not a pleasant
prospect for the next Progressive president.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)lite gets no support here. No can do.
That box will be left empty.
brooklynite
(94,742 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)interests, not to have bragging rights that our team won, are the ones who will give them the vote.
If everybody stopped the political calculus and voted for who they think represents their interests most closely then this game of second guessing and triangulation could come to an end. You want to play that game, I don't. Have fun.
If a candidate appears on my ballot who I think will do me more good than harm, I will vote for them. But I will not succumb to extortion by lesser evils.
brooklynite
(94,742 posts)...are ignoring reality. You're saying, by refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between Democrats and Republicans. That's incredibly naive.
DFW
(54,445 posts)I hear "Corporatist" or some variation thereof more often than I hear "libbrul" from the whacko right.
The nominee will be who it will be, and whoever it will be WILL be better for us and better for the country than any whack job (and it will be) Republican nominee.
The "no difference" crowd were fatally wrong in 2000. I think they are just as wrong now.
The difference might not be (make that: probably won't be) as great as all of us might like, but the results of 8 years in opposition from 2001 to the beginning of 2009 were pretty horrible, and putting Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court guaranteed Citizens United would be a reality. Things do NOT go better with Koch. You want more clones of Scalia and Alito determining your life? Vote Republican or stay home. You don't? Vote for who you want in the primaries, work your asses off for them, but if they don't win the nomination, you had better hope with all your might that the Republican does not win, and if he does (ain't gonna be a she), not ONE complaint over ANYTHING he does has a shred of validity with me if you didn't vote for the Democratic candidate in 2016. Hold your nose if must, and THEN complain to your heart's delight, but stay home, and risk Rand Paul being in the Oval Office. I promise you, you will like that far less than even (gasp of horror) Hillary.
Full disclosure: my personal preference remains Howard Dean (and I told him so--again--to his face last month). He confirmed to me that the chances of him running are slim and none. For now, I'll dream and hold to slim, but when it turns to none, I'm not going to whine and yell "corporatist!" I'll support whom I consider the best of the lot who are really running in the primaries, and yes, dammit, I'll support the Democratic nominee for President in 2016 because yes, there will be ONE HELL of a difference. Ralph Nader can, as one witty Brit once put it, go "pay a visit on his own behalf to a taxidermist."
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Let alone damn good.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)sorry but I cannot and will not support another centrist for our presidential nominee.
brooklynite
(94,742 posts)
Carolina
(6,960 posts)and demonstrated her leadership skills (or lack thereof) by the horrendous management of her primary campaign.
She said then that she was "in it to win it... and it will be over early." But when Super Tuesday proved her wrong, she resorted to kitchen sink tactics against her Democratic opponent while lavishing kudos on John McCain! She remained in the campaign despite losing and despite racking up debt because she had wasted so much of her formidable campaign chest. And then the straw that broke the camel's back for the Democratic Party leadership was her holding out to the California primary and saying (paraphrased): "you never know... remember Bobby Kennedy."
After gracelessly bowing out, she wanted -- as one of her conditions for bowing out -- Obama to pay off her campaign debt.
This is damn good leadership, good management?!!! You screw up and then want someone else to bail you out... sounds a lot like Wall Street which is quite appropriate.
HRC is a corporatist who still counts that loser Larry Summers as one of her financial advisors. She was a founding member of the now-gone-in-name-only DLC and remains Third Way all the way. She has no political courage or backbone as demonstrated long ago (2002)by her finger in the political wind vote for IWR (giving Bush bi-partisan cover for his ilk's PNAC dream).
If she is the best the Democratic Party can offer, then we're F___KED.
