When you disparage Hillary in promoting your candidate, you've already lost me.

[pnwmom]

You’ve lost credibility for anything you have to say about your guy.

Don’t tell me she wasn’t likable enough and “didn’t connect” with voters -- and that your guy would do better. She connected with 2.9 million more voters than the orange one. She won only 70K fewer votes than Obama 2012. And many millions of voters were enthusiastic, loyal supporters of Hillary.

Don’t tell me it was her fault for not campaigning enough in the particular states that turned out to be key in 2016. She only lost those states by a total of 80K votes – despite new voter suppression measures that affected hundreds of thousands of votes in those states. Your guy might have won those states but lost other close states that she won. Nobody, including you, can know that your guy would have won the three states and not lost any of the other swing states.

After Obama was re-elected the Supreme Court dismantled the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The new voter ID requirements and reduced voting days and hours would have affected ANY Democrat who ran in 2016. That was what they were designed to do.

The Russians would have interfered in the election against ANY Democrat who ran in 2016. Their goal, planned for years, was to install Trump. Do you think the Russians would have been happy to have your guy become President? I hope not.

So don’t tell me that your guy – it’s always a guy – would have done better than Hillary and so would surely win in 2020. You have no evidence for that. You can’t demonstrate that your candidate wouldn’t have been hurt by voter suppression and the Russians -- and it just comes across as disparaging Hillary.

NEWS FLASH: Hillary’s not running for 2020. So when you disrespect her, all you accomplish is alienating her loyal supporters. If you don’t care about that, then go ahead. Just don’t think you’re doing your guy any favors.

P.S. I will always be grateful for Hillary Clinton pursuing her dream. She would have made a great President – and her opponents knew that, which is why they were determined to stop her.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Buckle up, TWO groups , one on the right and one on the LEFT are BOUND and DETERMINED

to make sure NO DEMOCRAT, nobody with a D after their name is president.

F A C T

They will do everything in their power to achieve this and since we have NOT learned our FUCKING lesson we will probably lose again BECAUSE of these FUCKERS

[sharedvalues]

53. Much much much more on the right.

There are only a few on the left that hate Democrats. A tiny drop in the bucket compared to the entire GOP, its base, its propaganda media, and its billionaire donors.

In fact, most of the liberals that hurt Democrats are PAID by rightwing billionaires and other enemies of America:
Ralph Nader
Jill Stein

I’m not sure what’s up with the very few exceptions (literally one in a million Americans) like Greenwald and Mate. But the Koches and Mitch McConnell and Murdochs are far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far
far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far
FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR
greater threats to America than anyone on the left.

Horseshoe theory is almost totally bullsh*t.

[Eliot Rosewater]

81. YOu are leaving out a HUGE amount of people who support one person and ONLY one person

[sharedvalues]

87. Not what I hear from people I talk to

I think the Bernie-only voices are way overblown.

A ton of the prior Bernie people are now warming up to Liz Warren.

Be of good cheer! Many Democratic candidates are great and we will unify. We are already unifying.

[Hortensis]

104. Sure, only @ a quarter of Sanders voters, small minority of all.

You're so right that many of the other, previous 75% have rethought or are doing it now.

But, a similar percentage of Sanders followers polled, almost certainly the same people, are enraged and promising to repeat 2016, but much worse if we don't nominate Sanders.

There's something very wrong with them, and not to mistake them with responsible voters not prone to extremism. Sanders' decent Democrats are the forest these people hide in and pretend to be part of.

Pnw's message to any who've snuck back in here would be more like giving the crabgrass a nice refreshing watering and sprinkling of 10-10-10. Most of their activity is all about expressing hostility in various ways to the much larger Democratic alliance, who wouldn't know they existed if they didn't jump and down and attack.

[WinstonSmith4740]

113. Tend to agree.

There's something very wrong with them, and not to mistake them with responsible voters not prone to extremism.

I'm beginning to think a lot of his "hardcore" supporters are either bots, or just in there to be divisive and keep things stirred up. I mean, bless his heart...it's certainly in the right place. But I just don't think a lot of Bernie's ideas are workable.

[Hortensis]

116. We should never blame candidates for the attitudes of individuals

they draw, of course. All draw some real doozies.

But when whole passionate factions of people like these gather around one, it's not accidental. They chose their leader because he's feeding them what they want and they are a reflection of him.

I remember before the Internet when I just mostly bought Pat Buchanan as the MSM, especially MSNBC and Morning Joe, presented him on TV, a mild-mannered intellectual dinosaur advocating for the disappearing traditional white male patriarchy, but without malice toward others. I thought he must be respectable because he was on "respectable" shows.

Hah! Incredibly, irresponsibly naive of course, but in my defense I was a lot less experienced, I almost never listened to what he said, there was no chance I'd vote for him, and learning more would have required driving to the library. It was when his big following of rabid racists, antisemites, homophobes, nationalists, misogynists, etc., but especially racists, became so noisy the news finally covered them that, not being all that naive, I realized that he had very different messages for different audiences. And absolutely that audience revealed the real Buchanan.

[WinstonSmith4740]

120. Funny that Pat Buchanan was kind of your turning point.

My late husband was a dyed in the wool Republican, albeit a liberal-moderate one, the kind that no longer exists. Y'know, Government shouldn't spend money like a drunken sailor, but keep the country safe, take care of those that can't do it for themselves right now, and stay the hell out of my house. We were watching the 1992 Republican Convention and Buchanan was the keynote speaker. We were about 10 minutes in and he asked me to get him a voter registration form in the morning...he didn't "want to be associated with these people anymore."

I guess everyone has the scales fall from their eyes at some point. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are so crusted over, they don't even realize there ARE scales on their eyes.

[Hortensis]

121. Good story. :) Your husband was the right kind of Republican,

all right. There were a lot like him.

"They don't even realize there ARE scales on their eyes." Oh, yes. Self-induced what might as well be psychosis.

In the midterms, though, the suburbs really did turn blue, and some rural areas pink. Biden thinks we might be at something of a national inflection point after this long decline into top-to-bottom RW corruption. We just need a few more percent for a revolution. Of course Obama thought his strong election signaled one, but we now know they hadn't even come close to hitting bottom yet.

[TCJ70]

100. Buttigieg supporters? Because that's who the OP is focused on...

...https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=137794

[DownriverDem]

56. Okay

I still say Biden/Harris will be a formidable ticket.

[olegramps]

111. She was caught in a crossfire between Trump and Sanders.

For those who support Sanders please inform me of the difference between Sanders and Trump's stance on tariffs and trade agreements. Our exit from the TPP has provided China a clear field to dominate the Asian markets and they have not lost any time taking advantage of the opportunity that Trump has given them.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Who (or whose representatives) is doing this?

I can guess...

[Turin_C3PO]

5. Someone on an earlier thread

was saying Mayor Pete could connect better than Hillary did. I can’t link because it’s against the rules to call someone out.

FWIW I’ve seen supporters of several different candidates say some variation of the above theme.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. That's just the opinion of someone on DU.

They're entitled to it and I don't think it violates any DU rules. If a spokesperson for a candidate or the candidate him/herself said it, that would be a different matter.

[Turin_C3PO]

27. Yeah, I doubt it violates rules, nor should it.

Everyone is, of course, entitled to their own opinion. I was just saying where the OP got the idea from.

[lunamagica]

36. Sure, they are entitled to their opinion, and we are entitled to react to their

opinion by writing that candidate off.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

49. Would you write off a candidate entirely on the basis of what some rando opined

on an internet discussion board? I wouldn't. If a candidate or his/her spokesperson said something like that, it would be a different matter entirely, but internet blather by some anonymous person (who might not even be a person; we know what happened last time) isn't worth the electrons it's written with.

[Tipperary]

69. Thank you! I see that here a lot.

“Well, because you said so and so about MY candidate, now I will hate YOUR candidate.

Seriously I do not get that. I had a co-worker I could NOT stand who supported Obama, as I did. I cannot imagine how it would make sense to choose candidates based on whether I care for what any random person says about anything or anyone else.

[Hortensis]

106. No real commitment to principles or issues,

easily forgotten at best, just blow where the emotions of the moment take them...? Some of course always intended to go Trump or third party and seemingly just made up a spiteful reason to convince themselves that it'd really be our fault, which is bizarre in itself.

Whatever, I can't comprehend it either. The only person who could have made me not vote for Hillary would have been a candidate I thought would be even better.

[Tipperary]

108. Exactly.

You nailed it there.

[zentrum]

62. Agreed. Especially

....in the run up to primaries.

If we can't criticize our past, can't criticize each other, we can't learn.

We need to overwhelm the electoral college with huge turn out. We must figure out what kept it from being as big as possible last time.

Can't run as the same party we were in 2016. The world has changed.

[BeyondGeography]

33. OMFG!

That’s some smelling salt material right there, yessirree.

[Turin_C3PO]

60. I wasn't saying it was good or bad.

I was just posting examples that the OP is talking about.

[dsc]

102. I don't even really think that is Hillary bashing necessarily

the fact is Hillary was first to admit, she isn't a natural politician like her husband. I think many of our candidates are better politicians than Hillary is. That isn't to say Hillary was a bad candidate and it certainly isn't saying she would have been a bad President. But she isn't the natural that Obama was, Clinton was. Different people have different gifts. I think adults can understand that. Pete is a better politician than she is but she was and is way more prepared to be President that he is.

[left-of-center2012]

3. Care to share who you're directing this toward?

[pnwmom]

4. I'm directing this at anyone who disparages Hillary in trying to promote their guy.

I've seen too many of those posts to count.

[left-of-center2012]

7. I've read almost none ...

[Hekate]

17. Really? Interesting.

[left-of-center2012]

29. Thank you

[Harker]

51. "Guy" narrows it down a bit.

There's no benefit in disrespecting any Democrat, so let's lead by example by speaking and thinking well of each other, no matter what the polls say.

[Gothmog]

6. Any candidate who attacks Clinton can forget about my support in the primary

[NastyRiffraff]

86. Ditto

It seems to be coming primarily from one candidate, but that's one too many. If someone can't run his campaign without disparaging a good Democrat who isn't even running, then he (and yes, it's always a he) should go home now. He won't win the primary; there too many of us who strongly supported Hillary. We support someone else now for the primary (or are undecided), but we don't forget this shit.

[LibFarmer]

117. Mine too nt

[Hortensis]

8. "What would Hillary want?" :)

Not all candidates are the same, by any means. Imo, former enemies and saboteurs, and we know them, are overdue to drop dead, failing the possibility of eternity in a prison cell with Trump.

But from allies, some gentle criticism delivered with respect and fellowship, and best bracketed with redeeming comments, , would be accepted -- because these people are trying to get elected and have to work with the electorates they have.

But I'm very angry at what happened and is happening, and it'd be awful easy to overdo.

[librechik]

11. no effing kidding--

That reveals everything--this person is not a Democrat.

[still_one]

12. Thank-you pnwmom. That was something that needed to be said 1000+

[pnwmom]

14. You're very welcome, still_one. nt

[left-of-center2012]

13. I'm bothered by ...

I'm bothered by attacks posted in DU based on race and gender,
saying we don't need any more white men.

We need the best candidate regardless of race and gender.

[Skya Rhen]

31. Agreed - I am also disgusted by the flagrant ageism expressed on DU (e.g. he/she is too old to run)

And the alarming part is that when this is pointed out as being insensitive there are people that actually defend this form of discrimination and double down. Engaging in ageism is demeaning and needs to be taken as seriously as other forms of bigotry.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. Couldn't agree more... there's no place for any form of descrimination, including ageism.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[qazplm135]

52. first of all

there is no such thing as "the best candidate" and this process does not magically resolve "the best candidate."

It simply resolves the one who wins.

Second of all, yes I am tired of white men. I'm tired of 220+ years of not a SINGLE woman running this country. It's infuriating and embarrassing.

Third of all, we have AT LEAST two women every bit as qualified as any of the men running this time around. There is ZERO excuse to prefer a man to them. Warren is EVERY BIT as progressive as Bernie. Harris is the more moderate option if you prefer Biden or Beto or Buttigieg.

You have two STELLAR options.

[left-of-center2012]

72. I don't vote based on race or gender

I vote for the best candidate,
regardless of race or gender.

[qazplm135]

80. silliness

you aren't a computer and you are not capable of determining that.

And this country has been voting for race and gender for 220+ years save one exception.

[left-of-center2012]

90. Thanks for the chuckle

[Raine]

96. TOTALLY agree nt

[MrsCoffee]

114. Really? That's what keeps you up at night?

Representation means something to those who have never had it.

[NNadir]

15. She was defeated by Putin.

[Hekate]

19. Clearly "not likeable enough" to Putin. Which ought to be a gigantic plus to any American. nt

[luvtheGWN]

24. Putin FEARED Hillary

and if that had been widely known, that should have been more than enough for an overwhelming victory.

As one of your neighbours to the north, I never, ever understood the hatred of this very fine, talented, educated and widely experienced woman. I can only surmise that too many really stupid, thoughtless and uneducated Americans thoroughly bought into the Republican mantra and drumbeat. But I guess that's the simple answer as to why the very antithesis of Hillary managed to get himself elected.

And fergawds'sake, rid yourselves of the antiquated Electoral College.

[Generic Brad]

25. And Suadia Arabia. And Israel. And Egypt. And the UAE.

Did I leave one out?

[Bev54]

39. Russia and Bahrain

[Me.]

35. Not Just Putin

Israel, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Egypt and two others as reported by the Times today.

And Senator Schumer (my senator) please bear that in mind the next time you support an Israeli leader over your own.

[LW1977]

16. K&r

[JoeOtterbein]

18. I feel the same when I hear trash talk about...

...Bernie!

[pnwmom]

21. The difference is that he's running now, and everyone running has to be able

to withstand criticism. If he wasn't running, it would make sense not to alienate his supporters by criticizing him for anything he did or didn't do in 2016.

In other words, Hillary's supporters are up for grabs, so it's a dumb move to alienate them if you want them on your team.

Bernie's supporters aren't up for grabs. Are they?

[JoeOtterbein]

23. Or, just...

...not yet?

[KPN]

109. Yes, they are. I voted Bernie in the 2016 primary. Then HRC in the GE. I support Bernie being a

candidate for our party's nomination this time around. That's not to say I will vote for him in the primary, but I'm glad he's running and appreciate what he brings to the debate.

I currently have several front-runners and several -- to me personally -- relative unknowns that I am considering. So, yeah, there are some Bernie supporters who are up for grabs.

[mtnsnake]

59. +1000

[Hekate]

20. Thank you, pnwmom

[pnwmom]

22. You're welcome, Hekate!

Have a nice day!

[iluvtennis]

26. ++++++++ totally agree with you pnwmom. nt

[ssy]

28. WOW, THANKS!

[marybourg]

30. Needed to be said, and you said it well.

[LibFarmer]

32. +1000 nt

[lunamagica]

34. + 1000!!! Thank you, thano yoy THANK YOU!

I feel exactly the same way. Now, those who disparage her and believe they have nothing to worry about the Russian are leving in dreamland and will get a rude awakening.

[Bev54]

37. Thank you

[samnsara]

38. AMEN! count me in too!

[DCofVA]

40. Is pointing out the missteps of previous campaigns considered disparaging?

If we don’t learn from past mistakes, we might repeat them.

[pnwmom]

43. I gave examples. All the people who did those things probably thought

they were helpfully pointing out missteps.

It isn't a good way to earn support from many Hillary admirers, who think that any candidate would have struggled under the combined weight of millions of newly suppressed votes and Russian election interference.

[scardycat]

41. Count me in too

And this goes for ANY Dem candidate who disparages ANY Dem candidate in a mean way. No disrespect. Dems stay close together to defeat the orange one please.

[Honeycombe8]

42. What brought this on?

Odd to do a post attacking someone, without any background on anything that's been said.

Having said that, let's all agree that all the candidates are human and are not without fault. If someone is trying to objectively assess a candidate, it is that person's duty to mention the negatives, not just the positives. If someone mentions just positives, that's not an objective assessment.

Of course there were mistakes in Hillary's campaign. There are mistakes in every campaign. Of course, there were aspects of Hillary that didn't appeal to everyone. There are aspects of every candidate that don't appeal to everyone. What matters is how important those negatives were/are.

I suppose someone in support of Biden was distinguishing Biden from Hillary, and mentioned the things complained of in the OP? Just a guess. But some background would have been helpful.

[pnwmom]

44. There have been many such posts here -- which is why there are so many recs.

No one is going to help Biden or any other candidate by negatively comparing Hillary to him; by saying that he's better at "connecting" with people, etc.

That's just a personal, subjective opinion and it alienates the many people who really admire Hillary.

[Honeycombe8]

47. Oh, I haven't seen those. I guessed it was about Biden, though.

BTW, I think it's pretty much a given that he does connect with people more than she did. That's a strength of his, but was a weakness of hers. All candidates have weaknesses and strengths.

His weakness, though, is he's more of a go-along-to-get-along guy (which fits in with his "connection" strength), whereas she was more of a leader on issues, more principled, more determined about certain issues. That was a strength of hers.

No one's perfect. Being so easily offended in politics is not a good thing, IMO.

I loved Obama. At the same time, I recognize that he was not perfect. HE recognized and made fun of his imperfections a few times.

For the record, I am not a supporter of Biden's. I really like Pete, but I'm not ready to support anyone yet.

[Cha]

58. Uh huh.. look at all the Biden Supporters who

REC it.

[mudstump]

45. Since someone died and left you in charge...

please advice as to what we CAN say exactly....thank you.

[pnwmom]

50. Just don't disparage her, unless you're trying to alienate her supporters.

She's not running so leave her out of it. How hard is that to understand?

[mudstump]

70. Can we say anything about Hillary?

Can we disagree with her voting record? or her stand on issues? Evidently, we aren't free to give our opinion...at least a negative one? How is that democracy? Here is a news flash for you....she's not running...so, why can't we say anything negative about her? Btw...just so you know...I voted for her.

[pnwmom]

71. You are entirely free to say anything you want. Just don't expect anyone here

to give careful consideration to your other thoughts if you disparage Hillary in order to promote your guy.

[mudstump]

73. You are speaking for everyone?...

It's very hard to make others only say what you want to hear. I have a great deal of admiration for Hillary, but I sure will resist letting you tell me that I can't speak freely about those places where I disagree with her...or anyone for that matter. Btw...I don't have a "guy" yet. I'm keeping an open mind and I sure as heck am not dwelling on the past. 2016 is long gone and we have a lot of work to do to defeat Trump. This just seems like a petty beef that wastes time and energy. Why don't you try to let the past go and focus on the candidates we have now?

[pnwmom]

74. Why don't I? Because I keep reading posts here from people putting Hillary down

in a misguided effort to help their guy.

[fleabiscuit]

93. Speaking for most of us. nt

[melman]

54. +1

[Persondem]

89. What a crappy thing to say ...

[seta1950]

46. Exactly

Perfectly said , stop disparaging Hillary,it does not help any democrat.

[RedParrot]

48. We should avoid re-litigating 2016 election

Two things are undeniable: Russia was successful in damaging 2016 Democratic nominee, and Trump hasn’t done anything to prevent the same thing from happening to our 2020 nominee.

[lunamagica]

55. Prevent? He is COUNTING on them to help him again

[mcar]

57. Kick! Kick! Kick! Kick! Kick!

[mtnsnake]

61. Many people feel that she was the only person who could possibly have lost to Trump

because of all the baggage she had going in to it, most of it caused by decades of lies about her coming from the Right Wing.

I'm not saying someone like Joe Biden could have done better in 2016 than Hillary, but there sure are a lot of so-called "experts" out there who think so. Regardless, Hillary would have made a fine president. Instead, we all woke up the next morning in shock.

[pazzyanne]

64. That is putting it mildly.

… and yes she would have made a very fine president!

[pazzyanne]

63. Thank you, pnwmom!

[wryter2000]

65. Amen

Although the candidate may not be to blame for his supporters behavior.

[TygrBright]

66. And me. Thanks for putting it out there, pnwmom.

Hillary did not lose. She won by three million votes.

She is the most qualified, competent candidate the Democratic Party has run for President in my lifetime.

It took covert action by a hostile foreign power, enabled by a complicit, anti-democratic party of traitors to keep her out of the office that she won.

I am proud of her.

Bad-mouth her, talk bullshit about her "mistakes" to make your favorite candidate look good, and all you do is show a) your own insecurity and misogyny; and b) your candidate's weakness.

That is all.

firmly,
Bright

[Jakes Progress]

67. If the candidate doesn't trash Hillary, that's one thing.

When someone here trashes Hillary to promote their candidate, that tells me that I shouldn't listen to anything that poster has to say. They are stupid or a troll. (Or a stupid troll)

If people still think Hillary was a weak candidate or unlikable or too corporate, they show that they swallow the breitbart and russian bots propaganda which means they are stupid. She was the most qualified, most competent, most moral, most honest candidate in decades.

[Drunken Irishman]

68. I think it's important to figure out what Hillary did wrong and make sure it's not done again...

There were some campaign missteps that hurt Hillary but on the whole, I agree with your take. The fact is, and I've said this before, Hillary's biggest problem was the Comey Letter. That changed the game. Had the Comey Letter not dropped a week before the election, Hillary is the winner and this is all a moot point. But it happened so close to the election that it was impossible to overcome and, in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, that were slowly trending Trump's way, it offered a last bit of push probably similar to how Hurricane Sandy aided Obama in the days after it hit - but for different reasons. Obama's response to Sandy, the positive press he received from it, dominated the final week of the campaign. The Comey Letter dominated the final week of the campaign for Hillary and the news was almost entirely negative.

But beyond that, the news did one thing that Trump's handlers were unable to do at any point in the 2016 campaign - it put Trump in the background. For the final week, you heard little from Trump and less we heard, the better his poll numbers went up. But every moment of the campaign where Trump was the focal point, his awfulness and crude comments, his numbers were pretty terrible.

The only major criticism I have of Hillary is the deplorables comment, which I felt gave Trump supporters a rallying cry and provided poor optics and the fact she didn't see the potential landmine that was her private server back in the early days of the Obama administration. She, more than anyone, should have anticipated the blowback from the GOP because they do that - and always have. Alas...

[Lonestarblue]

75. We have some great candidates, but we need not compare them to the past.

They are each unique in their own way, and I will vote for whichever one emerges as the candidate. Trump and his sycophantic enablers are a disaster, and they all just need to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

[brush]

76. Yes, yes, yes! We should all know by now who really won in 2016...

with 3 million more votes.

[LiberalBrooke]

77. Me too

If you cannot promote your candidate without putting Hillary down, you will not have my support in the primary. In the general election, I will support any democratic candidate nominated. My last choice democrat is worlds better than any republican.

[Progressive dog]

79. I agree

Hillary is a stand in for Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Attacking her sure won't help anyone win the Democratic nomination.

In spite of Russian help to one of her opponents (per Mueller report), Hillary still won the Democratic primaries, winning 55%+ of the vote.
I am still angry over the attacks on the Clinton Foundation. Being charitable and helping others is not wrong. Trying to make it appear wrong is deplorable.

[betsuni]

82. I agree.

And disparaging the Democratic Party in general. I just saw that one campaign official retweeted an article by TYT about the 2020 primary being rigged "again." Wonder how many of the couple of dozen candidates are "in on it." They really should stop and think about trying this conspiracy theory again.

[Princetonian]

83. Disparaging any candidate on our side - including Bernie - should be considered friendly fire.

There is plenty to attack on the other side.

[pnwmom]

85. Bernie is running for 2020. His supporters aren't up for grabs, as Hillary's are.

And people here routinely compare, contrast, and criticize the positions of candidates running now.

That's very different from trying to promote your candidate by disparaging our nominee of 4 years ago. Anyone who does that risks alienating her millions of supporters.

[Princetonian]

88. I doubt millions of Hillary voters care what is being said on this forum for it to affect 2020.

That said, dredging up the past is not conducive to winning 2020.

[pnwmom]

91. This forum -- and anywhere else that people might think disparaging Hillary,

who is not running for 2020, is a good way to drum up support for their candidate, who is.

They're wrong. It's alienating.

[Princetonian]

112. So is disparaging any of the candidates on our side I should think.

However, honest valid political criticism is to be expected in a forum. Censorship is not.

[pnwmom]

119. It's natural to compare, contrast, and criticize candidates running against each other.

Hillary is running against none of them.

But go ahead, dump on her all you want. You don't need to care how her supporters will react.

[radical noodle]

84. 1000%

[aikoaiko]

92. HRC made mistakes and it's reasonable to want our candidates to not repeat the

Isn’t it?

[fleabiscuit]

95. Shocking. nt

[pnwmom]

97. It's not reasonable to assume that anyone's favorite 2020 candidate

would have done better than Hillary in 2016.

If she hadn't been the nominee, someone else would have made their own mistakes. And someone else would have also been impacted by the dismantling of the 1965 Voting Rights act in 2013; and by Russian interference in the election. The Russians wanted Trump. They would have attacked the election to install him no matter who his opponent was.

As it was, Hillary won by 2.9 million votes. I'm continually amazed by how many Democrats dismiss that. When Gore lost, despite an advantage of 500K votes, Democrats were shocked and nobody blamed Gore for being a bad campaigner. We'd never before had a popular vote winner on that scale lose in the EC. Hillary had almost 6x as many votes over Trump, yet people keep acting like it was her fault. What's going to happen next time when a Dem loses the EC despite a 5 million vote advantage? A 10 million vote advantage? At what point do we stop blaming the Democrat for her "mistakes" and start fighting for a fair system?

[aikoaiko]

103. Campaigns are a bunch of strategic decisions based on the candidate, plans, current situations, etc

No campaign is perfect, but mistakes can be made and learned from. I don't know why anyone thinks HRC's campaign would be any different from others in that way.

We have very different memories of Gore's loss. A lot of people blamed him. From the beginning, he was too stiff and not likable enough. A lot people warned him that he would lose southern states because of his stance on guns and indeed he even lost TN. And he blew the recount by not asking for a statewide recount immediately instead of conceding. I remember all that.

I think people discount HRC's extra 3 million votes because they don't matter. It wouldn't have mattered if she had 30 million extra votes when we have an electoral college. We all know how one wins the presidency and it's not the popular vote. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with competency.

And there were big things working against her that were out of her control (Comey, Russia). I'm not dismissing them either.

In a fair and just world, HRC would be president, but that's not what we have. In a fair world, Gore or Kerry would have won, too.

[Politicub]

94. People who disparage Hillary get a block from me

It's nonsensical to criticize Clinton. She's not running. It stinks of right-wing bias to throw mud at her to make a point.

She has earned and deserves our respect.

[Aussie105]

98. Hillary is not running.

Those people who are still throwing mud at Hillary are trying, in my opinion, to justify their vote for Trump while fighting that little thought in the back of their heads, that they voted wrong, they are not reaping the rewards they were promised. The thought that 'Yeah, but Hillary would have been worse' probably brings them some comfort.

I live in Australia, but my wife's sister lives in California. When asked who she was going to vote for, her only answer was 'I cannot possibly vote for Hillary'.
Didn't go into why, but I'm guessing she was the recipient, as were all Americans, of the massive anti-Hillary campaign. A campaign that did not reach Australia.

Wife also has a half brother in the states, he said 'There is no one to vote for this time' before the election. At least he recognised Trump wasn't a good choice.

Voting should be based on the established competence of a candidate, and their stated policies. Race and gender have very little to do with it.

[pnwmom]

99. Nice to meet you here, Aussie105! We need all the allies we can get.

Maybe you can have a little more influence on your relatives this time around. I'm sure going to try with some of mine . . . .

[Clash City Rocker]

101. Yeah. I lost some respect for Ted Kennedy

Because of his attacks on Jimmy Carter when they were running against each other. I think Reagan would have been elected regardless, and Kennedy gained a lot of that respect back in later years, but for a long time, I didn’t look at Kennedy the same way.

Save the personal attacks for the Republican candidate, or better still, don’t to it at all. Fear doesn’t work for Democrats the way it works for Republicans. The Democratic presidents of my lifetime all got there by inspiring people, not by scaring people.

[PADemD]

105. Before you wreck your health

You need to rid yourself of your anger over the 2016 election.

Chronic anger can increase your heart-attack and stroke risk. It can also weaken your immune system.

https://www.everydayhealth.com/news/ways-anger-ruining-your-health/

[betsuni]

107. It is 2019.

[PDittie]

115. +1

[pnwmom]

118. You may be projecting. This is about the current election,

and other people who are trying to bring a 2016 candidate into it as a punching bag.

[TwilightZone]

122. I don't see anything in the OP about 2016.

It would seem to be about the current cycle and how our current candidates and their supporters are approaching it.

It's interesting that you think 2016 is the topic, however.

[KPN]

110. A divisive post about not being divisive, based entirely in the past. That's how I read this.

Sorry, but this stuff pisses me off as much as other's stuff angers you. It's all divisive and a good contribution to that end.