Clinton: 'That was my last race'

[nitpicker]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329222-clinton-on-loss-to-trump-that-was-my-last-race

Clinton: 'That was my last race'

By Rebecca Savransky - 04/18/17 06:32 AM EDT

Hillary Clinton said that the 2016 presidential election was her "last race" after it became apparent she lost, according to a new book.

The Hill's Amie Parnes and Sidewire's Jonathan Allen write in "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign" that on the night of the 2016 election, the former Democratic presidential nominee looked through the draft of her concession speech. “Look, I really just want to concede gracefully, wish him the best, thank everybody, and get off the stage,” she said. “This is not a moment for me to do more than that.”
(snip)

“Other people will criticize him. That’s their job. I have done it. I just lost, and that is that,” she continued. “That was my last race.”

[shenmue]

1. ...

[Arkansas Granny]

2. She will continue to be a strong voice for human rights, especially those of women and children.

She has spent a lifetime in public service. I don't expect that to end.

[shenmue]

3. True

[Demit]

4. She has class. Something Trump will never have.

[rock]

23. Something he CANNOT have

He doesn't have the basic underlying humanity.

[athena]

5. And yet people claim she didn't take responsibility.

HRC is a mirror. It is themselves people see in her. If someone hates HRC and sees her as the horrible person she is described her as so frequently on DU and elsewhere, that says a lot more about them than it does about her.

[yardwork]

6. That's very insightful. HRC is a mirror.

[Hortensis]

7. Yes. I've always thought what people assume

others would do can reveal something important about their own character. For sure some have no idea how eye-opening their notions of "normal," expected behavior can be.

[brer cat]

9. I agree, athena.

Very well put.

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Beautifully said ...

[NCTraveler]

8. I think that became very clear last week.

Who did, and did not turn over their email list and analytics.

That was a clear sign to me that one wasn't running for President again.

[ehrnst]

17. Clearly she has a grip on reality

Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:00 AM - Edit history (1)

and wasn't in it for attention and adoration.

Also, releasing one's tax returns shows the ethics of a serious, realistic presidential candidate, and witholding them indicates otherwise.

[thesquanderer]

25. re: "a clear sign to me that one wasn't running for President again"

How would giving the DNC her email list prevent Hillary from running again if she so chose? I don't see the connection.

[NCTraveler]

26. She is a team player.

Clinton gave up more than her email list. She gave up her analytics. So much more than emails. She would have held that close if she was running again.

[thesquanderer]

33. That's an interesting perspective.

Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm not sure I agree, but it's an interesting way to look at it.

I don't know what's involved in the analytics, but whatever analytics her team did on this one kind of failed her, as she lost something that was about as close to a sure win as things ever get in politics. So if she did run again, I'd say she'd better throw out the old model anyway.

But also, in another thread, people are saying Hillary is great for giving this stuff to the DNC, and Bernie is bad for not doing the same. Your analysis is that Hillary would not have done it if she had any eyes toward possibly running again. In which case, she'd be just as "bad" as Bernie. That is, if we accept your premise that it would be stupid to turn this stuff over if you might run again, and we also accept that Bernie has not ruled out running again, then it sounds like Bernie would be stupid to do the same as Hillary did, right? Yet he is getting pilloried by some people for not doing it.

[zipplewrath]

40. Don't try logic

If you're going to use cold, clear headed logic around here, you'll get frustrated quickly. In order to get along here, you must start with "democrats good, everyone else bad". All hypothesis must originate from there.

[NCTraveler]

46. There is little logic there.

You could have used many words, including non-divisive ones, that would have fit well. Logic isn't one of them.

[zipplewrath]

47. There was alot

But none of it started from the premise I suggested so it isn't surprising it won't be well received or understood.

[NCTraveler]

48. "won't be well received or understood."

Always nice when that is known going in.

[NCTraveler]

44. "I'd say she'd better throw out the old model anyway."

It would be nice if we had more help in that area. Some simply aren't as involved with coalition building as Clinton. Then again, considering your own metrics, that which I am mentioning would render itself useless as it wasn't even enough to get to the general. I find your assumption to be very flawed for that reason. I, unlike you, think it would be very valuable to the party.

[thesquanderer]

49. Did you miss the emoticon after that statement?

It was tongue in cheek. I didn't literally mean her analytical data would have no value, I thought the emoticon would help make that clear.

Anyway, as for who had better analytics (to whatever extent that contributed to the final outcomes, which we don't really know), I might consider different benchmarks. You're saying that by metrics of success, Clinton's analytics were better than Sanders' because, even though she lost, he didn't even get to the general. But OTOH, she lost something that all polls indicated she should have won, whereas Bernie came awfully close in a contest where almost no one thought he had a chance to get even as close as he did. So in examining the efficacy of various aspects of their campaigns, rather than look strictly at who won or lost their contests, one could also look at how they did relative to expectations. Looked at that way, they were starting from different baselines. One went up from the base expectation, the other went down. So then the question of who did "better" is not as clear.

Of course, ultimately, there were many factors that contributed to things going the way they did. Again, the analytics thing was tongue in cheek... She could well have had some outstanding analysis there, but there were still a bunch of other things in her campaign that weighed it down, some within the campaign's control, but some not.

[NCTraveler]

50. I did. "Yet he is getting pilloried by some people for not doing it." :) nt.

[ehrnst]

54. It's a clear eyed perspective. (nt)

[FBaggins]

27. Ask yourself why she didn't turn them over during the general election

If she were to run again, she would have to compete in a primary for the Democratic nomination.

[dsc]

58. because people run their own campaigns

During the general election she was using both of those and was fairly busy it should be noted. She promised to turn the stuff over after she won and she did turn them over after the election.

[ehrnst]

60. Yes, keeping promises is what she does. (nt)

[ehrnst]

59. One might say that about tax returns

If he were to run again, he would need to compete in a primary for the Democratic election.

It will be way harder to justify refusing to release them after this adminstration.

[SharonAnn]

28. It was a clear to me who is a Democrat and who might just use Democrats.

[thesquanderer]

34. re: "It was a clear to me who is a Democrat and who might just use Democrats."

Please see my post #33

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028943742#post33

[CousinIT]

10. Sad thing is, she didn't lose. n/t

[BlueMTexpat]

12. Also true ...

[ehrnst]

24. Very true. But the narrative that she did supports others who have ambitions

and grudges.

[The Big Ragu]

56. The American People lost

We missed an opportunity for decency.

[Gamecock Lefty]

13. 100% spot on, CousinIT!

3,000,000 more votes. She didn't lose. She may not be in the White House, but she is a winner hands down.

Love her!

[Bleacher Creature]

14. I wouldn't put too much weight on something she said in the heat of the moment.

I do think she's done running for an elected office, but that's a decision she alone needs to make. And I certainly wouldn't hold it against her if she decides something that's not consistent with what she said when the pain of her "loss" was so raw.

[thesquanderer]

22. I agree. Heck, didn't she say much the same thing after 2008? (n/t)

[BrooklynTech]

70. She'll run again in 2020

Hell, she's already started!

Mark my words, Hillary Clinton will be a candidate for president in 2020.

[mcar]

15. History will be kind to her

She has given so much to this country. Drumpf* will always have an asterisk after his name.

[ehrnst]

16. That book is absolutely fascinating - and infuriating

The American people were robbed of a fantastic president.

Hoping that Bernie has the same self awareness.

[thesquanderer]

21. What's your point about Bernie? (n/t)

[SharonAnn]

29. I wonder if he just uses Democrats. He takes but I'm not sure he gives.

[chervilant]

37. Senator Bernie Sanders

stands head and shoulders above the rest of the carrion crew infesting our government du jour. He has the highest approval rating of any representative currently serving in either house. He routinely supports the Democratic Party, despite what DWS and the DNC did to derail his campaign.

Sadly, herein, the Bernie bashing just never stops...

[JTFrog]

39. Bernie's team was the one caught hacking.

Bernie's team was the one with a campaign manager with ties to Russia.

Bernie was the guy who used the party for money and the spotlight. Then he promptly went to work tearing down our candidate and refusing to leave said spotlight when it was obvious he had no way to win. All of his divisive rhetoric against the Democratic party sure was convenient to a certain other candidate and other party out there.

I am sick and tired of this trying to rewrite history and re-hash the primaries.

Just. Stop.

Oh, and Hillary was also extremely popular and had very high approval ratings when she wasn't running for anything and being attacked from both sides.

[ehrnst]

53. +1000

[ehrnst]

52. I was looking for him to speak at one of the "show your tax returns" demonstrations

Do you know if he did?

[stevenleser]

65. The sanctimony and cult of personality around Bernie is what never stops

He is a very flawed person and was a very flawed candidate, and that's one of the many reasons he got millions of votes less than Hillary in the primary.

[grossproffit]

79. +infinite

[ehrnst]

51. That he has the same self awareness about his chances for

being elected POTUS.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Robby Mook isn't coming out looking very good, so far.

[demmiblue]

18. Methinks people have not read other excerpts/critiques from that book.

If they had, I don't think they would be reccing this.

[MsLeopard]

19. Except she didn't lose

She was robbed by a combination of Russian hacking/influence, gerrymandering, and massive voter suppression. Not to mention the Thugs control the counting of the votes (right out of Stalin's playbook). We may never have a legitimate election again unless these issues are resolved.

What a sad state of affairs for the supposedly "greatest nation on earth."

[MainSt99]

41. So True MsLeopard

At this point in our history, candidates on the Right have a huge advantage for the reasons you say. By and large, Democrats are not willing to cheat as much.

Corruption has our political system in its grip .... Republicans far more than Democrats. There are huge corporate payoffs for candidates promising to legislate for the plutocracy and against the interests of their own constituents. Cheating, to win, comes easily to politicians whose main goal is wealth and power.

To even start fixing the situation, we need public funding of elections. As much as possible, we need to get money out of politics.

[MsLeopard]

43. Agreed

Public funded elections are desperately needed. But I fear we're too far down the rabbit hole at this point. Just not sure if there's any movement that can help us now.

[MainSt99]

63. We have entered a dark period for Progressives, which we know will probably get worse.

So it can be hard to envision substantial reforms to our corrupted system. And yet we have seen sweeping changes in the past, like the advent of the FDR era. Electoral landslides are difficult to dispute despite election fraud. The same goes for the election of federal representatives, where huge majorities can render gerrymandering ineffective.

I believe in 2020 the possibility of electing a truly Progressive government, in Washington, is not out of the question

[Jim Lane]

57. How was gerrymandering a factor?

It certainly affects races for the House of Representatives and state legislatures, but not for the Presidency. District lines are immaterial except in Maine and Nebraska, affecting only a few electoral votes.

[ehrnst]

61. It does and has affected the presidential election

In 2012, President Obama won Virginia with just over 51 percent of the vote. But under the Republican-proposed system of allocating votes, Obama would have received just four electoral votes while Mitt Romney would have received nine. Raise your hand if that sounds right.

President Obama won Pennsylvania by 5.2 percent — under the original plan proposed in Pennsylvania that would have meant 13 electoral votes for Romney and seven for Obama

There are other states where Republicans control both chambers and the governorship where this kind of bill could move forward. If Wisconsin had adopted the Virginia plan, Romney would have won 7 electoral votes and Obama would have taken only 3 electoral votes despite the fact that Obama won by 7percent of the statewide popular vote. In Florida, where Obama won 50percent - 49percent, the electoral vote allocation would have been Romney 18, Obama 11. Put simply - this doesn’t pass the sniff test. As Ari Berman pointed out for The Nation, if Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Pennsylvania had all adopted this vote-splitting plan for the 2012 election, Romney would have garnered 270 electoral votes and won the presidency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-fitzgerald/electoral-college-gerrymandering_b_2552584.html

[Rocket_Scientist65]

62. No, it has NOT affected presidential elections.

First did you read the article? It's dated from 2013 after Obama won the 2012 election. The GOP was going to propose bills in those swing states but apparently it never happened. Even the article says "would have" IF the proposed bills were to pass. Every state in the country except Nebraska and Maine are still "winner take all" states, so gerrymandering has zero effect on a presidential election.

[ehrnst]

64. Republicans move forward with plans to Gerrymander EC in three states

How this works is simple: Congressional maps with 55 percent of districts were drawn to favor Republicans and just 10 percent for Democrats. Consequently, Trump carried a majority of 230 districts and Hillary Clinton just 205. Thus, Trump still would have prevailed despite losing the popular vote if every state awarded votes by district, as would have Mitt Romney in 2012 and George W. Bush in 2000. Under this system, Trump likely still would have won even without gerrymandering because he carried 10 more states than Clinton did.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/25/1625053/-Republicans-move-forward-with-plans-to-gerrymander-the-Electoral-College-in-three-states

[Jim Lane]

66. That's a proposal. It had zero effect on the 2016 election. (n/t)

[Rocket_Scientist65]

67. Keep reading....

None of the swing states from the 2016 election have introduced any bills to change the EC system and the two states cited in the article have Democratic governors.....who would veto the bills. From the article...

Republicans have not introduced new electoral college reform bills in Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin this year so far. Minnesota and Virginia have Democratic governors, making those states' versions of the idea ripe for vetoes if they pass.

And your claim was that gerrymandering HAS affected presidential elections.....it never has....yet.....the fight will be to prevent bills that are being introduced in state legislatures from ever passing.

[yallerdawg]

20. More like 'That was our last chance.'

Hate and fear squeaked by.

Let's just hope this is a wake up call to energize millions more decent, good Americans than there are disgusting, deplorable assholes.

[still_one]

30. It is a disgrace how Hillary was treated, especially by the press. This was a circus to them.

Something to boost their ratings

Even the NY Times review of this book is trying to capitalize on the Hillary hate.

The media had it in for Hillary from the start, and they were only too willing to do their part.

Nice of the book to briefly mention the contribution of the FBI, and the Russian interference.

Thinking that by pushing the narrative that "she never reached out", can cover up their complicity in propagating "a lie told often enough becomes the truth"

This isn't rocket science.

Hillary was leading in all the polls before Comey came out 11 days with the letter to the republicans in Congress, and MSNBC was the first network to report that the email investigation was reopened. THAT WAS A LIE. MSNBC then proceed to parade every right wing politician across their screen for the next two hours propagating that LIE. Soon every other news network followed suit with the same LIE. A few days later Bret Baier broadcast that according to "his sources in the FBI, an imminent indictment was pending on the Clinton Foundation. Another LIE, but the other news outlets picked that up quickly too. a few days later Baier came out and apologized saying that there was no pending indictment, and apologized. He was mistaken. Just peachy. The damage was pretty much done then, and the poll numbers reflected it. Hillary completely lost the lead she had.

Just like the Iraq War, which was based on a lie, they were only too willing to bang the drums.

The false equivalencies, and the legitimizing of racism, sexism, and xenophobia by the media spoke volumes.

When Chuck Todd said "It's Not the Media's Job To Correct GOP's Falsehoods", or CNN entertaining the question, "are Jews human?", the fourth estate has exposed what they have become,

The fault dear brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves

[SpankMe]

31. She's bowing out rather gracefuly

If Republicans had lost the election under the same circumstances that HRC lost, they wouldn't be graceful about it. They'd still be "investigating" and litigating it today.

If I haven't said it recently - Trump and the Republicans are motherfuckers.

[maddiemom]

36. They'd still be investigating and litigating the 2000 election...

if the results had gone the other way---or the electoral college would have been gone by 2016.

[Mike Nelson]

32. Hillary should be...

...proud of her campaign and of winning the vote. She will go down in history as a great American - on par with Presidents, like Benjamin Franklin and MLK.

Cheers to Hillary Rodham Clinton!

[FakeNoose]

38. Yes she's shown the way for future candidates

... both women and men, but women especially.

Hillary can hold her head high, because she did nothing to be ashamed of.
She was CHEATED out of the Presidency even though she WON the election.
I don't blame her for wanting to be done with all this.

It's time to be a grandma and enjoy her life while she can. I'm sure she'll write more books and maybe do some lecturing.

Thank you Hillary, for a job well done!



Hillary in Pittsburgh October 2016

[zipplewrath]

45. Dubious

She'll definitely be remembered. Her time as First Lady alone is going to be a type that will carry her name for a long time. She'll probably be among the top 5 First ladies of history for a long time. But political history especially isn't "kind" to people that lose. There will be a decade or more of critique of her campaign and career in general. Even in the out decades, when history becomes vastly less partisan, she'll at best be in the category of past political female giants like Tubman, Stowe, Roosevelt, etc. Not exactly a bad place to be either. And for what it's worth, Franklin and MLK, along with Hamilton would rank "above" most presidents. Precious few that would exceed them. I'd add more to that list as well to include Thurgood Marshall and George C Marshall as well. In reality, there are probably more "higher ranking" non-presidents, than there are actual presidents.

It is notable the people that were extremely popular immediately after they left the public sphere, only to diminish greatly over time. Custer, Grant, MacArthur, and Jackson immediately come to mind. A few do jump to mind that did sort of the reverse. Truman probably got more appreciated over time. Carter too, he turned out to be prescient on many issues, by decades. Hoover is definitely better understood than in his time, although to be honest he had virtually nowhere to go but up.

[Cha]

71. NO, it's not "dubious".

[athena]

74. How has history been to Al Gore so far?

Everything you say would apply much better to Gore than to Rodham Clinton, who has already made history as the first female nominee of a major party, as the first female candidate to win the popular vote, and as the candidate who has won more votes than anyone except President Obama in 2008.

The same criticism that was levelled at Hillary in 2016 was levelled at Gore in 2000. The equivalent of today's Bernie supporters were Naderites back then, with the difference that the Naderites were much quicker to realize the gravity of the mistake they had made. The attacks against Gore ended with the 2000 election, whereas Hillary haters can't seem to contain their hate even now, almost half a year since the election. Those who will look particularly ugly in the eyes of history are Hillary haters, who are no better than those who resisted the civil rights movement. Hillary haters may claim they are not sexist and would have been happy to vote for Elizabeth Warren, but history reveals such claims to be exactly what they are: lies, denial, and hypocrisy.

Look how popular Gore is now. Gore goes against your claim that history is unkind to those who lose. History does not seem to consider winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote as losing. What is ironic is that some Bernie supporters on DU, who hate Hillary with a passion, are now suggesting that Gore run for president in 2020! They have such a short political memory, or must be so young, that they don't realize Gore was painted as being no less corporate-friendly and lesser-of-two-evils than Hillary was. Indeed, Gore ran a very centrist and cautious campaign compared to Hillary. The fact that Hillary ran the most progressive campaign in history is now being credited to Bernie, but that, too, will be revealed by history as the sexist lie it is.

My prediction is that twenty years from now, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be many times more admired and popular than Al Gore is today. Hillary has paved the way for the woman who will eventually be the first female president of the United States. Thanks to Hillary's campaign, we are now more aware of the depth of our society's misogyny. The next female candidate's campaign will be made a little easier by that new self-awareness. And that is how Hillary will go down in history: as the woman who sacrificed so much to further the cause of women's equality.

[zipplewrath]

78. Longer view

I think I was speaking of a longer view than you are discussing. I agree that in the longer view, Hillary will be better remembered and seen as more influential than Gore. Gore mostly will be remembered for the election fiasco, and probably not much else. And as I said, Hillary will be remembered for a long time from her time as First Lady who ended up both as SoS as well as the party candidate for president. It's just that comparisons to some of the other names mentioned probably won't pan out the way it was suggested.

[ehrnst]

55. She'll be treated very well when the history of this stolen election is written.

Grace, class - she'll be included with Susan B. Anthony in the course of progress for women.

[Cha]

72. Yes, Hillary will, ehrnst.. Thank you!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. I don't blame her for being done

Just sad and bitter that we've been left with a perverted, ignorant wealthy doofus and his equally reprehensible and vacuous family, as well as Congress being in the hands of a party that is equally reprehensible and hostile to the needs and concerns of almost everybody in this country.


Did I mention how bitter I feel about it all?

[northoftheborder]

76. Ditto.

[jmg257]

42. "Ain't gonna be no rematch"

Apollo Creed, Rocky

"Don't want one"

Rocky Balboa, Rocky

[Arazi]

68. That's why she turned over her email list now and not in 2008

She's not running again.

And it's why Bernie Sanders won't turn over his - he hasn't ruled out a run in 2020 imo

[LLStarks]

73. Read as: Appoint me

She'll take it

[athena]

75. Appoint her as what? What are you talking about?

Does Hillary-hatred really know no bounds? Don't people realize that hate hurts the hater more than the hatee?

[BainsBane]

77. And just how do you think someone could be

"Appointed" to the presidency?

[Orsino]

80. She has earned her retirement.

She was willing to commit for eight years, but not for twelve or sixteen.

It's probably time, and I dislike dynasties blah-blah-blah, but hers will be about the quietest and saddest such announcement in the history of everything. She had class, and smarts enough for three presidents.

A depressing mighta-been.