2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI think there are some serious warning signs regarding Hillary
and they're becoming increasingly pronounced. First off, I still think she'll be the nominee. I honestly don't believe any candidate can win without the power people of the party being on board. She has the party, the money, the resume behind her and there is no one for the power structure to turn to.
But the trend is not her friend. Yes, she's still leading by a large margin but over the summer, her support has been steadily slipping. It shouldn't be. Bernie is a good guy, but on paper he shouldn't be competitive with her anywhere. When you think about it, it's extraordinary. Pundits thought he'd be the Dennis Kucinich of 2016. Hell, unlike Dennis, Bernie as we are often reminded isn't even a democrat. And yeah, he's old.
Hillary should be generating a lot more excitement than she is. Maybe it's because she's run before or that she comes off as overly reserved and overly cautious. Spontaneity is not a word that comes to mind regarding Clinton. Maybe the email kerfuffle and other issues have percolate into "Clinton fatigue", reminding voters of the endless drama that comes with the Clintons. Maybe it's that she comes off as out of touch in a Bush I kind of way. She's lived a rarified life for so long, that much as she tries to stress her middle class background and her mother's struggles, it comes off unconnected to her. It doesn't matter if none of this is her fault. Voters don't trust her. Yes, that's a big deal.
That she generates so little grass roots excitement isn't really debatable. The evidence of that is the lack of it on social media. She's still the first woman who has a real chance of being elected President, but somehow that in itself isn't enough.
I've thought for quite some time that her support is a mile wide but not so deep. Many democrats almost reflexively support her. There was at the outset of this election season, a sense of who else is there. There's no doubt as to her qualifications. And yes, there was and is air of inevitability that the campaign itself purposefully projects, even as they mouth the obligatory stuff about fighting for every vote and expecting a competitive primary.
Combine all the above with our current populist zeigiest and it indicates trouble ahead. It's all very well to assert that she would handily beat any of the occupants of the clown car, but here again, the trend hints at trouble ahead.
This primary should have been a stroll in the park for Clinton. At least in Iowa and New Hampshire, it isn't, despite the enormous advantages her campaign possesses. Iowa and New Hampshire do count. She's had massive infrastructure in both states, She's spending millions, she has the endorsements of the most important and we'll liked democrats in both states, and she's in a competitive race in both states with a "fringe" candidate who is attracting a lot of new voters, who may lose interest if she the nominee.
None of this bodes well for the general election.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)in primaries.
there is too much up in the air right now. without debate, there are elements that are just unknown.
so i am really kinda just sitting in wait mode
i am good with 6 debates. personally, three is my number. then i am done. but, i think for all the candidates, including clinton, we need at least one, maybe two in september then stretch one every so often until primary race. i see no reason to have them once the voting starts.
but watching the three, without the debates, i do not know.
cali
(114,904 posts)
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)the Democratic Party. 
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)I am worried about her ability to take on the GOP. Barack basically had a clean slate to start with and so has Bernie. I think the worry about baggage is prominent. When major newspapers like the Washington Post are questioning her candidacy I begin to worry. Then what happens to the millions of people who are behind Bernie if she is elected? Many of them will probably stay at home. Some like me will get behind the nominee...
However as someone said - A week is a long time in politics............
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)The two types of people they hate or work against the most are women and PoC.
840high
(17,196 posts)
tularetom
(23,664 posts)She's had miles and miles of newspaper columns written about her, both flattering and critical.
We were subjected to several years of fake "will she or won't she" drama, when anybody with a couple of brain cells knew what the result was going to be.
Months of fanfare preceded her "announcement", which was awaited with breathless anticipation by an adoring beltway press. Even her logo was a subject of discussion in pundit circles.
By the time she officially became a candidate (to nobody's surprise) she was already old news. And her campaign thus far has been underwhelming, both from the standpoint of (the lack of) policy pronouncements and the low energy level she projects.
When you add in the fact that a lot of people believe they're being told they have to vote for her, it's no surprise she's losing ground.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)And a lot of people don't think her gender is a sufficiently compelling reason to vote for her.
Bernie, on the other hand - the more his message gets out the more he climbs in the polls. He appeals to Rs, Ds, and independents. He generates real enthusiasm!
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)Hillary is definitely not someone that people get excited about - and it's extremely unfortunate.
I just can't see her having anything other than a very difficult time going up against whoever the Republican nominee is. She's not exactly a "straight-shooter" and this whole "Third Way" DNC stuff doesn't exactly do it with the Left - and she doesn't seem to understand that those are the people that will come out to vote and be excited about her - they aren't in any appreciable way that I see other than they like the idea of having someone with a "D" next to their name as POTUS.
I heard on Thom Hartmann a few weeks ago after the Bernie Internet Simulcast, the one where he got 100K people out, and a Professor from Arizona called in to talk about the Bernie House Party she had that night. She said that the people at her house party were a very, very educated group and had been paying attention for a while and were very excited about Bernie. What they also said that was very telling, was that they hated Hillary (and she made sure to use that word "hate" because she thought it was very strong to actually have someone say it) and that they were disgusted with the Democratic establishment for forcing her upon them. If HRC became the nominee most said that they'd vote for Jill Stein because even if a Republican won they'd learned from having Obama as president that the Left won't protest against a Democrat but they definitely would protest in a huge way against a Republican in office.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The way Bill's "signature" accomplishments (NAFTA, welfare reform, Telecom Act, banking deregulation, more people in prison) worked out is no help to her either. All had horrible results and she was for all of them.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Their singular focus on the nomination blinds them to a greater reality that she may just not be likable enough to win when you have to get the average voter out to the polls. Even for people who barely if at all keep up with election politics have an opinion. Even some people who's opinion if favorable of Hillary Clinton also voice the we don't need another Bush or Clinton mantra. Hillarys ability to pull off the win in 2016 if she is the nominee will be more about who the republican nominee is and how deep they can step in it. I do not personally hate HC, but looking at all her prospects and hurdles with rose colored glasses and claims that the email thing et all are much ado about nothing is borderline denial and not helpful. Hillary supporters and her campaign need to play like they are behind, assume the worst and then build a strategy on that. However I believe ego, and pride will preclude much of change in the attitudes coming from her camp and her DNC cheer squad.
Turbineguy
(37,365 posts)essentially the same problems as President Obama. Just change "black" to "female". Same hate-filled Neanderthals.
cali
(114,904 posts)she has. And he generated lots of excitement and enthusiasm.
from you subject line I thought you were going to suggest she has restless leg syndrome or even high blood pressure
Cosmocat
(14,572 posts)SORRY - I mean to reply to the OP.
I think taking a step back, this go around is not acting like any other presidential election in our lives.
At least to this point.
The context is what is going on in the other side. They have a dozen people running who are or have held office at the federal level, and three of the top four candidates now have never held office.
Trump, is dominating the race now.
Donald Trump.
That is just surreal.
And, THEIR establishment pick, Bush III, is on life support and losing key staff now.
What is happening to Hillary is to be expected.
When there wasn't a race, she was the placeholder.
And, republican's have spent a quarter century now throwing shit at her, so of course she is going to have "negatives.'
They fricken destoryed John Kerry, Al Gore, Howard Dean.
Barrack Obama is a charming, attractive good natured person who has malice toward no one, and they have his negatives at 50% or so depending on the day.
I just hate that people make it about HER.
She is warmed over, but as far as politicians go she isn't bad.
Bernie is great, but he has his bullshit, too.
Ain't no way in hell we are going to have a 15 minimum wage in our lives, no way in hell there is going to be free college in this country, and his answer to dealing with congress is BHO like broadspeak that completely does not answer it.
It is a more populist BHO type of thing, but he is making more specific promises he isn't going to be able to keep.
That said, I too have moved from just assuming Hill will get the nomination to actually thinking Bernie has a chance.
The general, WTF knows ... It all changes once you get both candidates set, and it will boil down to how willing the mushy 5% of true non-committeds buy the repubilcan slander of EITHER candidate - and Bernie will get the full treatment just the same as Hillary if he wins the nomination.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)cannot be accomplished by a president. The people have to demand radical change or it won't happen.
Cosmocat
(14,572 posts)Again 15 an hour minimum salary, free college, universal health care ...
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Cosmocat
(14,572 posts)Not sure how these things come about wo congress.
Either way, hes promising them ...
Vattel
(9,289 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The problem is she hasn't got it. And her good performance in pairing to R's is much about party loyalty.
Within the primary it's looking more competitive than less competitive.
I can't speak to other states, but here in WI HRC is not sparking excitement and that could be an impediment.
If it's still competitive in April she'll be depending on a dem vote that has a long pattern of being softer in non-general elections than in general elections. A softness that is particularly true in urban areas where Clinton's support is strongest.
Of course, Sanders is asking exactly the same dem party to vote for him, but Sander's is really generating excitement. The 'not-too-interested' don't vote in the same percentage as the 'excited'. And people who aren't working 3 part-time jobs to feed their families are in better circumstance to get to vote and to have the required voter id.
And that's a big deal here.
Because, WI primary turnout is typically abysmal, at ~13%-14% of registered voters, any candidate that bumps the gotv by 40K-50K voters would -strongly- swing the dem primary to his/her favor
A 40K gotv bump from excited voters isn't out of the question for Sanders as things currently stand. Sanders had 10K turnout at his first of July rally in Madison, when full time students were away at home for the summer. Participation by university students, who are often more idealistic than older voters, and who felt the sting of disenfranchisement by the timing of the recall, could generate the majority of that needed bump.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)when the Russian crew said "You have killed us you arrogant bastard!" What will the remains of the Dem party be thinking after the loss? They will blame Bernie and those like from 2014 who did not vote. No introspection dooms the Dem party in 2016.
Is anyone besides Bernie listening to the common people any more? It would seem that only money talks and is listened to. If you don't follow the will of the common people then don't expect them to vote for you. Bernie is the best choice because people are pleased that he is aligned with them with what and how the common people are thinking.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)because dislike for that club had grown so strong among the base as to be unbearable?
Those masters of smart didn't go away or change their approach, they changed their name.
So, the answer is no one among the masters of smart are listening, they are -counting-, and they are counting money.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)they NEED a politics with all the air pumped out of it
pinebox
(5,761 posts)No, I really don't. In recent polls it shows a clear majority doesn't trust her (I fit in that realm) and Bernie's message is new and refreshing. One can't help but look at all the baggage she has. The GOP has an endless amount of mud to thrown at her, far greater than Obama considering she's been in the public eye for so long and is so high profile. America doesn't like her and I believe her wish-washy stances are partially to blame.
I don't think she's be the nominee but by rare chance she is, I think many will stay home instead of voting. People want something to vote "for", not vote "against", unless you happen to be a Republican. I seriously wish our third parties were much larger than what they are but that speaks of exactly what is wrong with the political system as a whole.
Cosmocat
(14,572 posts)I think taking a step back, this go around is not acting like any other presidential election in our lives.
At least to this point.
The context is what is going on in the other side. They have a dozen people running who are or have held office at the federal level, and three of the top four candidates now have never held office.
Trump, is dominating the race now.
Donald Trump.
That is just surreal.
And, THEIR establishment pick, Bush III, is on life support and losing key staff now.
What is happening to Hillary is to be expected.
When there wasn't a race, she was the placeholder.
And, republican's have spent a quarter century now throwing shit at her, so of course she is going to have "negatives.'
They fricken destoryed John Kerry, Al Gore, Howard Dean.
Barrack Obama is a charming, attractive good natured person who has malice toward no one, and they have his negatives at 50% or so depending on the day.
I just hate that people make it about HER.
She is warmed over, but as far as politicians go she isn't bad.
Bernie is great, but he has his bullshit, too.
Ain't no way in hell we are going to have a 15 minimum wage in our lives, no way in hell there is going to be free college in this country, and his answer to dealing with congress is BHO like broadspeak that completely does not answer it.
It is a more populist BHO type of thing, but he is making more specific promises he isn't going to be able to keep.
That said, I too have moved from just assuming Hill will get the nomination to actually thinking Bernie has a chance.
The general, WTF knows ... It all changes once you get both candidates set, and it will boil down to how willing the mushy 5% of true non-committeds buy the repubilcan slander of EITHER candidate - and Bernie will get the full treatment just the same as Hillary if he wins the nomination.
TBF
(32,090 posts)the Trump thing has really got me worried as well. Oligarchs like fascism - it works for them. And we may be much closer to fascism in this country than people realize. Yes every "home" can have a gun and smart phone (what to the oligarchs care - they have homes on multiple continents, their own private jets, excellent security) ... but they aren't getting any money. You are correct about that. I'm old enough to have grown up in a union family. At the factories our moms and dads fought for every penny they got and often had to use strikes to get even that. In many ways it was better back then because at least the sides were clearly marked.
underneath it all, I am convinced our primary issue relative to government is the general life of "affluence" we collectively lead.
Yeah, money in politics is a HUGE problem.
But, at the end of the day, people should be able to easily weed through the bullshit.
But, people are SO into their lives, their electronics, their ATVs, boats, social lives ...
Yeah, most have it due to unsustainable levels of debt, but that is our way now.
So, there is no real skin in the game.
As you noted, people getting beat senseless in union lines, people who saw life differently, didn't live on credit, lived paycheck to paycheck and losing a job was a for real disaster.
So, today, it is about cult of personality and what passes for personal responsibility is worrying about what everyone else is doing.
VERY superficial, very childlike in how we view the important issues, and far to eager to suck up the bullshit that similarly simple minded politicians throw out.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Chris Christie had taken a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the incoming that Hillary has taken and he's polling at 4% and is trailing a carnival barker/billionaire, a physician turned politician, and a failed CEO, by a lot !!!
With the incoming Hillary has taken she looks pretty good...Since sports is my passion and I am fond of sports analogies it's as if Hillary Clinton was Joe Frazier after the Fight Of the Century and she was ready to go fifteen rounds with Jerry Quarry...
The Rethuglicans and their compliant cronies in the press just might get her but it's going to take more than what it took to bring down Rasputin.
I wish I had a fraction of a fraction of the intestinal fortitude that woman has.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)With only a fraction of what Hillary has taken, Don Christie is done for.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Want to take a lesson from Chris Christie? It's that campaigning to throw pot smokers in prison isn't real fuckin' popular anymore. Memo to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I think my state, CA, has it right. It's a civil infraction with a maximum fine of $100.00...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's legal, and in a little over a month, it will be fully available for purchase recreationally. Not long after that our state will begin to pull in tax revenue off of it, probably (if WA and CO are any indication) a fuckton.
And if your state doesn't follow suit soon, (I think it will) I suspect we'll have a lot of "weed tourists" coming up the I-5, just as we now have people from California who come up to shop and enjoy our lack of sales tax.
What is the point of keeping it a "civil infraction"? Prohibition doesn't work, and even the people who ostensibly support keeping it outlawed themselves smoked the stuff at some point.
Let it be legal, regulated, and taxed for consenting adults.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I literally smoked the equivalent of a nickel bag a day for a straight year when I was a junior in high school. I just stopped because my life revolved around and rested on being high. I have probably got high ten times since then with the last time being in 1993.
I don't think a person should be thrown in the hoosegow or saddled with a criminal record for smoking dope but I don't think it's a social good for most folks...Of course medical marijuana should be legal.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I barely ever smoke it, either, however my yardstick for whether something should be legal isn't whether it "is a social good".
Like I said, in my experience alcohol causes all sorts of problems- don't touch it at all, anymore, myself-- but I don't think making that illegal works or solves those problems in any way, shape, or form, either.
At least with weed there is considerable anecdotal evidence that many folks find it enhances their creativity, etc.
Either way, though, I believe consenting adults should have the freedom to make choices, even what I might consider bad ones.
Anyway, legalization is coming. In the meantime, it's another reason I consider myself fortunate to live in saner state.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)So we'll have a choice between a moderate republican and an insane fascist. I'll probably vote "no"
arcane1
(38,613 posts) 
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)This Democratic party is now coming apart at the seams. It's starting as it always does (local Democratic committees). Now, with a base of non-support like that, what would the Democratic party do to "get behind her"? And, what about the money, now?
The trouble ahead is how much both the Democratic and Republican parties are going to come apart at the seams.
You're right, being the first woman is not enough. This country has gone too far off the pathway to human survival… and NOTHING can TRUMP that.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Very similar to Bradley vs Gore in that the presumed nominee dealt with early polling showing falling support, stories about how Bradley was going to be a serious threat, etc. In the end, Gore went 50-0 when the voting actually happened.
The only way Clinton is not the nominee is if she takes herself out of the race. And the nominee always received a significant boost in favorability after it becomes official. If anything, the "scandals" happening now works better for Clinton. There will be significant public fatigue on the issues by the time voting really matters.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)As if they never expected any real challenge, and planned to raise funds and patiently sit back and wait to spend them in the general election.
Things don't seem to be going as planned.
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)In the 2000 primary season Vice President Al Gore faced a challenge from former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley. Bradly ran to left of Gore on universal health care, gun control, and campaign finance reform. Gore eventually trumped Bradly, winning all 50 primary states.
Their first debate was on Oct. 27, 1999. In the end they had 9 debates, quasi debates or forums.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/primdeb/primdeb.html
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)And she's never really retired from campaigning for a decade.
Her major campaign effort has been directed at donors, DNC delegates, and the punditry that will catapult the message of inevitability. Which is to say, the inside game. The game that decides the rules and resources that help deny success to others.
The success of -that- campaign is visible in things like the number of debates, her pledged financial support, and pledged delegates.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)They certainly sound like they're pointing to doom to me.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Because I haven't seen videos posted on DU very much. Maybe a question or something really short, but where is her visibility?
Is she doing TV interviews?
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)there missing a mate. Shoes generally start dropping a month or two before the first primary. The other candidates will see shoes drop on them starting around November. How they handle a shoedrop will determine how long their campaigns remain viable.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...to vote against her...
And the media will be 24/7 Clinton scandals rehash...
Not a good prospect for victory...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I used to have a job (I've had a strange life including many different kinds of jobs.) in which I had to watch a lot of stand up and talk. After you have watched one speaker after the other, you kind of recognize this strange ability to connect, to grab the interest and maybe even sympathy of the listener.
Hillary tries, but she doesn't have that gift. Most people don't. Neither did Gore or Kucinich. Bill Clinton has an extreme amount of it. Obama has charm. It isn't this gift I am talking about, but he has something really likable about him that makes up for it.
Some pastors and lawyers have this gift, but most don't.
It's really rare.
And the strange thing is, that Bernie, although his speaking style is different and really not that polished, he connects. It's his passion, his complete loss of himself in what he is saying.
This is a really important quality in singers. Janis Joplin had it. Ella Fitzgerald did too. Lots of successful singers do. In fact, that is what makes them successful, because there are lots and lots of great singers out ther, but only the best connect to the audience.
Hillary does not connect. Bernie does. It's that simple.
flamingdem
(39,320 posts)Give me a name.
cali
(114,904 posts)And yes, possibly trump. Rubio. Depends
Scuba
(53,475 posts)As another poster wrote (above), Republicans will crawl through a mile of broken glass to vote against her. Additionally, she will neither inspire the Democratic base nor attract anyone from the disaffected who usually don't bother.
That adds up to a Republican win.
TBF
(32,090 posts)and nothing about her as changed since then, other than getting older and having health issues. The problem for Clinton is that folks either love or hate her. Too polarizing for a president. I do think she'd make a fantastic supreme court judge.
If she gets the nomination (and she likely will for the reasons you cite), then we are on track to another republican administration. Bush/Walker or Kasich/Rubio is my guess. And that is absolutely frightening. But the Party is not listening. Instead they are doing whatever they can to bad-mouth Bernie and prop her up. It's inane.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The candidate who is perceived to be the most independent, interested in regular people, and honorable will win, regardless of party and ideology. That isn't Hillary, and never can be, unless the GOP nominates Trump.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Our belief in community/society is seen as a consequence of being 'slow-witted'. That is what Rahm meant when he called people with liberal ideas 'retarded', and despite his apology he -really- did mean it.
We ought, at least among ourselves, to recognize the nature of teams that exist. One could be named the "PlutoCrats" and the other the "OligaRchs".
If we can understand that, we better understand the enormity of the challenge of making votes matter, and preserving something akin to a democratic Republic.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Regardless of which side in the usual Tweedle Trump-Tweedle Hillaree tossup they they throw at us, there's going to be some sort of popular uprising. As they said in France toward the end of the 18th Century, it's in the air.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)to prevent such rioting.
We live in a time when the notion of bread and circuses was never more useful.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)"I have enough money to hire on-half the working class to kill the other half."
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)because many percieve her as being the candidate for Wall Street