• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sanders did "significant damage" to Hillary during primary

FieldTheorist

FieldTheorist

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
3,325
Reaction score
2,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Source: Clinton confidante: Sanders did 'significant damage' | TheHill

Firstly, this news article is obviously overblown --Obama went for under-the-belt tactics, just like Hillary went for the under-the-belt tactics during the 2008 primary. 2008 was far more negative than 2016. So I don't buy the implicit claim that Sanders was underhanded, or that the primary "went on too long." Secondly, I think the largest differences here are two issues:

1.) The left-wing public (meaning not just DNC loyalists, but also the Progressive Left/Progressive Independents) is exceedingly uninterested and put-off by mudslinging campaigns. In a time when people are genuinely economically hurting and have been for eight years, a personality conflict feels condescending to their needs. Bernie hit Hillary on policy and judgment issues, but they were all backed up by at least some facts and a plausible interpretation of them. Barrack and Hillary largely hit each other over nonsense, and the economic collapse hadn't happened yet, so the mood of the country was different. In the 2016 primary, Hillary tried to hit Bernie with that same kind of nonsense, too, and it succeeded for Democratic partisans --but those blows cost her among everyone else. Keep in mind that it's a general rule that if you attack a candidate with higher approval ratings, your public approval goes down. Hillary could use surrogates to viciously attack Sanders, but I don't think many people were confused over whether or not this was coming from Hillary's campaign. Everyone knew what narratives were coming from the very top (i.e. Hillary or her close advisors), and the only people who waste their breathe denying this are DNC partisan hacks or people who work for Hillary/the DNC. Like it or not, Sanders rates much more highly with non-partisan Liberals/Progressives and Independents, so the baseless attacks cost her.

2.) Hillary has this unconscionable habit of not merely going after an opposing candidate, she goes after their supporters directly. I cannot fathom this, I must imagine that I'm not privy to the right expert polling on how this helps, but Hillary's 2008 "Obama Boy" and 2016 "Bernie Bro" narratives are part of how Hillary's campaigns work. Hillary and her mouth-pieces spent 12 months going after the Progressive Left and Progressive Independents as "sexists" and sometimes far worse (a few articles, possibly funded by Correct the Record, possibly not, outright stated that Sanders supporters were white supremacists). Hillary's mouth pieces directly went after Sanders' female supporters multiple times in overtly sexist attacks, once saying that women who don't vote for Hillary are going straight to hell, another time outright stating that young women only attend Sanders rallies to find dates, another time insinuating that young women have been duped into Sanders lies because they're to young and stupid to know better, and on and on. They overtly went after all youth voters as though they were complete imbeciles who want airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky nonsense.​


So I'm not exactly certain what Hillary's team expected to happen to her poll numbers after all of this. There are consequences for how you conduct yourself in a race. I certainly went from indifference/typical anti-neoliberal dislike of Hillary, the politician, to a fervent, passionate hatred of the Clinton political machine and Hillary Clinton over the primary. I'm not certain how anyone who wasn't a Hillary-partisan would have seen the 2016 primary tactics as a means of engendering trust and approval for Hillary. You combine that with the DNC wikileaks, the pay-to-play emails, her VP choice... If you are on the Left, it's hard to have any positive sentiments aimed at Hillary. She should be very happy that she's running against Donald Trump, because it's the handicap that Hillary needs to win the presidency. So, once again, Bernie gets to be the Clinton machine's favorite punching bag and scapegoat for Hillary's mistakes and failures.
 
Last edited:
FieldTheorist said:
So I'm not exactly certain what Hillary's team expected to happen to her poll numbers after all of this. There are consequences for how you conduct yourself in a race. I certainly went from indifference/typical anti-neoliberal dislike of Hillary, the politician, to a fervent, passionate hatred of the Clinton political machine and Hillary Clinton over the primary. I'm not certain how anyone who wasn't a Hillary-partisan would have seen the 2016 primary tactics as a means of engendering trust and approval for Hillary. You combine that with the DNC wikileaks, the pay-to-play emails, her VP choice... If you are on the Left, it's hard to have any positive sentiments aimed at Hillary. She should be very happy that she's running against Donald Trump, because it's the handicap that Hillary needs to win the presidency. So, once again, Bernie gets to be the Clinton machine's favorite punching bag and scapegoat for Hillary's mistakes and failures.
Click to expand...

Agree with your analysis entirely, and your experience very much mirrors my own, particularly the journey from a fairly passive disdain for Hillary and her political operation to seething hatred.

Further, after the leak of the e-mails proved systemic, top level DNC corruption set against Bernie beyond reasonable doubt, I quit the party; it's become far too toxic and depraved for me to countenance being a part of any longer.
 
Surrealistik said:
Agree with your analysis entirely, and your experience very much mirrors my own, particularly the journey from a fairly passive disdain for Hillary and her political operation to seething hatred.

Further, after the leak of the e-mails proved systemic, top level DNC corruption set against Bernie beyond reasonable doubt, I quit the party; it's become far too toxic and depraved for me to countenance being a part of any longer.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it annoys me that, again, another Hillary Clinton mouth-piece is scapegoating her own failures onto him. I cannot abide DNC shills.
 
You gotta be kidding me? Bernie could have, and should have, taken her down in the primaries by simply discussing all her serious legal problems, her actions, and her numerous lies. He didn't. He covered for her. He even said on live TV during a debate that he was tired of hearing about her emails.

Hillary was hurt by Hillary, not Bernie. I find it amazing that no matter what happens the the Clinton's, it's always the fault of someone else.

If the GOP had put just about anyone else up as their candidate, Hillary wouldn't have a chance at all to win. And that, would be because of Hillary and her actions as well.

Bernie did significant damage to Hillary during the primaries... yeah, right.
 
Surrealistik said:
Agree with your analysis entirely, and your experience very much mirrors my own, particularly the journey from a fairly passive disdain for Hillary and her political operation to seething hatred. Further, after the leak of the e-mails proved systemic, top level DNC corruption set against Bernie beyond reasonable doubt, I quit the party; it's become far too toxic and depraved for me to countenance being a part of any longer.
Click to expand...

A bit overblown duntcha think... ;)

Afterall bushII's operatives started rumors McCain's ADOPTED daughter was an interracial love child JUST in time for the Dirty South's primaries...

WATERGATE

IRAN CONTRA

Rampart lies to drum up an elective war against Iraq

I figured someone as 'sensitive' as you would never be part of any nasty ol' political party... :peace
 
Maybe a bit.

But lets be honest here, the American Electorate has the attention span of a goldfish, most of them now, if you said Bernie Sanders they'd say "Was that the Colonels first name"?
 
Beaudreaux said:
You gotta be kidding me? Bernie could have, and should have, taken her down in the primaries by simply discussing all her serious legal problems, her actions, and her numerous lies. He didn't. He covered for her. He even said on live TV during a debate that he was tired of hearing about her emails.

Hillary was hurt by Hillary, not Bernie. I find it amazing that no matter what happens the the Clinton's, it's always the fault of someone else.

If the GOP had put just about anyone else up as their candidate, Hillary wouldn't have a chance at all to win. And that, would be because of Hillary and her actions as well.

Bernie did significant damage to Hillary during the primaries... yeah, right.
Click to expand...

Though I wouldn't go so far as to say Bernie 'covered' for Clinton, particularly near the end of his campaign (which sadly was too little too late), I completely agree that he pulled all kinds of punches he shouldn't have, and he suffered (and, combined with the DNC bias and attempts to throw shade on his campaign, lost) as a direct consequence. The idea that Hillary's largely self-derived weakness is the fault of his campaign is as ludicrous as it is laughable.

notquiteright said:
A bit overblown duntcha think... ;)

Afterall bushII's operatives started rumors McCain's ADOPTED daughter was an interracial love child JUST in time for the Dirty South's primaries...

WATERGATE

IRAN CONTRA

Rampart lies to drum up an elective war against Iraq

I figured someone as 'sensitive' as you would never be part of any nasty ol' political party... :peace
Click to expand...

Beyond being noxious, the Republicans harbour views that are anathema to my own, so they're not for me either; regardless, the DNC has proven itself too blighted and corrupt to remain a part of, and I don't think that rejecting it due to systemic corruption over its nomination process has anything to do with my sensitivity so much as it does with the party's lack of ethics.
 
Last edited:
FieldTheorist said:
Source: Clinton confidante: Sanders did 'significant damage' | TheHill

Firstly, this news article is obviously overblown --Obama went for under-the-belt tactics, just like Hillary went for the under-the-belt tactics during the 2008 primary. 2008 was far more negative than 2016. So I don't buy the implicit claim that Sanders was underhanded, or that the primary "went on too long." Secondly, I think the largest differences here are two issues:

1.) The left-wing public (meaning not just DNC loyalists, but also the Progressive Left/Progressive Independents) is exceedingly uninterested and put-off by mudslinging campaigns. In a time when people are genuinely economically hurting and have been for eight years, a personality conflict feels condescending to their needs. Bernie hit Hillary on policy and judgment issues, but they were all backed up by at least some facts and a plausible interpretation of them. Barrack and Hillary largely hit each other over nonsense, and the economic collapse hadn't happened yet, so the mood of the country was different. In the 2016 primary, Hillary tried to hit Bernie with that same kind of nonsense, too, and it succeeded for Democratic partisans --but those blows cost her among everyone else. Keep in mind that it's a general rule that if you attack a candidate with higher approval ratings, your public approval goes down. Hillary could use surrogates to viciously attack Sanders, but I don't think many people were confused over whether or not this was coming from Hillary's campaign. Everyone knew what narratives were coming from the very top (i.e. Hillary or her close advisors), and the only people who waste their breathe denying this are DNC partisan hacks or people who work for Hillary/the DNC. Like it or not, Sanders rates much more highly with non-partisan Liberals/Progressives and Independents, so the baseless attacks cost her.

2.) Hillary has this unconscionable habit of not merely going after an opposing candidate, she goes after their supporters directly. I cannot fathom this, I must imagine that I'm not privy to the right expert polling on how this helps, but Hillary's 2008 "Obama Boy" and 2016 "Bernie Bro" narratives are part of how Hillary's campaigns work. Hillary and her mouth-pieces spent 12 months going after the Progressive Left and Progressive Independents as "sexists" and sometimes far worse (a few articles, possibly funded by Correct the Record, possibly not, outright stated that Sanders supporters were white supremacists). Hillary's mouth pieces directly went after Sanders' female supporters multiple times in overtly sexist attacks, once saying that women who don't vote for Hillary are going straight to hell, another time outright stating that young women only attend Sanders rallies to find dates, another time insinuating that young women have been duped into Sanders lies because they're to young and stupid to know better, and on and on. They overtly went after all youth voters as though they were complete imbeciles who want airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky nonsense.​


So I'm not exactly certain what Hillary's team expected to happen to her poll numbers after all of this. There are consequences for how you conduct yourself in a race. I certainly went from indifference/typical anti-neoliberal dislike of Hillary, the politician, to a fervent, passionate hatred of the Clinton political machine and Hillary Clinton over the primary. I'm not certain how anyone who wasn't a Hillary-partisan would have seen the 2016 primary tactics as a means of engendering trust and approval for Hillary. You combine that with the DNC wikileaks, the pay-to-play emails, her VP choice... If you are on the Left, it's hard to have any positive sentiments aimed at Hillary. She should be very happy that she's running against Donald Trump, because it's the handicap that Hillary needs to win the presidency. So, once again, Bernie gets to be the Clinton machine's favorite punching bag and scapegoat for Hillary's mistakes and failures.
Click to expand...
And thankfully the GOP picked someone that even Bernie fans could never support along with many Republican that cannot in good conscience support the man.
Did he damager her brand, maybe with some far lefties, but regardless the vast majority of Dems will vote for Hillary, the alternative is too insane even for the far left.
 
Casper said:
And thankfully the GOP picked someone that even Bernie fans could never support along with many Republican that cannot in good conscience support the man.
Did he damager her brand, maybe with some far lefties, but regardless the vast majority of Dems will vote for Hillary, the alternative is too insane even for the far left.
Click to expand...

This is actually true, though I will note that 'far left' per America is really simply the left/center for the majority of the developed world; Hillary would be considered flat out right wing, or right of centre at best in most other first world countries.

That said, I hate Hillary, but with Justice appointments hanging in balance, and threat of a Trump presidency with control of the House and Senate, there is no way I can't vote for the witch.
 
FieldTheorist said:
In a time when people are genuinely economically hurting and have been for eight years, a personality conflict feels condescending to their needs.
Click to expand...

I certainly went from indifference/typical anti-neoliberal dislike of Hillary, the politician, to a fervent, passionate hatred of the Clinton political machine and Hillary Clinton over the primary.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Source: Clinton confidante: Sanders did 'significant damage' | TheHill


1.) The left-wing public (meaning not just DNC loyalists, but also the Progressive Left/Progressive Independents) is exceedingly uninterested and put-off by mudslinging campaigns. In a time when people are genuinely economically hurting and have been for eight years, a personality conflict feels condescending to their needs. Bernie hit Hillary on policy and judgment issues, but they were all backed up by at least some facts and a plausible interpretation of them. Barrack and Hillary largely hit each other over nonsense, and the economic collapse hadn't happened yet, so the mood of the country was different. In the 2016 primary, Hillary tried to hit Bernie with that same kind of nonsense, too, and it succeeded for Democratic partisans --but those blows cost her among everyone else. Keep in mind that it's a general rule that if you attack a candidate with higher approval ratings, your public approval goes down. Hillary could use surrogates to viciously attack Sanders, but I don't think many people were confused over whether or not this was coming from Hillary's campaign. Everyone knew what narratives were coming from the very top (i.e. Hillary or her close advisors), and the only people who waste their breathe denying this are DNC partisan hacks or people who work for Hillary/the DNC. Like it or not, Sanders rates much more highly with non-partisan Liberals/Progressives and Independents, so the baseless attacks cost her.

2.) Hillary has this unconscionable habit of not merely going after an opposing candidate, she goes after their supporters directly. Hillary's mouth pieces directly went after Sanders' female supporters multiple times in overtly sexist attacks, once saying that women who don't vote for Hillary are going straight to hell, another time outright stating that young women only attend Sanders rallies to find dates, another time insinuating that young women have been duped into Sanders lies because they're to young and stupid to know better, and on and on. They overtly went after all youth voters as though they were complete imbeciles who want airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky nonsense.​


So I'm not exactly certain what Hillary's team expected to happen to her poll numbers after all of this. There are consequences for how you conduct yourself in a race. I certainly went from indifference/typical anti-neoliberal dislike of Hillary, the politician, to a fervent, passionate hatred of the Clinton political machine and Hillary Clinton over the primary. I'm not certain how anyone who wasn't a Hillary-partisan would have seen the 2016 primary tactics as a means of engendering trust and approval for Hillary. You combine that with the DNC wikileaks, the pay-to-play emails, her VP choice... If you are on the Left, it's hard to have any positive sentiments aimed at Hillary. She should be very happy that she's running against Donald Trump, because it's the handicap that Hillary needs to win the presidency. So, once again, Bernie gets to be the Clinton machine's favorite punching bag and scapegoat for Hillary's mistakes and failures.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. :thumbs:

As an Independent, in the beginning I was not pleased with the idea of yet another political dynasty in America. The idea of both of the Clintons back in the WH was and is difficult to imagine, none of it good. The GOP clown car was unimaginable, like a rogue's gallery.

Once Hillary began to exert herself on the campaign trail (something she no longer does) I began to dislike her. Previously I was simply opposed to her but soon I began to dislike her.

There is really little substance with Hillary when you really look at her. She has done little more than check off the presidential candidate qualification boxes. She doesn't have all that much to back her up beyond "been there and done that." For a person who "gets things done" she hasn't really done that much on her own.

Hillary couldn't and can't go toe to toe with Bernie on many issues. Bernie's message and energy sparked a huge following. Hillary was unable to compete without a lot of inside help. Her message was/is weak in comparison. Trump shouldn't be much of a challenge though Hillary is so weak she's struggling.

Bernie's campaign highlighted Hillary's relatively weak positions. Hillary has not been able to gain the momentum she lost to Sanders. That should be obvious to everyone who isn't an avowed Clintonista.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Source: Clinton confidante: Sanders did 'significant damage' | TheHill

Firstly, this news article is obviously overblown --Obama went for under-the-belt tactics, just like Hillary went for the under-the-belt tactics during the 2008 primary. 2008 was far more negative than 2016. So I don't buy the implicit claim that Sanders was underhanded, or that the primary "went on too long." Secondly, I think the largest differences here are two issues:
.
Click to expand...



Hillary’s poll numbers, right now, today, are curious.
Today, 2 way race (Clinton/Trump) Clinton leads by 5 points.
Today, 3 way race (Clinton/Trump/Johnson) Clinton leads by 4.7 points.
Today, 4 way race (Clinton/Stein/Trump/Johnson) Clinton leads by 4.3 points.

A week ago (23 Aug):
2 way race (Clinton/Trump) Clinton leads by 5.4 points.
3 way race (Clinton/Trump/Johnson) Clinton leads by 4 points.
4 way race (Clinton/Stein/Trump/Johnson) Clinton leads by 4 points.

This has been the trend for awhile. It seems that Johnson is leaching points more from Clinton than he is from Trump. If Johnson was leaching from Trump you would think the numbers would be higher for Clinton when Johnson is brought into the picture but they are lower. I have also noticed a lack of editorials talking about how Johnson should be hurting Trump. I am not posting this as a positive about Trump, just making an observation.
The numbers I used are averages from RCP.

This is a shame because I would really look hard at voting for Sanders right now. I don't agree with his politics but I trusted him more than any of the other candidates.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
You gotta be kidding me? Bernie could have, and should have, taken her down in the primaries by simply discussing all her serious legal problems, her actions, and her numerous lies. He didn't. He covered for her. He even said on live TV during a debate that he was tired of hearing about her emails.

Hillary was hurt by Hillary, not Bernie. I find it amazing that no matter what happens the the Clinton's, it's always the fault of someone else.

If the GOP had put just about anyone else up as their candidate, Hillary wouldn't have a chance at all to win. And that, would be because of Hillary and her actions as well.

Bernie did significant damage to Hillary during the primaries... yeah, right.
Click to expand...

That tactic would not have helped him in the primary. The dems don't see the emails the same.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Hillary’s poll numbers, right now, today, are curious.
Today, 2 way race (Clinton/Trump) Clinton leads by 5 points.
Today, 3 way race (Clinton/Trump/Johnson) Clinton leads by 4.7 points.
Today, 4 way race (Clinton/Stein/Trump/Johnson) Clinton leads by 4.3 points.

A week ago (23 Aug):
2 way race (Clinton/Trump) Clinton leads by 5.4 points.
3 way race (Clinton/Trump/Johnson) Clinton leads by 4 points.
4 way race (Clinton/Stein/Trump/Johnson) Clinton leads by 4 points.

This has been the trend for awhile. It seems that Johnson is leaching points more from Clinton than he is from Trump. If Johnson was leaching from Trump you would think the numbers would be higher for Clinton when Johnson is brought into the picture but they are lower. I have also noticed a lack of editorials talking about how Johnson should be hurting Trump. I am not posting this as a positive about Trump, just making an observation.
The numbers I used are averages from RCP.

This is a shame because I would really look hard at voting for Sanders right now. I don't agree with his politics but I trusted him more than any of the other candidates.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
Click to expand...

So vote for him. Write in "Bernie Sanders." I'm sure you can spell it

I'm just saying that this "Wahhhhhh his name isn't on the ballot for me to punch a dimpled chad in" isn't helping us
 
FieldTheorist said:
Source: Clinton confidante: Sanders did 'significant damage' | TheHill

Firstly, this news article is obviously overblown --Obama went for under-the-belt tactics, just like Hillary went for the under-the-belt tactics during the 2008 primary. 2008 was far more negative than 2016. So I don't buy the implicit claim that Sanders was underhanded, or that the primary "went on too long." Secondly, I think the largest differences here are two issues:

1.) The left-wing public (meaning not just DNC loyalists, but also the Progressive Left/Progressive Independents) is exceedingly uninterested and put-off by mudslinging campaigns. In a time when people are genuinely economically hurting and have been for eight years, a personality conflict feels condescending to their needs. Bernie hit Hillary on policy and judgment issues, but they were all backed up by at least some facts and a plausible interpretation of them. Barrack and Hillary largely hit each other over nonsense, and the economic collapse hadn't happened yet, so the mood of the country was different. In the 2016 primary, Hillary tried to hit Bernie with that same kind of nonsense, too, and it succeeded for Democratic partisans --but those blows cost her among everyone else. Keep in mind that it's a general rule that if you attack a candidate with higher approval ratings, your public approval goes down. Hillary could use surrogates to viciously attack Sanders, but I don't think many people were confused over whether or not this was coming from Hillary's campaign. Everyone knew what narratives were coming from the very top (i.e. Hillary or her close advisors), and the only people who waste their breathe denying this are DNC partisan hacks or people who work for Hillary/the DNC. Like it or not, Sanders rates much more highly with non-partisan Liberals/Progressives and Independents, so the baseless attacks cost her.

2.) Hillary has this unconscionable habit of not merely going after an opposing candidate, she goes after their supporters directly. I cannot fathom this, I must imagine that I'm not privy to the right expert polling on how this helps, but Hillary's 2008 "Obama Boy" and 2016 "Bernie Bro" narratives are part of how Hillary's campaigns work. Hillary and her mouth-pieces spent 12 months going after the Progressive Left and Progressive Independents as "sexists" and sometimes far worse (a few articles, possibly funded by Correct the Record, possibly not, outright stated that Sanders supporters were white supremacists). Hillary's mouth pieces directly went after Sanders' female supporters multiple times in overtly sexist attacks, once saying that women who don't vote for Hillary are going straight to hell, another time outright stating that young women only attend Sanders rallies to find dates, another time insinuating that young women have been duped into Sanders lies because they're to young and stupid to know better, and on and on. They overtly went after all youth voters as though they were complete imbeciles who want airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky nonsense.​


So I'm not exactly certain what Hillary's team expected to happen to her poll numbers after all of this. There are consequences for how you conduct yourself in a race. I certainly went from indifference/typical anti-neoliberal dislike of Hillary, the politician, to a fervent, passionate hatred of the Clinton political machine and Hillary Clinton over the primary. I'm not certain how anyone who wasn't a Hillary-partisan would have seen the 2016 primary tactics as a means of engendering trust and approval for Hillary. You combine that with the DNC wikileaks, the pay-to-play emails, her VP choice... If you are on the Left, it's hard to have any positive sentiments aimed at Hillary. She should be very happy that she's running against Donald Trump, because it's the handicap that Hillary needs to win the presidency. So, once again, Bernie gets to be the Clinton machine's favorite punching bag and scapegoat for Hillary's mistakes and failures.
Click to expand...

...but she's running against Trump, so she'll win.
 
If Hillary loses, it won't be Bernie's fault

Won't be Trump's fault

Won't be Russia's fault

Won't be the loony righties fault

Won't be millennials' fault

Won't be the gun toting rednecks' fault

Won't be the pro-lifers' fault

Won't be (ok, I'm not privy to the whole list of potential scapegoats. Kindly just put whatever is left on the list here)'s fault

It will be her fault. She's a terrible candidate with very high negatives, and she and her machine cheated to beat the better candidate in the primaries. If the democrats lose this election, it will be because of that. It will be a direct result of her strategy, and thus the blame will belong to her alone.

On the other hand, Camp Clinton claims, still, that the primaries were fair and square, and nothing beyond normal shenanigans happened. Well then, any damage she incurred was done fair and square. If she can't handle it, it's because she's a weak candidate.
 
chromium said:
So vote for him. Write in "Bernie Sanders." I'm sure you can spell it

I'm just saying that this "Wahhhhhh his name isn't on the ballot for me to punch a dimpled chad in" isn't helping us
Click to expand...

More garbage blather. Not surprised.
 
Last edited:
shagg said:
If Hillary loses, it won't be Bernie's fault

Won't be Trump's fault

Won't be Russia's fault

Won't be the loony righties fault

Won't be millennials' fault

Won't be the gun toting rednecks' fault

Won't be the pro-lifers' fault

Won't be (ok, I'm not privy to the whole list of potential scapegoats. Kindly just put whatever is left on the list here)'s fault

It will be her fault. She's a terrible candidate with very high negatives, and she and her machine cheated to beat the better candidate in the primaries. If the democrats lose this election, it will be because of that. It will be a direct result of her strategy, and thus the blame will belong to her alone.

On the other hand, Camp Clinton claims, still, that the primaries were fair and square, and nothing beyond normal shenanigans happened. Well then, any damage she incurred was done fair and square. If she can't handle it, it's because she's a weak candidate.
Click to expand...
Yep. The Reps had the election on a silver platter, and they kicked it away when they nominated Trump. The only way Hillary can lose now is if Hillery does the same. In a way she is the luckiest candidate in the history of Presidential elections, but does she have the sense to go with it?
 
I really do not think Sanders hurt Clinton with anything that lasted and as evidence of it I would cite her post convention bounce which overcame any negative feelings and appeared to prop her up by 8 or more points two weeks after the convention. By that time Sanders was little heard from.

The real damage to Clinton has been done by Clinton over the last two weeks. Her virtual absence from the campaign trail only fuels the right wing wild speculation about her health problems and her inability to put to rest the server problems continues to take its toll. I suspect Clinton - while being a very smart Mensa level intellect - is not at all computer savvy and made a bunch of mistakes just out of ignorance on how to use the system or even the implications of what system she was using. But she does not want to admit ignorance because that would hurt her image of a brainiac.

Sanders is not to blame.
 
shagg said:
If Hillary loses, it won't be Bernie's fault

Won't be Trump's fault

Won't be Russia's fault

Won't be the loony righties fault

Won't be millennials' fault

Won't be the gun toting rednecks' fault

Won't be the pro-lifers' fault

Won't be (ok, I'm not privy to the whole list of potential scapegoats. Kindly just put whatever is left on the list here)'s fault

It will be her fault. She's a terrible candidate with very high negatives, and she and her machine cheated to beat the better candidate in the primaries. If the democrats lose this election, it will be because of that. It will be a direct result of her strategy, and thus the blame will belong to her alone.

On the other hand, Camp Clinton claims, still, that the primaries were fair and square, and nothing beyond normal shenanigans happened. Well then, any damage she incurred was done fair and square. If she can't handle it, it's because she's a weak candidate.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the lions share of what you say - some credit has to be given to the right wing unrelentless attack on her. Sadly, Clintons inability to run a solid campaign by putting to rest the right wing attacks only fuels into the situation.

So I would put the blame at about 50/50. Your opponent has to get some of the credit - even for forced mistakes you make yourself.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Source: Clinton confidante: Sanders did 'significant damage' | TheHill

Firstly, this news article is obviously overblown --Obama went for under-the-belt tactics, just like Hillary went for the under-the-belt tactics during the 2008 primary. 2008 was far more negative than 2016. So I don't buy the implicit claim that Sanders was underhanded, or that the primary "went on too long." Secondly, I think the largest differences here are two issues:

1.) The left-wing public (meaning not just DNC loyalists, but also the Progressive Left/Progressive Independents) is exceedingly uninterested and put-off by mudslinging campaigns. In a time when people are genuinely economically hurting and have been for eight years, a personality conflict feels condescending to their needs. Bernie hit Hillary on policy and judgment issues, but they were all backed up by at least some facts and a plausible interpretation of them. Barrack and Hillary largely hit each other over nonsense, and the economic collapse hadn't happened yet, so the mood of the country was different. In the 2016 primary, Hillary tried to hit Bernie with that same kind of nonsense, too, and it succeeded for Democratic partisans --but those blows cost her among everyone else. Keep in mind that it's a general rule that if you attack a candidate with higher approval ratings, your public approval goes down. Hillary could use surrogates to viciously attack Sanders, but I don't think many people were confused over whether or not this was coming from Hillary's campaign. Everyone knew what narratives were coming from the very top (i.e. Hillary or her close advisors), and the only people who waste their breathe denying this are DNC partisan hacks or people who work for Hillary/the DNC. Like it or not, Sanders rates much more highly with non-partisan Liberals/Progressives and Independents, so the baseless attacks cost her.

2.) Hillary has this unconscionable habit of not merely going after an opposing candidate, she goes after their supporters directly. I cannot fathom this, I must imagine that I'm not privy to the right expert polling on how this helps, but Hillary's 2008 "Obama Boy" and 2016 "Bernie Bro" narratives are part of how Hillary's campaigns work. Hillary and her mouth-pieces spent 12 months going after the Progressive Left and Progressive Independents as "sexists" and sometimes far worse (a few articles, possibly funded by Correct the Record, possibly not, outright stated that Sanders supporters were white supremacists). Hillary's mouth pieces directly went after Sanders' female supporters multiple times in overtly sexist attacks, once saying that women who don't vote for Hillary are going straight to hell, another time outright stating that young women only attend Sanders rallies to find dates, another time insinuating that young women have been duped into Sanders lies because they're to young and stupid to know better, and on and on. They overtly went after all youth voters as though they were complete imbeciles who want airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky nonsense.​


So I'm not exactly certain what Hillary's team expected to happen to her poll numbers after all of this. There are consequences for how you conduct yourself in a race. I certainly went from indifference/typical anti-neoliberal dislike of Hillary, the politician, to a fervent, passionate hatred of the Clinton political machine and Hillary Clinton over the primary. I'm not certain how anyone who wasn't a Hillary-partisan would have seen the 2016 primary tactics as a means of engendering trust and approval for Hillary. You combine that with the DNC wikileaks, the pay-to-play emails, her VP choice... If you are on the Left, it's hard to have any positive sentiments aimed at Hillary. She should be very happy that she's running against Donald Trump, because it's the handicap that Hillary needs to win the presidency. So, once again, Bernie gets to be the Clinton machine's favorite punching bag and scapegoat for Hillary's mistakes and failures.
Click to expand...

Trump isn't able to take advantage of it because he's not hammering home the point of...

1) Release the transcripts of your speeches to big banks

2) Hammering home the fact that she's a bought and paid for candidate by said big banks.

3) A smart tactician would also point out the redlining case done by some big banks as recently as 2014 and tie that into the race issue.

Bascially Trump isn't able to unleash a full volley against Clinton because he's an incompetent tactician or he has an incompetent team around him and also he keeps committing "OWN GOALS" that put him on the defensive.
 
reinoe said:
Trump isn't able to take advantage of it because he's not hammering home the point of...

1) Release the transcripts of your speeches to big banks

2) Hammering home the fact that she's a bought and paid for candidate by said big banks.

3) A smart tactician would also point out the redlining case done by some big banks as recently as 2014 and tie that into the race issue.

Bascially Trump isn't able to unleash a full volley against Clinton because he's an incompetent tactician or he has an incompetent team around him and also he keeps committing "OWN GOALS" that put him on the defensive.
Click to expand...

Or his own sins, crimes and weaknesses are every bit as bad. For example - he will not release his tax returns. He is guilty of paying off public officials on the other end. He is guilty of corporate greed.

He is not a virgin working in a whore house for heavens sakes.
 
reinoe said:
Trump isn't able to take advantage of it because he's not hammering home the point of...

1) Release the transcripts of your speeches to big banks

2) Hammering home the fact that she's a bought and paid for candidate by said big banks.

3) A smart tactician would also point out the redlining case done by some big banks as recently as 2014 and tie that into the race issue.

Bascially Trump isn't able to unleash a full volley against Clinton because he's an incompetent tactician or he has an incompetent team around him and also he keeps committing "OWN GOALS" that put him on the defensive.
Click to expand...

The mistake being made is that some conservatives think that would provide advantage. It wouldn't.
 
Napoleon said:
The mistake being made is that some conservatives think that would provide advantage. It wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Many of the things the far right wants Trump to hit are simply the same old right wing dog whistles that only they can hear in the first place and would do him no good with the middle 15% up for grabs in the election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom