Hillary graciously absolving herself of any responsibility [Archive]

Crandar

09-13-2017, 23:03

What happened (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41244474) is that you were mediocre at your job, obviously disingenuous and unlike your populist opponent failed to recognize the need of America's lower classes for a change.

She's blaming basically anyone, Sanders for stealing her agenda, Comey for wanting to seduce right-wing commentators and even Biden for... not being sincere, when he supported her. That was awkward (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/12/hillary-clinton-book-best-passages-and-quotes-242608).

She even blamed the media for being unfair to her (allegedly ignoring the story about Trump's ties with Russia), despite the fact that virtually every major media outlet sided with her. She insists that we should focus on the messenger [Russian (?) hackers and sneaky Putler], instead of the message (juicy correspondence between naughty Democrats), while misogyny also undermined her revolutionary progressive campaign.

Essentially, pretty much every available nefarious power conspired against poor Hillary (including Obama, who didn't openly criticize Donald), who was like totally an outsider, fighting against stereotypes and the Big Bad Bear. Sob.

Even when she admitted responsibility, she used so ambiguous and abstract terms that gave me the impression of a spoiled child dishonestly and unwillingly recognizing its guilt, after being pressured by an adult. Hilariously enough, she implied that her campaign was so mature (I proposed solutions!") that the ignorant American audience got alienated, preferring good, old Trump and his picturesque rants.

Tip: Condescending remarks like these (together with laughing at death and dubious Wall Street statements) is why you were so unlikable, despite racing against a self-contradictory magnate gloating about his sexual exploits.

Funny interview, Hillary not very surprisingly repeats the same mantra all over again, but she also vividly describes how she handled the shock of getting crushed by a despicable amateur at politics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tteLMfFDCb4

Montmorency

09-13-2017, 23:17

Husar

09-14-2017, 01:06

The really important point is that Clinton was responsible for Sanders not winning the elections anyway.

Certainly she was a better candidate than Trump, but not quite a good candidate IMO. When real change wasn't on the menu, people chose fake change instead. :drama1:

Fragony

09-14-2017, 05:45

Just look at her eyes amd you know why she lost, she's a psychopath. I reckon she's everything Americans hate about politicians.

No it's not because you are a woman dear Hillary, would you like yourself?

Crandar

09-14-2017, 09:32

You can disagree with her politics, but despite what one personally wishes she would believe, the main points described in the book (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-why-she-lost/?) are valid.
Quite a biased interpretation, evident when the claim of Hillary not taking responsibility was casually dismissed, despite the obvious insincerity of her statements and her condescending remarks to the American voters.

The rest is two guys arbitrarily attributing random numbers to each potential factor, based solely on their opinion. They managed to include some data regarding the coverage each candidate gained from the media, but it actually disproved their point, in spite of their efforts to distort the meaning. Donald only received slightly more attention from the media.

They still continuously failed to prove her right, because you can't possibly measure the effect of how Bernie or Putler affected Hillary's chance to assume supreme power. It's just a matter of opinion. However, what is beyond any reasonable doubt is the fact that Hillary remains incapable of being an adult, because her apologies were so vague and borderline insulting to the public that anyone could understand the dishonesty behind them.

Husar

09-14-2017, 10:27

Or as Seth Meyers puts it, it wasn't Sanders who forced Clinton to ignore the states and people that lost her the election...
If anything, it was Sanders who kept talking about how those people were left behind. You might as well say even Trump in his ivory tower got the memo and used it while Hillary was trying to ride out the identity politics wave that just wasn't enough for the electoral college.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TREjEuf52FU

Gilrandir

09-14-2017, 10:46

Certainly she was a better candidate than Trump, but not quite a good candidate IMO. When real change wasn't on the menu, people chose fake change instead. :drama1:

... due to the inadequate electoral system. More people voted for her.

Husar

09-14-2017, 10:52

... due to the inadequate electoral system. More people voted for her.

That's completely irrelevant, the people who decided the election didn't chose her. While I agree that the rules are bad, they were the rules of the game in 2016 and she failed to win according to those rules. That's the reason she's not in the White House now. If so many people in the US dislike the rules, they should start a movement to have them changed instead of only complaining when they don't work for them.

Montmorency

09-14-2017, 13:27

Quite a biased interpretation, evident when the claim of Hillary not taking responsibility was casually dismissed, despite the obvious insincerity of her statements and her condescending remarks to the American voters.

Yes. Bias. ~:confused:

The rest is two guys arbitrarily attributing random numbers to each potential factor, based solely on their opinion. They managed to include some data regarding the coverage each candidate gained from the media, but it actually disproved their point, in spite of their efforts to distort the meaning. Donald only received slightly more attention from the media.

Could you explain your interpretation of the data?

They still continuously failed to prove her right, because you can't possibly measure the effect of how Bernie or Putler affected Hillary's chance to assume supreme power. It's just a matter of opinion.

There's a tendency when dealing with people you feel very strongly about either way, to attribute powerful causal efficacy to any and all of their actions and beliefs, while ignoring the factors of the wider reality. Why should all emphasis for the election results go to the various things that Clinton did or did not say or do, while those of Trump, Putin, the media, and US government actors receive zero weight? Rome collapsed for many reasons, but the iniquity of its people before the eyes of God was not one of them.

It's possible for her to have made bad decisions without being the ultimate evil in the world, while running a standard campaign, and still losing in the end.

However, what is beyond any reasonable doubt is the fact that Hillary remains incapable of being an adult, because her apologies were so vague and borderline insulting to the public that anyone could understand the dishonesty behind them.

Why should she crucify herself for people who already hated her? The purpose of the book was to provide her own primary account, not apologize for others' perceptions of her.

Consider this from an abstract perspective so that the ideas don't get caught up with your pre-existing appraisal.

drone

09-14-2017, 17:27

Montmorency

09-14-2017, 18:43

The following are FiveThirtyEight's discussion points. I will be judging them on the Wah scale.

Russian hacking of Podesta/DNC - The DNC security she has no control over, but with the collusion between her and the DNC through the primary she did. IT security really needs to be a key priority of any campaign these days, so on Podesta's pwnage: Waaaah! Which leads us to the next...
Comey letter/emails - With as much experience with classified info as she had, all of this would have been avoided if she had just obeyed the law as SecState. Waaaaaaaah!
Anger/resentment of the populace - As part of the establishment that had been screwing over working class Democrats for years, Waaaaaaaaaaaah!
Trump's media coverage - He was entertaining, to say the least, but the GOP establishment has more of a beef with the media than her about this. Waaah!
Faux News - Fox has been after her for years. She didn't expect this? Waaah!
Sexism - Probably a somewhat viable excuse, but Obama faced a similar situation and prevailed. Waah!
3 consecutive terms - See anger/resentment above. It is expected to want change after 8 years, so maybe not run as "more of the same"? Waaaaaah!
Too much Clinton - Not really seeing this one having much effect anyway. Meh.
Bernie - Bernie was actually paying attention to the problems with anger/resentment from above, and was just pointing out what any opponent would. Waaaaaaaaah!
The Midwest - See anger/resentment above. Waaaaaaah!

She expected herself to be anointed as the first female POTUS, regardless of her sleaze filled background, and got beat by the most disliked presidential candidate in history. She didn't put the work in to convince people to vote for her, she just expected people would over Trump. So she lost.

I disagree with the sentiment in the way you evaluate her person, but the important thing is that we separate why we personally dislike Clinton with with why the elections results were what they were.

In practice what probably happened was: The environment was pretty neutral or maybe slightly negative for a Democratic candidate. Clinton was a below-average candidate, but not terrible. Trump was also a below-average candidate, but his weaknesses weren’t as much of a liability as the media assumed. All of those worked out to Clinton winning the popular vote, but only narrowly. And Trump benefited from the Electoral College, of course.

She ran a party-consensus campaign that garnered a party-line vote (as did Trump's) in the election. Setting aside external factors now, the primary difference in effectiveness between campaigns is arguably that Clinton inspired abstention, while Trump inspired traditional non-voters (i.e. elements of the white far-right) to come to the polls. This shadow demographic gave Trump the edge he needed. It's at that point where you can fairly argue on where she failed to boost overall turnout for her party or other minutiae.

Sarmatian

09-14-2017, 18:48

"Blaming", or offering rational attribution?

You can disagree with her politics, but despite what one personally wishes she would believe, the main points described in the book (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-why-she-lost/?) are valid.

I think that she asked and tried to answer the wrong question - why I lost?

She took winning as a given. Her perception is and was flawed. She didn't offer the voters the reason why they should vote for her. Her message was "I'm the best candidate"! Really? Why are you the best candidate?

The real reason why she lost (electoral college aside) is that she didn't have a clear and concise positive message, and easily understandable goals.

Saying "I have the best chances against any Republican candidate" during primaries and "I'm better than Donald Trump" during election campaign is not enough.

That's why she lost, and she managed not to see it. Again.

Montmorency

09-14-2017, 19:18

She didn't offer the voters the reason why they should vote for her. Her message was "I'm the best candidate"! Really? Why are you the best candidate?

The real reason why she lost (electoral college aside) is that she didn't have a clear and concise positive message, and easily understandable goals.

Saying "I have the best chances against any Republican candidate" during primaries and "I'm better than Donald Trump" during election campaign is not enough.

Alternatively, the perception of these problems demoralized the public. In tactical terms, we assume that Clinton cannot simply exchange herself for another person entirely, so the perception of "baggage" came to weigh her down regardless of the merit of the discourse. In the end, most people voted in apathy toward "status quo", not with a specific desire to up-end it.

I think that she asked and tried to answer the wrong question - why I lost?

What is the right question?

Strike For The South

09-14-2017, 20:18

Should have go on the offensive earlier. Should have played dirtier.

Crandar

09-14-2017, 20:47

Sarmatian

09-14-2017, 22:16

What is the right question?

Why should people vote for me, instead of why shouldn't people vote for me.

If she asked the first one she could have had an actual campaign, instead of spending millions persuading people she's not Donald Trump.

I will build the wall. I will defeat ISIS. I will provide jobs. - simple, effective, easy to understand.

I will provide free education, raise minimum wage, fight Wall Street and ensure all Americans have healthcare. - simple, effective, easy to understand.

I will ask Wall Street to be nicer, I will think strongly about pipelines and free trade deals, I will look at all possible options of dealing with ISIS and try to do something about lower/middle classes. - double speak, no substance, no point, no message. With her baggage, it was never gonna work. Barely at the end of one of the worst recessions in recent history and the sternest thing you can say about Wall Street is "basically, cut it out"??? And you want middle class votes?

Let's face it, if she was facing anyone other than Donald Trump, it would have been a landslide loss for her. She was overconfident and arrogant, more worried about not saying something wrong than saying something right. Her VP pick, for God's sake. No personality at all.

And she still doesn't understand, looking for reasons why didn't people vote for her. Because you didn't offer them a reason to, only a reason to vote against your opponents.

Montmorency

09-14-2017, 23:49

The electoral system being responsible for her defeat is not an objective fact, like every other hypothetical scenario. Both candidates wold have launched completely different campaigns and many more voters would be encouraged to vote, from Republicans in California to Democrats in Texas.

That's true, we would have to construct an entirely different American history and world history.

Trump's coverage was only marginally larger than Hillary's.

Like Clinton's coverage was only marginally more than Sanders'? I think we're using a different value of the word.

I never claimed that all those factors had zero effect. Quite the contrary, I'm just laughing at Hillary's childish inability to assume responsibility.

In the sense of identifying the "correct" factors, or in the sense that the virtuous thing to do would be to take all responsibility in the face of the public (i.e. crucify herself)? The former we're debating here, but the latter - why should she do that? Should anyone?

She's free to do whatever she wants. But if she fails to logically address the issues with her promises, capacities and campaign, then she should expect her book to be criticized. Nothing more.

I don't disagree. But many of the 'ancestral' criticisms have long seemed to be less to do with what Clinton does or says, but the idea, the icon, of Hillary Clinton. And that's unhealthy IMO.

Why should people vote for me, instead of why shouldn't people vote for me.

If she asked the first one she could have had an actual campaign, instead of spending millions persuading people she's not Donald Trump.

I will build the wall. I will defeat ISIS. I will provide jobs. - simple, effective, easy to understand.

I will provide free education, raise minimum wage, fight Wall Street and ensure all Americans have healthcare. - simple, effective, easy to understand.

I will ask Wall Street to be nicer, I will think strongly about pipelines and free trade deals, I will look at all possible options of dealing with ISIS and try to do something about lower/middle classes. - double speak, no substance, no point, no message. With her baggage, it was never gonna work. Barely at the end of one of the worst recessions in recent history and the sternest thing you can say about Wall Street is "basically, cut it out"??? And you want middle class votes?

Let's face it, if she was facing anyone other than Donald Trump, it would have been a landslide loss for her. She was overconfident and arrogant, more worried about not saying something wrong than saying something right. Her VP pick, for God's sake. No personality at all.

And she still doesn't understand, looking for reasons why didn't people vote for her. Because you didn't offer them a reason to, only a reason to vote against your opponents.

If people, especially conservatives, already hated Hillary Clinton, I don't think adopting more left-wing positions would have changed their minds.

You have to keep in mind that policies - specific policies - are largely irrelevant to campaigns. The image is what matters. And even with her poor image, Clinton pulled in at least an average result. To diminish this, you would have to argue that Trump was especially hurt by his own actions, rather than helped. The latter is less sanguine to imagine, but it's probably the case. Merely dismissing Trump as a "bad" candidate is to make a similar mistake as you accuse Clinton and the liberal establishment of making.

So while each of us might want to a various extent different, more left-wing policy prescriptions to have been incorporated into her platform, there's no reason to believe it would have helped rather than hindered her actual election performance.

She was overconfident and arrogant, more worried about not saying something wrong than saying something right. Her VP pick, for God's sake. No personality at all.

I agree, but I don't think she is arrogant, just too politically correct in her thinking. By politically correct, I mean that she didn't want to consider and vocalize the worst case that Trump was actually an electoral match for her, because if true (and the polls showed it to be true) it would oblige her to really examine and polemicize how we as a country have to measure and handle the "deplorable" element of the electorate. If the worst of America is a huge demographic and really really bad after all, it shatters American exceptionalism, which the Clintons are strong believers in.

Let's face it, if she was facing anyone other than Donald Trump, it would have been a landslide loss for her.

Definitely disagree. There were certainly no exciting contrasts between the generic Republican candidates and Clinton herself. Trump's advantage was motivating non-voters and conservative independents - the respective party bases fell in line otherwise.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-15-2017, 00:13

Should have go on the offensive earlier. Should have played dirtier.

Would that have won her Texas?

Clinton lost because she's Clinton, Americans were never going to vote for the wife of a former President. That sort of political Dynasty was never going to fly in the US, especially with it having previously happened in South America.

Now that Clinton is done there's a real chance America might actually elect a woman next time.

Montmorency

09-15-2017, 03:13

Clinton lost because she's Clinton, Americans were never going to vote for the wife of a former President. That sort of political Dynasty was never going to fly in the US, especially with it having previously happened in South America.

Doubtful. Leaving aside that most presidents are distant relations (http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Genealogical_relationships_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States) of one another or of the Founding Fathers (e.g. the Roosevelts), we've had the Adams, the Harrisons, and the Bushes, but a husband and a wife is a dynasty too far?

drone

09-15-2017, 04:47

If people, especially conservatives, already hated Hillary Clinton, I don't think adopting more left-wing positions would have changed their minds.

You have to keep in mind that policies - specific policies - are largely irrelevant to campaigns. The image is what matters. And even with her poor image, Clinton pulled in at least an average result. To diminish this, you would have to argue that Trump was especially hurt by his own actions, rather than helped. The latter is less sanguine to imagine, but it's probably the case. Merely dismissing Trump as a "bad" candidate is to make a similar mistake as you accuse Clinton and the liberal establishment of making.

So while each of us might want to a various extent different, more left-wing policy prescriptions to have been incorporated into her platform, there's no reason to believe it would have helped rather than hindered her actual election performance.

Definitely disagree. There were certainly no exciting contrasts between the generic Republican candidates and Clinton herself. Trump's advantage was motivating non-voters and conservative independents - the respective party bases fell in line otherwise.
She was not going to get conservative votes, she needed Bernie's voters. You are correct, there was not much difference between her and one of the generic GOP candidates. She was already center-right on many things, any left leaning views she had were window dressing/identity politics. When a large percentage of right/center-right already have no intention of voting for her, that puts her in a spot. Her big mistake was in thinking that voters had a binary decision, with a gun to their head and a Trump-Hillary ballot in front of them, the average voter would pick her. But the reality was many would vote Johnson/Stein/McMullin, others would vote change (Trump) for the hell of it, or (most damaging) not vote at all.

HopAlongBunny

09-15-2017, 14:33

From what I saw of election coverage her main message was "I'm not Trump"
The problem with the Democratic campaign seemed to be a complete lack of salesmanship.
The policies were there, but not highlighted; instead of yattering about "deplorables" where was the passion and fire about what the Dem's were going to do?
The Dem's might have better policies/ideas, that is meaningless if you can't get people motivated and excited about them.

One example: Das Capital might well be the best expression of what communism is all about, The Communist Manifesto is the one you use to sell the idea.

Sarmatian

09-15-2017, 14:56

If people, especially conservatives, already hated Hillary Clinton, I don't think adopting more left-wing positions would have changed their minds.

We're talking about liberals here.

You have to keep in mind that policies - specific policies - are largely irrelevant to campaigns. The image is what matters. And even with her poor image, Clinton pulled in at least an average result. To diminish this, you would have to argue that Trump was especially hurt by his own actions, rather than helped. The latter is less sanguine to imagine, but it's probably the case. Merely dismissing Trump as a "bad" candidate is to make a similar mistake as you accuse Clinton and the liberal establishment of making.

I have to strongly disagree. What was Trump's image before the campaign? What was Sander's?

Sanders was an unknown Mr. Burns look-alike, with no charisma and no influence outside Vermont. He had no image prior to the campaign.

What was Sanders going to do if he were elected? Everyone could answer in a single sentence.

Now give me an answer in a single sentence was Hilary going to do.

Surveys showed that Hillary would struggle against any Republican candidate.

So while each of us might want to a various extent different, more left-wing policy prescriptions to have been incorporated into her platform, there's no reason to believe it would have helped rather than hindered her actual election performance.

Hillary was more of a conservative than a liberal candidate. While I'm don't have the data to back up my claims, a gut feeling tells me she would have performed better if she were willing to adopt liberal issues sincerely, rather when presented with no other choice.

I agree, but I don't think she is arrogant, just too politically correct in her thinking. By politically correct, I mean that she didn't want to consider and vocalize the worst case that Trump was actually an electoral match for her, because if true (and the polls showed it to be true) it would oblige her to really examine and polemicize how we as a country have to measure and handle the "deplorable" element of the electorate. If the worst of America is a huge demographic and really really bad after all, it shatters American exceptionalism, which the Clintons are strong believers in.

Again we disagree, because that's exactly what the effect was. By presenting Trump as a worse candidate, instead of herself as a better candidate, she did just that.

Definitely disagree. There were certainly no exciting contrasts between the generic Republican candidates and Clinton herself. Trump's advantage was motivating non-voters and conservative independents - the respective party bases fell in line otherwise.

Again, look at the polls. Kasich was ahead, Paul Ryan was ahead, Cruz (a slime that he is) was close or ahead while he was in the race... She would have struggled in all those hypothetical match-ups. The only Republican candidate she was consistently beating was Trump.

Montmorency

09-15-2017, 17:41

She was not going to get conservative votes, she needed Bernie's voters. You are correct, there was not much difference between her and one of the generic GOP candidates. She was already center-right on many things, any left leaning views she had were window dressing/identity politics. When a large percentage of right/center-right already have no intention of voting for her, that puts her in a spot. Her big mistake was in thinking that voters had a binary decision, with a gun to their head and a Trump-Hillary ballot in front of them, the average voter would pick her. But the reality was many would vote Johnson/Stein/McMullin, others would vote change (Trump) for the hell of it, or (most damaging) not vote at all.

Third parties did better in 2016 than usual, but still insignificant overall; most of these went to the Libertarian party, which has more affinity to the Republican base than the Democratic. I would look at abstentions, which I believe have always handily outnumbered 3rd-party votes in our elections. The national turnout was actually not low, but given that Democrats habitually lose more votes than Republicans to abstention its plausible to look for a demoralizing effect (whereas Trump enervated some Republicans and conservatives for a net gain). October was a bad month for Clinton and not so for Trump, who unleashed a rousing Greatest Hits album that resonated with his base - and that's the final scene set for Election Day. I wonder what it would look like in the swing states.

We're talking about liberals here.

I have to strongly disagree. What was Trump's image before the campaign? What was Sander's?

Sanders was an unknown Mr. Burns look-alike, with no charisma and no influence outside Vermont. He had no image prior to the campaign.

What was Sanders going to do if he were elected? Everyone could answer in a single sentence.

Now give me an answer in a single sentence was Hilary going to do.

This is an important distinction between policy and image. Sanders and Trump had straightforward ideas and presentation, but this had nothing to do with policy. White grievance and taxing the rich are ideological positions, not policies, and only one of those men could even be expected to know the meaning of the word once in office. Before they reached national prominence and got a real campaign going, Sanders and Trump had to rely on word-of-mouth among committed admirers. Once they got over the hurdle, they came to represent a particular brand, e.g. "He tells it like it is", and carved out their respective bases. Clinton did have a base like that, but a much smaller one, largely people who were familiar with her political career and liked her for that already. Had she spoken on the same topics but in a different-enough way, she would have been able to reduce the impact of media coverage on 'scandals!'. By standing still on the same presentation she moved backward among those who didn't yet strongly approve of her.

Surveys showed that Hillary would struggle against any Republican candidate.

Again, look at the polls. Kasich was ahead, Paul Ryan was ahead, Cruz (a slime that he is) was close or ahead while he was in the race... She would have struggled in all those hypothetical match-ups. The only Republican candidate she was consistently beating was Trump.

I don't think you can extrapolate from surveys taken a year before the election, in a very different landscape for the country. You need to have the final nominees campaigning one-on-one.

Strike For The South

09-15-2017, 17:47

Would that have won her Texas?

Clinton lost because she's Clinton, Americans were never going to vote for the wife of a former President. That sort of political Dynasty was never going to fly in the US, especially with it having previously happened in South America.

Now that Clinton is done there's a real chance America might actually elect a woman next time.

No, but it may have won her Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, or North Carolina.

Husar

09-15-2017, 18:08

White grievance and taxing the rich are ideological positions, not policies, and only one of those men could even be expected to know the meaning of the word once in office.

What exactly would be a policy and why would anyone need it to win an election if Hillary had plenty and lost?
Does the average voter even care about the distinction?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-15-2017, 21:05

Doubtful. Leaving aside that most presidents are distant relations (http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Genealogical_relationships_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States) of one another or of the Founding Fathers (e.g. the Roosevelts), we've had the Adams, the Harrisons, and the Bushes, but a husband and a wife is a dynasty too far?

Absolutely too far.

Hilary winning would have meant Billary in the White House again - there would have been photoes two two Presidents Clinton in the White House, an inevitable shot of Bill in The Chair (probably holding a cigar) at some point.

Montmorency

09-15-2017, 22:15

What exactly would be a policy and why would anyone need it to win an election if Hillary had plenty and lost?
Does the average voter even care about the distinction?

A policy is a defined set of rules or practices to achieve a goal or produce a result. Generally it's nice to have after the election is finished. "Cut taxes" is an ideology, but they get to have some of the simpler policies, e.g. cancel all existing personal taxes and all income has a flat 1% tax.

No, they don't. Voters care about the promised results. Voters care about how a candidate makes them (or their friends and family) feel. They don't sweat the details. Some (https://archive.org/details/democraticideals00mackiala) say that's a good thing, others (https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsive-Government/dp/0691169446) say it's a bad thing.

Absolutely too far.

Hilary winning would have meant Billary in the White House again - there would have been photoes two two Presidents Clinton in the White House, an inevitable shot of Bill in The Chair (probably holding a cigar) at some point.

So Hillary should assassinate Bill and try again? :clown:

a completely inoffensive name

09-16-2017, 01:45

Seems impossible to tie down Hillary's loss to a single category let alone a single item.

Many of the issues she raises in her book are (legitimate) external factors that fed into her own flawed internal choices which then generated further external factors that impacted her negatively.

I don't understand PVC's characterization of US voters. Dynasties and relational ties are not really considered; voters really focused on the personal images they present, e.g. 'legitimate', 'establishment', 'outsider'. Keep in mind establishment is not a condemnation of her familial ties to a former president, but a disgust to her presence inside government institutions for X number of years.

As far as Sarmatian's position: "And she still doesn't understand, looking for reasons why didn't people vote for her. Because you didn't offer them a reason to, only a reason to vote against your opponents."
Voting against your opponent is a legitimate position to make. Liberal voters need to play fucking ball and stop asking for a candidate that promises them all the candy and rainbows they want. If you don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils, you get the bigger evil. That's what happened in 2000 with Nader supporters and it happened again in 2016. Oh how history repeats itself.

Montmorency

09-16-2017, 03:05

nvm

Montmorency

09-16-2017, 03:10

Edit: Is video formatting not possible in certain subfora?

Gilrandir

09-16-2017, 04:56

That's completely irrelevant, the people who decided the election didn't chose her.

People who decided the election (we both mean electoral college, right?) didn't CHOOSE ANYONE. According to the rules of the game they performed their duty - disregarded the will of the people who voted for Clinton in their states. And those people were more numerous in the whole country.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-16-2017, 05:46

Gilrandir

09-16-2017, 13:10

We have never had a direct democracy. For the most part, our founders did not want such as it engenders demagoguery and even more pandering to the public than already occurs. With two exceptions, the EC is first past the post by state.

It really was supposed to be a collection of states working together on key issues and not one collective.

Don't you think that in view of the nation having evolved into what it is now the laws should try to keep pace with the reality?

Husar

09-16-2017, 13:57

People who decided the election (we both mean electoral college, right?) didn't CHOOSE ANYONE. According to the rules of the game they performed their duty - disregarded the will of the people who voted for Clinton in their states. And those people were more numerous in the whole country.

No, I meant the voters in those states like Michigan, who gave Trump the electoral college votes that made him win.

We have never had a direct democracy. For the most part, our founders did not want such as it engenders demagoguery and even more pandering to the public than already occurs. With two exceptions, the EC is first past the post by state.

It really was supposed to be a collection of states working together on key issues and not one collective.

Yeah, it's more like a direct oligarchy either way, amirite? FPTP is a terrible system anyway, a lot of votes are just retroactively nullified when they might deserve at least a minority representation. And that's just the beginning of the complicated topic of how every citizen of the US somehow has a different weight applied to their political vote despite all the blabla of "we're all equals".
Perhaps rich Germans are more influential in everyday political life, but I do know that when it comes to elections, my vote is worth just as much as theirs or that of a Bavarian. And I will get some political representation even if the party of my choice doesn't win, perhaps even government representation instead of just opposition.

I don't hate your founding fathers, but the system they designed doesn't seem to work as intended or just doesn't work well anymore despite perhaps the best intentions.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-18-2017, 01:18

Montmorency

09-18-2017, 02:13

Given the voting pattern of those 20 metro areas, we would be a full socialist democracy in 15 years. That may well appeal to you and Gil, but not to me.

If the public outcry for "socialism" is so strong as to, unrestrained, transform America utterly in less than a generation, and is only restrained by anti-democratic political maneuvering, then wouldn't recalcitrance be unjust?

I don't think this is the narrative to rely on.

:uneasy:

Sarmatian

09-18-2017, 06:49

Sir Moody

09-18-2017, 09:19

I don't hate your founding fathers, but the system they designed doesn't seem to work as intended or just doesn't work well anymore despite perhaps the best intentions.

Arguably the system they designed is still doing what it was meant to do - FPTP was designed to more or less maintain a stable line of succession since it sidelines smaller groups in favour of the status quo (its either A or B and C, D and E need not apply).

Husar

09-18-2017, 12:03

However, a full and unrestrained democracy would place all of the political power in about 20 metro areas....

Given the voting pattern of those 20 metro areas, we would be a full socialist democracy in 15 years. That may well appeal to you and Gil, but not to me.

You're basically saying that you are okay with turning millions of citizens into second class citizens whose opinions count for less just so you can have your way. That's a very dictatorial line of thought and not democratic at all. This turns your "democracy" into some kind of oligarchic farce.

Arguably the system they designed is still doing what it was meant to do - FPTP was designed to more or less maintain a stable line of succession since it sidelines smaller groups in favour of the status quo (its either A or B and C, D and E need not apply).

So I should have said it never worked well? I was trying to be nice. :sweatdrop:

Gilrandir

09-18-2017, 15:17

Seamus Fermanagh

09-18-2017, 17:39

Somehow you don't mind TWO parties ruling the nation intermittently for hundreds of years, but are afraid of TWENTY areas which might take a lead if any changes are introduced into the voting system. :shrug:

Left wing (US def) politics markets better than conservatism. It is easy to feel that the little gal is being "wronged" by corporations, by the moneyed class who gets any opportunity they desire, by fate etc. The US political left plays staunchly to this style of voter, and offers policies to protect and better their lot by taking the money from those who have more and using it to fund government safety, support, and welfare programs. You can feel good emotionally about "helping" by voting for such an agenda.

This approach has put the DEMs into commanding leads -- sometimes approaching 85% of the votes -- in all of our major urban areas.

Conservatism virtually always loses a national popularity contest because -- save immediately after a crisis when jingoism is 'in' -- it simply isn't "sexy." So, if we have a completely unrestricted vote that works as one national popularity contest, the conservative side of the GOP is done. There will be the Democrats, who will absorb some of the GOPs elements and morph into a more or less classic Social Democrat style party in Euro terms, and then we will have political growth on the farther left and probably end up with a socialist party and a green party. But the conservatives will be reduced to an 'arm' of the Dems that is listened to but seldom in political affairs.

I have never viewed the social democrat economic model as capable of sustaining the lifestyle to which Americans are accustomed, certainly not without punitive level taxation.

So pardon me if I don't get all "warm and fuzzy" over near absolute democracies. I find the flaws too high a price for the ideals being sought.

Franklin is reputed to have said to one citizen that our government was "A republic, if you can keep it."

The electoral college, FPTP, and other aspects of our Constitution seek to do just that. However flawed it may be in some ways, our founders revered free speech, but feared total democracy.

Montmorency

09-18-2017, 20:34

Conservatism virtually always loses a national popularity contest because -- save immediately after a crisis when jingoism is 'in' -- it simply isn't "sexy." So, if we have a completely unrestricted vote that works as one national popularity contest, the conservative side of the GOP is done. There will be the Democrats, who will absorb some of the GOPs elements and morph into a more or less classic Social Democrat style party in Euro terms, and then we will have political growth on the farther left and probably end up with a socialist party and a green party. But the conservatives will be reduced to an 'arm' of the Dems that is listened to but seldom in political affairs.

Alternatively, a conservative party will coalesce around the rebalanced political spectrum, and will have an easier time attracting urban moderates and Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities.

Much of the country has gone into the diamond-hard right in recent history, and between them and liberals you don't get USSRA. It's only like that if you are ruthlessly protective of the legacy GOP institution, which demands ever-increasing polarization to shore up the philosophical and political deficiencies of the party.

I have never viewed the social democrat economic model as capable of sustaining the lifestyle to which Americans are accustomed, certainly not without punitive level taxation.

Over many threads on the Org haven't we come to the conclusion that no act of politics can maintain the customary lifestyle in the long-term? It's a historical aberration and it's unsustainable.

The electoral college, FPTP, and other aspects of our Constitution seek to do just that. However flawed it may be in some ways, our founders revered free speech, but feared total democracy.

I wonder if you would be willing to exchange the EC for another arrangement, one equally undemocratic but less fixated on state-level demarcations. Or are you only in favor of limited democracy when it's more damaging to the opposition?

Seamus Fermanagh

09-19-2017, 17:22

Alternatively, a conservative party will coalesce around the rebalanced political spectrum, and will have an easier time attracting urban moderates and Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities.
It would take a systemic and cultural change that begat at least three viable parties, then conservatism, mugwumps, and liberals could truly each have a home. Urban moderates are mostly moved out to the ruburbs and suburbs, as you are aware. I would DEARLY love to see race drop into the dustbin of history though.

Much of the country has gone into the diamond-hard right in recent history, and between them and liberals you don't get USSRA. It's only like that if you are ruthlessly protective of the legacy GOP institution, which demands ever-increasing polarization to shore up the philosophical and political deficiencies of the party.

The 'big tent' has made for some odd curlicues that do NOT meet anyone's needs readily. And parties seem to think of party first and state second -- even, as Russia shows us, when the party IS the state. Our Constitution is written absent party, (however unrealistic that Washingtonian hope), and it's flaws are plainest when party clashes with government convention. Both parties tend to act extra-constitutionally and by agreement not attack the edifice they create. Some of this is practical and needful (the Constitution was NOT the laws enacted, but their ultimate source of mutually accepted authority), some are nothing but bureaucratic empire-building or party protection tools. Far too much of the later persists.

Personally, I blame that fornicating bastard1 Hamilton. Wrote beautiful prose in service of a limited federal government that was needful to coordinate the efforts of the separate states. Within ten years, he'd completely suborned the system to enhance federal power as embodied in a political party rather than a government. We'd have been better served as a nation if his argument with Burr had concluded about 8 years earlier.

Over many threads on the Org haven't we come to the conclusion that no act of politics can maintain the customary lifestyle in the long-term? It's a historical aberration and it's unsustainable.
I have never fully agreed with that theme, though I acknowledge that it is considered by many (most?) to be accurate and inevitable. I even agree, if you are referring to our standard of living in terms of comparison to the rest of the planet's societies. The idea that it is doomed to diminishment is too reflective of zero-sum economic thinking (and tends to presume that our standard of living success was only an act of exploitation, which is simplistic).

I wonder if you would be willing to exchange the EC for another arrangement, one equally undemocratic but less fixated on state-level demarcations. Or are you only in favor of limited democracy when it's more damaging to the opposition?

I am enough of a traditionalist to prefer the "several states" but I admit that is not the only way to arrange things to limit the power of an electorate to demolish its future to feel good about themselves in the present. Certainly other arrangements could be conceived to meet these ends, and a proper education/cultural emphasis on participating in the system are part of that. Currently, we have the latter without the former in all too many cases.

My fear is that someone will convoke another Constitutional convention -- the only real means of effecting a shift from states and the EC to different arrangements -- and that that new Constitution will attempt to be a "Homeowner's Association Covenant" version of government. God save us from that.

1While I use these terms with a snarky tone, it should be noted that they are in Hamilton's case, simple description.

Montmorency

09-19-2017, 18:12

I have never fully agreed with that theme, though I acknowledge that it is considered by many (most?) to be accurate and inevitable. I even agree, if you are referring to our standard of living in terms of comparison to the rest of the planet's societies. The idea that it is doomed to diminishment is too reflective of zero-sum economic thinking (and tends to presume that our standard of living success was only an act of exploitation, which is simplistic).

At least, you have to be careful to separate a "standard" of living and the practices and relations by which that standard is achieved.

When we speculate on the end of the post-industrial reinforcing cycle of consumption, and the international capitalist organizations that form its tracks, it doesn't mean we are speculating on a return to subsistence agriculture. (Though I believe some libertarians and syndicalists, especially traditionalist ones like our Rhyfelwyr, look forward to that 18th-century dream.)

Personally, I blame that fornicating bastard1 Hamilton. Wrote beautiful prose in service of a limited federal government that was needful to coordinate the efforts of the separate states. Within ten years, he'd completely suborned the system to enhance federal power as embodied in a political party rather than a government. We'd have been better served as a nation if his argument with Burr had concluded about 8 years earlier.

The ideas don't begin or end with Hamilton. The Founders generally were tempered by experience of government.

I think throughout modernity we have to admit that the best principle of government is determination of needs and ways by locality or subdivision; arbitration, expertise, and investment of means by central government. I just also think that central government should be plenipotentiary.

the power of an electorate to demolish its future to feel good about themselves in the present.

But that's what we've been indulging in! Capital invariably beats labor; that game has ended.

My fear is that someone will convoke another Constitutional convention -- the only real means of effecting a shift from states and the EC to different arrangements -- and that that new Constitution will attempt to be a "Homeowner's Association Covenant" version of government. God save us from that.

That seems to be the plan (http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/351204-gop-state-lawmakers-meet-to-plan-possible-constitutional-convention), presumably to affix Christian white male supremacy as the order of the land.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-19-2017, 18:56

At least, you have to be careful to separate a "standard" of living and the practices and relations by which that standard is achieved.

When we speculate on the end of the post-industrial reinforcing cycle of consumption, and the international capitalist organizations that form its tracks, it doesn't mean we are speculating on a return to subsistence agriculture. (Though I believe some libertarians and syndicalists, especially traditionalist ones like our Rhyfelwyr, look forward to that 18th-century dream.)

The ideas don't begin or end with Hamilton. The Founders generally were tempered by experience of government.

I think throughout modernity we have to admit that the best principle of government is determination of needs and ways by locality or subdivision; arbitration, expertise, and investment of means by central government. I just also think that central government should be plenipotentiary.

But that's what we've been indulging in! Capital invariably beats labor; that game has ended.

That seems to be the plan (http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/351204-gop-state-lawmakers-meet-to-plan-possible-constitutional-convention), presumably to affix Christian white male supremacy as the order of the land.

Nice response. I am inclined to more restriction of the central government, but in general you frame the concept well.

As to the 'stale-pale-male-proddy' ascendency thing, I suspect I look forward to such a development almost EXACTLY as much as you do yourself.

Gilrandir

09-19-2017, 19:42

So, if we have a completely unrestricted vote that works as one national popularity contest, the conservative side of the GOP is done. There will be the Democrats, who will absorb some of the GOPs elements and morph into a more or less classic Social Democrat style party in Euro terms, and then we will have political growth on the farther left and probably end up with a socialist party and a green party. But the conservatives will be reduced to an 'arm' of the Dems that is listened to but seldom in political affairs.

So, basically, the current system is meant to keep conservatism (embodied in the GOP) afloat? I thought that political systems have other objectives than keep sustaining a part of it which is not viable should the rules of the game change.

I have never viewed the social democrat economic model as capable of sustaining the lifestyle to which Americans are accustomed, certainly not without punitive level taxation.

Then Americans would vote it out and choose the one they like more.

HopAlongBunny

09-19-2017, 22:48

This is an outgrowth of the democratic system.
Sure "parties" might start bright eyed and bushy tailed, pursuing ideological goals, pushing visions of social justice and the like; they all end up as brands.
They have a clientele or market and they sell power. The market is secondary; the primary focus is keeping power because that is their "good" for exchange.
It is almost a perfect reflection of the capitalist market (not free market); bureaucratic control, planning, marketing etc. It is, in the final analysis, a self interested corporation.
In the pursuit of power, what is more useful: money, ideas, vision? (the People? Lol )

Seamus Fermanagh

09-20-2017, 03:22

So, basically, the current system is meant to keep conservatism (embodied in the GOP) afloat? I thought that political systems have other objectives than keep sustaining a part of it which is not viable should the rules of the game change.

All healthy republics/democracies must have some means to maintain some political power in the hands of the minority. Unrestrained democracies do not and beget tyranny of the majority. That's the whole point.

Then Americans would vote it out and choose the one they like more.

They like that model, mostly, as long as they can be convinced someone else will pay more than they do. In general, the more ignorant an American is of politics (and that can be shockingly near to complete ignorance) the more likely they are to be socialist in their thinking or painfully reactionary in their thinking (this latter is the smaller wedge of the pie).

Gilrandir

09-20-2017, 11:18

All healthy republics/democracies must have some means to maintain some political power in the hands of the minority. Unrestrained democracies do not and beget tyranny of the majority. That's the whole point.

And this minority must neccessarily include the Republican Party? Otherwise the USA will become a tyranny? Then I would suggest a motto for the next Republican election campaign: "It is either us or Kim".

They like that model, mostly, as long as they can be convinced someone else will pay more than they do. In general, the more ignorant an American is of politics (and that can be shockingly near to complete ignorance) the more likely they are to be socialist in their thinking or painfully reactionary in their thinking (this latter is the smaller wedge of the pie).

Thus, the ignorance of Americans combined with the current political system has brought Trump to power? Then there is even more need to change either of them (or both). Definitely, to change the latter will take less time and effort.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-20-2017, 15:04

And this minority must neccessarily include the Republican Party? Otherwise the USA will become a tyranny? Then I would suggest a motto for the next Republican election campaign: "It is either us or Kim".

Not at all. Parties come and go. At their founding, the Republican Party was the "liberal" party and the Democrats were the "conservatives." The capacity to represent the minority and avoid the majority over-reaching is needful, not any party. Kim lacks the gravitas to be an appropriate evil Emperor anyway -- he doesn't even wear a cowl or wield lightning.

Thus, the ignorance of Americans combined with the current political system has brought Trump to power? Then there is even more need to change either of them (or both). Definitely, to change the latter will take less time and effort.

Voter ignorance is, sadly, an ongoing concern where any polity votes for its leadership. As near as I can tell from the polls, however, a goodly number of Trump's supporters chose him BECAUSE he was so different from our political norm and they liked his brashness and "in-your-face" attitude. Myself, I believe him to be something of an asshat, as I have noted before.

Regardless, he is only the current occupant. We have survived Presidencies that were worse. This too shall pass, as the old Solomonic story reminds us.

Pannonian

09-21-2017, 12:07

All healthy republics/democracies must have some means to maintain some political power in the hands of the minority. Unrestrained democracies do not and beget tyranny of the majority. That's the whole point.

See the case of the UK, where 52% is deemed to merit an irreversible revolution, and any naysayers are dubbed traitors. Particularly notable as polls indicate that any current vote would see the figures reverse. At least your president, having been democratically elected, is working within your constitutional restraints. Our government, working in service of said 52%, has accrued all power to the executive, with outside regulatory powers dismissed in said service.

Gilrandir

09-21-2017, 17:03

Voter ignorance is, sadly, an ongoing concern where any polity votes for its leadership.

Voter ignorance is not endemic to the US only. Yet other countries complaining of it aren't afraid to entrust their citizens with the right to elect their leader directly.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-22-2017, 02:05

See the case of the UK, where 52% is deemed to merit an irreversible revolution, and any naysayers are dubbed traitors. Particularly notable as polls indicate that any current vote would see the figures reverse. At least your president, having been democratically elected, is working within your constitutional restraints. Our government, working in service of said 52%, has accrued all power to the executive, with outside regulatory powers dismissed in said service.

That is a potential problem in unicameral (functionally at least) parliament systems. The majority party/coalition can govern almost as it pleases unless its behavior is so heinous that it loses enough of its own numbers for the government to risk falling. It is a question of how far they can go before their own supporters think it "isn't cricket."

Sarmatian

09-23-2017, 12:34

Seamus Fermanagh

09-23-2017, 16:29

Just seen Hillary on Colbert's show.

She mentions how she made mistakes, but doesn't name one and then goes into details about everyone else. No lesson learned, it's all Putin's fault. America is the greatest country on Earth and he can't stand it.

I believe it to be, but I admit to a certain bias. Vlad's opinion thereof is neither here nor there to me.

But NEVER underestimate a politician's ability to subordinate facts to their view of what should be. 'Alternative facts' may have earned its sobriquet under our current asshat occupant of the office, he did NOT invent the concept.

Sarmatian

09-23-2017, 20:57

I believe it to be, but I admit to a certain bias. Vlad's opinion thereof is neither here nor there to me.

But NEVER underestimate a politician's ability to subordinate facts to their view of what should be. 'Alternative facts' may have earned its sobriquet under our current asshat occupant of the office, he did NOT invent the concept.

That's their usual modus operandi, true, but it's somehow worse with her. At least, that's how she appears. She's the archetype of a two-faced, career politician.

I started watching The Sopranos recently. I know it's not exactly current, but I never got around to it before. There's an episode where mobster wives talk about their cheating husbands and Lewinsky scandal gets mentioned. Even they conclude what a hypocrite she is, standing there with a fake smile.

Yes, it's a tv show, but that's pretty much how people saw her. She presents herself as a champion of the people, while everyone knows she's in bed with Wall Street. Empowerment of women, all that, and she stays with her cheating husband. Because a divorce is bad for a political career. Let us assume that accusations of rape were just about seeking attention, and leave them aside.

And then, she goes on how she's not a career politician, and all the mistakes she might have made were because she can't really fit into political arena easily, but she's ready to make that sacrifice for the American people. She's a freakin' textbook definition of a career politician.

After all that, she couldn't make a single direct answer during the campaign. That was never gonna work, not with her baggage. I've said it already and I stand by it - any half decent GOP candidate would have wiped the floor with her. The only reason she did so well was because she was opposed by a narcissistic buffoon. She was a household name and she almost lost to a 70-year old unknown independent who isn't on speaking terms with his comb.

I'm glad when people like her lose. Okay, if I were an American citizen, I probably would have voted for her against Trump but I would have to sit on my own hand for two hours before doing it, so that it would feel numb while I'm doing the voting.

HopAlongBunny

09-23-2017, 21:10

On the other hand, she's largely right.
Trump's got far more coverage for buffoonery than she did for policy.
The one note rejoinder of the Trump camp: "...but the emails..."; was consistently the only Hillary story you heard.
That the media has not been roundly lambasted for their coverage, is mainly the result of them handling the coverage of the coverage.
Really, the U.S. media covered itself in napalm and lit a match; but no one was there to cover it:rolleyes:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-why-she-lost/

Sarmatian

09-23-2017, 21:57

She actually isn't. Sure, the media had a field day with her emails and gave Trump a lot of coverage, but was he portrayed positively by the mainstream media? He was practically made fun of. That excuse goes out the window immediately.

Almost all of her excuses are lacking.

1) Interference by the Kremlin? Bollox. 99% of media coverage was about the fact that Russia was supposedly behind it, rather than the content of hacked emails.
2) Comey interference? Actually the only one that makes sense.
3) Media portrayed her emails as the most important story? Maybe most important in regards to her, but not overall. Trump got as much negative coverage.
4) Deep currents of anger and resentment flowing through our culture? Hard to figure out what exactly she meant with this but if we assume that she meant people being ****** off about status quo, and didn't think she was the person to change it, I agree. And again, she doesn't accept responsibility for being a poor candidate, or at least for having a bad campaign, but blames it on society.
5) The media gave [Trump] free wall-to-wall coverage? True, but she's complaining about negative coverage about her, but ignores that most of the coverage of Trump was negative. So, bollox once more.
6) Maybe it’s because I’m a woman, and we’re not used to women running for president? Impossible to quantify. Probably had an influence but I certainly don't think it was even remotely decisive.
7) Exceedingly difficult for either party to hold onto the White House for more than eight years in a row? Hard to quantify again. True for the last few presidents. If you're looking for a trend in the last 200 years, it paints a different picture. Ultimately pointless because it doesn't address anything else but party affiliation. Quality of candidates, situation at home and abroad etc... Correlation, not causation. Completely silly excuse.
8) Clinton fatigue? Silly. It's basically blaming her husband, who's seen positively in general, for her loss. Hillary Clinton fatigue is possible, but that's her fault.

She still isn't taking responsibility. The only valid excuse is Comey. Everything else is bollox.

Montmorency

09-24-2017, 01:43

I'm glad when people like her lose.

So, does watching politics give you a lot of joy? It's technically a parade of people much like her losing, because other people like her are beating them.

It's understandable if you hate American (and hey, maybe your own) political institutions, but in that case you don't have much call to favor a Sanders over a Clinton. If the system is rotten, then differentiating on the basis of perceived sincerity just means you got sucked in. If the system is not rotten, then you ought to temper your distaste for someone playing the game properly.

She actually isn't. Sure, the media had a field day with her emails and gave Trump a lot of coverage, but was he portrayed positively by the mainstream media? He was practically made fun of. That excuse goes out the window immediately.

I'm sure we just covered these points, but let me note one more thing:

Coverage of Trump was not as negative, in that it presented his own words as he spoke them. We interpret it as negative, but that's how he gained his base - they saw it positively. His unvarnished speech had a lot of exposure.
(From what I gather of news networks this year, they're still obsessed with publicizing and breaking down Trump's words, sentence by sentence, with copious video accompaniment.)
Clinton coverage on the other hand had little to do with her own statements or positions, being rather about items related to her.
It's pre-existing flaws that Trump was able to take advantage of, but you measure by the process not by alleged intentions.

Gilrandir

09-24-2017, 04:57

she stays with her cheating husband. Because a divorce is bad for a political career.

So, you believe that this was her only motif in desire to keep the family from falling apart? How about "thou shall not demonize" stuff?

Sarmatian

09-24-2017, 08:35

So, does watching politics give you a lot of joy? It's technically a parade of people much like her losing, because other people like her are beating them.

It's understandable if you hate American (and hey, maybe your own) political institutions, but in that case you don't have much call to favor a Sanders over a Clinton. If the system is rotten, then differentiating on the basis of perceived sincerity just means you got sucked in. If the system is not rotten, then you ought to temper your distaste for someone playing the game properly.

As I've said, I see her as an archetype of a career politician. Not in the sense that she spent almost her whole adult life in politics but in a sense that she lacks principles and has no problems doing 180's when it is convenient. Most politicians are like that, but she is the poster girl for it

In general, yes, I place very little trust in politicians. I haven't yet found myself voting for a good option, I was always choosing "less bad" option. Sanders was closest to a good option. Not just because of his policies but because he actually has a long record of sticking to his guns and fighting for the things he believes in.

It's not a binary issue. Politicians tend to be shifty, but there's a scale. Hillary's really high on that scale, Sanders is quite low.

I'm sure we just covered these points, but let me note one more thing:

Coverage of Trump was not as negative, in that it presented his own words as he spoke them. We interpret it as negative, but that's how he gained his base - they saw it positively. His unvarnished speech had a lot of exposure.
(From what I gather of news networks this year, they're still obsessed with publicizing and breaking down Trump's words, sentence by sentence, with copious video accompaniment.)
Clinton coverage on the other hand had little to do with her own statements or positions, being rather about items related to her.
It's pre-existing flaws that Trump was able to take advantage of, but you measure by the process not by alleged intentions.

Good point, and I'm inclined to agree for the most part. We also have to keep in mind, though, that media is all about the ratings. Her email story resonated with the people.

Pannonian

09-24-2017, 15:24

As I've said, I see her as an archetype of a career politician. Not in the sense that she spent almost her whole adult life in politics but in a sense that she lacks principles and has no problems doing 180's when it is convenient. Most politicians are like that, but she is the poster girl for it

In general, yes, I place very little trust in politicians. I haven't yet found myself voting for a good option, I was always choosing "less bad" option. Sanders was closest to a good option. Not just because of his policies but because he actually has a long record of sticking to his guns and fighting for the things he believes in.

It's not a binary issue. Politicians tend to be shifty, but there's a scale. Hillary's really high on that scale, Sanders is quite low.

Good point, and I'm inclined to agree for the most part. We also have to keep in mind, though, that media is all about the ratings. Her email story resonated with the people.

Dunno what it's like in Serbia, but over here people tend to vote for who they think would form the best government. News media like to harp on about u-turns and so on, but it's incompetence and corruption that really gets on people's nerves.

Gilrandir

09-25-2017, 14:12

Dunno what it's like in Serbia, but over here people tend to vote for who they think would form the best government.

Strange people are those Brits. All over the world people vote for those who are likely to screw up and the British tend to differ. Insular mentality?

Pannonian

09-25-2017, 15:38

Strange people are those Brits. All over the world people vote for those who are likely to screw up and the British tend to differ. Insular mentality?

Or maybe my point is that principles haven't generally been an issue in British elections. Where politicians stand on various issues haven't been as big a factor as whether voters reckon they can competently govern a country.

Gilrandir

09-26-2017, 12:07

Or maybe my point is that principles haven't generally been an issue in British elections. Where politicians stand on various issues haven't been as big a factor as whether voters reckon they can competently govern a country.

So an effective manager like Hitler would have a good chance to be elected in modern Britain?

Seamus Fermanagh

09-26-2017, 17:06

So an effective manager like Hitler would have a good chance to be elected in modern Britain?

Only two back-and-forth's on this exchange with Pannonian and Godwin is invoked. :wall:

Sarmatian

09-26-2017, 22:58

Dunno what it's like in Serbia, but over here people tend to vote for who they think would form the best government. News media like to harp on about u-turns and so on, but it's incompetence and corruption that really gets on people's nerves.

Corruption in western democracies is on an acceptable level, and there's enough checks and balances to make sure that most politicians are aware of the huge risks they're taking. A lot of money is still being lost, but it's not such a huge issue, especially compared to the rest of the world.

It's connected, though. A person without principles is usually more prone to corruption. In Hillary Clinton, I see a person willing to sacrifice everything for her political career.

So, again - most of them are bad, Hillary is worse than most.

rory_20_uk

10-02-2017, 14:06

Democracy is like sausage making - no one likes the process, but we like the end result.

Bernie has held to his principles and has achieved... nothing beyond a principled stance. How nice to have a well paid job where one can just drone on and on without having to do anything.

I'm not sure UK politicians are all that great - we have one set of "bastards" who everyone seems to hate and one lot of "idealistic idiots" who dream of a utopia that would require an influx of money from an as-yet unnamed source and we've not really paid off the last time they managed to "end the boom and bust cycle".

Politicians are of course a reflection of the voters - after all they are the ones who elect them. So Americans seem to get extremely polarised candidates who are engaged in an endless "zero-sum" game where even if Trump were to have a plan that would manage to fix healthcare, the tax system and end the wars in Afghanistan the Democrats would be incapable of letting the Republicans have the "win".

Hilary has little else but her political career. An empty nester with a philandering husband of worldwide proportions I imagine she'd like to have a "win". In that regard, she's not that different to Donnie T.

~:smoking: