|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 30 2016 07:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. Considering the impossibility of deliver on the demands of the Rural American and faced with an opponent who promises the impossible (revert globalization). How exactly do you 'talk policy' when no one will spare you the light of day when you do? If Hillary would have talked about it rally after rally the news would have used the 10 second clip where she talks about anything else instead, if they report on it at all. Clocks matter, controversies matter, no one gave a shit about boring policy expositions.
So are you trying to say that this was the only kind of campaign she could have possibly run, and that as it turned out there simply wasn't a kind of campaign that would have yielded better results than identity politics theater?
I disagree and think this mentality is a huge problem that really does damage political discourse in a big way.
|
Frankly, I'm not sure that Hillary was promoting the right policies to win anyway, even if she had focused more on the issues than she did. It's pretty clear now that running on the status quo was not a good idea.
|
On November 30 2016 07:36 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:31 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. Considering the impossibility of deliver on the demands of the Rural American and faced with an opponent who promises the impossible (revert globalization). How exactly do you 'talk policy' when no one will spare you the light of day when you do? If Hillary would have talked about it rally after rally the news would have used the 10 second clip where she talks about anything else instead, if they report on it at all. Clocks matter, controversies matter, no one gave a shit about boring policy expositions. So are you trying to say that this was the only kind of campaign she could have possibly run, and that as it turned out there simply wasn't a kind of campaign that would have yielded better results than identity politics theater? I disagree and think this mentality is a huge problem that really does damage political discourse in a big way.
I'm sure there are things she could have done different or better.
I am saying that you cant convince people of something if no one will listen to you talk about it.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 30 2016 07:09 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 06:57 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On November 30 2016 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 06:03 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the things there is to worry about in a Trump presidency, him using his post to give his business (a luxury real estate business, mind you, not something like Haliburton) a boost is pretty far down my list of concerns.
He might have a few more foreign guests than average stay at his hotels as he bumps up the price ridiculously high and he might get his company a few more government contracts for fancy real estate in prime locations. There are worse things that could be worried about. Skipping right over the difference in how that's treated vs hellraising over the Clinton Foundation... What happens if/when someone attacks one of his overseas hotels? By not strongly disassociating himself from his brand/businesses, an attack on a Trump hotel is going to become an attack on America. Also yes all this was covered pre-election (as was Hillary's policy platforms and not just her anti-platform) the problem is the media gets to choose narratives and the xenophobic/sexist mudslinging is the one that gets viewers. ---- Also on this whole school debate, isn't bussing a largely proven partial solution that has been shown to have no negative effects on the students ending up in the poorer schools? I thought bussing was a well trodden thing, but is only held back because people freak out over it for no reason. wasn't there a relatively recent supreme court case that dealt a blow to bussing? I have a vague memory of that happening. I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing#Re-segregationShow nested quote +Finally, in 2007, the Roberts Court produced a contentious 5–4 ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (PICS). The decision prohibited the use of racial classifications in any student assignment plan to maintain racial balance. Whereas the Brown case ruled that racial segregation violated the Constitution, now the use of racial classifications violated the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment. Writing for the minority, Justice Breyer said the "ruling contradicted previous decisions upholding race-conscious pupil assignments and would hamper local school boards' efforts to prevent 'resegregation' in individual schools"
I specifically remember this decision for the Majority Opinion by Roberts:
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
|
On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run.
How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention).
Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy.
Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. But I do think it's also weird of you to blame Clinton solely for identity politics when Trump was running on a very pro-white message.
|
On November 30 2016 07:37 xDaunt wrote:
Frankly, I'm not sure that Hillary was promoting the right policies to win anyway, even if she had focused more on the issues than she did. It's pretty clear now that running on the status quo was not a good idea.
When she chose an even less charismatic clone of herself as her VP, I knew that she was beyond compromise and that she was basically going to do whatever she planned on doing as president. Until then I was still hoping that she would offer some reasonable compromises on her platform that would appeal to a more leftist electorate. Nope.
That was was easily the most disgusted I've ever felt about casting my vote. I can't even be upset I voted for the loser.
|
The election was not about policy.
|
On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward.
She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse.
Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election.
The primaries had policy talks, but they also had gems like "how can a woman running for president be the establishment candidate?"
|
On November 30 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:37 xDaunt wrote:
Frankly, I'm not sure that Hillary was promoting the right policies to win anyway, even if she had focused more on the issues than she did. It's pretty clear now that running on the status quo was not a good idea. When she chose an even less charismatic clone of herself as her VP, I knew that she was beyond compromise and that she was basically going to do whatever she planned on doing as president. Until then I was still hoping that she would offer some reasonable compromises on her platform that would appeal to a more leftist electorate. Nope. That was was easily the most disgusted I've ever felt about casting my vote. I can't even be upset I voted for the loser.
Yeah that was easily one of the biggest WTF moments of the campaign to me. A likable VP pick that showed some acknowledgement of the Bernie primary voters would have gone a long way for the independents interested in Bernie. Which should have been an obvious thing given that Bernie did very well in states that allow independents to vote in primaries.
|
On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election.
Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/
She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion.
|
On November 30 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:36 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:31 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. Considering the impossibility of deliver on the demands of the Rural American and faced with an opponent who promises the impossible (revert globalization). How exactly do you 'talk policy' when no one will spare you the light of day when you do? If Hillary would have talked about it rally after rally the news would have used the 10 second clip where she talks about anything else instead, if they report on it at all. Clocks matter, controversies matter, no one gave a shit about boring policy expositions. So are you trying to say that this was the only kind of campaign she could have possibly run, and that as it turned out there simply wasn't a kind of campaign that would have yielded better results than identity politics theater? I disagree and think this mentality is a huge problem that really does damage political discourse in a big way. I'm sure there are things she could have done different or better. I am saying that you cant convince people of something if no one will listen to you talk about it.
I really can't say I think people weren't listening. Trump's chances were significantly improved, far more than we expected, by his anti-trade stance. I absolutely believe policy determines it, even if people vote policy in a very shallow manner.
|
On November 30 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election. Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion.
The beginning of her SoS term was a honeymoon marked by the status quo folks being really happy about a status quo FP choice.
That sharp decline at the end is Benghazi, the first real well-acknowledged symptoms of a failure in Libya. Syria mostly fell into Obama's second term.
If she stuck around her popularity decline would have happened while in office.
|
On November 30 2016 07:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 07:36 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:31 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. Considering the impossibility of deliver on the demands of the Rural American and faced with an opponent who promises the impossible (revert globalization). How exactly do you 'talk policy' when no one will spare you the light of day when you do? If Hillary would have talked about it rally after rally the news would have used the 10 second clip where she talks about anything else instead, if they report on it at all. Clocks matter, controversies matter, no one gave a shit about boring policy expositions. So are you trying to say that this was the only kind of campaign she could have possibly run, and that as it turned out there simply wasn't a kind of campaign that would have yielded better results than identity politics theater? I disagree and think this mentality is a huge problem that really does damage political discourse in a big way. I'm sure there are things she could have done different or better. I am saying that you cant convince people of something if no one will listen to you talk about it. I really can't say I think people weren't listening. Trump's chances were significantly improved, far more than we expected, by his anti-trade stance. I absolutely believe policy determines it, even if people vote policy in a very shallow manner.
Your right, the anti-trade one one of the few actual policies Trump had it and it resonated well.
But how many of those it influences were the rurals who hope that without TIPP or NAFTA their factory jobs would somehow come back?
In hindsight the lack of attention to the rural vote is certainly what cost Hillary the election.
|
On November 30 2016 06:03 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the things there is to worry about in a Trump presidency, him using his post to give his business (a luxury real estate business, mind you, not something like Haliburton) a boost is pretty far down my list of concerns.
He might have a few more foreign guests than average stay at his hotels as he bumps up the price ridiculously high and he might get his company a few more government contracts for fancy real estate in prime locations. There are worse things that could be worried about.
Sorry, isn't this just straight up corruption? How is that not a big deal. We just had a whole election cycle with one candidate getting tarred and feathered for possibly maybe sometimes being more likely to meet with people as SoS if they donated to her charity. Now we have, no joke, the President of these United States using his office to convince foreign leaders to give his business building permits, and US tax dollars are going into the President's pocket through contracts with his business, and it's no big?
|
On November 30 2016 07:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:53 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 07:36 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:31 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. Considering the impossibility of deliver on the demands of the Rural American and faced with an opponent who promises the impossible (revert globalization). How exactly do you 'talk policy' when no one will spare you the light of day when you do? If Hillary would have talked about it rally after rally the news would have used the 10 second clip where she talks about anything else instead, if they report on it at all. Clocks matter, controversies matter, no one gave a shit about boring policy expositions. So are you trying to say that this was the only kind of campaign she could have possibly run, and that as it turned out there simply wasn't a kind of campaign that would have yielded better results than identity politics theater? I disagree and think this mentality is a huge problem that really does damage political discourse in a big way. I'm sure there are things she could have done different or better. I am saying that you cant convince people of something if no one will listen to you talk about it. I really can't say I think people weren't listening. Trump's chances were significantly improved, far more than we expected, by his anti-trade stance. I absolutely believe policy determines it, even if people vote policy in a very shallow manner. Your right, the anti-trade one one of the few actual policies Trump had it and it resonated well. But how many of those it influences were the rurals who hope that without TIPP or NAFTA their factory jobs would somehow come back? In hindsight the lack of attention to the rural vote is certainly what cost Hillary the election.
But what policy does Hilary or anyone have to attract the rural voters who have been left behind? People in coal country don't vote for people who offer them job retraining.
|
On November 30 2016 07:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:53 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 07:36 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:31 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. Considering the impossibility of deliver on the demands of the Rural American and faced with an opponent who promises the impossible (revert globalization). How exactly do you 'talk policy' when no one will spare you the light of day when you do? If Hillary would have talked about it rally after rally the news would have used the 10 second clip where she talks about anything else instead, if they report on it at all. Clocks matter, controversies matter, no one gave a shit about boring policy expositions. So are you trying to say that this was the only kind of campaign she could have possibly run, and that as it turned out there simply wasn't a kind of campaign that would have yielded better results than identity politics theater? I disagree and think this mentality is a huge problem that really does damage political discourse in a big way. I'm sure there are things she could have done different or better. I am saying that you cant convince people of something if no one will listen to you talk about it. I really can't say I think people weren't listening. Trump's chances were significantly improved, far more than we expected, by his anti-trade stance. I absolutely believe policy determines it, even if people vote policy in a very shallow manner. Your right, the anti-trade one one of the few actual policies Trump had it and it resonated well. But how many of those it influences were the rurals who hope that without TIPP or NAFTA their factory jobs would somehow come back? In hindsight the lack of attention to the rural vote is certainly what cost Hillary the election.
Well we all underestimated the rurals, or more accurately, didn't bother to think about them. I didn't really expect the anti-trade bloc was so strong that Clinton's fake-retracted pro-trade position would hurt her so hard.
Ultimately though, it turned out not to be "the Hispanics" that was the swing vote that mattered (Trump got some, Clinton got more, but that wasn't what swung the election). It was the anti-trade folk. Only the populists seemed to have called it, including Trump and Sanders.
The issues mattered - the focus of the Clinton camp and the mainstream media was just on the identity politics issues rather than trade. I'm surprised too, but I do ultimately think it was the issues, and how the candidates catered to people on those issues that mattered.
|
On November 30 2016 08:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 06:03 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the things there is to worry about in a Trump presidency, him using his post to give his business (a luxury real estate business, mind you, not something like Haliburton) a boost is pretty far down my list of concerns.
He might have a few more foreign guests than average stay at his hotels as he bumps up the price ridiculously high and he might get his company a few more government contracts for fancy real estate in prime locations. There are worse things that could be worried about. Sorry, isn't this just straight up corruption? How is that not a big deal. We just had a whole election cycle with one candidate getting tarred and feathered for possibly maybe sometimes being more likely to meet with people as SoS if they donated to her charity. Now we have, no joke, the President of these United States using his office to convince foreign leaders to give his business building permits, and US tax dollars are going into the President's pocket through contracts with his business, and it's no big?
Let's just say I have bigger worries over the next four years than low-level corruption and favor trading.
Mind you, I wasn't one of the "Clinton Foundation" people; my critique of her focused more on trade and foreign policy.
|
On November 30 2016 07:56 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election. Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion. The beginning of her SoS term was a honeymoon marked by the status quo folks being really happy about a status quo FP choice. That sharp decline at the end is Benghazi, the first real well-acknowledged symptoms of a failure in Libya. Syria mostly fell into Obama's second term. If she stuck around her popularity decline would have happened while in office.
That only accounts for a very favorable rating to a pretty decent one and it held at about that level until it 2016 presidential bid talks started to ramp up (early 2015). And of course there's many factors and its complex, but it's hard to just fully dismiss a decently liked politician in office from the hated candidate as a delayed realization by the public. But the converse is true as well and you can't read too much into it the other way. I just think it's notable divide between the candidate & public servant in terms of approval ratings even if it's a mix of reasons.
|
On November 30 2016 08:04 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:59 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 07:53 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 07:36 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:31 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. Considering the impossibility of deliver on the demands of the Rural American and faced with an opponent who promises the impossible (revert globalization). How exactly do you 'talk policy' when no one will spare you the light of day when you do? If Hillary would have talked about it rally after rally the news would have used the 10 second clip where she talks about anything else instead, if they report on it at all. Clocks matter, controversies matter, no one gave a shit about boring policy expositions. So are you trying to say that this was the only kind of campaign she could have possibly run, and that as it turned out there simply wasn't a kind of campaign that would have yielded better results than identity politics theater? I disagree and think this mentality is a huge problem that really does damage political discourse in a big way. I'm sure there are things she could have done different or better. I am saying that you cant convince people of something if no one will listen to you talk about it. I really can't say I think people weren't listening. Trump's chances were significantly improved, far more than we expected, by his anti-trade stance. I absolutely believe policy determines it, even if people vote policy in a very shallow manner. Your right, the anti-trade one one of the few actual policies Trump had it and it resonated well. But how many of those it influences were the rurals who hope that without TIPP or NAFTA their factory jobs would somehow come back? In hindsight the lack of attention to the rural vote is certainly what cost Hillary the election. But what policy does Hilary or anyone have to attract the rural voters who have been left behind? People in coal country don't vote for people who offer them job retraining.
That's a problem countries around the world are struggling with. But your right, people wont want to hear "your fucked because you didn't start diversifying your industry 20 years ago and instead tries to sell the myth of 'clean coal'. "
That's why, when this came up previously just after the election, I said that there is probably no realistic answer that these people will accept. Hence why they voted for a fairy tale.
|
On November 30 2016 07:37 xDaunt wrote:
Frankly, I'm not sure that Hillary was promoting the right policies to win anyway, even if she had focused more on the issues than she did. It's pretty clear now that running on the status quo was not a good idea.
I think that is the point, running on policy might have worked if she had run on different policies ...,.
but she probably couldn't...because I don't think people would have believed that she would implement the policies that she would have run on (if she ran on the policies needed to win)...
most of trumps policies I would probably believe he is likely to try to implement in some way... because he has been saying similar things since he started dabbling in politics in the late 90s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
