Quote (thesnipa @ 17 Aug 2023 17:33)
there was a wing of DNC voters who were all in on HRC due to "finally a woman president" support, but the support was shallow and not based on supporting her policy platform or even historical knowledge of her political career. and along those same lines there was base level support for her due to stability, basically holdover support from Bill AND holdover support because she served in Obama's cabinet.
and in any case IMO bernie would have gotten beat in general election, and HRC only lost due to moves she and the DNC made well after bernie was toast. lack of campaigning in battleground states, etc. in short i dont think ousting bernie was the wrong move, nor was HRC as unpopular as she appears through rose tinted glasses. she just had an utter lack of excitement, as she wasnt a change candidate. but excitement isnt required to win elections, just as Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, etc.
Oh, I believe that Hilary would have squeaked by against Bernie in a fair primary. But the DNC clearly didn't want to risk a bruising, dragged out primary which shines even more light on her weaknesses. It's still indicative of her weakness as a candidate that she struggled this much with Bernie in spite of all the institutional support behind her.
Regarding the campaigning in the Rust Belt... it's a common talking point, but I'm not entirely sure that her rallies and speeches would have done her any favor in places like MI or WI. I watched one or two of her rallies back then and they were chock-full with feminist and racial pandering - not exactly themes that would have struck a chord with Obama-Trump voters.