d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Democrat Division Megathread
Prev1143144145146147205Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 29193Replies: 2049Track Topic
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#1441
Jan 10 2020 12:33pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 10 2020 11:45am)
Maybe she's just not a good politician? She was one of the most unpopular and polarizing first ladies ever. When Bill trusted her with healthcare reform during the 90s, she either blew it or was bought by big pharma. She got on the wrong side of history with her vote for the war in Iraq. In 2008, she was the clear-cut front-runner for the Democratic nomination, but lost to a young upstart senator from Illinois. Her time as SecState was filled with controversy and disastrous developments. And then, in 2016, with all institutional support one can possibly imagine, she still managed to lose the race to Donald fucking Trump.

The only races she has ever won in her political life were Senate races in New York, where the only difficult step for a Democrat is getting the nomination - which she did in 2000 by leveraging her national profille and her husband's influence.


Id say she's a very effective behind-the-scenes politician but is very bad in the spotlight. She missed her calling as a bureaucrat.

Still, the point is she has never been particularly liberal.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
#1442
Jan 10 2020 12:35pm
Quote (Skinned @ Jan 10 2020 03:32am)
She would have to be principled to be liberal. She was against gsy marriage until about 6 months ago.


This is the same hurr durr bullshit where people say that Romney/Kasich aren't conservative.
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#1443
Jan 10 2020 01:00pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Jan 9 2020 09:13pm)
lol, Hillary was not "extremely liberal". She had to be pushed to the left by Bernie to even typical liberal positions like free college.


the election versus bernie represents like 3% of her time in public service. she was a public politician for 30 years, and during that time Bernie was extremely liberal even by modern standards. but in 1990 bernie wasn't "extremely liberal", he was a fringe looney even to his own party. its only the modern shift of the left that brings him into the fray.

the liberals were pro war on crime, pro war on drugs, pro war on terror, etc. its only in hindsight that they were "against it". only a few brave people spoke up, Dixie Chicks, John Kerry, etc.

overall i wouldnt say HRC was "extremely liberal", but the narrative that she was never a liberal or out of step with liberals of the 80s, 90s, 2000s, etc is silly. she could be blown into any position by a weak fart if it got her elected.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#1444
Jan 10 2020 01:16pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Jan 10 2020 01:00pm)
the election versus bernie represents like 3% of her time in public service. she was a public politician for 30 years, and during that time Bernie was extremely liberal even by modern standards. but in 1990 bernie wasn't "extremely liberal", he was a fringe looney even to his own party. its only the modern shift of the left that brings him into the fray.

the liberals were pro war on crime, pro war on drugs, pro war on terror, etc. its only in hindsight that they were "against it". only a few brave people spoke up, Dixie Chicks, John Kerry, etc.

overall i wouldnt say HRC was "extremely liberal", but the narrative that she was never a liberal or out of step with liberals of the 80s, 90s, 2000s, etc is silly. she could be blown into any position by a weak fart if it got her elected.


Thats a fair assessment, I was just pointing out that she definitely wasnt and has never been (to my knowledge) extremely liberal and she certainly didn't lose the election because she of some extremely liberal policies she held.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 10 2020 01:21pm
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#1445
Jan 10 2020 01:17pm
Quote (thundercock @ Jan 10 2020 01:35pm)
This is the same hurr durr bullshit where people say that Romney/Kasich aren't conservative.


She's bringing up the rear, after a focus group.
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#1446
Jan 10 2020 01:33pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Jan 10 2020 01:16pm)
Thats a fair assessment, I was just pointing out that she definitely wasnt and has never been (to my knowledge) extremely liberal and she certainly didn't lose the election because she of some extremely liberal policies she held.


true, it wasnt her policies at all that lost her the 2016 election. extreme or otherwise.

however, im wracking my brain for even a single position she's held that's left of the democratic party's status quo stance and i cant think of a single one. she's a centrist by design, not by ideology. just to win elections. awful in hindsight when u look at super predator bills she authored that were uber popular at the time in the mainstream.

Quote (Skinned @ Jan 10 2020 01:17pm)
She's bringing up the rear, after a focus group.


well worded. made be chuckle.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
#1447
Jan 10 2020 01:38pm
Member
Posts: 54,189
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
#1448
Jan 10 2020 01:41pm
Quote (thesnipa @ 10 Jan 2020 20:33)
true, it wasnt her policies at all that lost her the 2016 election. extreme or otherwise.

however, im wracking my brain for even a single position she's held that's left of the democratic party's status quo stance and i cant think of a single one. she's a centrist by design, not by ideology. just to win elections. awful in hindsight when u look at super predator bills she authored that were uber popular at the time in the mainstream.


I dont think she ran on any policies which actively turned off voters and cost her the election, but imho one can argue that the lack of strong policy positions which energized her base cost her. It's not the policy positions she did take that lost her 2016, it's the lack thereof; the lack of actual bold and inspiring policy.

She was too risk averse and thought that some pandering, talking about glass ceilings and Katy Perry cameos during her rallies would be enough to become president. Similar pattern as during the 2nd debate, where Trump - 2 days after the Access Hollywood tape had been released - was on the ropes and oh-so close to the mental breakdown, but Hillary played it safe instead of going for the 'kill'.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 10 2020 01:42pm
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#1449
Jan 10 2020 01:44pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 10 2020 01:41pm)
I dont think she ran on any policies which actively turned off voters and cost her the election, but imho one can argue that the lack of strong policy positions which energized her base cost her. It's not the policy positions she did take that lost her 2016, it's the lack thereof; lack of bold, inspiring policy.

She was too risk averse and thought that some pandering, talking about glass ceilings and Katy Perry cameos during her rally would be enough. Similar pattern as during the 2nd debate, where Trump - 2 days after the Access Hollywood tape had been released - was on the ropes and oh-so close to the mental breakdown, but Hillary played it safe instead of going for the 'kill'.


I think it would be more accurate to say: "Her lack of strong policy positions NEARLY lost her the primary election." and of course one can argue she cheated.

but her lack of strong policy positions didnt cost her in the general. if she was any farther left it would have made it worse for her. which moderates are going to vote for her if she goes farther left? and the democrats, even the bernie bros, voter for her at like 90%+. they might have been unenergetic, but they voted for her all the same.

edit: all of the "it's a woman's turn", "he's a misogynist for how he talks to her", "she's got hot sauce, how woke" were progressive narratives, not centrist narratives.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 10 2020 01:45pm
Member
Posts: 54,189
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
#1450
Jan 10 2020 01:50pm
Quote (thesnipa @ 10 Jan 2020 20:44)
I think it would be more accurate to say: "Her lack of strong policy positions NEARLY lost her the primary election." and of course one can argue she cheated.

but her lack of strong policy positions didnt cost her in the general. if she was any farther left it would have made it worse for her. which moderates are going to vote for her if she goes farther left?


Big disagree. Yes, she couldnt have gone any further to the left on social or cultural issues without suffering in the general, but there was plenty of room for being more bold with lefty economic policies. The Obama-Trump voters which swung the election are generally of the "economically liberal but socially conservative" type.


Quote
and the democrats, even the bernie bros, voter for her at like 90%+. they might have been unenergetic, but they voted for her all the same.


there was a small but notable lack of turnout in the most crucial places. given how close Trump's winning margin was in the tipping point state(s), this lack of turnout did matter.


Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1143144145146147205Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact