complete bs. she didn't lose EXCLUSIVELY because she was a moderate, or because russia helped trump, or because of comey, or because she was unlikeable... those are ALL factors that played a role. trying to deny any of that, just because it doesn't fit your current narrative, is just dishonest and stupid.

how often have we heard that 'trump voters aren't all just bigots - they supported him because of his anti-establishment messaging' argument these last few years? now you want to tell me that's not true? i mean, every halfway intelligent person knew it was an EMPTY promise, and that he would just keep filling the swamp with his OWN monsters, but it was still a significant part of why he won. people DO reject the corrupt washington establishment, and hillary and biden are textbook examples for it.

Excuse me for not having employed scientific precision when I phrased my post on an obscure subforum on the board for an 18 year old video game.

There is a big ongoing debate on the left about the reasons for 2016, and one camp (the progressives or bernie supporters) argue that not being lefty or "inspiring" enough is the main reason why she lost, and that the same problem will also doom Biden.

I was referring to this debate. My opinion is that Hillary's personal flaws and baggage were the predominant factor for her loss, not her lack of progressive policies. You can of course feel free to disagree with this opinion.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 8 2020 02:32pm

Hillary isn't a moderate lmao. She's slightly to the right of Elizabeth Warren but was to the left of most other candidates. I think you're confusing "moderate" with "establishment." You can be extremely right or left but still be part of the establishment.

just like with biden: don't look at their campaign rhetoric when it comes to alleged 'values' and 'convictions' - that's just empty messaging, heavily influenced by focus group analysis, look at their political RECORD. also, moderate clearly implies NO radical overhaul of campaign financing, it certainly has a massive overlap with the establishment. i challenge you to give me an example of an "extremely left" establishment figure (again, record, not rhetoric).

This post was edited by fender on Mar 8 2020 07:34pm

That's what I do. Hillary was in charge of universal healthcare in the 90s and it got destroyed for being too socialist. Both Biden and Hillary have gotten significantly legislation passed unlike a lot of other candidates. It made progress and that's progressive by definition.

Elizabeth Warren and Barney Frank (no longer in politics) are extremely left establishment figures.

he’s gonna come back and say something along the lines of that wasn’t real progressive/lefty politics.
for fender aka heinrich von goebbels, ‘real lefty politics’ involve one-way train trips for the “political opponents”

you mean crime bill / pro iraq war / student loan debt joe biden? sure, he's a true champion of progressivism (which is NOT simply moving things in any direction - what a hilariously asinine 'definition' of the term - it's social progress to advance society, directly opposing the elites that biden and clinton embody and represent)...

sorry, but next time you're trying to deflect from an undeniable point (which is that a large portion of democratic voters rejected the establishment candidate 2016, and will inevitably do the same in 2020) by trying to make it about semantics, make sure you at least understand the very basics of the terminology.

Hillary's 2016 platform contained a ton of small steps toward a more "big government" society with a more expansive welfare state, with a higher level of redistribution and regulation. She would have established the idea that Americans are entitled to a cradle-to-grave safety net and enshrined it in law:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13318750/hillary-clinton-vision-government


In terms of her messaging, however, she never emphasized theses plans, probably because they were too incrementalist and technocratic to appeal to voters during a campaign rally or a presidential debate, and because her plans paled in comparison to Bernie's grandiose promises of big, sweeping, systemic change. Instead, Hillary's messaging mostly consisted of pandering to the "woke left", with constant reference and praise for feminism, diversity and such. And of course a fuckton of negative messaging about Trump's unfitness for office.




Uh, excuse me, but which data is this statement based on? Hillary got nearly as many votes as Obama did in 2012, they were just a lot more inefficiently distributed in the electoral college. The portion of the Democratic electorate that rejected Hillary in 2016 was tiny, perhaps 2-5% of their base.
Fun fact: the percentage of Bernie voters backing Hillary in 2016 was higher than the share of Hillary voters who backed Obama in 2008.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 8 2020 08:12pm

Do you not read my posts? I clearly said that moderate/progressive DOES NOT MEAN pro/anti-establishment. They are WILDLY different things.

Progressives move society FORWARD. Both Hillary and Biden have done that through their legislative achievements (though Biden has far more due to his tenure AND Hillary had some high profile failures). I don't know why you're getting bent out of shape over my statement that Hillary is a far left individual. It's a universal truth in American politics... If you're outside of our Overton window, I can't really help you there.

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/hillary-clinton-democrat-progressive/index.html



and again, their political records speak for themselves...