What does that even mean?

Because Hillary came out with a supportive statement on Twitter?

to stop Trump. She was incorrect in that, but that is not her fault, it is the fault of the GOP.

She should've known better of them.

because if she really cared about the country, she would have helped a more mainstream Republican to win the nomination.

Damn that Hillary!

but Hillary focused her whole outreach strategy on GOP voters, rather than progressives as even Al Gore and John Kerry did, which is part of the reason why those BoBs were so upset. She ran ads about republicans supporting her.

The contention that Clinton's whole outreach strategy focused on Republicans is patently ridiculous and contradicted by the facts.

I'll leave you in peace to cultivate your affinity for cringing at things that never happened. It must keep you very busy.

Do you know how the ignore feature works?

Had she not done that, even if she had lost, we would've at least kept the senate 50-50 and done better downballot.

The DNC even warned against this strategy:

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137093/clinton-campaign-decision-made-may-doom-down-ballot-democrats

You cannot be seriously arguing that the Democratic Platform was pro-GOP and the PLATFORM is ALL that matters because the PLATFORM is POLICY.

Which is why people who stupidly voted for Trump , not thinking about what he actually SAID and assuming he wasn't serious, are also stupid because PLATFORM is policy.

Hillary did what many politicians do when they sense weakness - go after disenchanted voters on the other side.

It's politics.

If people had their head on, we could have had a Democratic President who ran a mostly progressive platform winning the Presidency with the support of NEVERTRUMPERS and disenchanted Republicans.

People are acting like it's a shocking concept to reach out to moderates on the other side. And yes, there are still Conservatives who are pissed that Trumpism has taken hold of the GOP.

Many of them are angry because they don't think Trump is 'conservative enough', the bulk of them want originalists (revisionists) appointed to the Supreme court like Mcmullin. They're just another variety of crazy. Hillary should've realized that.

Reaching out to disenchanted voters from the other side is what Politicians do, this is not something that Hillary Clinton invented in 2016.

The platform incorporated progressive policies - the bitter truth is that the left cannibalized itself and became fractured in a year when we faced an existential threat to our democracy in Donald Trump.

There's no excuse for progressives not seeing this obvious truth - NONE.

And there are no moderates "on the other side"--whatever moderates still exist are already here.

and it ain't rocket science..

Was hillary going to roll back on reproductive rights? - nope
was she going to appoint* a conservative on the supreme court? - nope
was she going to roll back on dodd frank? - nope
was she going to hamstring the epa? - nope
... etc etc etc

The platform is a piece of paper, like a battle plan...and like any other battle plan it exists right up to the moment the first shot is fired.

Case in point: no roll back on reproductive rights? http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511316086

that Hillary would not roll back on reproductive rights?

I always knew Hillary's position on late term abortions - she believes all abortion should be legal, but could see restrictions placed on late term abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life or health is in danger. It's not unusual for liberals to ponder the ethics of late term abortions, while being pro-choice. A nuanced position on an issue doesn't mean a rejection of progressive or even liberal causes in that area...

To draw an analogy :Joe Biden doesn't have a favorable view of abortion, yet he is a champion of many other progressive causes - does that mean in an election against Trump, Biden should be dismissed on a singular issue?

Because that is the overall point - you cannot honestly assess the intent and performance of this administration and claim equivalency with what a Clinton administration might have looked like by claiming "platform doesn't matter"

EDIT: Another example/analogy: Obama has flipflopped on gay marriage throughout his career, so has Clinton - yet he appointed two justices to the supreme court whose votes lead to marriage equality. That is what matters.

Hillary's position on rolling back reproductive rights is A-OK with you because you already knew about it, and therefore it would not represent a rollback of the party's positon as expressed in the platform we were just discussing? Riiiiiiiiight.

Got news for you: candidates don't set the platform, they ignore or follow it at will.

Which was my point.

Oh, and this? "you cannot honestly assess the intent and performance of this administration and claim equivalency with what a Clinton administration might have looked like...." is a complete strawman.

It is an agenda that gets implemented as policy by those who are elected.

The BoBs and bitter knitter third party voters ensured that the most progressive platform in a generation remained nothing more than a piece of paper by helping to elect Trump.

Now (when they're not busy cringing) they are scrambling around trying to deflect the approbation of a horrified populace. Ain't gonna happen. We all know who owns Trump and his platform-turned-policy, and it ain't Hillary Clinton.

Frequently it isn't. Even, apparently, with huge majorities in both houses of Congress.

Call it whatever you like. Just don't call it a done deal because it is in the platform.

What is "dog whistling"?

who was a professional partner of Stone and Manafort. They all worked together in the 80s for Reagan and Bush. Appeals to coded bigotry.

"To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him."

That's one of Bernie's, though.

She didn't lose because too many working class voters switched from Obama to Trump.

And she didn't lose because she acknowledged that DT is worse than other rightwingers. He is. He's a 4 year old Svengali in charge of the nuclear arsenal. That's worse than Paul Ryan.

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/23/can-we-finally-ditch-the-white-working-class-myth-obama-to-trump-voters-werent-the-problem/

In total, Donald Trump managed to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College count because of FBI intervention, voter suppression, low voter turnout and possible Russian interference, in combination with sexism, racism and the fact that too many Democratic-leaning voters switched to third parties.

The influence of various kinds of racial animus is overwhelming and undeniable: Social scientists and other researchers have repeatedly shown that white racial resentment, “old-fashioned” white racism, an absurd belief that white people are somehow oppressed in America, ethnocentrism and “social dominance behavior” mobilized Trump’s base and carried him to the White House.

The news media’s slavish devotion to its narrative of white working-class anxiety is irresponsible. It’s a distraction from the way Trump’s election has reinvigorated and inspired white supremacists and other members of the American far right. The “white working class anxiety”narrative also serves to normalize the authoritarian leanings of Trump voters and other toxic values. This false narrative also makes it more difficult for the American people to put current events in the proper context.

The point is that turnout did go down, which is why the number of votes in WI and MI were way down from 2012, if Hillary had reached out to progressives she would've won those states. Instead, she reached out to republicans, who stabbed her in the back with the FBI.

Feingold lost also.

can you explain why these so called "progressives" didn't vote for him ?

of millions of votes -- Obama didn't have to deal with that.

And despite the new voter suppression, Hillary only received 70,000 fewer votes nationally than Obama in 2012.

Also, the votes Jill Stein drew in those two states were enough to have flipped the states, if they had gone to Hillary. Once again, the Green Party candidate helped to ensure the victory of a Rethug.

And we'll never know if the totals in those states were legitimate, because of the way the audits were conducted. For example, in Michigan, if there was a discrepancy between the number of paper ballots and the number counted by the machine, they used the discrepancy as an excuse to toss that district out of the recount! More than a third of Detroits' precincts weren't included in the audit -(and Detroit is a heavily Democratic city.) And neither of the states' audits could account for how many votes had been suppressed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/12/29/2016-vs-2012-how-trumps-win-and-clintons-votes-stack-up-to-obama-and-romney/#3f968bfc1661

Last week, election results from all states were finally certified. While most headlines focused on Hillary Clinton’s 2.8 million popular votes lead over Donald Trump, the results also debunked claims that had been circulating over the past few weeks.

Contrary to early reports, Trump ended up receiving two million more votes than Mitt Romney did in 2012. Meanwhile, Clinton fell short of Obama’s 2012 popular vote totals by about 70,000. Third party candidates surged from 2.2 million votes in 2012 to just over 7.8 million in 2016. (Download state-by-state data here.)

was working, and risk of offending possible independents and anti-Trump Republicans. Remember how her "basket of deplorables" was used out of context to say she was insulting all Republicans?

Hillary lost the Electoral College, which weights rural redneck regions more heavily than, for instance, the most populous state in the nation, California. Stop blaming Hillary Clinton for that.

Trump and his gang are the sorest bunch of winners in all of creation. They won -- and we're supposed to understand their fee-fees and kiss their asses now and forever trying to court their votes?

Hillary voters are the majority in this country. Figure out some other line of attack.

Republicans are very tribal and expecting any significant number of them to vote for Hillary was a pipe dream from the beginning. Haven't we learned by now that the "bipartisan" appeal is a non-starter? The past 8 years should have taught us that. We need to get back to the New Deal days of "welcoming their hatred" and calling out the malevolent policies of our opponents. At least Cheetolini is helping with that.

Over 1000 Democratic seats in 6 years.

...I watched all of the debates and hours of the speeches on the news (when they covered her) C-SPAN (when they did not). I don't recall the praise for Paul Ryan - and Hillary's speeches repeated many themes/lines. In her career, she has praised Republicans, I recall. She and President Obama do praise George W. Bush on occasion and they supported Trump's inaugural. That gave me a cringe, but I think it's just Hillary and Obama being courteous. I think they've acted well and am proud of their behavior.

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2017, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)

moved on from the primary and GE. We are focused on more current concerns. Hillary bashing is soooo yesterday.