2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"Disqualify and Defeat" isn't "Panic" -- It is the Clinton campaign Betting the Farm.
Last edited Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:35 PM - Edit history (1)
The Clinton campaign is all in -- they are risking their biggest single advantage against Sanders: the myth of Hillary's inevitability. (or maybe internal polls showed that it never took hold) They have spent months telling us how "math" and superdelegates will save Hillary from the will of the people but their new level of intensity says just the opposite. They are busting their own myth.
Any perception of "inevitability" was the biggest thing they had going. You don't need to "disqualify" (?!) your opponent and his voters if you are inevitable. The tone deafness of using the word "disqualify" in the name of their temper tantrum is stunning.
This is beyond panic, beyond being the first to blink. Panic was Iowa and New Hampshire or Michigan. This same kind of failed character assassination thing is how Clinton finished herself in 2008 -- desperately slinging mud at Barack. It didn't work. Really galvanized Obama's support at the end here:
Ultimately hurt Clinton among Dem donors and continues to resonate in the current primary.
Hard to believe Clinton was so okay with losing 60% of her donors over this desperate tactic that they try it again 8 years later.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)That's the day the H camp folds up because Bernie wins NY. I can hardly wait!!
frylock
(34,825 posts)Remember that deadline? Hmmmn? Do you?
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)especially since in her mind she is the heir apparent. I had no idea Obama's donors did this. Thanks for posting.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)so I think we can assume that many more of those donating in this primary will donate again in this GE if we run Sanders.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)It's about issues and our democracy, Hillary. It isn't about reward or ceremony.
Renew Deal
(81,871 posts)Let's not pretend you didn't. But we deserve a three-peat
amborin
(16,631 posts)quaker bill
(8,224 posts)It is not exactly a "hail mary pass" yet, but she knows she has to make a stand and change the narrative, now. Yes she is running the risk of flushing good will down the tubes. Worse yet, she does "aggressive" really poorly. She does "victim" way better, but it just isn't playing well enough, because Bernie is too hard to portray as a brute. (He is a socialist from Vermont, and clearly an older guy, so the brute label just does not stick and only sounds whiny, besides everyone knows he is playing softball comparted to what Republicans will do).
So "aggressive" it is. I think it is a poor bet from camp Hill as she is just about the worst messenger for this approach. I am not willing to say that there is no aspect of sexism in this (no sexism on my part, but it does generally exist). I think she just sounds bad when she goes even vaguely Trumpish. To some it may well be that the stuff she will try would work better coming from a male. While perhaps "unfair", it should be clear that there is nothing "fair" about this process. it is not the Special Olympics, and everyone does not get a ribbon. One wins and the rest lose.
She is running to be the first woman President, any notion that this is not a special challenge is simply silly.
Her attacking Bernie unfortunately will not look "powerful" or "commanding" at all, it is more likely to simply look petty and immature.
Her best arguments are experience and pragmatism, they are not great arguments, but they are what she has. A better choice would be to double down there.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)some of his alleged supporters with hearsay. That didn't get much traction and they had so little to work with that Hillary jumped on Greenpeace last week and claimed THEY were the Sanders campaign.