She was such a bad candidate that she personally couldn’t win no matter how far to the right she went. She might have stood a better chance if she treated the left flank of the party like she actually needed their votes.
Why should she have to play games ‘motivating’ people who could see she was significantly better than trump? People didn’t bother to vote against trump - so they got trump. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Why should she have to play games ‘motivating’ people who could see she was significantly better than trump?
Because that’s called politics. When you actually care more about winning than about making sure progressives lose, you try to get people to vote for you instead of regarding them with open contempt.
It seems like you are projecting this ‘open contempt’. In an ideal democracy, a politician should state their platform and people should select the best one and vote.
She was clearly a better candidate with better policy than trump - and if people saw that they should have voted for her. Saying ‘she didn’t pander to me enough’, or ‘wasn’t perfectly aligned with my ideals’ is stupid in the face of trump as the other option.
Yes, she could have said a bunch of pings - she could have lied and attempted to get votes through a populist approach, and maybe that’s what the democrats need to do, as sad as it is. But that’s only because too many Americans are stupid and won’t vote for the obviously better candidate for … reasons.
It seems like you are projecting this ‘open contempt’.
You’re gaslighting. No “it seems”.
But that’s only because too many Americans are stupid and won’t vote for the obviously better candidate for … reasons.
Politicians who are interested in beating their opponents try to appeal to the electorate they have, not the electorate you prefer. And I want to make it clear, the electorate centrists prefer is comprised entirely of netanyahu clones.
How would that have made her win? Her policy, and the history of the Democratic Party in contrast to the republicans is that she would be better for the people. Better is better. It doesn’t matter how much really. If people wanted better, they would already vote for her.
Her messaging was “America is already great”, her policies were means-tested bullshit that anyone who’s gone their entire life not getting help understood wouldn’t apply to them. Hillary was the status quo candidate.
I am describing how electoral politics work. You have to promise to help the people whose votes you want and hurt their enemies. You can’t run on “well you owe me your vote because tHiS iS tHe mOsT iMpOrTaNt eLeCtiOn oF oUr liVeS”
No. Ideally you should win a vote by presenting a good platform and showing the candidate to be a good leader - specifically by not dividing people and talking about enemies within the country. Talk about perspectives and differences in platforms and leadership track records. Being ‘the most important’ election is a good reason to tell people to really pay attention to the options and actually get out and vote. If Americans are too stupid to understand that, they deserve the orange moron they got and the long term damage it is doing to the country.
The elections are fake so, no. The people in the US should force the issue of the abolishment of the electoral college and overturning the citizens united ruling by any means necessary
So she should have shifter further right to try to capture the votes in those specific swing states?
Even if she moved right of Trump she would have lost, median voter theory is horseshit.
So she couldn’t have won no matter what. You’re saying she wasn’t a bad candidate, I guess.
She was such a bad candidate that she personally couldn’t win no matter how far to the right she went. She might have stood a better chance if she treated the left flank of the party like she actually needed their votes.
Why should she have to play games ‘motivating’ people who could see she was significantly better than trump? People didn’t bother to vote against trump - so they got trump. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Because that’s called politics. When you actually care more about winning than about making sure progressives lose, you try to get people to vote for you instead of regarding them with open contempt.
It seems like you are projecting this ‘open contempt’. In an ideal democracy, a politician should state their platform and people should select the best one and vote.
She was clearly a better candidate with better policy than trump - and if people saw that they should have voted for her. Saying ‘she didn’t pander to me enough’, or ‘wasn’t perfectly aligned with my ideals’ is stupid in the face of trump as the other option.
Yes, she could have said a bunch of pings - she could have lied and attempted to get votes through a populist approach, and maybe that’s what the democrats need to do, as sad as it is. But that’s only because too many Americans are stupid and won’t vote for the obviously better candidate for … reasons.
You’re gaslighting. No “it seems”.
Politicians who are interested in beating their opponents try to appeal to the electorate they have, not the electorate you prefer. And I want to make it clear, the electorate centrists prefer is comprised entirely of netanyahu clones.
So you think trump is better on Israel/gaza policy?
I am saying she could have won if she moved left and promised to improve the material conditions the people she was asking to vote for her.
Moving right does not earn democrats republican votes, it only decreases their own turnout.
How would that have made her win? Her policy, and the history of the Democratic Party in contrast to the republicans is that she would be better for the people. Better is better. It doesn’t matter how much really. If people wanted better, they would already vote for her.
Her messaging was “America is already great”, her policies were means-tested bullshit that anyone who’s gone their entire life not getting help understood wouldn’t apply to them. Hillary was the status quo candidate.
So you figure trump is better?
I am describing how electoral politics work. You have to promise to help the people whose votes you want and hurt their enemies. You can’t run on “well you owe me your vote because tHiS iS tHe mOsT iMpOrTaNt eLeCtiOn oF oUr liVeS”
No. Ideally you should win a vote by presenting a good platform and showing the candidate to be a good leader - specifically by not dividing people and talking about enemies within the country. Talk about perspectives and differences in platforms and leadership track records. Being ‘the most important’ election is a good reason to tell people to really pay attention to the options and actually get out and vote. If Americans are too stupid to understand that, they deserve the orange moron they got and the long term damage it is doing to the country.
The elections are fake so, no. The people in the US should force the issue of the abolishment of the electoral college and overturning the citizens united ruling by any means necessary