2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNYT: Clinton pivoting to court GOP Donors and White Republican "Megachurch Moms"
Hillary Clinton Targets Republicans Turned Off by Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-party.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-1&action=click&contentCollection=Politics®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
More broadly, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is repositioning itself, after a year of emphasizing liberal positions and focusing largely on minority voters, to also appeal to independent and Republican-leaning white voters turned off by Mr. Trump.
With the Democratic nomination in sight, Mrs. Clinton has broadened her economic message, devoted days to apologizing for a comment she previously made that angered working-class whites, and pledged that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who remains widely popular among the blue-collar voters drawn to Mr. Trump, would “come out of retirement and be in charge” of creating jobs in places that have been particularly hard hit.
The effort is a striking turn after she spent the past year trying to to mobilize the liberal wing and labor leaders in the Democratic Party. But her campaign, confident that the young people and liberals backing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont will come around to support Mrs. Clinton in November, is focusing its efforts on white working-class women and suburban women who tend to vote for Republican presidential candidates, but who polls show hold negative views of Mr. Trump.
Christine Matthews, a researcher who advises Republicans on how to win female voters, said that portraying Mr. Trump as dangerous on foreign policy could help Mrs. Clinton draw some Republican women whose most important issues are national security and terrorism. “Can she drive moms who have kids who think, ‘Oh my gosh, this is too scary a prospect and our country won’t be safe if he’s elected president?’ ” Ms. Matthews said. “You can imagine that attack ad in your head.” Democrats acknowledge that the prospect of terrifying skeptical voters into supporting their candidate would not be the most inspirational campaign message.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AzDar
(14,023 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)He gave a campaign speech at Liberty University, for instance.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Senator Bernie Sanders at Liberty University Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, spoke at the weekly convocation for students at Liberty University, a Christian school in Lynchburg, Virginia.?He was introduced by Jerry Falwell, Jr., the college’s president.?In his remarks the senator said, “It is harder, but not less important, for us to try and communicate with those who do not agree with us on every issue.” Senator Sanders then took part in a question-and-answer session moderated by David Nasser.?Before Senator Sanders' speech, David Nasser made opening remarks, and and a Christian rock band performed.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328079-1/senator-bernie-sanders-ivt-remarks-liberty-university
Were you not aware of this?
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)It was not a campaign speech.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)As he said at the time:
“It is very easy for a candidate to speak to people who hold the same views,” he stated. “It’s harder but important to reach out to others who look at the world differently.”
What was so amazing was that a Democratic candidate was giving a campaign speech at Liberty, where in the past it had been Republican candidates who did so.
Kall
(615 posts)That's not remotely the same thing as making pitches privately to Jeb Bush's big donors.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Courting donors is definitely much more of a Hillary thing than a Bernie thing, that's for sure.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)We've seen this soulless, cynical game played since 1992...
[link:
|
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Kind of like that arrow. Running to the right, back to the left.
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)Ventures our Goldwater Girl:
[link:
?w=414&h=384|
Response to Kittycat (Reply #21)
CobaltBlue This message was self-deleted by its author.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It seemed like he made a point of doing so.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)But he did not shift his message, the way the triangulators do.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Hopefully Hillary will be able to do something similar.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)And his gang of bros backed him 100%, of course when Hillary does it, it's the most terrible thing a person could do. Kind of a double standard from the "anyone but Hillary" crowd, but that's par for the course. 
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Joined the Green Party.
Joob
(1,065 posts)Definitely not going to backfire! Keep doing you!
Blue Owl
(50,349 posts)n/t
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Whatever happened to the Scourge of the GOP?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)when she loses.
There's compromise and then there's completely selling out.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And regularly talked about winning over Republican voters.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)The text and video of the speech are widely available.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)She might get some support from Bush's Wall St bankers, but the Republican base has been hating the Clintons for 25 years...I don't think they can suddenly turn it off.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)The open primaries were supposed to be a good thing because it showed that Sanders could expand the party to include more Republicans. He spoke at Liberty University of all places and was praised for it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Did you listen to his speech at Liberty University? If you didn't you should.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I hate when people play games like that.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Which it wasnt
Armstead
(47,803 posts)First of all, how often have Sanders and his supporters been criticized for his efforts to reach out? Wasn't the selling point for Clinton that she appeals to "real Democrats" unlike Sanders who was 'going for the libertaians and whites" while Clinton was the candidate of POC and other minorities?
Thing about Sanders is that he wasn't "pivoting" or changing his message to pander to Republicans. His message has been consistent.
Did you listen to his speech at Liberty? He didn't soft peddle his support for abortion and otehr progressive issues. Instead challenged them morally to stand with him to address the moral issues.
Expect a little less talk from Clinton about the scourge of guns, and more about the need for family values.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)It says that she also trying to appeal to more people, it didn't say she was changing her message. But, if that is what you saw then that it what you saw. Different minds see different things and I don't want to upset you, so I will leave it at that.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Thank you
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...he does not court them by switching his positions. His stated positions at Liberty U were exactly the same positions he has espoused since Day 1 of the campaign. In other words: he does not do any special "reaching out" to Republicans; but oddly enough, because of his integrity, many people -- be they Democrats, Independents or Republicans -- respond positively to him. Just look at his vote totals in Vermont, they include many Republicans, although none of them would accuse him of holding Republican positions. They do know they can trust him to do what he says he will do.
Hillary, on the other hand. Oy vey.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)except all of those that did
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Maybe now we will finally see some sincerity in her eyes rather than the body language of lies. She should have just ran as a Republican from the start as the constant pretense never worked very well for her.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Is that not true?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)out to their top Bush donors begging for large sums of money while exclaiming, "that their goals and policies are in alignment" as she just did.
There is a youuuuge difference!.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Expressing that they do share some common values, goals, and potential policies.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)And supply side economics.
You are comparing one politician reaching out to the good shared, with one reaching out to a militaristic agenda shared.
It is comparable to if both reached out to "angels" if such existed, and Sanders talked about sharing values Regarding peace and the golden rule with an Arch Angel, and Hillary talked about sharing values regarding bloodshed and greed with Morningstar (AKA, The fallen one, AKA Lucifer).
Your Argument is false and misleading, only you know if it is so intentionally, or due to a lack of knowledge. I sincerely hope it is the latter. I do believe you know it is a false comparison however.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Where has she talked about sharing values regarding bloodshed, greed, and Lucifer?
All I was saying was that both Sanders and Clinton have made an effort to reach out to conservatives and Christians, and to talk about where they might have some shared values. For instance, Clinton has talked about some of the hateful things that Trump has said that religious people might object to.
I haven't seen the remarks about bloodshed, greed, and Lucifer. Can you provide a link to what you are talking about there?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
alittlelark
(18,890 posts) 
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Disclaimer, I realize that as of now, we need to vote for Hillary to keep Trump out. There is no way Bernie can catch up now, even with California.
However, there was always the sense that Clinton would pretend to listen to the left, then go for those Right wingers that she really wanted. It is like the left were the red-headed step-kids, and the Reagan Democrats the ones Bill and Hillary always really wanted. Never mind that the fact that these folks have proven to always vote GOP, as they did in 2000. Never mind that whenever they come in, the first thing they demand is that we turn right.
Sanders at least forces Hillary to listen to the left; Keystone and TTP proved that. She backed up on those only because Sanders was able to use those issues. Now, when we hear the chant of "call it skinner" what we know is being said is "call it so that Hillary can start to pander to the right wing."
and when she does that, she will LOSE, because when your house on a foundation that others are in control of, the GOP will let you build your house, and then sue for it all, i.e. bring out the old hateful hot button hillary hate.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)The magical republican voter who is going to cross over to vote for Hillary.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and worthy of recs if it were.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)The Great Gatsby (aka the novel we had to read in high school.)
Here is Gatsby, a true believer in the "American dream" and on the surface, an example of it. He is rich, has a mansion among the swells, and has parties that to this very day inspire the Jay-Zs and Leo Dicaprio's as a standard for glam and excess. In the end, he wants up being used as a pawn by his friends, and dies, his friends allowing him to be murdered as a means to hide all the crimes they do.
Hillary, the Jeb Bushes, the Lynn Rothschilds, the Pete Petersons, all know you want the dreams they are selling you, that you can dive into the deep muck that makes Billionaires possible, and still be a heroine. It's another addiction, one that will give you cancer eventually, and when you are finally a vulnerable husk, all those friends will not only avoid you, they will do to you what they wanted to do all along, kill the goose and make Pate of her liver. I know some of us may seem like we hate you, we are angry, we are disappointed, but we do not hate you, indeed, we know how this story ends, and we are hoping for your sakes, and admittedly ours, that you get off the addiction that the Waltons, Koches, Rothschild's, Blankenfelds, and others are having their chemists make for you in their labs.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)She started out with the best intentions, but has totally lost herself along the way.
Power corrupts.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He gave a campaign speech at Liberty University.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He gave the same message he gives to people who already agree with him. He didn't soft pedal it to downplay it or triangulate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/14/bernie-sanders-liberty-university-speech-annotated/
Those are my views, and it is no secret. But I came here today, because I believe from the bottom of my heart that it is vitally important for those of us who hold different views to be able to engage in a civil discourse.
Too often in our country -- and I think both sides bear responsibility for us -- there is too much shouting at each other. There is too much making fun of each other.
Now, in my view... it is easy to go out and talk to people who agree with you. ...That's not hard to do. That's what politicians by and large do. We go out and we talk to people who agree with us.
But it is harder, but not less important, for us to try and communicate with those who do not agree with us on every issue.
And it is important to see where if possible, and I do believe it is possible, we can find common ground....
Let me take a moment, or a few moments, to tell you what motivates me in the work that I do as a public servant, as a senator from the state of Vermont. And let me tell you that it goes without saying, I am far, far from being a perfect human being, but I am motivated by a vision, which exists in all of the great religions, in Christianity, in Judaism, in Islam and Buddhism, and other religions.
And that vision is so beautifully and clearly stated in Matthew 7:12, and it states, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them to do to you, for this sums up the war and the prophets." That is the golden rule. Do unto others, what you would have them do to you. That is the golden rule, and it is not very complicated.
Let me be frank, as I said a moment ago. I understand that the issues of abortion and gay marriage are issues that you feel very strongly about. We disagree on those issues. I get that, but let me respectfully suggest that there are other issues out there that are of enormous consequence to our country and in fact to the entire world, that maybe, just maybe, we do not disagree on and maybe, just maybe, we can try to work together to resolve them.
Amos 5:24, "But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream." Justice treating others the way we want to be treated, treating all people, no matter their race, their color, their stature in life, with respect and with dignity.
In the United States of America today, there is massive injustice in terms of income and wealth inequality. Injustice is rampant. We live, and I hope all of you know this, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world.
But most Americans don't know that. Because almost all of that wealth and income is going to the top 1 percent.
You know, that is the truth. We are living in a time -- and I warn all of you if you would, put this in the context of the Bible, not me, in the context of the Bible -- we are living in a time where a handful of people have wealth beyond comprehension. And I'm talking about tens of billions of dollars, enough to support their families for thousands of years. With huge yachts, and jet planes and tens of billions. More money than they would ever know what to do with.
But at that very same moment, there are millions of people in our country, let alone the rest of the world, who are struggling to feed their families. They are struggling to put a roof over their heads, and some of them are sleeping out on the streets. They are struggling to find money in order to go to a doctor when they are sick.
Now, when we talk about morality, and when we talk about justice, we have to, in my view, understand that there is no justice when so few have so much and so many have so little.
There is no justice, and I want you to hear this clearly, when the top one-tenth of 1 percent -- not 1 percent, the top one-tenth of 1 percent -- today in America owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. And in your hearts, you will have to determine the morality of that, and the justice of that.
In my view, there is no justice, when here, in Virginia and Vermont and all over this country, millions of people are working long hours for abysmally low wages of $7.25 an hour, of $8 an hour, of $9 an hour, working hard, but unable to bring in enough money to adequately feed their kids.
In my view, there is no justice, and morality suffers when in our wealthy country, millions of children go to bed hungry. That is not morality and that is not in my view ... what America should be about.
In my view, there is no justice when the 15 wealthiest people in this country in the last two years -- two years -- saw their wealth increase by $170 billion. Two years. The wealthiest 15 people in this country saw their wealth increase by $170 billion.
My friends, that is more wealth acquired in a two-year period than is owned by the bottom 130 million Americans. And while the very, very rich become much richer, millions of families have no savings at all. Nothing in the bank. And they worry every single day that if their car breaks down, they cannot get to work, and if they cannot get to work, they lose their jobs.
And if they lose their jobs, they do not feed their family. In the last two years, 15 people saw $170 billion increase in their wealth, 45 million Americans live in poverty. That in my view is not justice. That is a rigged economy, designed by the wealthiest people in this country to benefit the wealthiest people in this country at the expense of everybody else.
In my view, there is no justice when thousands of Americans die every single year because they do not have any health insurance and do not go to a doctor when they should. I have talked personally to doctors throughout Vermont and physicians around the country. And without exception, they tell me there are times when patients walk into their office very, very sick and they say, why didn't you come in here when you're sick? And the answer is, I do not have any health insurance or I have a high deductible or I thought the problem would get better. And sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes they die because they lack health insurance.
That is not justice. That is not morality. People should not be dying in the United States of America when they are sick.
What that is, is an indication that we are the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right, and I think we should change that.
And I think -- I think that when we talk about morality, what we are talking about is all of God's children. The poor, the wretched, they have a right to go to a doctor when they are sick.
You know, there is a lot of talk in this country from politicians about family values. You have all heard that. Well, let me tell you about a family value.
In my view, there is no justice when low income and working class mothers are forced to separate from their babies one or two weeks after birth and go back to work because they need the money that their jobs provide. Now I know everybody here -- we all are, maybe in different ways, but all of us believe in family values.
I agree with Pope Francis when he says, and I quote, "The current financial crisis originated in a profound human crisis, the denial of the primacy of the human person," and this is what he writes: "We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose," end of quote.
And the pope also writes, quote, "There is a need for financial reform along ethical lines that would produce in its turn an economic reform to benefit everyone. Money has to serve, not to rule," end of quote.
Now those are pretty profound words, which I hope we will all think about. In the pope's view, and I agree with him, we are living in a nation and in a world, and the Bible speaks to this issue, in a nation and in a world which worships not love of brothers and sisters, not love of the poor and the sick, but worships the acquisition of money and great wealth. I do not believe that is the country we should be living in.
Money and wealth should serve the people. The people should not have to serve money and wealth. (APPLAUSE)
Throughout human history, there has been endless discussion. It is part of who we are as human beings, people who think and ask questions, endless discussion and debate about the meaning of justice and about the meaning of morality. And I know that here at Liberty University, those are the kinds of discussions you have every day, and those are the kinds of discussions you should be having and the kinds of discussions we should be having all over America.
I would hope, and I conclude with this thought, I would hope very much that as part of that discussion and part of that learning process, some of you will conclude that if we are honest in striving to be a moral and just society, it is imperative that we have the courage to stand with the poor, to stand with working people and when necessary, take on very powerful and wealthy people whose greed, in my view, is doing this country enormous harm.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I would hope Hillary would reach out to folks who disagree with her on key issues in a similar way, i.e. looking for some common ground and shared values.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)this election has been Debbie's attempt to say "trust me, do what I say and you will win, just like we did in 2010, er 2014, er like the way we kicked Rick Scott out of the governor's mansion office, er Kicked out Marco Rubio, er...."
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)It's completely out of the blue!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)JI7
(89,247 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)Isn't getting as much money and as many votes as possible the idea?
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)God help us.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)This bum rap of saying fucking anything to get a nod... is just so unfair.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)A superpac reaching out to female megachurch voters, on behalf of a female candidate, is somehow wrong.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Here's Sanders talking to Liberty University;
Perhaps Clinton might see fit to share what she told Goldman Sachs.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Mohammed was coming to the mountain. Clinton is taking the mountain to Mohammed.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)middle class.
Just like those "jobs of the future" they kept talking about last time, while shipping real jobs overseas.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)neoliberalism can only be sold by promises the pols don't intend to keep--they'd be out of office by the time the bubble popped
you had oil in the mid-80s, S&Ls in the late 80s, IT/telecom early 90s, dotcoms late 90s, energy again in the early 00s, housing and derivatives mid-decade--all of these surefire investments that not only would remake the economy but were exempt from any rules of economics, that THIS time they'd created something unique in human history, something that would never go down
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Color me shocked. Really.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)I'm sure many are.
Proceed, Hillary.
Vinca
(50,261 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)That's how they roll.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)In fact, he has repeatedly made a point of doing so.
MaeScott
(878 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Round and round she goes,
where she stops nobody knows
No wonder I feel like
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Of course he is, the GOP fucked up and left a lot of voters without a candidate. This is a natural reaction to that.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Nor would he downplay his support of Choice or otehr issues.
Clinton.....well, we'll see whether she moves fast and far she moves to the right.
Will she be as passionate and uncompromising on gun control?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)For Potus in the nations history.
You make light of her commitment at the risk of sounding very very ignorant.
All your post is is more speculation presented as the truth.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Will she be a variation of the Dick Morris "family values" Clintons of the mid-1990's or the candidate who tried to portray Sanders as "too conservative" on social issues in the primary?
Stay tuned.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Not been content to be on the sidelines, as many Dems have done to my disappointment. PP endorsed her because she has been doing the work. We'd not have Plan B widely available if she hadn't pushed Obama/ the FDA.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)As long as she doesn't compromise on critical Democratic principles.
This is an incredible opportunity to grow our party and shrink theirs.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm also not sure her full throated defense of Planned Parenthood and Choice are going to be centerpieces of her campaign anymore. Those megachurch Moms aren't particularly liberal on those things. So is she going to be honest with them, mislead them or throw the liberals she was courting under the bus?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I suspect she will argue the issue much the same way as President Obama has done.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I don't know if people are being dense, naïve or disingenuous. Trying to get people to vote for the Democrat is a good thing. What kind of campaign would try to limit its voter base? The more disgruntled conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. who decide to vote for the Democratic nominee the better our chances to keep the WH in Democratic hands.
I applaud Hillary for reaching out to those who think that a Trump presidency would be a disaster for the nation, regardless of their motivation to vote for her.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)If it means selling a different vision of the country and making conflicting promises with the ones she's been making throughout the primary, then no 'reaching out' is not ok.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)A different version of what Trump is offering.
Hillary
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Many of those megachurch moms don't particularly approve of abortion, and t5hey're not bid supoporters of Planned Parenthood and related issues.
Republicans also are not terribly supportive of gun control. remember how worked up Clinton was about that in the primary? Was that just a "phase" for the primary?
They don't like "free stuff."
Is Clinton either going to alter her message to mislead those people, or will she kowtow to them after the election? If she draws them in,and then turns her back on them, there will be blowback. Likewise if she abandons the liberal base of Democrars?
BootinUp
(47,139 posts)emphasizing where they agree with her on things, and in cases where there is more distance arguing for her position based on history, statistics, humanity, etc.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)When he reaches out to disgruntled white rural voters, it is so admirable and cool. Not OK for Clinton. Notice OP cherry picked the "mega-church mom's" quote instead of "white working-class women and suburban women who tend to vote for Republican presidential candidates, but who polls show hold negative views of Mr. Trump". Gotta go for the maximum poutrage factor
BootinUp
(47,139 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)The center is where elections are (and should be) won.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)WTF is wrong with some of you? I'm saying she should appeal to donors and 'megachurch moms' who might be inclined to donate/vote Republican by default but can recognize electing Trump would be a Bad Idea. Nobody suggested the Bushes were the political center or even mentioned them, that's entirely in your head.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And megachurch moms are not exactly pro-choice....and tend not to favor gun control.
How will she reconcile these issues she was so "passionate" about and win these people over? or will she mislead and then betray them? Or will she betray the people who voted for her in the primary because of her promise to push forward strong gun control laws, by executuve action if necessary?
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I assume megachurch Moms are a spectrum, like every other political demographic. Some of them will hold beliefs that are too conservative for me to share, and some of them may be nominally against abortion or gun control but decide that this is outweighed by other issues. I've met lots of conservatives who are quite reasonable people that I disagree with on some topics but respect overall, and I think there are plenty of them that are capable of compromise.
Maybe you should try thinking on some other colors than black and white, because relatively few people are so 100% for or against a particular issue that they're unwilling to make any sort of compromise. Of course, if you are one of those people then it's no wonder that you can't understand why others would be more pragmatic.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I love him to death -- but I would not want to try to get him to politically support anything I believe in, because it would be impossible unless I caved in to him.
I am well aware that life is not binary. But Clinton turns everything and turns it into a mixmaster that is ultimately nothing, because she constantly shifts positions and values.
During the primary Clinton bashed Bernie endlessly because he's more moderate on gun control. There would be steam cominbg out of her ears whenever she talked about guns.
Likewise women's issues. The need to reform crtiminal justice....all that liberal stuff.
Unless she either changes her message and downplays that -- or misleads them -- she is not going to win them over on anything except she is not Trump m-- or that she is more of a hawk than Trump and tougher on crime than Trump.
And she won't even mention corporate power, concentration of wealth or the excessive control of the economy by Big banks.
Don't forget, of she wins she will have to govern. How can she effectively do that if she betrays both staunch Democratic who believed in her liberal stances and/or simultaneously betrays "moderate" conservatives?
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)It seems you are unable to conceive of politics outside of a zero-sum framework. I simply do not share your worldview and think your conclusions are hopelessly inaccurate because you're unable to think in terms other than betrayal and deception. I respectfully submit that you ideological preconceptions are blinding you to reality; just because your best friend is as intransigent as you are about your political attitudes, you assume no compromise is possible.
I do find it strange that you think it's OK for you to be good personal friends with someone whose political positions you presumably find appalling, but if Hillary makes nice with anyone from the GOP she's a sellout or worse. Personally I never expect to get everything I want from every single politician and I don't feel betrayed if some parts of the agenda are compromised because only children expect to get everything they want.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I do not think life is a zero sum game, or that compromise is bad.I would prefer to see sane Republicans and Democrats actually engage in good faith bargaining and compromise.....But the GOP is not inclined to do that.
My friend is not running for president. We choose to joke about our differences rather than hold them against each otehr.
I do not trust Clinton's ever shifting positions. That's the bottom line. She either buries non-answers under torrents of words, or else she says one thing one day and something different on another...or else she says one thing when campaigning, and does something very diffeernt when in office.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Why you argue that way I don't know. But you show no interest in compromise, although you have plenty of rationalizations for your skepticism. I personally prefer politicians who don't shy away from complexity in favor of simplistic answers, which is why I prefer Clinton to Sanders. Sanders loves telling people there are simple easy answers, even though he's been in DC long enough to know otherwise. Clinton's policy prescriptions are more boring but they demonstrate someone who's done their homework. I'll take that over a catchy slogan any day.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We have to pass a program to provide healthcare to the poor. We have to pass laws to guarantee civil rights. We have to end the war in Viet Nam. Going to war in iraq will be a mistake that unsettles the ME, and turn many people against the US......
Shall I go on with "simple slogans" that have set directions for progress?
Yes reality is complex, but clear values and goals are necessary to set directions, if anything positive is ever to get done.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I will put my goals and aspirations up against yours any day. But goals with no delivery plan are no good to anyone. sanders' plans seem half-baked to me. Clinton's plans are more like wholewheat bread than delicious cake, but I have pretty high confidence in her baking skills.
As I've said before, why don't you just vote for Miss World? Those ladies who participate in beauty contests all say they're for an end to suffering, world peace etc., so why don't we make them the leaders of our society? Oh wait, it's because talk is cheap and none of them have a record of any kind to stand on.
I don't need someone to tell the direction for progress, I have a well-developed moral philosophy of my own. I like people with specific concrete plans that display a clear understanding of how things work, because that's how things get done. It's not as exciting as the religious-revival feel of a political rally...and that's a good thing. I don't trust candidates who are long on feel because I don't like having my emotions manipulated for political ends.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Hillary Clinton’s supporters in recent days have been making a furious round of calls to top Bush family donors to try to convince them that she represents their values better than Donald Trump, multiple sources in both parties told POLITICO.
The moves come as Clinton and the Democratic Party try to take advantage of deep unease among establishment Republicans on Wall Street and elsewhere with Trump’s emergence as the presumptive Republican nominee.
Story Continued Below
Top targets for the Clinton team include people like Woody Johnson, Jeb Bush’s former finance chair and the owner of the New York Jets. In recent days, Bush’s brother and father, former presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, have said they plan to skip Trump’s nominating convention.
One person close to Clinton said supporters of the former secretary of state drew up a list of Wall Street donors who supported Jeb Bush and other unsuccessful Republican candidates months ago but wanted to wait until Trump locked down the nomination before beginning to make the calls.
“When you think about it there is no downside to making these calls, including for Hillary herself to make then,” this person said. “They may say no but they will talk to her for half an hour about their view of the world and probably say nice things when asked about her publicly. And they might stay away from Trump.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hilary-clinton-bush-donors-222872#ixzz4875PxqlA
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
KoKo
(84,711 posts)But...we did anticipate it somewhere down the road. She "Jumped the Gun" since her Funding is drying up from the Maxed Out Donors who did her Initial Campaign.
She's gotta get the Bushies that are so chummy with both her and Bill to Chip In Their Share!
This is what we are up against...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)If she simply puts herself out there as "not Trump" and asks for their vote, that's all well and good. If she slips and slides and triangulates and moves to the right in either policy or tone, that's a problem. Of course everyone knows which approach she will take. She'll be duck hunting and praying and won't ever mention the word "abortion" unless the word "compromise" is in the same sentence.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)A "reasonable compromise" will be the new buzzword
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)He can help her fashion a compromise position on just about everything.
