2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSuggestion for HRC for the convention and the fall campaign: Please don't listen to Bill.
Bill was a two-term president who did a few good things. I'll give him his due there.
But we can assume that every single bit of strategic advice he will give will be based on the worst-possible idea:
The idea that HRC should do nothing at all to reach out to progressives, especially those who backed her chief rival in the primaries, and then simply DEMAND the support of those people.
He will argue that this worked for him in 1992, so she mustn't under any circumstances deviate from what "worked" then.
But this is not 1992. The political situation in this country now, twenty-four years later, is completely different.
Victory in this election depends not on the Democratic nominee being seen as a person facing down progressives, but engaging with them and winning their loyalty to THIS party. The most recent poll shows the Green candidate at 7%. While that sounds small it is three times higher than the vote share that party received in 2000, its previous high-water mark. If we are to elect HRC as president in the fall, we will have to find a way to win over at least half of the people currently supporting the Greens, especially since it's likely that a lot of the people currently voting Libertarian will switch back to the GOP ticket if the race is still close near election day, as it probably will be.
To cut into the Green vote(or, at a bare minimum to prevent it from getting any larger-and that is important, because we will have no chance of winning should the Green vote rise above 10%)HRC needs to make clear that she is listening to those who warn about corporate dominance, that she cares about economic justice as well as social justice(and realizes that the two justice struggkes, while distinct, intersect and are NOT in conflict with each other, and that she will show restraint in the further use of military intervention in places like the Arab/Muslim world. I think the former Secretary personally understands this, but that Bill will be continually trying to push her in bad directions on this.
Yes, there is a case for backing HRC in order to stop Trump. That case will be persuasive to many, but it will not be enough to put together a clear electoral majority on its own. To do that, HRC and her advisors need to actively reach out to those who SHOULD be Democrats but who have not yet established their own personal loyalty to this party, and without whom we may well lose.
HRC has a mind of her own. She showed the capacity, in the primaries, to be open to moving past the assumptions many of us felt constrained her sense of the possible. She needs to listen to the most progressive and open-minded of her own original supporters, especially the many who agreed with much of what her main primary opponent said but felt her to be more qualified and more electable, to connect with those who did not back her then but can be won to her side now. Those people can be won over with a positive program that says "I heard you, I honor what you fight for, and in whatever way I can be I am with you". They can't be won over by simply saying "You HAVE to/Trump Be Evil/The Court".
So it is crucial that HRC NOT listen to those who would tell her to use the tactics that may have worked in the past, but which can't work now.
This is offered in the wish to help contribute to a solid, transformative margin of victory in the fall.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TwilightZone
(25,426 posts)10% is a pipe dream. 2% might be a pipe dream.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If that holds up in the fall, we've got trouble.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)TwilightZone
(25,426 posts)then they disappear.
Johnson was polling at 8% in 2012, he got 1%.
Stein was polling in the mid single digits. She got 0.35%.
There is little reason to believe this cycle is going to be any different than the last five.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Stein would be massively beating expectations if she gets a tenth that.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)TwilightZone
(25,426 posts)"Neither Johnson nor Stein is guaranteed a ballot slot in all states, but one or both will appear in several key competitive states, including Florida, Colorado and Ohio."
National numbers are meaningless if they're not on the ticket in all 50 states, no?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)They're candidacies amount to little more than a "protest vote" from people who fail to understand that only ONE of TWO candidates actually have a chance at becoming the president.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)IMO, Stein won't get that much because she isn't on the ballot in enough states. Now, I heard Johnson was closer to being on the ballet in all 50 states. He'll take more from Trump.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Hillary Clinton is smart. She listened to her campaign advisers. Finally, Bill, while you only give him slight credit, is still revered by many people that recall very clearly how their lives improved while he was in the WH. Bill issued no ultimatum to any voting block. Now to this campaign, Hillary will reach out to voters that did not support her in the primaries. But she also has to deal with the people that have actually been supporting her. To bend over and take one just to make Sanders supporters happy won't sit to well with her supporters. Sure sounds like somebody's supporters want to be begged into voting for her, or maybe even bribed. Ain't happening.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The Libertarian vote, though, could reach 2%.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Even go so far as to make him her VP choice. Can't go wrong there.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)Too old, too male, too white, too much like...every P or VP but one since 1789.
The VP choice can be some of those things, but jeez, not all of those thingsem. We need to expand here.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'd say it should be someone from the region of his supporters(and it wouldn't have to be a current officeholder or an officeholder at all)but not him. He'd have to give up too much independence and it would raise issues to have the running mate be older than the nominee.
TwilightZone
(25,426 posts)Did you forget that she ran for president in 2008? She quite clearly learned from that experience and is adapting accordingly.
Why would you think she's going to revert to tactics from 1992, a race she wasn't even in, when she has an experience that is much more recent to draw from?
Oh, almost forgot. She was in the Senate for a while, too.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)
brooklynite
(94,302 posts)...if there's a third Party surge, it'll be the Libertarians. Progressives will be voting for Clinton.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If I didn't, I wouldn't have bothered starting this thread.
TwilightZone
(25,426 posts)You're assuming she's going to adopt decades-old strategies because her husband tells her to.
As for why you started the thread, it couldn't be more obvious.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There is no other intention here.
It is not a covert anti-HRC thing.
She's going to be the nominee and I accept that.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Please convince me that you're not just picking scabs. I want to believe you but there is a history of Hillary bashing.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)My intent here is simply to call for HRC not to follow the usual path the party follows after the convention...the path of starting to blur the differences and of not unashamedly defending our core values when the other side attacks them.
There has been no hostility towards or even criticism of the candidate in my OP or anything else I've posted, and I've worked hard for a long time now to avoid stepping out of any bounds regarding my views of her.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)And I am giving her credit for being willing to listen and think on her own.
So...she was unwilling to listen and think on her own before??? Seriously???
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)
quickesst
(6,280 posts).... that Bill Clinton was put into a cryogenic chamber and frozen in 2000. If that is the case then I can understand how he would hold the exact same views that he held then. 
LuvLoogie
(6,909 posts)I recommend reading the whole speech:
http://www.wellesley.edu/events/commencement/archives/1969commencement/studentspeech
My entrance into the world of so-called "social problems"
Must be with quiet laughter, or not at all.
The hollow men of anger and bitterness
The bountiful ladies of righteous degradation
All must be left to a bygone age.
And the purpose of history is to provide a receptacle
For all those myths and oddments
Which oddly we have acquired
And from which we would become unburdened
To create a newer world
To translate the future into the past.
We have no need of false revolutions
In a world where categories tend to tyrannize our minds
And hang our wills up on narrow pegs.
It is well at every given moment to seek the limits in our lives.
And once those limits are understood
To understand that limitations no longer exist.
Earth could be fair. And you and I must be free
Not to save the world in a glorious crusade
Not to kill ourselves with a nameless gnawing pain
But to practice with all the skill of our being
The art of making possible.
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)Wow!
Lyric
(12,675 posts)that Bill will influence her too much? Women are strong enough to take the good advice and leave the bad, and she has said often enough that she disagreed with a lot of what Bill did while in office. But it wasn't her place to push, just like it isn't his place. Advice is always welcome. But I think we can all agree that Hillary Clinton is tough enough to forge her own path forward. I am rather hoping that she fixes a lot of what her husband's Congress broke, starting with that dreadful welfare reform bill. It has done nothing but increase deep poverty...the kind so awful that it doesn't even show up in statistics anymore, because those families break apart and disappear.
The numbers that look good are a lie. Ignore the numbers and examine the PEOPLE, and it becomes clear that our welfare system is atrociously inadequate. The checks are tiny, and by LAW can never get larger, even if you have more children. I got TANF for about a year after my son was born. I had no income at all, I was medically barred from working due to birth complications, and I got $226 per month to keep me and a newborn alive. That was barely enough to buy his diapers, his onesies, and his baby toiletries. Cloth diapers caused a horrific rash that wouldn't go away no matter what we tried, and even cheap disposables broke him out. We had to buy these Pampers "Rash Guard" diapers that cost a fortune, but nothing else would work until he got older and his skin got tougher. And we went through 5 tubes of Desitin a week. Poor baby. That $226 didn't last long, and ALL of it went to baby care items, medicines, and toiletries.
Under AFDC, I would have gotten a much more generous check, without the humiliating and invasive "fraud prevention" and "marriage promotion" tactics we were forced to endure every month. Some social workers are genuinely kind people who want to help, but in my personal experience, they all tend to be jaded, suspicious, judgemental, tactless, and verbally cruel. I have so much "welfare office" anxiety now that I can't make myself go anymore. DU'er Rhythm goes as my designated proxy and takes care of my SNAP and Medicaid recertifications for me, now. I probably qualify for TANF again because I am disabled, but I am NEVER going through the hell of trying to apply for it again. It's so humiliating and degrading...the pittance I'd get just isn't worth it.
Sorry for rambling. Can't sleep, stressed out about bills, counting the hours until we have some money again, you know how it goes.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)My wife and I(she passed in 2004)went through some hard times too, mainly tied to her health issues.
May we "heal, repair and transform the world"
as Michael Lerner puts it) so that no one else has to go through what you've been through.
William769
(55,142 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's just about calling on her to follow her best instincts, as everyone should call on every candidate they support to do.
This is a positive thread.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #38)
Donald Ian Rankin This message was self-deleted by its author.
BootinUp
(47,053 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Her Sister
(6,444 posts)Thanks for posting this!
Response to Ken Burch (Original post)
Post removed
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)left in the Democratic Party. Almost all the major things the progressive wing pushes for (universal healthcare, stronger regulation on oligarchic , predatory capitalism and banks, free or vastly reduced tuition at tertiary level, and a non hawkish military stance,etc) already exist in almost EVERY other western, advanced nation. There is nothing radical whatsoever about those issues. The country has drifted so far right that Obama himself has said he would be considered a moderate centre right Republican in the 1980's.
The radical left is almost non existent percentage wise in the US.
Call it whatever you want but don't play that insipid game. You know damn well to whom I refer and nothing you say can convince me otherwise.
In fact you just reinforce my belief.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie ran because people who HATE conservatives and conservatism wanted him to run-because this election would not have dealt with the real issues facing this country if he hadn't.. It wouldn't have hurt the right if Bernie's campaign hadn't happened.
And there really isn't any "radical left"-at least not in the McCarthyite sense you want to imply. There are simply people who realize the country is in trouble and that nothing short of major changes will correct the situation.
Cary
(11,746 posts)That's highly insulting and you are condescending.
Some people supported Sanders. Most didn't. It's not a litmus test. Supporting Sanders doesn't make you better or more progressive. In reality we had two great candidates. Both had pluses and minuses. I'm tired of the ideological nonsense. It's a load of crap.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And don't redbait Sanders supporters with terms like "the radical left".
The much-stronger-than expected showing Bernie made shows that the ideas his campaign championed are rapidly gaining popularity and becoming mainstream.
Cary
(11,746 posts)You don't have to like it.
"Red baiting" and "McCarthyite" is not accurate. You're trying to retaliate. But you're a dollar short and a day late.
I asked you explain why I need to care about the radical left. I asked you to convince me. You failed, again.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Response to That Guy 888 (Reply #52)
Post removed
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)i.e. Sanders supporters.
Sorry, off the top of my head, if Marriage Equality had been the result of "being prudent, careful, considerate, respectful, disciplined, ..." then there would have been several small steps including civil union. Protesters for marriage equality were not polite and (I think) shamed Democratic politicians into supporting them. It was unfortunate that some of the people who worked for Marriage Equality didn't support "the Dreamers" when they tried to embarrass Democratic Leaders at a ceremony honoring Marriage Equality. Are more police officers wearing body cams because of "prudent, careful, considerate, respectful, disciplined," action or because of protests by Black Lives Matter and others? What they showed me is being polite and waiting your turn doesn't pay off in politics.
Hmm.. let me guess, something like: "Hey you losers BS is done. Get with the program if you don't want trump filling vacancies on the SCOTUS!!one!"
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)
robbedvoter
(28,290 posts)(they couldn't get Warren). A lot of good people joined in and it was mostly a protest candidacy. Later the 🐘 🐀🔩 infiltrated and the nature of things started to change.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)He is responsible for where we are now. We can use a whole lot less of neoliberal, "Third Way", DLC bullshit.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)We have had two Presidents and it's bern 16 years since he was President. His successor is almost single-handedly to blame for where we got to in 2009, and we have Obama to thank for what's been recovered since then.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)They always poll well way out but nobody other than a tiny fraction of a minuscule sliver ever ends up voting for them.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)robbedvoter
(28,290 posts)Speaking for the 16 million plus voters here
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)One of the 16 million voters!
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Citations are more persuasive than rhetoric, I often find.
MFM008
(19,803 posts)hes better giving a speech at a convention.
She knows him better than anyone and his weakness.
robbedvoter
(28,290 posts)(he could have won by even more, especially in Florida where Bill was/is adored). Lieberman was Devine's idea too. Bill's approval was 67% at the time. Some of us still recall Peace and Prosperity - and want to hear what he has to say. For those of you who don't... I'll stop here to be nice.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Bill and Hillary are gliding back into the White House on a golden sled. Champagne for everyone.
