Clinton Interview

[Minimalist]

It's clear to me that folks who did not feel her characterization was true of themselves nevertheless felt maligned.

So, yes, she was wrong.  To emphasize her wrongness, I note she lost the election.


I noted the plethora of Trump placards in my area.  Are they all 'deplorables' ?  Hell no, I grew up here, I've lived here continuously for almost 25 years and the majority of my neighbors who had Trump signage on their yards are not deplorable.  I'm not sure too many of them gave a rat's ass about the characterization, but I was greatly offended at the broad and sweeping stereotyping of people I know personally.

And yet I still voted for her . . . .

What was your choice?


That's why YOU are not deplorable and they are!

[TheBeardedDude]

It's clear to me that folks who did not feel her characterization was true of themselves nevertheless felt maligned.

So, yes, she was wrong.  To emphasize her wrongness, I note she lost the election.


I noted the plethora of Trump placards in my area.  Are they all 'deplorables' ?  Hell no, I grew up here, I've lived here continuously for almost 25 years and the majority of my neighbors who had Trump signage on their yards are not deplorable.  I'm not sure too many of them gave a rat's ass about the characterization, but I was greatly offended at the broad and sweeping stereotyping of people I know personally.

And yet I still voted for her . . . .

What was your choice?


That's why YOU are not deplorable and they are!

And she wasn't saying every person who will vote for Trump is in the basket, but they were at least complacent if they supported the Mango Mussolini.

[Whateverist]

Yeah, I'd prefer that she keep her negatives down and her positives up.  You know, get elected.

I'd prefer FBI directors not release statements that make it seem like she was under a new investigation. You know, stay out of the political sphere as part of the judicial system and not inadvertently sway public opinion and cost someone an election.

I'd prefer conservative pundits, politicians, and blow-hards not spend 3 decades trying character assassination attempt after attempt to discredit a political rival, including (but not limited to) investigation after investigation into "scandals" that were anything but. 

It was a bad political move, probably shouldn't have said it. But that comment didn't cost her the election.

I hear you.  I voted for her and she didn't say anything that alienated me.  However, whether or not she will, I'm willing to consider the possibility that the way she campaigned was not strategic.  Democrats -or someone that isn't a complete atrocity- needs to learn how to win an election.

I'm also pretty sure that she isn't the answer any more.  I hope not to need to give her my vote again.

[vorlon13]

It was a bad political move, sure, but my point is that she just said what the rest of us were thinking in that case. Most people say that's what they want out of their politicians, but I guess those same people don't like it if that politician is a woman and/or if it is something said about them.

Yeah, I'd prefer that she keep her negatives down and her positives up.  You know, get elected.

I'm reading HRC now. Starts off with a post mortem of the 2008 primary loss to Obama, and I can assure you grim reading that is since I'm reading it after her subsequent loss in the 2016 Presidential Campaign. Jesus, what an awful slog wading through that part of the book was. (but damn, I didn't realize what a GREAT candidate Obama was in 2008. Hell, "Good" yeah, that was evident, but Obama out of the box was really fantastic at it. My oft used phrase "taut, efficient campaign" kept springing to mind.

Additionally, the authors give more detail in how the Clinton Enemies List works. (and don't kid yourself, ALL politicians have them, so Bill and Hillary are not unique in having their own)

The "CEL" is large and complex enough to merit paid staff being hired to manage and organize it. Some aspects of it's implementation seem to have severely damaged Hillary's 2016 campaign. During 2008, all members of the Congressional Black Caucus were given a pass for supporting Obama. No one else with a D behind their name in state or national offices were given a pass for supporting Obama and were dumped on to the CEL as a result, regardless of their ability to 'impede' subsequent goals of the Clintons. This explains the tepid and flaccid support Hillary received from so many of her fellow Democrats. There being no way off the CEL once on it, support for Hillary was going to be wan as there won't be any 'spliff or boodle' coming their way if she should win, lest it help her greatly be seen as a benefit (to her especially) to do so.

This problem is EXTREMELY underappreciated now. Areas that went like gangbusters for Obama that subsequently went limp for Hillary certainly look inevitable now knowing how the CEL (self)inflicted a massive wound on Hillary's 2016 run. Easy enough for dems in those areas to offer lip service to her campaign, but the lack of enthusiasm (a direct result of being put on the CEL) was picked up by staffers, campaigners and THE PUBLIC. The lack of actual leg work in those areas was a significant blow to a campaign that (incorrectly due to Robby Mook's flawed analytics) didn't feel they needed it.

[vorlon13]

It's clear to me that folks who did not feel her characterization was true of themselves nevertheless felt maligned.

So, yes, she was wrong.  To emphasize her wrongness, I note she lost the election.


I noted the plethora of Trump placards in my area.  Are they all 'deplorables' ?  Hell no, I grew up here, I've lived here continuously for almost 25 years and the majority of my neighbors who had Trump signage on their yards are not deplorable.  I'm not sure too many of them gave a rat's ass about the characterization, but I was greatly offended at the broad and sweeping stereotyping of people I know personally.

And yet I still voted for her . . . .

What was your choice?


That's why YOU are not deplorable and they are!

I volunteered with my neighbors here during the 2011 Flood. Damn hard for me to characterize any of them as deplorable if I worked with them placing goddam sand bags.

[Whateverist]

Very depressing. Thanks for slogging through and sending back your report. I have no stomach for it.

[Clueless Morgan]

It was wrong campaigning-wise thought true enough otherwise.

It was a bad political move, sure, but my point is that she just said what the rest of us were thinking in that case.

And what, post-election, has at least partially borne out by the white-supremacist groups, KKK and alt-righters openly supporting Agent Orange and making public comments about how they're pleased he didn't openly denounce them...

And let's keep in mind that she wasn't saying that ALL Trump supporters were in that basket:

"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" Clinton said. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

She said the other half of Trump's supporters "feel that the government has let them down" and are "desperate for change."

http://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-...ranscript/

There's a third camp of people: The die-hard, hardline Republicans who were never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to vote for anyone on the Democratic ticket simply because they were a Democrat.

I remember my dad sitting with a friend at Starbucks and they were each saying things like "I don't like Trump but there's no fuckin' way in hell I'm voting Hillary." There was no way they were going to vote Bernie, either - they were Trumpkins from the time he won the primary on.

I'm also pretty sure that she isn't the answer any more.  I hope not to need to give her my vote again.

If she runs again she'll be, what? 73/74?  I know there's not exactly an upper age limit on candidates, but there are requirements of the job that aren't exactly kind to the geriatric population.

[Redbeard The Pink]

She made the mistake of thinking that the 'murrican public wanted a responsible adult in the White House instead of a fucking assclown.

*cough*

You know she won the popular vote, right? She lost the electoral college chess match by running a systematic failure of a crooked-ass campaign from day one. Technically speaking, the majority of the public chose her, not the assclown. I lived in a swing state at the time, so I pretty much had to vote for her, but the fact is she lost that election because she became so convinced she had won it already that she thought it didn't matter what she did in the process.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, it's kinda the subtext of the interview, how she took some things for granted.

I still think the "basket of delorables" comment was her biggest blunder, though.

But was she wrong?

Politically, it didn't work. Speaking the truth rarely does in that arena. But that statement cost her votes, no doubt.

---

It was wrong campaigning-wise thought true enough otherwise.

It was a bad political move, sure, but my point is that she just said what the rest of us were thinking in that case. Most people say that's what they want out of their politicians, but I guess those same people don't like it if that politician is a woman and/or if it is something said about them.

Or on the other hand, she alienated undecideds who liked Trump for reasons other than his blatant bigotry?

Frontal attacks carry their own risks which must be judged finely. I think she misjudged that moment, myself; rather than practice exclusion, I think her wiser move was continuing with her "I understand the frustrations" trope and offer an open palm rather than a very public backhand.

---

What was your choice?


That's why YOU are not deplorable and they are!

And she wasn't saying every person who will vote for Trump is in the basket, but they were at least complacent if they supported the Mango Mussolini.

You and I get what she was saying. It was how she said it that made that statement so grating. It seems to me like she was reaching for a soundbite, but instead got bitten soundly by it. No matter whether she was on-target or not, she misjudged the feelings such a phrase would arouse.

You're right that Comey's letter was interference. I think she might have overcome that had she not already alienated so many possible voters.

---

[...] but the fact is she lost that election because she became so convinced she had won it already that she thought it didn't matter what she did in the process.

I think this complacency is what did her in.

[Tiberius]

P.S.  The result is all that matters.

Not in the context of the discussion it's not. You can't make a blanket claim that the American public didn't want a responsible adult as President when the turnout was 54.7% and Trump won 46.1% of THAT. So Trump got 25% of the eligible population to vote for him. Clinton got 26%. 45% of the country didn't vote, for whatever reason (and there are many complicated ones).

Who the country wants for President, and who gets elected President are not necessarily the same person. Our democracy is broken, we know that, so I don't see why you try to pretend that everything worked perfectly and Trump had the support of most of the country. He didn't. Neither did Clinton, btw.