Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BainsBane

(54,796 posts)
56. I hadn't
Thu Dec 15, 2016, 09:59 AM
Dec 2016

It's a good article. Thanks for linking to it.

I did find it hard breaking to watch the video embedded in the article. Now that she's been defeated, it reinforces the author's argument.

Question about weak candidates. [View all] BainsBane Dec 2016 OP
Definitely only Hillary. She lacks that certain je ne sais quois... Hekate Dec 2016 #1
She just doesn't have the "Presidential look." pnwmom Dec 2016 #6
It is sexism. duffyduff Dec 2016 #58
Maybe ageism too! Many here are saying... Joe941 Dec 2016 #68
That's what would be said meadowlark5 Dec 2016 #101
haha, indeed. Fast Walker 52 Dec 2016 #121
I suggest that all of the candidates be entered into the Olympic weightlifting competition. TexasTowelie Dec 2016 #2
He was up against an even weaker opponent. Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #88
No, or at least not opposed to their opponents. But I already had a long discussion with you about JCanete Dec 2016 #3
Let me understand this BainsBane Dec 2016 #12
No, what? I'm sorry, I thought I was including Hillary as not being a weak candidate, again, JCanete Dec 2016 #79
If your question is whether I think corporate ownership influences BainsBane Dec 2016 #100
Point is I'm not trying to refight the primaries with you, nor am I trying to turn this into a JCanete Dec 2016 #110
Well, as I said in the other thread BainsBane Dec 2016 #111
This bizarre obsession with bernie is weakest of them all. dionysus Dec 2016 #117
Yeah, I'm the one totally obsessed with Bernie BainsBane Dec 2016 #119
THIS!!!!! I don't understand why so many focus on blaming democrats when AgadorSparticus Dec 2016 #123
Carter was the anti-establishment guy of his time. So, "no". Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #4
Kinda sorta. His background was similar to a number of other Presidents. pnwmom Dec 2016 #7
New York is what got him in.... Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #84
I think a lot of these people BainsBane Dec 2016 #109
Carter was a conservative Democrat of his time BainsBane Dec 2016 #14
This country tends to vote Republican with exceptions.... Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #81
there are many undecideds/independents who tend to alternate party choices. SleeplessinSoCal Dec 2016 #5
but Clinton was just plain "weak"? BainsBane Dec 2016 #15
swift boating isn't irrelevant. SleeplessinSoCal Dec 2016 #73
None of them were weak candidates! MarianJack Dec 2016 #8
Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #9
There's a difference between seeing someone as "damaged" baldguy Dec 2016 #16
Go back and re-read my post, since you obviously didn't get it the first time. BlueProgressive Dec 2016 #20
You don't think there are "liberals" and "Democrats" who believe RW bullshit? baldguy Dec 2016 #29
Oh, you're saying you believe the right-wing smears you say you've seen posted on this site? BlueProgressive Dec 2016 #30
You've just exposed yourself. 'bye. baldguy Dec 2016 #33
This message was self-deleted by its author BlueProgressive Dec 2016 #38
So the GOP bullshit about the losing candidates above BainsBane Dec 2016 #17
Hillary Clinton was by far the strongest candidate. betsuni Dec 2016 #10
Depends on how you define "weak" FBaggins Dec 2016 #11
A fatally flawed candidate who beat 14 Republican politicians.. JHan Dec 2016 #26
That's certainly his spin. Are you saying that you buy it? FBaggins Dec 2016 #44
That's not spin. JHan Dec 2016 #49
Were Gore, Kerry, Carter woolldog Dec 2016 #13
and Gore and Kerry were good retail politicians? BainsBane Dec 2016 #19
Am I concerned with retail politics? woolldog Dec 2016 #23
This myth that Sanders was pure is outright stupid. Kurt Eichenwald SAW the oppo on Sanders and the BlueCaliDem Dec 2016 #52
I f'ing hate Sanders. woolldog Dec 2016 #60
Sanders is an extremely good retail politician, which is why he has the highest approval rating in karynnj Dec 2016 #61
No, they weren't. And they lost anyway. Hillary, on the other hand, handily beat her opponent EffieBlack Dec 2016 #25
Kerry Gore and Carter didn't have the luxury of running against Trump. woolldog Dec 2016 #28
Keep thinking that... EffieBlack Dec 2016 #37
"Losing to Trump is a whole other level of incompetence" FBaggins Dec 2016 #47
So What other blasts from the past are we going to use to see who would beat Trump? JHan Dec 2016 #53
The lesson for me is don't nominate bad candidates woolldog Dec 2016 #70
Yeah that's your view... JHan Dec 2016 #71
I don't disagree with you woolldog Dec 2016 #75
Here are the facts BainsBane Dec 2016 #108
Huh? woolldog Dec 2016 #112
Well said BainsBane Dec 2016 #97
Hillary beat her opponent? FBaggins Dec 2016 #46
Three million votes, and those are only the ones tht got got counted and not "lost" somehow Hekate Dec 2016 #72
Did those candidates have a pages long list of reasons the public may not trust them? TCJ70 Dec 2016 #18
They also didn't have a 25-year witchhunt, tens of millions of dollars and an entire media industry EffieBlack Dec 2016 #24
which is precisely why the GOP dedicated so much of its resources to trying to BainsBane Dec 2016 #32
You aren't wrong...besides the last half of your last sentence IMO... TCJ70 Dec 2016 #42
Notorious HRC! BainsBane Dec 2016 #51
Kerry was attacked since 1971! karynnj Dec 2016 #66
So relative electoral success BainsBane Dec 2016 #31
I love you EffieBlack Dec 2016 #39
She was strong in the expected places...weak where it mattered... TCJ70 Dec 2016 #40
I don't dispute that the propaganda was effective BainsBane Dec 2016 #45
No one - even here in Vermont - ever thought Bernie would do anywhere near as well as he did karynnj Dec 2016 #67
That "enthusiasm" assumption is certainly popular among the media BainsBane Dec 2016 #78
You can have a smaller group of very enthusiastic people vs a larger group that vote, but are not as karynnj Dec 2016 #96
Bernie lost the primary due to one reason and one reason only. He did not execute a sound strategy. Exilednight Dec 2016 #113
Yes they were all weak too. They had some strengths obviously. el_bryanto Dec 2016 #21
A fair and thoughtful response. BainsBane Dec 2016 #34
Just Hillary. EffieBlack Dec 2016 #22
I just can't quite put my figure on what it is BainsBane Dec 2016 #35
A 59% unfavorable rating among registered voters? Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2016 #102
Just Hillary. I think it's because she possibly owns frilly items of clothing. JHan Dec 2016 #27
pantsuits BainsBane Dec 2016 #36
True...... JHan Dec 2016 #41
It's probably what the pantsuits and frilly things BainsBane Dec 2016 #43
don't know if you've read this.. JHan Dec 2016 #54
I hadn't BainsBane Dec 2016 #56
Hillary inherited a whole Clinton mythology. Orsino Dec 2016 #48
I think you nailed it BainsBane Dec 2016 #50
No Gothmog Dec 2016 #55
Anybody who says that is full of shit. duffyduff Dec 2016 #57
None were/are weak. All had flaws Arazi Dec 2016 #59
They were all excellent candidates, but they weren't all good campaigners, IMO. mtnsnake Dec 2016 #62
just hillary. the rest has penises. La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #63
It took the addition of Russia to beat Hillary in the EC cry baby Dec 2016 #64
I'd asked the same question about "flawed" candidates mcar Dec 2016 #65
and requires no explanation BainsBane Dec 2016 #77
Yes mcar Dec 2016 #82
A loaded question I'm happy to disarm. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #69
3 million votes Hekate Dec 2016 #74
67.9998911234 quintillion votes. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #90
The other candidates lost the electoral college too, and all except one the popular vote. BainsBane Dec 2016 #98
If by "weak candidates" is meant candidates who did not win, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #76
Gore and Kerry melman Dec 2016 #80
Not weak, but relatively untalented politicians who had been insiders for too long geek tragedy Dec 2016 #83
I don't actually think this is fair, to Clinton or these other candidates. Because... JCanete Dec 2016 #87
better qualified to govern doesn't make someone a good candidate. geek tragedy Dec 2016 #89
come on...Bush was a good candidate? Better than gore or Kerry? It takes help to make JCanete Dec 2016 #91
2000 Bush was a better candidate than Gore, absolutely. geek tragedy Dec 2016 #92
how? If the media makes up the rules about what makes you an effective candidate, then yes JCanete Dec 2016 #93
the ability to handle the media is a big key geek tragedy Dec 2016 #94
well, thanks for this discussion....no shit. The question remains, do Republicans actually JCanete Dec 2016 #95
media: steely-eyed skepticism for Dems, starry-eyed wonder for Repubs emulatorloo Dec 2016 #103
I think by the time a candidate wins the nomination, that candidate has real strengths. Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #85
IMO yes. Mondale and Dukakis even more so. Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #86
Yes, Yes and only in his reelection campaign. Exilednight Dec 2016 #99
In the current bizarro world, Hillary is weaker than the guy she destroyed in the primary. nt LexVegas Dec 2016 #104
Right? BainsBane Dec 2016 #105
Clinton is a female and so it is acceptable to attack her Gothmog Dec 2016 #106
Not very, no, and arguably yes, I would say. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Dec 2016 #107
No, just HRC jack_krass Dec 2016 #114
I'd say the campaigns of the first three had significant weaknesses as well. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #115
In ways. They lost. Being a weak candidate does not mean they'd be a bad president. dionysus Dec 2016 #116
They and their opponents all had much better favorables than Hillary and Trump jfern Dec 2016 #118
Yet lost by wider margins BainsBane Dec 2016 #120
Gore didn't really lose jfern Dec 2016 #124
We aren't saying she ran a weak campaign because she lost hellofromreddit Dec 2016 #122
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Question about weak candi...»Reply #56