2016 Postmortem

JCanete

(5,272 posts)

87. I don't actually think this is fair, to Clinton or these other candidates. Because...

Thu Dec 15, 2016, 03:14 PM

Dec 2016

ALL OF THEM WERE WAY BETTER THAN THEIR OPPONENTS.

The fact that Democratic Candidates have to be 50 times more perfect than their opponents, speaks loudly to what is actually going on in America, which is massive corporate influence on our elections. It is a worsening condition that continues to move us economically to the right, and as a nice little bonus, keeps us divided over issues of race, religion and gender, not to mention less and less educated on Constitutional matters and American Idealism.

I do think it says something about the continued attempt of Democrats to be cozy with big corporate interests though. It tells us that that is a strategy that will prop us up into a slight minority status in congress and the Senate in perpetuity.

Where we have been weak for some time, is in our unwillingness, due to political expedience, to take on the very interests that ultimately tank our prospects. We keep helping to take the scorpion across the river and it keeps stinging us just as we get to the other side.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

124 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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