Where was the sympathy for Bush voters

[karynnj]

98. I spoke of what Brock did to Bernie in 2015 -- you are speaking of Sanders comments

I think you are referring to comments said after the election. These are two different things. I was saying that Brock's tactics offended me because they are sleazy.

You are entitled to your perception of Sanders. You are also free to think that, if not for Bernie, Trump would not have used the SAME MESSAGE HE USED WHEN HE ANNOUNCED to entice the frustrated, unhappy Reagan Democrats. You can go on, thinking HRC ran a completely flawless campaign - which NO ONE has done. As to a general election opponent using a criticism from the primaries - please give me a link to even one thread that Gore "lost" because of Bradley tying him to Bill Clinton - as Bush did; or the Kerry lost because Dean called him a flip flopper; or Obama not winning bigger due to Clinton saying that unlike her and McCain, he was not ready for the 3 am call. (In fact the Clinton attack is worse than anything Bernie, Howard, or Bill said of their primary opponents. Bernie, in the primary, in one of the debates very positively compared Clinton to all the Republicans.)

HRC made a huge error that I still do not understand in giving all the Goldman/Saks etc speeches. She did not need the money and did not use it to fund her campaigns. She KNEW she was very likely running for President. Sanders, as an opponent, mentioning that did not "give" Trump anything. Trump was clearly going to use it - because he was using the anger that no bankers were tried for the 2008 collapse they caused even in his announcement. In fact, one thing that did hurt HRC was that she took a strong stand against TPP, but spoke positively about it on one of the leaked tapes. I would imagine that if Sanders did not run and if O'Malley generated as little support as he did, HRC would not have taken a clear position against the TPP.

Let's speculate how that would have played out. HRC would either have come into the GE with the comments against it she made or she might have ignored TPP. Trump would have come in ranting against it and all other trade deals. You still end up with Trump blaming all jobs lost on trade deals - something that many here on DU believe - ignoring that many jobs left the rust belt for the non union South first and that globalization, with or without trade deals exasperated this. It also ignores that technology has eliminated many jobs.

Here I disagree with BOTH Sanders and HRC -- and of course, Trump, and see that trade deals could be the only solution if coupled with legislation that helps the "losers" from some of the profit of the "winners" of the deals. Needless to say my opinion is a VERY minority position on DU. If you want to see why this was a valuable to Trump, consider that many, less politically involved or aware people, shared the DU condemnation of all trade deals. Trump, who had no real record for anything, called them all bad deals, that he would tear up and he would put up 35% tariffs! Against that demagoguery, Trump spoke of Bill Clinton signing NAFTA into existence and noted that HRC said that said TPP was the Gold Standard - ignoring the actual words HRC said when the TPP was not even completely negotiated.

As to Bernie, Bernie advocated for things he has advocated for for 30 years - it is projection to say he was superficial and that he was interested in his image. This was not something given to him by a focus group! His economic injustice was not just something focus groups suggested could counter the issue of systemic social injustice that organizations like Black Lives Matter managed to actually get people to think about. For one, it is a false choice that you speaking of one meant you were not concerned about the other.


You ignore that HRC's team made the decision that to win the best path was to disqualify a man, who should have already been disqualified. You can ignore that some on HRC's team had planned to end with a few weeks of uplifting, positive messages. In retrospect, they did something very unusual, they made HRC into an attack dog in the debates. I admit, that like everyone here, I thought HRC won as she slammed Trump.

In retrospect, after someone mentioned it to me and I had time to reflect on it, I do not think that was a good strategy. HRC had a problem with likability - as did Trump. Both, in the debates got in slams that their team cheered - and the other side hated. Making her an attack dog does not make her more likable to people on the fence. An alternative would have been the 2008 HRC of the first few debates, when she was 100% comfortable. She was then the HRC that many here saw - very smart, knowledgeable, somewhat witty and human. That Hillary might have changed minds on whether she was likable enough.

Bernie did not cause HRC's favorable numbers to fall - he entered the race in May 2015, her numbers started collapsing in March 2015 when the email stories came out and for many reawakened negative characteristics that she was seen to have in the 1990s. Obviously, her inner circle did not see those negatives as suggesting she needed to avoid anything that aggravated that and that she needed to really do something big to change that perception.