[RD] Prevarication will set you Aside

[BvBPL]

Speaking at the Code 2017 conference in May, Hilary Clinton said doesn’t think her actions lead to her defeat in last year’s US general election.

…I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that’s not why I lost.

Clinton instead blamed her loss on Comey’s October surprise that the investigation into her private email server containing state information was ongoing.

Clinton refuses to acknowledge that it was her opacity that caused the email server investigation to linger on. Just as it was her refusal to voluntarily release information about Whitewater that led to the appointment of a special prosecutor and her husband’s subsequent impeachment. Clinton seems unaware that her woes were the result of her decisions not to be candid and upfront with the public.

Clinton will be releasing a new book soon that she says will set the record straight. Too little, too late for being honest and proactive.

 

[Kyriakos]

If you are running against a monkey, and you still lose, then your actions certainly are to blame for the loss...
As Bernie put it: "it should never have been even close".

 

[Lexicus]

Clinton was treated very unfairly and held to sexist double standards. That said it is her fault she lost.

 

[Commodore]

If you are running against a monkey, and you still lose, then your actions certainly are to blame for the loss...
As Bernie put it: "it should never have been even close".

This really is all that needs to be said on the matter. Even if one subscribes to the ridiculous idea that she was treated unfairly (she wasn't), it is still her fault for giving the media so much ammunition to use against her.

Also,as a presidential candidate, it falls squarely on her shoulders to energize her supporters to come out and vote for her. That clearly didn't happen, and that is 100% her fault.

 

[warpus]

She ran at the wrong time. i.e. at a time when a lot of the American people were looking for someone not part of the establishment or the Washington elite or whatever.. Now whether Trump is part of the establishment or not is another question, but he is definitely a populist president. And that's what a lot of people were looking for. That whole "It's my turn now" thing Hillary was going with didn't help at all either

Seems like a lot of Americans hate Hillary Clinton as well, so I'm not really surprised. Blows my mind that the democrats couldn't sit down and throw a candidate in the ring capable of beating somebody as daft as trump

 

[BvBPL]

She ran at the wrong time. i.e. at a time when a lot of the American people were looking for someone not part of the establishment or the Washington elite or whatever..

Biden thought he could have won.
Saying it was a change election after the fact is pretty easy. More difficult is identifying what to do in the future.

 

[warpus]

In the future? Retool the democratic party so that it doesn't revolve around the careers of the politicians and the wallets of the donors but instead leadership of the country.

 

[Arwon]

I'm pretty uninterested in hashing out the ephemeral details of personalities and messaging when most voters vote according to party rather than candidate. Like the single biggest reason Trump got votes is the R next to his name. The bigger, screamingly obvious issue is how broken the US electoral system - the mechanics of how people vote and how those votes are summed to get a result - actually is.

Any discussion of the results of a US presidential election really should start by remembering that the winner still only won like 46% of the people who turned up and were permitted to vote (which was a tad over half the country), but won due to a system of counting votes that bakes in a randomised but rurally-weighted malapportionment.

And even then, turnout is a big issue because a lot of state have some or all of; false positive electoral roll purges; long term or permanent felon disenfranchisement; restrictive ID and voter registration laws; long lines; inadequate numbers of polling places; election day being on a work day; limited or non-existent early or postal voting options; onerous processes for having a provisional vote counted.

American election observers talk about turnout and "get out the vote" in the abstract, and often treat nonvoting as a personal moral failing, but the gritty details of turnout are the numerous barriers to some people face in being able to cast a ballot. A lot of the "get out the vote" effort is about overcoming barriers that should never have existed in the first place.

I don't know why the Democrats don't go much harder against things like disenfranchisement and voter suppression, because as well as being outrageous and undemocratic, there's little doubt the weight of these suppressions hits their own voters a lot harder. The US electoral system is really not a level playing field between the two major parties. This is likely to get worse with the abolition of the Voting Rights Act and the Trump Administration's "vote integrity" roll-purge nonsense.

 

[warpus]

I suspect neither party wants to empower those at the very bottom of the food chain, because that's a lot of people down there, neither party really has the political capital to help them out much, and they could easily turn against both parties. Far easier for the democrats to ride the existing wave and the fact that the population is slowly getting more liberal over time anyway. But I say that as a non-American looking in

 

[Lexicus]

I'm pretty uninterested in hashing out the ephemeral details of personalities and messaging when the screamingly obvious issue is how broken the US electoral system - the mechanics of how people vote and how those votes are summed to get a result - actually is.

No no, this is just whining/being a sore loser, according to the right anyway.

I don't know why the Democrats don't go much harder against things like disenfranchisement and voter suppression, because as well as being outrageous and undemocratic, there's little doubt the weight of these suppressions hits their own voters a lot harder. The US electoral system is really not a level playing field between the two major parties. This is likely to get worse with the abolition of the Voting Rights Act and the Trump Administration's "vote integrity" nonsense.

Uh yeah

 

[Arwon]

I suspect neither party wants to empower those at the very bottom of the food chain, because that's a lot of people down there, neither party really has the political capital to help them out much, and they could easily turn against both parties. Far easier for the democrats to ride the existing wave and the fact that the population is slowly getting more liberal over time anyway. But I say that as a non-American looking in

I think the simpler answer might be that they're as terrible at voter rights activism and at prosecuting legal cases as they are at being a political party.

But I say that as a non-American looking in, too.

 

[warpus]

I mean they spend most of their time campaigning and collecting money. They have no time to look after the needs or rights of the poor

 

[Commodore]

Seems like a lot of Americans hate Hillary Clinton as well, so I'm not really surprised. Blows my mind that the democrats couldn't sit down and throw a candidate in the ring capable of beating somebody as daft as trump

Exactly, which is why no time would have ever been the right time for Hillary to run. With her loss to Obama, and now her loss to Trump, I think the US has sent a very clear message to Clinton that we don't want her to be president. I really do believe out of all the people that voted for Trump, only a small minority of them are true Trump supporters. The rest were simply people who didn't want to vote for Clinton and would have voted for just about any candidate the Republicans threw out there. That's why I knew as soon as Hillary got the Democratic nomination that the Republicans were pretty much guaranteed a victory no matter who won their nomination.

The simple fact is that the US just does not want Hillary to be president and it has nothing to do with her being a Democrat. I think the US showed with the relatively even split between the number of Republican and Democrat presidents that we don't have a problem with electing Democrats to office. It's just this one particular Democrat that we have a problem with and we have shown that we will put pretty much ANYONE into that office as long as it isn't her. Is that a bit irrational? Maybe. But if Hillary really cared about the nation like she claims, then she'd stop trying to be president since her running makes us do irrational things like elect Trump.

 

[warpus]

Hillary just seems.. sketchy to me. I don't know much about her overall, but all the things I do know would not lead to me voting for her either. Of course I would if the other option was a potato or trump or whatever

 

[Hygro]

And then there's the majority of us voters that did want her president.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Exactly, which is why no time would have ever been the right time for Hillary to run. With her loss to Obama, and now her loss to Trump, I think the US has sent a very clear message to Clinton that we don't want her to be president. I really do believe out of all the people that voted for Trump, only a small minority of them are true Trump supporters. The rest were simply people who didn't want to vote for Clinton and would have voted for just about any candidate the Republicans threw out there. That's why I knew as soon as Hillary got the Democratic nomination that the Republicans were pretty much guaranteed a victory no matter who won their nomination.

The simple fact is that the US just does not want Hillary to be president and it has nothing to do with her being a Democrat. I think the US showed with the relatively even split between the number of Republican and Democrat presidents that we don't have a problem with electing Democrats to office. It's just this one particular Democrat that we have a problem with and we have shown that we will put pretty much ANYONE into that office as long as it isn't her. Is that a bit irrational? Maybe. But if Hillary really cared about the nation like she claims, then she'd stop trying to be president since her running makes us do irrational things like elect Trump.

Every time I hear "We didn't have a choice. We didn't like Hillary, so we voted Trump" it's just so damned annoying.

You had other candidates from other parties. I keep hearing all this whining that "there's nobody to vote for" even though you really do have more than just the two parties. The old "I won't waste a vote on them because they have no chance" is a defeatist feedback loop. Of course they have no chance because nobody's willing to give them a chance! Just try it. You might be surprised at the results.

Granted, we've done our fair share of holding our noses here, too. Trudeau needs to understand that a lot of his votes in 2015 came from people who held their noses because they really wanted to get rid of Harper and the Liberals were the most expedient way to do that.

But thank goodness we have four major parties here (five in Quebec). That way, I have to do a lot less nose-holding for federal votes than most people.

 

[Lexicus]

We didn't like Hillary, so we voted Trump" it's just so damned annoying.

You had other candidates from other parties.

It's really annoying because anyone who liked Trump more than Hillary is probably too stupid to be allowed to vote

 

[warpus]

The old "I won't waste a vote on them because they have no chance" is a defeatist feedback loop.

That's true, but the way to get those people in power is not just one person voting for another party. That's essentially what you're doing if you decide to vote for Franky McThirdPartyface. What you'd need to do is try to rally people, start an awareness campaign, etc. and get millions of people on board. That's not easy.

In Canada it's easier to get a "3rd" party in power because we have a 3rd party that historically occasionally wins stuff. So people feel like that is a genuine choice. Look at something like the Green party though, they've been trying to become relevant for 30 years, and how far have they come? The usually get 0 or 1 seats and at one point they might have had 2. That's nothing. People don't vote for them en masse because they don't seem like a party that's likely to end up in a leadership role. At least the NDP has that possibility, in people's minds anyway

 

[El_Machinae]

It's wasn't so much the Comey surprise. The wikileaks were a big part of her loss - and I think it's fair to say that those were unfair. The last two weeks of the campaign were dominated by negative headlines from wikileaks.

Now, you have to be a certain type of unpalatable to lose to Trump, but by that point he fairly represented the consensus of the Republican desires. But the drip drip drip from wikileaks certainly did a lot of damage.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That's true, but the way to get those people in power is not just one person voting for another party. That's essentially what you're doing if you decide to vote for Franky McThirdPartyface. What you'd need to do is try to rally people, start an awareness campaign, etc. and get millions of people on board. That's not easy.

In Canada it's easier to get a "3rd" party in power because we have a 3rd party that historically occasionally wins stuff. So people feel like that is a genuine choice. Look at something like the Green party though, they've been trying to become relevant for 30 years, and how far have they come? The usually get 0 or 1 seats and at one point they might have had 2. That's nothing. People don't vote for them en masse because they don't seem like a party that's likely to end up in a leadership role. At least the NDP has that possibility, in people's minds anyway

The NDP didn't always exist. It was formed from two other parties that merged, and Tommy Douglas was its first leader. Tommy Douglas is the reason why you and I can walk into a hospital in our respective provinces and not end up bankrupt and homeless because of how expensive health care really is.

Medication is a different matter; if the current NDP wants to become more relevant (or the Green Party, for that matter), let them figure out how to implement a universal pharmacy care system, so people don't die for lack of $$$$ to keep them alive.

There was a woman out west who had a disease that usually afflicts elderly people (if memory serves, she was in her 40s). The medication to keep her alive cost thousands - per month. Her province refused to cover her, because coverage was only available to people 65 and over. They said, "Apply when you're 65." Naturally, they would never have to pay, since she would have died long before that time (and it's not like she didn't try to find the money, but at some point you do run out of things to sell and relatives to borrow from).

So she took her case to the Human Rights Commission, citing discrimination on the basis of age - and won, as far as I know.

Any federal party who could figure out how not to allow provinces to do this to people would definitely be rewarded with votes.


In general, though, this "I'm not going to vote for your party because you've never been in power" is like saying "I'm not going to give you a job because you've had no experience."

How is the party ever going to have a chance to get experience (be in power, or at least a respectable number in opposition) if nobody will ever give them a chance? We already figured that out with the NDP. If the Americans would figure this out, they might actually have a chance at a government that isn't openly hostile to the well-being of its own citizens.