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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 04:41 PM Jan 2016

Unelectable = Can't Be Bought By Wall St

It's laughable to see the constant trotting out of this most ridiculous meme when it comes to someone who has proven how very electable they are.

The idea that we little people don't have the mental capacity to see how illogical it is to make such a claim about any politician who has been elected, could only come from the fevered brains of inside DC Think Tanks, hired, sort of like mafia goons, to come up with this nonsense by those who themselves actually know how stupid these talking points are.

However, in our current corrupt and rigged system there is SOME truth to the meme.

Not the one they wish to portray of course, but we little people actually CAN decipher these talking points and see the ridiculousnees of them for ourselves.

The truth is, what they MEAN by unelectable is:

'listen you honest, smart, ethical, authentic politician,, you think you can be President if you don't take the bribes we are offering you? Not in the system WE have rigged to make sure no one like YOU will ever be elected to that high office where you think your job is to NOT represent US.'

But let's take them literally just for fun:


Hillary, we are to assume, IS electable. Well, I agree with that since she was elected twice in her political career. That's on the plus side.

However, Hillary was unelectable for the office she is now seeking again, in 2008. Sure she's free to try again, but that means she's tried already and failed to be elected.

Bernie, we are to take from the ridiculous talking point, is NOT electable. I have to logically disagree with that since the man HAS been elected over and over again over the past several decades.



Is it just me, or is this one of the most ridiculous, not to mention easily disproven talking points ever?

I hope a lot of Corporate money was wasted on this one!

Finally, Bernie has NEVER lost a Presidential Primary Nomination yet.

Hillary HAS lost a Presidential Primary Nomination.


So, and I'm just trying to follow the logic, if there is any, of the morons who are attempting to push this most assinine meme on intelligent people, it would seem to me that these highly paid, not-too-bright Think Tanks would serve whoever they are working for better by not insulting the intelligence of the average voter.

QED

Bernie has proven himself to be the MOST ELECTABLE Democratic Candidate in this race.

Hillary has a mixed record on electability and nowhere near as long as Bernie's proven record of electability

I'm glad they brought it up actually.

If electability is what we are to worry about Bernie is definitely the candidate who should get the Nomination.

Every time I hear that word, 'unelectable' I, and every other person with a few functioning brain cells, know what it means:




60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Unelectable = Can't Be Bought By Wall St (Original Post) sabrina 1 Jan 2016 OP
K&R Katashi_itto Jan 2016 #1
+1 Jarqui Jan 2016 #2
I can't help it, I just love taking apart their talking points. sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #3
I try but I think you're better at it :) Jarqui Jan 2016 #5
I love that you do it, sabrina. Keep doing it! senz Jan 2016 #18
Hey senz, I will, isn't it great that we CAN expose them now, unlike back when David Brock was sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #20
Yes, the internet has revitalized the public sphere, fundamental to democracy. senz Jan 2016 #26
I'm really proud of how Bernie's literal ARMY of supporters are online responding quickly to every sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #49
K&R.... daleanime Jan 2016 #4
I agree. But alas, it doesn't matter if you ably refute it RufusTFirefly Jan 2016 #6
True, that is the goal, but unfortunately for the smear mongers, see how much Brock's sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #7
Let's not get too comfortable. senz Jan 2016 #27
I absolutely agree. Not planning on becoming apathetic about what they are capable of. sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #30
She's learning to not be directly negative, she's farming it out to surrogates. senz Jan 2016 #37
HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!! WillyT Jan 2016 #8
Great headline. zentrum Jan 2016 #9
Did tweet it, thank you. Not my original idea, though it definitely did occur to me, Lots of people sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #11
All so true. zentrum Jan 2016 #15
Good question, and one that I was just about to ask sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #19
It's good to know you're active on Twitter. senz Jan 2016 #29
Social Media is very powerful. Everyone who supports Bernie does need to be sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #33
knr nt! retrowire Jan 2016 #10
Oh sweet Jesus jmowreader Jan 2016 #12
I'm not following your logic. I AM trying to follow the logic of saying that someone who has sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #14
Sanders hasn't proven electability outside of a very liberal place jmowreader Jan 2016 #21
Sigh, are you seriously saying that Hillary's only two successful elections, massively backed by sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #24
From the Wikipedia page on Hillary Clinton's electoral history... jmowreader Jan 2016 #43
Obama was a virtual unknown. She should have easily beaten him. She had everything sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #45
True but misleading historically Rilgin Jan 2016 #46
Excellent post thank you. I know a lot of people would prefer that we forget the 2008 sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #50
Just so the Hillary Camp think its made up Rilgin Jan 2016 #53
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jan 2016 #13
Bernie has won 14 elections to major public office. He is incredibly electable. senz Jan 2016 #16
Great post, thank you senz! And additionally, he did without Corp money. Hillary otoh, has been sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #22
She also moved to New York State.. MY STATE, pangaia Jan 2016 #28
No way she could have lost that race. Repubs didn't even try putting up one of their least sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #31
In her first race, giggly guilio was to run but then came down with prostate cancer. pangaia Jan 2016 #39
Yes, her brazen carpetbagging was obvious and offensive senz Jan 2016 #34
Yes, I wondered about that also, and also had great sympathy for her as First Lady. sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #36
Good point about Clinton receptivity to the Far Right. senz Jan 2016 #41
Interesting. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether or not they gave in, or whether they sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #44
That makes very good sense, Sabrina. senz Jan 2016 #47
Good thoughts, senz. We'll never know for sure, but my sense is that the Oligarchs are always on the sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #48
You're probably familiar with the Powell memo. senz Jan 2016 #52
Not that I had a serious opinion of her before, but when they 'moved' here, pangaia Jan 2016 #40
It's like they think we don't notice senz Jan 2016 #42
Yes, and that's what's so insulting about their lame attacks, the assumption we are as stupid sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #55
K & R ! TIME TO PANIC Jan 2016 #17
"Hillary HAS lost a Presidential Primary Nomination. pangaia Jan 2016 #23
Yes, the sense of deja vu is amazing. She was so inevitable back then that even though I supported sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #25
Perhaps she just really wants an opportunity to bring the furniture back Major Nikon Jan 2016 #32
K&R amborin Jan 2016 #35
Makes sense to me. kristopher Jan 2016 #38
"Bernie has NEVER lost a Presidential Primary Nomination yet." NanceGreggs Jan 2016 #51
See, now you're getting the point. So let's review: 'Hillary has lost a Presidential Primary sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #54
Uh, sabrina ... NanceGreggs Jan 2016 #56
Actually yes, people have said that Bernie is 'not electable period'. Please stop projecting your sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #57
sabrina... NanceGreggs Jan 2016 #58
Yes, the did say it. Did they believe it, who knows. What I do know is that it was stated with the sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #59
Sorry, but there is no way ... NanceGreggs Jan 2016 #60

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
3. I can't help it, I just love taking apart their talking points.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 04:51 PM
Jan 2016

There is an old saying, I think it was John Dionne:

'There is nothing more dangerous than stupidity in action'.

Which is why when we see it, we are obligated to expose it, imho.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
20. Hey senz, I will, isn't it great that we CAN expose them now, unlike back when David Brock was
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:23 PM
Jan 2016

lying about Anita Hill eg, when all we could do was scream at the TV?

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
26. Yes, the internet has revitalized the public sphere, fundamental to democracy.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:40 PM
Jan 2016

That's why we must fight EACH and EVERY attempt to privatize or control it. TPTB are aware of this, and they're getting scared -- which makes them more dangerous.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
49. I'm really proud of how Bernie's literal ARMY of supporters are online responding quickly to every
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 02:36 AM
Jan 2016

nasty lie coming from David Brock on behalf of Hillary's campaign.

If we didn't have the internet and Social Media, it would be a repeat of what happened to Kerry with the Swift Boat morons.

Forums like this did exist, but they don't have one iota of the power and reach of Social Media, which didn't really exist back then.

In fact, I think partisan forums will soon be a thing of the past, which is why I am very interested in helping to build what i think will be the future of political forums.

Look at the diminishing membership in both major parties, while registered Independents are the biggest voting bloc now for the first time.

I find these forums to be mostly an exercise in futility. They really accomplish nothing other than to keep people preoccupied fighting with each other.

Social Media is different, things actually get done, marches organize, events publicized, across the country.

And people don't have to deal with wasting time on trolls or political operatives.

It will take time, but I'm excited about seeing a new kind of forum for what is shaping up to be the future, far less partisan and divisive, with people uniting though not always agree on everyting, on the MAIN issues.

Once we fix the major problems, then we can argue over the details.

Today I spent some time here, and i know accomplished nothing. Other than seeing friends who I like to support since they haven't yet reached the point many of us have reached.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
6. I agree. But alas, it doesn't matter if you ably refute it
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 05:12 PM
Jan 2016

The goal is simply to get the meme out there and keep it circulating.

The agent provocateur who throws the first punch in a nonviolent rally can usually be confident that someone will throw the next one.

As with the tobacco lobbyists and the climate deniers, doubt is their product.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
7. True, that is the goal, but unfortunately for the smear mongers, see how much Brock's
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 05:22 PM
Jan 2016

use of that old Atwater/Rovian logic backfired, times have changed since the old days, when most decent people couldn't conceive of people like Rove and his 'Noble Lies'.

People heard these talking points and they worked mainly because there was no way to control them.

We are in an entirely different era now where the People themselves can partiipate and instantly expose the lies.

Eg, 20 years ago, Brock's attempt to plant his vile smears in the press, anonymously, would have worked, it DID work, see what he did to Anita Hill eg.

But today, he was instantly exposed and earned several million dollars for Bernie's campaign. Back when he was after the Clintons, he succeeded.

Times change, those old method are now well known so when we see them, we can almost trace them back to their source.

They, however, haven't moved with the times, which is why they are so frustrated each time one of their Corp funded smears falls apart.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
27. Let's not get too comfortable.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:49 PM
Jan 2016

Hillary is desperate and ruthless, and her hired guns are cagey, smart, and extremely well funded. They know what's happening. We might be able see some of their strategies right here on DU, what with the weird stuff coming from the Hill side.

At this point, all who care about the Bernie effort must be very alert and aware and communicate constantly. Sometimes I wish I could deal with Twitter and Facebook just to help with the messaging. Who knows? Maybe I'll do it for the cause.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
30. I absolutely agree. Not planning on becoming apathetic about what they are capable of.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:56 PM
Jan 2016

You can feel the desperation, as they her going down the same path she went in 2008. I would put nothing, absolutely nothing, past them.

They have run a very negative, nasty campaign so far, like last time, the frustration that none of it has succeeded in stopping Bernie is only going to cause them to become even more negative.

But maybe the more negative they get, the less people like it, the more likely she is to lose. They don't seem to learn anything from past experience.

Eg, after Chelsea was sent out to lie about Bernie's HC proposals, Democrats were outraged and the backlash was intense.

Still, they didn't learn, except for a day or so.

So yes, people are on the alert, we know what to expect from them. I won't believe a word coming from that campaign frankly. Anyone who hires the likes of liar and smearmonger, Brock, says all we need to know about their own ethics, imo.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
37. She's learning to not be directly negative, she's farming it out to surrogates.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 07:28 PM
Jan 2016

Her campaign saw the drop in her favorability ratings after her negative attack in the 3rd debate, so they arranged the Town Hall event so she could turn that around, reinvent herself. She was extremely positive and put a lot of effort into ethos-building -- remaking herself as the upward struggling, constantly picked-on underdog. It was interesting to see her pause before reacting to Bernie's "America" ad, take a deep breath, and then gushing a bit before saying we campaign in poetry but govern in prose -- trying to undercut the ad without seeming negative.

Now there's an attack ad against Bernie, but Hillary is not in it. My point: they already know better than to show Hillary going negative. Which means, they're very alert.

So Bernie's campaign has to adjust their moves accordingly, as I'm sure they will.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
11. Did tweet it, thank you. Not my original idea, though it definitely did occur to me, Lots of people
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 05:54 PM
Jan 2016

get what it means, so I can't give attribution to anyone. They are not fooling people the way they used, back in Brock's heyday eg, when we were unable to tear their lies apart.

Now thousands of people can and are doing so, which is why they are no longer effective. Stuck in the past, Hillary's campaign shamefully hired the likes of Brock a vile smearmonger apparently not aware that the glory days of despicable liars for profit, like him, are gone.

zentrum

(9,865 posts)
15. All so true.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:16 PM
Jan 2016

BTW—why aren't women more angry at HRC for hiring Brock who did so much disgusting damage to Anita Hill? Resulting in the confirmation of Thomas—who wants to end free choice and marriage equality?

Why is Planned Parenthood and all the rest not being brought to task for this?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
19. Good question, and one that I was just about to ask
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:21 PM
Jan 2016

Will be doing that, actually it has been asked, but not by those one would have expected it from sadly. This campaign is exposing a lot about people who claim to support women, including the candidate herself.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
33. Social Media is very powerful. Everyone who supports Bernie does need to be
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 07:02 PM
Jan 2016

as active as possible. It is the reason why the Old Media hasn't been able to stop Bernie's campaign. They don't yet fully grasp that we don't use them anymore for 'news', a majority of people now go to Social Media, and that is where Bernie's campaign began actually.

jmowreader

(50,453 posts)
12. Oh sweet Jesus
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 05:56 PM
Jan 2016

Bernie Sanders hasn't run in a presidential primary before, and Hillary has. Therefore, to say Sanders is the better candidate because he hasn't lost a presidential primary nomination before ls like me claiming I'm a better pitcher than Randy Johnson because he's lost 166 more games than I have.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
14. I'm not following your logic. I AM trying to follow the logic of saying that someone who has
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:08 PM
Jan 2016

been elected as often as Bernie has, far more times than Hillary btw, and without the backing of Wall St, or Donald Trumps billions, eg, could be called 'unelectable'.

We KNOW eg, that Hillary failed to get elected to the office she is again seeking. That is a fact. I like to deal with FACTS.

We do not yet know whether or not Bernie can be elected to that office.

So please explain if you can, how the word 'unelectable' applies to someone who has not failed to be elected over and over again, making it likely he will once again succeed, while the one who has failed at only their third try, we are supposed to view as electable?

What I said, which is a fact, both are electable, one so far, appears to be MORE electable than the other, yet that is the one we are supposed to accept as the not electable?

jmowreader

(50,453 posts)
21. Sanders hasn't proven electability outside of a very liberal place
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:25 PM
Jan 2016

He also lost the first four elections he tried:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Bernie_Sanders

Hillary Clinton has won two elections in a state that's full of Republicans, and was running VERY close to President Obama in the 2008 presidential primary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Hillary_Clinton

Let's see...Walter Mondale promised to raise taxes during the 1984 campaign. Result:


During the 1988 campaign, Dukakis really did raise taxes in Massachusetts. Result:


So far, Sanders' economic plan consists of a very long list of tax increases. The threat of tax increases ALONE is enough to sink a campaign.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
24. Sigh, are you seriously saying that Hillary's only two successful elections, massively backed by
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:31 PM
Jan 2016

Wall St btw, were NOT only within a very Liberal Place? I live in NY and know that Republicans, as Trump himself acknowledged, have more or less conceded the 'very liberal NY' to Democrats. It would be almost impossible for a Republican to get elected in NY to the Senate.

However, when Hillary was tested outside that very liberal place, she failed.

Will Sanders fail? According to national polls, he is trouncing Republicans for the GE. But we don't know yet, do we?

And since when is Vt a 'very liberal place btw'?

jmowreader

(50,453 posts)
43. From the Wikipedia page on Hillary Clinton's electoral history...
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 10:07 PM
Jan 2016

2008 Democratic presidential primaries:

Excluding penalized contests, only primary and caucuses votes:

Barack Obama - 16,706,853 (49.03%)
Hillary Rodham Clinton - 16,239,821 (47.66%)

Including penalized contests:

Hillary Rodham Clinton - 18,225,175 (48.03%)
Barack Obama - 17,988,182 (47.41%)

2008 Democratic delegate counts (just before dropping out):

(2,118 delegates needed to secure nomination)

Pledged delegates:[1]

Barack Obama - 1,765
Hillary Rodham Clinton - 1,637
John Edwards - 4
Including superdelegates:

Barack Obama - 2,156 (52.79%)
Hillary Rodham Clinton - 1,922 (47.06%)
John Edwards - 6 (0.15%)

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
45. Obama was a virtual unknown. She should have easily beaten him. She had everything
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 11:44 PM
Jan 2016

going for her, like this time. Huge name recognition, obscene amounts of Corporate funding, Democrats had a sentimental attachment to the Clintons.

Yet, someone who was barely known, like Bernie, managed to defeat her.

The reason, policies. I was one of those who was listened to some differences between Hillary and Obama, and had no difficulty deciding who best represented Democratic Party principles.

The reason once again as she faces a similar situation, that she is losing support, is once again POLICIES.

She simply isn't in tune with the majority of voters, most of whom WANT a National HC system.

And when her campaign lied about Bernie's proposals last week, she was met with a huge backlash especially from Democrats.

Someone with all the advantages she has, should have sailed to victory in 2008 and again this time. That fact that she both times, faces serious challenges from virtually unknown challenges, is because of her right leaning policies on so many issues.

Rilgin

(787 posts)
46. True but misleading historically
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 12:22 AM
Jan 2016

In 2008, Hillary continued to campaign against Obama when mathematically she had lost the primary. In fact, many people's reactions to Hillary were cemented by the fact that she not just continued to campaign but did so negatively. Many of the stories that have been circulating this election cycle come from this period.

Many of these votes came from this period. She ran up huge campaign debts during this period when again she was mathematically out of it. Obama on the other hand pivoted to running against Republicans and ceded ground to Hillary because he could not lose anymore. Going on the end vote count is irrelevant. Its like a basketball game where a team is leading by 30 points with 5 minutes left and stops playing hard. The fact that in the popular vote count Hillary ended up with more is because Obama did not contest her in the later stages.

This is different than merely staying alive in case something happened to Obama. She actually continued to run a highly contested, negative campaign against him and only stopped when his campaign agreed to pay the debts of the negative campaign against him

This is why it really is about the problems with Hillary that is causing so much friction in the democratic party. This is not republican problems this is problems within the democratic party who have problems with this particular candidate who lies, flip flops, is tied to corporate interests and has no moral core in running for office.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
50. Excellent post thank you. I know a lot of people would prefer that we forget the 2008
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 02:48 AM
Jan 2016

campaign Hillary ran. But that isn't possible. What people do under pressure says a lot about them. Her continuing to campaign negatively against Obama when everyone knew it was over, demonstrated, to me anyhow, that she would have let Republicans win rather than concede gracefully.

And how she managed to get into so much debt considering all the money she had, is a mystery to me still and doesn't create much confidence in how she might spend OUR money.

Rilgin

(787 posts)
53. Just so the Hillary Camp think its made up
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:38 AM
Jan 2016

I spent one minute on google to find a link to show you the problems she had in 2008. The math shown in this article was obvious to everyone and widely discussed.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillarys-math-problem-83777

It should and would have led any other candidate to withdraw or suspend their campaign (suspend is more likely in case something happened to Obama). In particular, a candidate who cared about the Democratic Party would not have run Negative ads that could have hurt Obama in the GE.

Last as mentioned again by you. She spent obscene amounts of money continuing to fight hard and negative instead of stepping back graciously. When it went from 99% to 100% that Obama had won, she forced a deal from Obama that his campaign would pay her campaign debts. I have not heard of the winner paying the debts of the loser but from this article it sometimes happens but in this case there were explicit meetings. As mentioned in this article, Obama did it was to try to heal himself from all the negative feelings within the democratic party caused by Hillary's disgraceful conduct during the campaign.


http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/14/nation/na-money14

To my memory (which could be wrong), the deal between them as agreed to right before the convention and it was presumed it was for her active support at the convention and from that point afterwards including trying to quell the fury of the Puma's who were like the current Hillary supporters -- angry that she had been challenged when it was her turn. There were also speculations as to certain appointment concessions. In any event, at least after this deal, she did campaign hard for Obama both at the convention and after.

The question is not why she ran in 2008. It is why she continued to campaign hard after she lost and why it was necessary for her to run up a lot of debt during that period (it was not the case that she spent funds she had) and why it would be necessary to in essence bribe her to campaign for the democratic candidate.



 

senz

(11,945 posts)
16. Bernie has won 14 elections to major public office. He is incredibly electable.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:16 PM
Jan 2016

From his Wikipedia entry:

he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont's most populous city, in 1981. He was reelected three times.


In 1990, he was elected to represent Vermont's at-large congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1991, Sanders co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He served as a congressman for 16 years before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006. In 2012, he was reelected with 71% of the popular vote.


Let's do the arithmetic:

Elected Mayor in 1981, reelected three times = elected 4 times.

In 1990, he was elected to U.S. House of Representatives, served for 16 years = elected 8 times.

Elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006. In 2012, he was reelected with 71% of the popular vote. = elected 2 times.

Therefore, Bernie Sanders has run and won election to major public office 14 times.

Unelectable? He won 14 elections.

How many has Hillary won? Two. And let's face it: she ran on her family fame and power. She went directly from FLOTUS to Senator. Bernie started out as a nobody. No fame, no important connections, no money.

What a difference! Could Hillary have made it without Bill? We'll never know, but we do know she didn't.

(If anybody cares to check my numbers, please do. Arithmetic errors are my specialty.)

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
22. Great post, thank you senz! And additionally, he did without Corp money. Hillary otoh, has been
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:26 PM
Jan 2016

elected only twice. She ran for office three times and proved to be unelectable one third of the time. Even WITH all that Corporate money behind her.

This is why this particular talking point wasn't worth the Corporate money spent on it. It's just obviously a stupid meme.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
28. She also moved to New York State.. MY STATE,
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:50 PM
Jan 2016

a pretty reliable democratic stronghold, for the express purpose of running for the U.S. Senate in preparation for a run for the Presidency.

How could she lose?
Especially considering the competition.

Carpetbagger...

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
31. No way she could have lost that race. Repubs didn't even try putting up one of their least
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:59 PM
Jan 2016

likely to win, candidates. Donald Trump, who has a habit of spilling the beans on his wealthy friends, when asked why he had helped Hillary win the Senate seat, stated correctly, that when you are in NY you have to donate to Dems as well as Repubs, if you want to be able to 'pick up the phone when you need it' and he said, 'it works'.

So that kind of contradicts the silly notion that just because you take all that money from Wall St, doesn't mean you will be influenced by it.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
39. In her first race, giggly guilio was to run but then came down with prostate cancer.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 07:54 PM
Jan 2016

So she ran against Rick Fazio, a loser if ever there was one. She won pretty big.

Second race she ran against someone invisible cipher whose name I forget. She beat him to a pulp. State Dems were pissed that she spent so much -- it was like a runaway high school basketball game where one side just keeps running up the score.

Or, to use a football analogy, like Alabama beating Fairleigh Dickinson.


 

senz

(11,945 posts)
34. Yes, her brazen carpetbagging was obvious and offensive
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 07:13 PM
Jan 2016

even to those of us who don't live anywhere near the area (although my former in-laws did and still do.)

I had deeply sympathized with her suffering as FLOTUS -- to the extent, I now see, of ignoring her questionable traits -- and always wished her well, but that abrupt move to New York, where they had never lived, was quite jarring and started my long, slow reassessment of Hillary Clinton. I've reached the conclusion that there is something very morally and psychologically unhealthy about her. If she makes it to the presidency ( ) I can only hope Bill or some of her more normal aides would be running things.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
36. Yes, I wondered about that also, and also had great sympathy for her as First Lady.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 07:25 PM
Jan 2016

But I was still not too knowledgeable about all that now know so was glad that at least it wasn't a Republican.

Now I see t his was her Corporate Funded first step towards the WH. All calculated. The NY Political Elite is where the big money is. So it was a perfect place to go to have access to it.

She didn't, I know now, come to NY because she loves us! Lol!

Her stint in the Senate was unremarkable, nothing accomplished for the people of NY that I recall. The only thing I remember well, was her vote for the Iraq War.

Ironically, that is probably what lost her the 2008 election. Being in NY they most likely calculated that support for that awful war, was the politically advantageous thing to do.

As always, they weren't listening to the people, more likely listening to the far right who they seem a lot more concerned about than their own liberal base.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
41. Good point about Clinton receptivity to the Far Right.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 08:32 PM
Jan 2016

I see two parts to it.

First, there was their victimization by the rightwing attack machine. Hillary was correct about the VRWC. Vicious attacks from rightwing media and "Special Prosecutor" Ken Starr were a horrible ordeal for the Clintons (as RW traditional and social media have been for the Obamas), damaging Bill's presidency and distracting him from his duties.

Second, the Clintons quickly caught on to possibilities in the massive political power and money controlled by large corporations and conservative millionaires/ billionaires and decided to cooperate rather than resist. Their cooperation with and capitulation to the Right gave us welfare reform, NAFTA and WTO expansion of GATT, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and the death of Glass-Steagall, each of which has had a horrible effect on the average person's life in America.

In giving in to the Right, the Clintons furthered the destruction started by the Reagan Revolution. In doing this, they have hurt the American people. I believe they gave in because they did not have strongly held convictions, the sense of mission that statesmen (and women) like Bernie Sanders possess. The lure of easy money and power was too much for the Clintons.

A very good case could be made for the Clintons as parasites.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
44. Interesting. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether or not they gave in, or whether they
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 11:19 PM
Jan 2016

were approached by people way more powerful than the crowd that was going after them, Bush et al, and 'introduced' to the 'real world' which they could be a part of.

I remember on the History channel seeing a documentary in which it revealed that Bush Sr. had introduced Clinton to the Global power structure. I thought I hadn't understood it properly. Later I tried to find that documentary, but never have.

I think maybe they were always of the same mind as the Bush gang on policies like Privatization etc. Look who Bill placed in his cabinet eg, Greenspan, Summers. Fromm who founded the DLC eg shares the policies of Conservatives on Social Programs, on War etc.

I think the very powerful are not too concerned with party labels, and saw a lot of potential in the Clintons from the beginning. Clinton began the changing of the Dem Party, even before the Impeachment mess, to the Third Way 'philosophy'.

Not sure why the whole impeachment thing happened, but I do think it was the powerful who put an end to it.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
47. That makes very good sense, Sabrina.
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 12:58 AM
Jan 2016

My "second part" included Bush types, but I'm probably giving too much credit to the Clintons in assuming they needed convincing. Yes, it seems entirely possible that they didn't have any liberal values to sell out, especially when I consider Bill Clinton's having been chair of the DLC prior to his election, the inclusion of Greenspan and Summers in Bill's cabinet (although he did include Robert Reich, too), and Hillary's history on the Walmart board. A DUer from Arkansas recently posted a comment giving his impressions of Hillary over the years, and she didn't sound particularly noble, good, or likable then, either.

Thom Hartmann sometimes talks about Bill Clinton having received a "here's the way the world works, son" talk from TPTB on winning the presidency. I tend to notice people's unconscious expressions and recall news coverage of the Clintons shortly after Bill's inauguration in which Hillary looked shocked, stunned -- face frozen, eyes wide, not saying anything, not responding to others, and had the sense that she had just learned something that turned her world upside down. I wondered then if there were government secrets that the rest of us will never know.

I agree with you that the powerful aren't into party politics. They probably see the whole thing as bread and circuses for the little people. In fact, that might explain the sloppiness of Hillary's campaigning and her conduct as SOS (scofflaw email practices, quid pro quo deals with weapons manufacturers, etc.) -- it's like she didn't take it seriously. She doesn't seem to find anything sacred in public service. Of course, narcissists find it difficult to be genuinely humble about anything. I learned after the second debate that Hillary's sycophantic followers are shocked that anyone would suggest that she should be humble. Just thinking about this stuff grosses me out.

But that's the oligarchy. They are cynical and believe that because they've discovered how to acquire huge fortunes, they're inherently superior to anyone who hasn't -- or doesn't want to. They do not respect "the people."

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
48. Good thoughts, senz. We'll never know for sure, but my sense is that the Oligarchs are always on the
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 02:22 AM
Jan 2016

lookout for 'promising talent' to run the governments for them, not just here, see what has happened in Europe lately, and of course in Third World nations where they sponsor and often install dictators.

The Clintons had ambition and they were very much into Third Way policies, wars, privatization etc.

I wonder if they became a bit arrogant with the Oligarchs, and were 'put in their place' with the whole sex scandal, just to show them they needed to understand that just because they got to the WH, didn't mean they were free to go their own way on anything, without the approval of the real rulers of this country.

Remember Rachel Maddows series of excellent exposures of The Family eg. They seem to be the 'fixers' for anyone who has 'promise' but gets in trouble.

Hillary attended 'prayer meetings' at that awful cult and was introduced to other women, in the 'womens group' odd, imo, for such a purported 'Feminist'. I get the feeling she was 'instructed' on more than just religion if they wanted the whole impeachment thing to go away.

And it did. Now they are both 'global players' with Hillary pushing wars in Libya, Honduras coup, Iraq etc.

She always gives me the impression she is trying to prove how 'tough' she is to someone, not the people who are not particularly FOR all these unnecessary wars.

And in return, she gets to be president. Not last time, but it would explain her initial sense of entitlement about being in the WH.

I am so grateful to Bernie for stepping up and at least making an effort to foil what looked like a sure thing. Notice how so few Dems ran for that office, almost as if it was reserved.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
52. You're probably familiar with the Powell memo.
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:09 AM
Jan 2016
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/

afaik, this marks the beginning of the transfer of power from the voters to the corporations. Reaganomics then kickstarted it, and after 35 years or so, the coup is now nearly complete. The most powerful government in the world is being run primarily for the benefit of the top 1%. TPP might be the crown jewel of the whole thing. I could see Reagan having been selected to run, as he was stupid, obedient, avuncular, and an actor who rode horses. His presidency was itself an act, very phony. Reagan didn't like Bush I, but I wonder if Bush I was "selected" to run as Reagan's VP? He had previously been CIA director for a year, and if any organization has shadowy qualities, it's the CIA. Bush II had attributes similar to those of Reagan, with the exception of speaking ability, and his presidency was equally phony. I suppose we shouldn't discuss 9/11 which had its own phony aspects.

I don't think the oligarchy is unified and centrally coordinated. Human nature being what it is, there is bound to be competition, jockeying, intrigue in those quarters, too. Although they are probably united in a "club" sense, seeing themselves as the elite surrounded by multitudes of inferiors.

But the women's group of "The Family?" Man, she really goes over to the dark side, doesn't she? I knew she was involved with "The Family" but didn't know about the women's group. As someone who in middle age discovered the words and acts of Jesus, which I consider deeply compelling and profound (he is at least as good, honest, noble and courageous as Bernie, believe me) but didn't, at first, know what to do with the discovery, I once spent a long weekend in the company of "Christian women" whom I, as an educated, politically liberal woman, found repellent in their shallow phoniness and superiority. I don't see how Hillary could stand to be around them. It's shocking. What on earth is wrong with her?

But if she was selected by the oligarchs, it could go a long way toward explaining her odd attitude of entitlement.

I wonder if Anonymous knows about this stuff? And Edward Snowden, with all the info he got to look at? And Laura Poitras, a brave and admirable woman. And Glen Greenwald. And Julian Assange, perhaps?

One thing for sure: the oligarchs do not want Bernie in the presidency. I hope he has Secret Service protection, I hope the agents are trustworthy, and I hope he has more levels of protection than that.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
40. Not that I had a serious opinion of her before, but when they 'moved' here,
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 08:03 PM
Jan 2016

that turned me against her faster than... well... a New York minute.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
42. It's like they think we don't notice
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 08:49 PM
Jan 2016

or can't connect the dots. Amazingly solipsistic attitude...

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
55. Yes, and that's what's so insulting about their lame attacks, the assumption we are as stupid
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:07 PM
Jan 2016

as whoever they are paying the big bucks to think up this garbage.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
23. "Hillary HAS lost a Presidential Primary Nomination.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:29 PM
Jan 2016

Not only that, but she lost it to a virtual unknown

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
25. Yes, the sense of deja vu is amazing. She was so inevitable back then that even though I supported
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:38 PM
Jan 2016

Obama, I initially didn't think he could beat her. Same thing this time, even though I was thrlled when Bernie entered the race, I had even less hope that he could beat the Clinton Money Machine. But again, I have been proven wrong.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
51. "Bernie has NEVER lost a Presidential Primary Nomination yet."
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:08 AM
Jan 2016

I think the fact that Bernie has never run in a presidential primary might have something to do with that.

I've never been sued for medical malpractice - I also think the fact that I've never practiced medicine might have something to do with that.

I think it might be "insulting to the intelligence of the average voter" to be promoting the idea that someone who never lost a race they never entered actually means something.

BTW, Martin O'Malley never won the Mr. Universe title. I think pointing out that he never ran for the title is just nit-picking.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
54. See, now you're getting the point. So let's review: 'Hillary has lost a Presidential Primary
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:00 PM
Jan 2016

Nomination'. Stay with me. She won 2 of the 3 elections she ever ran in. Which is why it would be a lie to say she 'is not electable'. Something I stated already.

Any reasonable person would agree that ANYONE who has been elected to public office IS electable.

Now here's where it gets laughable.

Depite his long record of GETTING elected, we are told Bernie is NOT electable!! Is that not laughable?

Do you not think it is more than a little insulting to the intelligence of the average voter to tell them that a politician with a not very impressive record of getting elected, IS electable, while the one with the long, successful record is NOT???

Wait I'm not finished.

So, you object to my, admittedly sort of 'rovian' statement re Bernie not losing a Presidential Primary race.

I'm glad you raised the minor, compared to the big lie that HE is not electable, not quite totally honest, since as you point out, he couldn't lose what he never tried for. Still that doesn't make it a lie, does it? He did not lose while she did, a Primary for the nomination

I notice you appear to be okay with outright 'Noble' lies about the electability of both candidates.

But when the same 'noble' tactics are employed to disprove the lie being told, you are very upset, can you explain why you are not upset about what initiated my response, which was mild compared to the Big Lie?

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
56. Uh, sabrina ...
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 08:34 PM
Jan 2016

No one has ever said that Bernie is not electable in Vermont. Obviously he's electable there. If you have been operating under the misconception that when people say BS is "not electable" as president they mean he's not electable to anything - well, that's just a silly notion that doesn't deserve further discussion.

Winning a senate seat in Vermont is a far cry from winning the presidency in a nation-wide general election. As has been pointed out over and over, Vermont's demographics are not representative of the country as a whole. Who the voters want to represent them in Vermont is not reflective of who voters in the other 49 states want as their president.

"Any reasonable person would agree that ANYONE who has been elected to public office IS electable."

There are many, many thousands of people who have been "elected" to positions at local and state levels who are NOT electable as president. Being "electable" to any position does not automatically translate to being electable to any other position. It's as simple as that.

And please refrain from projecting your own emotions onto me and others, which you constantly do. I am not "upset" about any of this. Actually, quite the contrary.

Bernie will not be "elected" as the Democratic nominee - so discussing his electability in a presidential race is a moot point.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
57. Actually yes, people have said that Bernie is 'not electable period'. Please stop projecting your
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:41 AM
Jan 2016

experiences with what people have said on to the experiences of others. I personally have engaged with several Hillary supporters who insist that Bernie is not electable. THAT is the reason why I wrote this op. So now apparently that ridiculous claim has been thoroughly refuted with FACTS. I'm glad you agree.

Winning a senate seat in Vermont is a far cry from winning the presidency in a nation-wide general election.


And winning a Senate seat in NY as a Democrat, where Repubs all but concede Senate seats to Dems in NY, is a far cry from winning the presidency in a nation-wide general election, as we saw when Hillary tried in 2008.

Otoh, the same could be said of winning a Senate seat in ANY state.

But it happens. And when it does it isn't about which state the Senator came from, it is about how the message of that Senator resonates with the people.

Obama, eg, whose election to the Senate from another state where winning that seat was definitely a far cry from winning the presidency in a General Election.

In fact much the same arguments were made, almost verbatum, about Obama, as a supporter I should probably just go find my responses back then and copy and paste them to comments like this.

And yet, the Senator did win that election.

The very 'experienced' we were told then, Senator from NY did not.

Same thing is happening again. There is a real sense of Deja Vu about this race. Senator from small state running against Hillary Clinton.

Unlike you I have no crystat ball to tell me with such certainty who will win this race, same thing last time, but I will do everything I can to make sure the man I believe is what this country needs right now, wins. Same as last time.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
58. sabrina...
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:52 AM
Jan 2016

If you honestly believe that people said Bernie was "unelectable" because they don't know he's already been elected as a senator - well, I can't help you.

That premise is ridiculous beyond words. Do you think people see the title "Senator" Sanders and figure he got there by any means OTHER than having been elected to the position?

Come on, sabrina. Really.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
59. Yes, the did say it. Did they believe it, who knows. What I do know is that it was stated with the
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:01 AM
Jan 2016

intention of creating a negative reaction to Sanders with the hope that it would discourage people from taking a chance on him, even if they liked him.

It's called a 'talking point'.

Talking points don't have to make sense. They are the poo that is thrown at the wall knowing that some of it will stick. Just enough maybe to accomplish the goal

I like to clean up the part that might have stuck to the wall by tearing those very expensive talking points apart.

I definitely agree with you, it is ridiculous to say about a Senator, but I said that already in the OP. Any poo that stuck to the wall hopefully has been cleared up, at least by anyone who happened to read this OP and had been taken in by the poo flinging.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
60. Sorry, but there is no way ...
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:12 AM
Jan 2016

... I'm buying that anyone said Bernie is "unelectable" because they didn't know he was already an elected senator.

That's just utter nonsense.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Unelectable = Can't Be Bo...