2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWA Post: They are terrified that Hillary will get the nomination and win.
Or even worse, that one of their looney-tunes might succeed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/time-for-gop-panic-establishment-worried-carson-and-trump-might-win/2015/11/12/38ea88a6-895b-11e5-be8b-1ae2e4f50f76_story.html
Less than three months before the kick-off Iowa caucuses, there is growing anxiety bordering on panic among Republican elites about the dominance and durability of Donald Trump and Ben Carson and widespread bewilderment over how to defeat them.
Party leaders and donors fear nominating either man would have negative ramifications for the GOP ticket up and down the ballot, virtually ensuring a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency and increasing the odds that the Senate falls into Democratic hands.
The party establishment is paralyzed. Big money is still on the sidelines. No consensus alternative to the outsiders has emerged from the pack of governors and senators running, and there is disagreement about how to prosecute the case against them. Recent focus groups of Trump supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire commissioned by rival campaigns revealed no silver bullet.
SNIP
The concern among some party elites goes beyond electability, according to one Republican strategist, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly about the worries.
Were potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isnt fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job, this strategist said. Its not just that it could be somebody Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The "normal" Republicans are freaking out. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
artislife
(9,497 posts)If they nominate either two..then we can run any candidate.
Go Bernie!
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Sounds to me like the only thing they fear more than a Hillary presidency ... is having one of their own front runners win!
You can't make this stuff up!
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)idea of a Republican president.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The uber rich and hate radio and the Pentagon and big insurance and PHARMA would be thrilled if Hillary wins
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize winning progressive economist, wrote a couple weeks ago about how Wall Street's donations to Democrats have plummeted since 2010. They don't want Hillary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=1
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had an argument about financial regulation during Tuesdays debate but it wasnt about whether to crack down on banks. Instead, it was about whose plan was tougher. The contrast with Republicans like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, who have pledged to reverse even the moderate financial reforms enacted in 2010, couldnt be stronger.
For what its worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But its not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from shadow banks like Lehman Brothers, which dont take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasnt.
But is Mrs. Clintons promise to take a tough line on the financial industry credible? Or would she, once in the White House, return to the finance-friendly, deregulatory policies of the 1990s?
Well, if Wall Streets attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industrys excesses. And thats why theyre doing all they can to elect a Republican.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)You're probably fooling the rabid Clinton supporters, but that's it
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)those given to HRC or any Dem.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)That is the matter to consider when choosing between the two in a primary.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And her answer in the debate about how she would change banking regulations didn't make them want her any more.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)In a primary, that is what matters. We are not at the general election stage yet.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'm terrified of her being the President. Her ethics are blatantly compromised, and that scares me to death.
I don't want a Republican in office - that would be a nightmare for our nation.
I do not dislike Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, and I'm a woman saying this, but because she has compromised values.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)She has a lot of qualifications and is better than any republican candidate out there.
But she isn't the right person for the position.
Hillary is in it for her. Same as she was when she carpetbagged for the senate. She feels she has 'earned' the job and wants it for her own reasons. Everyone knew then that she was going to the senate because she wanted to run for president. They weren't wrong.
I don't hate her, don't think she is an evil person, and I have defended her many times elsewhere on many issues. But she isn't in this for liberals, for others, she is in this for herself and the power/prestige of the position. Same as Romney was, he felt he 'deserved' it.
I'll vote for her if she wins the nomination. I just won't defend her and her decisions at every turn.
The only reason she is at where she is now is that there isn't someone charismatic enough to oppose her like Obama. Sanders is ok, but he lacks what swing voters want.
She is a machine dedicated to one thing - herself.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)liked her, too. And polls show they still do. The large majority of Obama voters support Hillary in the coming election.
And your "machine" language is just the kind of sexist tripe that is often directed at strong, focused, ambitious, successful women.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I believe the "machine" most people mean is that of the political machine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine
I very much doubt any sexism is intended or implied by that statement.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)of what he wrote, it is clear that he meant it.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I would not reasonably be able to reach such a conclusion without further evidence.
By the way, I would also not jump to the conclusion that the poster is male. What makes you do that?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Sometimes I forget I am new here.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it. I've never seen TSS correct anyone for referring to "him" as "he."
Welcome to DU, by the way!
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and so I looked. Heres the kind of post that made me decide hes male. And that he's not exactly a feminist. First, Bonobo posted an OP about a phrase the male gaze that is used in the media and advertising using female images to sell products.
And he replied as follows:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024215971#post40
There are a lot of reasons I could be shown to be a horrible human being (like being really pro-choice in a lot more topics than one, not bashing all owners of a device based on what very few who own it are like, etc) but it appears my worst sins in life have gone unnoticed by even myself.
To my lady friends - I promise not to look (unless by accident) for more than 1.2 seconds (you can time it!), never to open a door for you ...unless I have credentials with me to prove first I have opened it for others. You never know if I will ever see that woman again and the poor thing could spend her life wondering if I opened it because I was some sick man. Can we get one of those punch card thingees so I can fill it up as proof?
Hmmm Perhaps I can create some jobs and have some folks follow me around and film my life so I can be properly chastised when I have harmed others in such ways. We could call the show "Outrage! The invisible denial of the male species" (it doesn't have to make sense but should convey that we cannot see the truth of our inner demons, which we deny).
We can get rid of the fashion and make up industry...OH wait. Some folks will dress up for themselves only (ummm, how long do they look in the mirror at themselves? Wonder if I am mind raping myself when I shave and look too long at myself in the mirror? Good god, I hate even myself and didn't realize it!).
There, uh, might be a touch of sarcasm in some of that above. Now I have to run and remove my Matt Smith Dr. Who background, I stare at it a lot which probably means something....
found this . . . I think I've probably read many similar posts over the years.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)in a sexist manner. You never criticized Obama on DU for being too ambitious. For daring to launch a Presidential campaign as a one-term Senator.
But you criticized Hillary for becoming a Senator in order to become President -- as if that's a bad thing. And you said she "is" a machine. Because she has the same qualities successful men are praised for.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)What is a 'sexist' manner?
I have said the same about Romney as it was obvious, and didn't care that he was a male. He felt entitled to it. Compare him to someone like Hunstman back in 2012. Romney had an arrogance about him and a feeling of being entitled to the job. It wasn't about serving, it was about self serving.
Jeb Bush falls into the same category now. It's a 'family' thing to him. He feels he should be president, as though he deserves it. He is a male, does that mean something??
You don't agree with me? Fine. But to trot out the sexist thing is just lame and has no place in this discussion. You want it to, it's a fallback you have when someone is critical of someone you like.
Typical, it seems, of some on the far left. Cry sexism or misogyny and hide behind those terms. You don't want Hillary treated like anyone else because she is woman. Seems like maybe you are the sexist here. Not me.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Couldn't handle the actual discussion so off you run to try to find something you could use.
Typical. And hey, if I were running for office, I would understand it. But I was having a topical discussion with someone on a message board and your defensive responses were to call me sexist (to dismiss what I said) and then to post something to someone from years ago (again, to try to dismiss what I said).
That is the MO of some here and hope others notice it. You can't win an argument so lob labels and spend time going back to find something to attack my character.
It's ok. I get it. I'll try to do better and treat women different for you.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)But you know that.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)My discussions about Hillary aren't about what's between her legs but between her ears.
Seems you and some others are focused on the former. What a shame.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)You are a man who criticizes the most qualified woman ever to run for President as wanting the job too much. Talk about telling.
It is one thing to criticize her for specific policies. But you cross the line into sexism when you criticize such an accomplished woman for being ambitious.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)If you can.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)a former Senator and Secretary of state, as being too ambitious.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/are-we-born-racist/201010/is-hillary-clinton-pathologically-ambitious
This perception of Clinton has always bothered me. The reason is gender inequity. The last time that I checked, nobody has accused other presidential candidates or presidents (all male) of being too ambitious, despite the fact that gunning for the job of "leader of the free world" would seem to require--by any standard--some degree of extraordinary ambition.
In my experience, arguments such as "sexism plays a role here" or "race was a factor in this incident" (see, for example, Lebron James' recent claim about race factoring into reactions to "The Decision" when dealing with specific individuals or events tend not carry much water when trying to convince people about group-level inequities. This is generally because at the individual level, it is often easy to find alternative explanations and attenuating circumstance. No question, Hillary Clinton has ambition; LeBron James' drawn-out announcement that he was "taking his talents" to Miami could have been handled better
One of the central themes of this blog, and of my career more generally, is to get beyond these difficult specific examples, which too often result in finger-pointing and accusations of overreaction (see, e.g., responses to my last blog) and to examine the systematic ways in which cognitive processes are actively at work in the maintenance of racial and gender inequalities.
Why would Hillary Clinton in particular be vulnerable to perceptions that are-- I suspect unconsciously-- sexist? The answer lies in the fact that Hillary Clinton was forging into a territory that is overwhelmingly associated in people's minds with men -- the presidency in particular, and leadership roles more generally. As noted in the New York Times recently, women continue to lag behind men in appointments to position in leadership. And here is why these kinds of strong mental associations matter for the perpetuation of inequities.
SNIP
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I don't get it, I treat her as a candidate and voice my opinion of said candidate and you rush to bring up gender.
Ok, just for you, I will make sure to treat women different from here on out - it's the progressive thing to do right?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)A male Democratic Senator and Secretary of State wouldn't draw the same reaction. You would focus on the policies you disagree with, rather than complaining that he was too ambitious.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I didn't think to myself "Well, romney has a penis and that is why he thinks he deserves it."
And I mentioned also that I saw Huntsman as different than Romney in all of that. It wasn't about what they have between their legs. It is about their personalities, histories, etc.
But say that about clinton and you want to make it about her gender.
Like I said, I will treat women different for you from here on out. Hillary is great! She needs us to treat her different because she is a woman, so hey everybody - treat her like a little kid and be nice to her, women can't handle the heat, let's treat them as though women are weaker than men and not say anything that might hurt their 'feelings'.
Is that what you would like?
Lord, I hope I don't say something bad about Bernie next, someone might call me ageist. Oh, and I won't criticize Obama about anything either, because I am white. So, yeah Obama on abandoning single payer, drone strikes, etc. We wouldn't want him to feel equal to others in criticizing him now would we?
Do you even listen to yourself and how you are treating hillary?
You act like she is 'fragile' a child who should be coddled.
You are far more sexist than I could ever be.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Not that he is wrong about some of that... but I really don't want to get roped into a discussion on that topic. There be dragons!
The "Blink" Doctor Who reference in that thread, though, is hilarious.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I get it - if you don't totally approve of hillary it is because you are sexist.
Sounds a little desperate if you ask me.
It's like the whole hair thing and people claiming it is sexist, same people who might bash trump over his.
I remember people on DU talking about Obama's looks and such, but say anything at all about Hillary and suddenly someone wants to slap the label of sexist on you.
Yeah...no. Not buying it. If you can't discuss things without resorting to that you just aren't serious. Maybe it is all about her gender to you, but some of us are looking at this from an adult perspective where we are trying to choose the next leader of the US.
And I don't give on wit their sex or color. My mind isn't focused on those things, apparently yours is. I see people, ideals, histories, you see sex.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)(in your accusation that she only became a Senator in order to be President) and then to say she is a "machine" -- that's sexist.
Especially when it's coupled with the fact that you never questioned why one-term Senator Barack Obama would decide to run for President. A man being ambitious -- that's fine, in your world.
But I don't expect you to understand that.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I don't begrudge someone being ambitious, most everyone is.
It is about motivation. Notice, if you will, I put Romney in the same category. Someone who had done some service and expected more - that he was in it for him. But all you see is that I mentioned Hillary.
I don't see Obama and his run as the same anymore than I see Huntsman and his run as the same as Romney's.
But you want to bring out the sexist stick to label people with because it makes it easier for you.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Senator, for being so ambitious that he'd run for President.
But you feel justified in criticizing a Senator and Secretary of State for her ambition.
Which is typical of people with gender expectations. This woman, who has the nerve to have the same ambition as a man, is a "machine" in your view. Something inhuman.
If you have ever called an ambitious man a machine, please link.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)"We", nothing. Hillary and Obama were almost neck to neck in pledged delegates in 2008. That's why the super delegates came into play.
It's offensive to assume that she is running for president for herself. This is a woman who has dedicated her life to service. She doesn't need the money, nor the stress and pressure. She could relax at home and help Bill with the foundation.
You may prefer Sanders, but you don't know Hillary and your conclusion is erroneous.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I think the field is too thin myself.
Sanders is good, I don't think he can win the election though.
I have said before Hillary is very qualified, and I still think she is. But I am not under the illusion that she is in it for anyone but herself. This isn't, to her, about liberal values and fighting the right wing and what they want.
Said earlier and will again, she is no different than Romney in this. All about what they think they deserve. And yes, I will vote for her and back her if she wins the nomination. I have defended her a ton on Benghazi and all the stupid attacks about her emails, etc (I post mostly on reddit these days).
But don't labor under the illusion that she is all about liberalism and America or the party. She is in it for her first and foremost. We are all just an afterthought and are needed for her candidacy. I understand that when it is conservatives, I don't like to see that in someone who is supposed to be representing something bigger - like liberal ideals.
NBachers
(17,120 posts)burnishing his credentials when he ran against Kenneth Keating and won in 1964.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Mitt Romney
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)scared shitless!
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Her road to the White House is littered with them.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)It was evident by the way they talked about her in the debate.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)You're a GOP strategist who has two potential candidates your opponents can run.
Would you rather face the recent flash in the pan, who you've only been researching for a few months, or a long time rival that you've accumulated 20+ years of opposition research on because you (and everyone else in DC) knew eventually there would be a potential Presidential campaign by that candidate?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)if they had anything...they would have used it years ago...
(and "recent" flash in the pan... )
RichVRichV
(885 posts)(which is a huge assumption, I know) what possible reason would they have to use it? She hasn't run against a Republican since she was running for senator in New York. You don't bury a candidate in a primary you're not running in just to face a different candidate in the general. You save it for the general when you can use it to win the election. The same would apply against any of our candidates.
Just because Republican politicians are stupid doesn't mean the people who run their smear campaigns are stupid.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)SoS....
The are SEVERELY intimidated by women....particularly THAT woman! There is NOTHING a Rightwinger hates more than a woman with power...especially one that didn't kick her man to the curb for cheating when they wanted him impeached! They hate her....
Hekate
(90,714 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)and hope that the one with the lowest rating would win.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)their research has no doubt demonstrated that she will pose a formidable challenge.
And her campaign is no doubt engaging in its own thorough opposition research.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)Their entire premise on everything is acting out of either fear or anger. It's all they know.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Their front runners are two flawed individuals with zero political experience who would be terrible at governing. They also know that Hillary would eat them alive in a debate. If nothing else, the interminable Benghazi hearing proved her mettle.
oasis
(49,389 posts)She'll make mincemeat of anyone on the current list of Republicans.
Cha
(297,307 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)If they're "terrified," imagine how we feel.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)There is not a banana peel, there is someone worse, someone whose entire tenure as head of the DLC has been marked by FAILURE.
Who needs a banana peel when you have Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
Seriously, count the number of house seats, governor ships, senators lost under her tenure, but aw, that is all Obama's fault, right? Of course, blame Obama, not the fact that we have Billionaires who can throw money at goobers.