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
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 01:46 PM Jul 2017

Very simple explanation for why Schumer and other Dems are distancing themselves from Hillary

She's unpopular, especially for former candidates and presidents.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/finally-a-poll-trump-will-like-clinton-even-more-unpopular



From the same poll:

In contrast to Clinton, former President Barack Obama has fared well with some distance from the spotlight. He’s viewed favorably by 61 percent, up 5 points since December and at the highest level since the poll began tracking him in September 2009.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is just one percentage point below Obama and at his highest level since the poll started asking about him in December 2009.


It doesn't really matter in the world of politics whether it's fair or unfair that Clinton is unpopular. There's a reason Tr*mp brings her up in his tweets all the time.

At least 20% of those polled have a positive view of Obama but a negative one of Clinton, despite the fact their policies are virtually identical.


107 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Very simple explanation for why Schumer and other Dems are distancing themselves from Hillary (Original Post) geek tragedy Jul 2017 OP
So almost as soon as she started running she goes down? Ligyron Jul 2017 #1
and she's not getting viewed more positively now because the entire country geek tragedy Jul 2017 #3
Some may never "get over it"... Agschmid Jul 2017 #43
Correct...it's just possible Schumer and the Dems aren't being stupid here BeyondGeography Jul 2017 #2
Schumer takes shots at her and then complains that she's wounded. pnwmom Jul 2017 #7
They've obviously concluded that they need to distance themselves from Hillary BeyondGeography Jul 2017 #13
Well, it's not because of honesty and integrity. n/t pnwmom Jul 2017 #44
one also needs to remember that despite winning (by cheating) onetexan Jul 2017 #62
The strategy is asinine at best it doesn't change facts to "distance" themselves from HRC ... Scumer uponit7771 Jul 2017 #4
The base isn't going to stay home in 2018 because geek tragedy Jul 2017 #9
Get a kick out of your use of corporate term "rebrand" delisen Jul 2017 #61
Is it innacurate? Baconator Jul 2017 #104
And when people like Schumer publicly blame her, that increases negative publicity against her, pnwmom Jul 2017 #5
So? Nevernose Jul 2017 #19
But it has an effect on all women. KitSileya Jul 2017 #28
Yeah that misogyny isn't going anywhere, even when a woman wins. Agschmid Jul 2017 #46
Maybe its time to stop using her as a stand-in for the achievements and advancement of all women Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #66
OFFS, all women in public are treated heinously. KitSileya Jul 2017 #68
+1 betsuni Jul 2017 #70
I do remember a couple months ago, when Warren aligned herself w/Sanders, and people here lost it Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #72
"GOP congressman blames health care struggles on lapucelle Jul 2017 #82
So people are blaming her for the lower popularity numbers that they helped to bring about. nt pnwmom Jul 2017 #42
What Schumer did was unnecessary. NCTraveler Jul 2017 #6
he helped publicly distance the party from an historically unpopular presidential candidate. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #11
"he helped publicly distance the party from an historically unpopular presidential candidate." NCTraveler Jul 2017 #21
that you disagree with something does not make it 'deceptive' nt geek tragedy Jul 2017 #30
Point not in contention. NCTraveler Jul 2017 #33
you obviously did. you pretty much accused me of lying. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #34
According to whom? Baconator Jul 2017 #105
So Trump is going to be helping a Dems somehow? What? bettyellen Jul 2017 #26
Exactly. It's deceptive not to acknowledge the aggressive smears against her R B Garr Jul 2017 #40
Oh for fucks sake. What a bunch of fucking Theon Greyjoys. LuvLoogie Jul 2017 #8
Should we be Ned Starks instead? nt geek tragedy Jul 2017 #12
I'd rather die with honor and my principles intact Blue_Adept Jul 2017 #14
Good thing those are not the only two choices. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #15
What happened when alot of the Democratic candidates kacekwl Jul 2017 #84
Clinton is not our candidate anymore. She is not the President. She is a private citizen. nt geek tragedy Jul 2017 #93
Come on , she was our candidate kacekwl Jul 2017 #106
No. It's stupid and I don't get it. kcr Jul 2017 #10
+1000 smirkymonkey Jul 2017 #23
I agree, too! bdjhawk Jul 2017 #27
Yeah, there was totally no infighting in the GOP primary in 2016. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #36
+10000 treestar Jul 2017 #77
Why say anything then? nini Jul 2017 #16
he didn't mention her name. it's just being assumed nt geek tragedy Jul 2017 #17
I hope the Democratic Party get the red out Jul 2017 #18
duh it's why its called Populism-vote popularity not competency delisen Jul 2017 #20
And Trump used his ass ismnotwasm Jul 2017 #22
Democratic party's weakness don't need revealing--already in plain view for those who would look geek tragedy Jul 2017 #31
Well yeah, because we keep doing shit like this ismnotwasm Jul 2017 #39
I think there's a big difference between piling on her for bullshit or rw talking points geek tragedy Jul 2017 #45
Well see I see every criticism tainted with misogyny ismnotwasm Jul 2017 #47
Focus on the speeches was politics--it was spectacularly tone deaf to geek tragedy Jul 2017 #49
Dems should be finding new candidates not litigating old losses. As valuable as Hillary is she's out mulsh Jul 2017 #24
I agree, they want to move ahead and Hillary is the past. jalan48 Jul 2017 #25
Since Trump won't let Hillary go, it's really the only choice leftstreet Jul 2017 #29
It really does seem like people on here.... vi5 Jul 2017 #32
That seems like an extreme misperception and makes me mistrust your opinion. Why don't you create seaglass Jul 2017 #48
They can go fuck themselves, too! cynatnite Jul 2017 #35
Democrats are fighting to preserve Obama's legacy. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #37
I meant Bill Clinton's. Sorry I didn't clarify that... cynatnite Jul 2017 #38
Legacies don't mean a damn thing to voters Kentonio Jul 2017 #64
same old tired bullshit Skittles Jul 2017 #41
A poll which over sampled under educated white independent males has hillary clinton unpopular? JHan Jul 2017 #50
Thank you! That helps to explain much. NurseJackie Jul 2017 #87
Many in the base have other thoughts Chevy Jul 2017 #51
K&R. Excellent lunamagica Jul 2017 #52
eloquent email. beautifully summed up... JHan Jul 2017 #53
Indeed. But she was called Chevy Jul 2017 #54
gosh.. JHan Jul 2017 #55
A complete shill no doubt Chevy Jul 2017 #56
perfect grammar in the email too.. JHan Jul 2017 #57
Pure elitist n/t Chevy Jul 2017 #58
Great! betsuni Jul 2017 #59
Damn! NurseJackie Jul 2017 #88
Excellent romana Jul 2017 #89
Trump brings Clinton up in hopes she will take the bait delisen Jul 2017 #60
As much as I like Hillary I can't ignore the exit poll Awsi Dooger Jul 2017 #63
What's the national exit poll? lapucelle Jul 2017 #79
Bill and Hillary have always played hardball politics Kentonio Jul 2017 #65
Are you actually defending him? BainsBane Jul 2017 #71
Clearly. Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #80
"A better deal" was made to suit progressives .. JHan Jul 2017 #91
Yet we see all of that ignored BainsBane Jul 2017 #92
And controlling how the message is disseminated is not the same as having no message.. JHan Jul 2017 #98
What that poll shows is the power of the GOP slander machine--in 2013 Hilllary was near 70% andym Jul 2017 #67
Why do you even care about her popularity? BainsBane Jul 2017 #69
Trump is running a campaign to destroy Hillary's brand. Hillary needs to make it UCmeNdc Jul 2017 #73
Schumer doubleplus ungood badspeak wrongthink Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #74
Yeah, and they are starting on Kamala Harris...why don't we just let the GOP pick our candidates so Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #75
She won the popular vote treestar Jul 2017 #76
Unpopular: sounds like high school. betsuni Jul 2017 #78
and no more relavent BainsBane Jul 2017 #90
how do you think elections get decided? nt geek tragedy Jul 2017 #95
I guess elections get decided because Americans never grow the fuck up? betsuni Jul 2017 #96
62.5 million people who voted for Twitler certainly a data point for that proposition nt geek tragedy Jul 2017 #97
How about we stop helping the GOP push their memes against Dems and HRC? nikibatts Jul 2017 #81
If the GOP has become an incompetent, deranged cult of personality. . . ariadne0614 Jul 2017 #83
She's not running f/ office again so why continue support? Panich52 Jul 2017 #85
She's just a convenient lightning rod/punching bag for the right and left Blue_Tires Jul 2017 #86
Is it smart to grab onto a lightning rod with both hands? nt geek tragedy Jul 2017 #94
It's unfair to blast Schumer for something he DIDN'T say Jim Lane Jul 2017 #99
Schumer is absolutely right in what he's saying. geek tragedy Jul 2017 #100
In colloquial English, "you" often means "one" Jim Lane Jul 2017 #102
a lot of people say "but Hillary had plans for all of those concerns" geek tragedy Jul 2017 #103
To ensure accuracy... BamaRefugee Jul 2017 #101
Post removed Post removed Jul 2017 #107
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
3. and she's not getting viewed more positively now because the entire country
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 01:56 PM
Jul 2017

is still not over the 2016 election.

BeyondGeography

(39,276 posts)
2. Correct...it's just possible Schumer and the Dems aren't being stupid here
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 01:53 PM
Jul 2017

Every time Trump's followers get bored, he takes a shot at Hillary and they wake up. One need only look at how many more likes his HRC-related tweets get. Additionally, Dems most certainly have polling that shows them getting low marks for being perceived as not owning up to the reality of the 2016 result. Otherwise, Schumer, who has been one of HRC's most stalwart supporters for many years, would not have gone there.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
7. Schumer takes shots at her and then complains that she's wounded.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 02:00 PM
Jul 2017

When both Republicans and many Democrats are using her as target practice, what do you expect?

BeyondGeography

(39,276 posts)
13. They've obviously concluded that they need to distance themselves from Hillary
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 02:04 PM
Jul 2017

I'm sure you disagree, but Schumer isn't just another Bernie Bro. You might ask yourself why a politically smart and longtime HRC loyalist like Schumer has gotten to where he is on this point.

onetexan

(12,992 posts)
62. one also needs to remember that despite winning (by cheating)
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 03:52 AM
Jul 2017

the orange jackass can't seem to get Hillary or Obama out from under his skin. He knows how authentic and clearly more highly qualfied they are than he is, that he is way out of their league, & that he could not have won without cheating.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
4. The strategy is asinine at best it doesn't change facts to "distance" themselves from HRC ... Scumer
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 01:56 PM
Jul 2017

... is that stupid IMHO, more disconnected with DNC base and their love for her.

Also, HRC's poll numbers were great until the GOP spent 100 million of us tax dollars to decrease her poll numbers via Bhenghazi

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
9. The base isn't going to stay home in 2018 because
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 02:01 PM
Jul 2017

Chuck Schumer made one off-hand comment about Clinton.

Can the Democratic party rebrand itself without some separation from unpopular figures from its past?

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
5. And when people like Schumer publicly blame her, that increases negative publicity against her,
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 01:58 PM
Jul 2017

and lowers her popularity numbers.

KitSileya

(4,035 posts)
28. But it has an effect on all women.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 03:09 PM
Jul 2017

When women see how Hillary is being treated, even as a private citizen, do you think that'll encourage women to run? It ups the gradient of the hill women have to climb for representation by ten degrees, while men get even more of a downhill run.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
46. Yeah that misogyny isn't going anywhere, even when a woman wins.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 04:29 PM
Jul 2017

It will still be an issue.

Sucks huh?

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
66. Maybe its time to stop using her as a stand-in for the achievements and advancement of all women
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 05:04 AM
Jul 2017

She is one person. There are many strong, powerful, smart and accomplished women rising in the leadership ranks of the Democratic Party, names like Harris and Warren, Gillibrand and Duckworth, etc.


... maybe focus on them? Especially since they're actively in office?

KitSileya

(4,035 posts)
68. OFFS, all women in public are treated heinously.
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 05:29 AM
Jul 2017

Did you read Elizabeth Warren's Facebook page when she refused to endorse anyone in the primary? It was vile, and it was from people on the left side of the political spectrum. Harris is already being talked about as "anointed", etc. We see how women in public spaces are being treated. Author Sady Doyle is being attacked through her newborn baby because she dared to voice opposition to the Chapo Trap house guys.

The thing about Hillary Clinton, though? You might not see it, most men don't, to be honest. She is being attacked even after she's pretty much withdrawn from the public arena, and after she has stated that she takes the blame for her loss. It's telling all women that if they dare presume to get out on the public stage, they'll not only be attacked while on it, even by those who should (on paper) be on the same side as us, but that we'll never get a break after if we try. We will always be hunted if we speak out.

Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, and Duckworth are exceptional women - because that is what women (and other minorities, of course) have to be in order to even manage to think about entering politics. As I said, this hounding of Hillary Clinton makes the hill to climb steeper for all women, and that makes the down-hill slope men have to walk to get to the same place even easier to traverse.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
72. I do remember a couple months ago, when Warren aligned herself w/Sanders, and people here lost it
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 06:06 AM
Jul 2017

hell, there were threads on DU not so subtly insinuating, all of a sudden, that she - Senator Warren, for fuck's sake - was a racist.

I guess that there was driven by misogyny, huh.

lapucelle

(18,037 posts)
82. "GOP congressman blames health care struggles on
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 07:17 AM
Jul 2017

repugnant Republican female senators."

“Some of the people that are opposed to this [i.e., repealing Obamacare] — there are some female senators from the northeast,” Farenthold said. “If it was a guy from south Texas I might ask them to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style.”

https://thinkprogress.org/gop-congressman-blames-health-care-struggle-on-repugnant-republican-female-senators-ca4a2f32c5d7
 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
6. What Schumer did was unnecessary.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 01:58 PM
Jul 2017

The manner in which you have approached this is deceptive.

Schumer gains not one single thing from his comment. He created no distance. What a deceptive argument just to take a swipe.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
11. he helped publicly distance the party from an historically unpopular presidential candidate.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 02:03 PM
Jul 2017

Republicans--including Tr*mp--are all talking about how the Democrats are moving on from Clinton.

That's free publicity.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
21. "he helped publicly distance the party from an historically unpopular presidential candidate."
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 02:45 PM
Jul 2017

He did no such thing. There is the deceptive part of your argument.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
33. Point not in contention.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 03:36 PM
Jul 2017

I clearly didn't say it was deceptive because I disagree. What a strang retort.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
34. you obviously did. you pretty much accused me of lying.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 03:38 PM
Jul 2017

because you didn't agree with what I wrote.

newsflash: people can honestly disagree with you.

what part of "he helped publicly distance the party from an historically unpopular presidential candidate" is so obviously false it could only have been written out of dishonesty?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-popularity-poll_us_596e5bc5e4b0000eb1967c73

R B Garr

(16,919 posts)
40. Exactly. It's deceptive not to acknowledge the aggressive smears against her
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 04:22 PM
Jul 2017

that were designed to achieve the results of lowering her approval ratings. That's why they smeared her. It didn't just happen in a vacuum.

And Schumer just tossed his hat in the very same ring.

It's obvious that he is just trying to appeal to the Clinton haters.

Blue_Adept

(6,384 posts)
14. I'd rather die with honor and my principles intact
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 02:06 PM
Jul 2017

than to live as Reek, castrated, meek, and living in constant fear. Even if they give him some sort of redemption arc it doesn't matter.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
15. Good thing those are not the only two choices.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 02:09 PM
Jul 2017

Reminder that Schumer has been very effective leading the Democratic resistance to Tr*mp inside DC and especially the Senate.

His goal is fighting Tr*mp and winning elections, not salvaging Clinton's reputation.

Reminder that in politics if one wants a friend, buy a dog.


kacekwl

(6,993 posts)
84. What happened when alot of the Democratic candidates
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 07:52 AM
Jul 2017

ran away from Obama ? ALL I see is a party that doesn't support its own positions and makes me more likely to do the same. Example, Bernie Sanders.

kacekwl

(6,993 posts)
106. Come on , she was our candidate
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 05:32 PM
Jul 2017

and Schumer' s statement is wrong and unnecessary. Hillary was the candidate pushing the Democratic party position and bashing her shows everyone that the Leadership by pushing her away you push those positions away.

kcr

(15,300 posts)
10. No. It's stupid and I don't get it.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 02:01 PM
Jul 2017

Why would we take the fist that the GOP beats us with and then beat ourselves some more, saying "Yep! It's true! We suck!" And right when Trump and the GOP are imploding! It makes no god damned sense. The we-have-to-own-our-mistakes crowd don't get that the GOP never pull this crap. You'll never see them doing it. It's weak kneed bullshit. We don't need to beat ourselves up to win.

bdjhawk

(420 posts)
27. I agree, too!
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 03:09 PM
Jul 2017

She was the DEMOCRATIC nominee and negative comments reflect on our brand. There is no point to putting her down and basically agreeing with tRump and the other racist, woman-haters that are spewing negativity. Her beliefs/policy proposals are right in line with most Dems and what we should be reminding the general public of. As tRump and the Repugs look to screw over all but the top of the 1%-ers, our message should be a constant message of what it would be like if she was President. While the 30 year non-stop RW war on HRC is to blame, we have allowed it to take hold more than it should have by not attacking back with FACTS to defend her and other Dems.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
36. Yeah, there was totally no infighting in the GOP primary in 2016.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 03:41 PM
Jul 2017

Tr*mp had nothing bad to say about GOP practices in the past.

get the red out

(13,458 posts)
18. I hope the Democratic Party
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 02:15 PM
Jul 2017

Can just move on to the next races and then the next Presidential primaries. The party doesn't help itself by staying stuck in the past. RW brainwashing, lying media hate-spewers demonized a good woman who would have been a very good President, then Russia helped cause her to lose on top of that. Just have to work on what happens from here.

delisen

(6,039 posts)
20. duh it's why its called Populism-vote popularity not competency
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 02:22 PM
Jul 2017

Clinton is threatening. she sees the big picture and acts. She takes strong stands. It why Putin hates her: sanctions, human rights...

In fact the oil industry doesn't like her either.

Tillerson probably dislikes her too. she stood in the way of oil profits.
It is always interesting to see big oil and a few in the center and on the left unite against a common "enemy".



ismnotwasm

(41,916 posts)
22. And Trump used his ass
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 02:49 PM
Jul 2017

It was a dumbass comment anyway you slice it--it revealed weaknesses of the Democratic Party to the point it shows we are eating our own.

I know there are a number of things to improve. Couple Of Things not to do; Chasing racist white votes at the expense of African American base. Taking party hits off the back of Hillary Clinton. It makes us look weak.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
31. Democratic party's weakness don't need revealing--already in plain view for those who would look
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 03:33 PM
Jul 2017

"at the expense of African-American base" is the key part--Obama managed to thread that needle in a way that Clinton couldn't/didn't.

Republicans eat their own much more than we do. This was a pretty mild statement compared to what their side says about each other.





ismnotwasm

(41,916 posts)
39. Well yeah, because we keep doing shit like this
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 04:17 PM
Jul 2017

To be fair, Democrats are never going to be the lock step Republican Party, and will always have wide variance, but it's a still a variance within perimeters.

Times are changing. AA's have a right not to be taken for granted as per usual. I'm firmly convinced diversity is the future of our party, and leave the Hillary bashing to the bros and to the rightwing nuts. She should be honored as the statesman she is. That being said--I get we need to criticize and analyze. And we need to do it a lot. What we don't need to do is give those assholes on the dark side free ammo. Make them work for it.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
45. I think there's a big difference between piling on her for bullshit or rw talking points
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 04:28 PM
Jul 2017

vs consciously deciding that (1) the party needs to rebrand itself and (2) the party needs to have a very honest discussion about what it did wrong.

Note, by the way, that this sort of event was probably bound to happen after Clinton's interview at Recode, where she suggested criticism over giving Wall Street speeches after the subprime shitpile was misogynistic (maybe literally the one criticism that wasn't tainted by misogyny) and that she lost because the DNC data team dropped the ball and where she dropped this doozy:

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


Her trashing of the DNC, especially its data team, in public like that while refusing to admit that she did anything that caused herself to lose was really the last straw for a number of people--most similar to the Kerry "stuck in Iraq" fiasco.

It seems that a lot of the criticism over eating our own should have also been directed at her back when she gave that interview.

ismnotwasm

(41,916 posts)
47. Well see I see every criticism tainted with misogyny
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 04:47 PM
Jul 2017

Especially the intense focus on the speeches if not the speeches themselves. I understand not everyone is going to see things that way, so in that, you have a point. The DNC couldn't or wouldn't control the media, the constant pressure, constant bashing of "Hillary Clinton" like she was patent fucking pending. She rode it like a champ--it took a lot, one hell of a lot from all sides, to take her down. That's my overall impression by the way. How much it actually took, in real time,to make her lose. So while yes we need to feel our way through the tough questions, and yes, we don't have the luxury of time to do so--that means to me we have to be careful about the time we have. I'll reiterate, giving ammo to those fuckers is not what I want to do--sorry I'm not being very articulate, I'm typing furiously from work...

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
49. Focus on the speeches was politics--it was spectacularly tone deaf to
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 05:08 PM
Jul 2017

give big bucks speeches to the people who gave us the financial crisis. Any primary opponent would have hit her on that. Candidate Obama in 2008 hit her for less and arguably even in harsher tones. I think people have forgotten how personal the 2008 primary was on both sides, in terms of the attacks.

I don't think it's giving the Republicans much ammo to say "the Democratic party needs to broaden its appeal and learn from the mistakes it made in the past"-getting that sort of thing widely distributed is actually absolutely necessary in order to rebrand the party and help win back disaffected voters.

mulsh

(2,959 posts)
24. Dems should be finding new candidates not litigating old losses. As valuable as Hillary is she's out
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 03:05 PM
Jul 2017

time to find newer, fresher candidates. I suggest not wasting time on people who consistently say they aren't interested in running for the office like Warren or Franke for pres. and concentrate on up and coming people like Harris, Gillibrand, Kloblacher, Booker, Coons, Schiff, and many more.

-notice how the women are listed first, that's a hint to my fellow DU-ers who are thinking of viable candidates.

Schumer is looking for face time on TV, bad mouthing Hillary achieves that goal, too bad a clever guy like him has to resort to stunts like that.

leftstreet

(36,076 posts)
29. Since Trump won't let Hillary go, it's really the only choice
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 03:20 PM
Jul 2017

The GOPers will be campaigning against 'Teh Clintons!' in the year 3000.

The Democrats have to start somewhere to unring this rusty bell

DURec

 

vi5

(13,305 posts)
32. It really does seem like people on here....
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 03:34 PM
Jul 2017

....actually think that somehow all of this is going to play out with Clinton still becoming president somehow. I firmly believe that is why people are focusing more effort on the Russian issue than they are on the literally hundreds of other things Trump is doing that can and should take him down and also just as likely to destroy our democracy if they remain unchallenged and unchecked. It's that the Russia issue somehow validates Hillary.

Many don't seem to want to realize that there is literally no possible way this plays out that Hillary Clinton becomes president. Not one. Not a single miniscule, minute, microscopic, sub-atomic chance that she will ever be president no matter what comes out about the election of 2016.

seaglass

(8,170 posts)
48. That seems like an extreme misperception and makes me mistrust your opinion. Why don't you create
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 04:56 PM
Jul 2017

a DU poll to see how many think there is a possibility Hillary is going to become President.

Hillary SHOULD be President, does not mean she will be.

cynatnite

(31,011 posts)
35. They can go fuck themselves, too!
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 03:40 PM
Jul 2017

The Dems ran away from Obamacare when it was signed into law and the repubs beat on it to whip up their rabid base.

Here they're doing it again and it's against Hillary despite the fact that she still got 3 million more votes, the Russians and tRump's colluded together and Comey yanking the rug out from under her just days before the election.

They can go fuck themselves for all I care.

I have fucking supported the Dems for years back when Big Dog was president.

The Dems should be fighting like hell for the Clinton and Obama's legacies. Stop letting the fucking repukes constantly cram their talking points down everyone's throat.

Most of the problem with the Dems is that they aren't fighting hard enough and sometimes it feels like they're not fighting at all. They're just rolling the fuck over for the repubs.

I'm goddamn sick of it.

Not only that, I'm even questioning why the hell I'm in this party right now.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
37. Democrats are fighting to preserve Obama's legacy.
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 03:42 PM
Jul 2017

They aren't fighting for Clinton's for the same reason they didn't fight for Kerry's or Gore. Losing Presidential candidates don't become President and they thus don't have a legacy to defend.

cynatnite

(31,011 posts)
38. I meant Bill Clinton's. Sorry I didn't clarify that...
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 03:43 PM
Jul 2017

Hillary does have a legacy, but it's not in the presidential realm.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
64. Legacies don't mean a damn thing to voters
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 04:42 AM
Jul 2017

The only reason the idiot in the White House got anywhere close enough to winning is because huge parts of the country feel like their lives are getting worse not better, so they were willing to take a punt on that vile asshole. If we were stronger and selling our message properly that could not have happened.

So how about we stop talking about legacies and the hurt feelings and reputations of millionaire politicians and start focusing on telling the voters exactly what we're going to do to improve their lives.

Skittles

(152,963 posts)
41. same old tired bullshit
Mon Jul 24, 2017, 04:24 PM
Jul 2017

BENGHAZI! EMAILS!

that gal is held accountable more than all the men put together

JHan

(10,173 posts)
50. A poll which over sampled under educated white independent males has hillary clinton unpopular?
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 01:53 AM
Jul 2017

well stop the presses, I'm shocked.

And this is some how a sign that Hillary Clinton should be treated like a leper in the Democratic Party?

"It doesn't really matter in the world of politics" - If our female Democratic politicians are targets of propaganda it matters. It also mattered that America Rising Superpac targeted Clinton way back in 2015 and some on the left fell for their machinations, worse yet we had no response for it. Not only did we have no response for it, America's sexism was exposed in the way "establishment" was hung round Clinton's neck, a woman who has been a liberal reformer as a public servant, like an albatross by progressives and liberals, conservatives and republicans alike. It matters because Ratfucking is bad, ratfucking diminishes our leaders and their accomplishments and no Democrat should fall in that trap.

Warren and Harris will be targeted - Harris less so because she has less of a record to demonize her with which is crazy..

Public Policy Polling: Another poll which oversamples certain demographics, is revealing as well:

Voters wish that either Barack Obama (53/40) or Hillary Clinton (49/42) was President instead of Trump. Trump loses by wide margins in hypothetical matches against Joe Biden (54/39) or Bernie Sanders (52/39) for reelection. Trump loses 12-13% of the folks who voted for him last fall to either Biden or Sanders. Trump also trails in hypothetical contests against Elizabeth Warren (49/42), Cory Booker (45/40), and Kamala Harris (41/40). The one Democrat Trump manages a tie against is Mark Zuckerberg, at 40/40. Zuckerberg is actually not a particularly well known figure nationally- 47% of voters say they have no opinion about him to 24% with a positive one and 29% with a negative one.


So miss me with the newest hot take that HRC should be persona non grata.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/07/health-care-a-mine-field-for-republicans-many-trump-voters-in-denial-on-russia.html

EDIT: I'm all for moving on from last year, that'll be great. But I won't throw a dedicated Democrat under the bus to do so....

JHan

(10,173 posts)
53. eloquent email. beautifully summed up...
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 02:13 AM
Jul 2017

she's not an independent white male voter though, so no one will care.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
55. gosh..
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 02:15 AM
Jul 2017

she's exactly what a neo liberal shill looks like I guess!?

/sarcasm.

the bullshit we must endure eh.

romana

(765 posts)
89. Excellent
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 09:15 AM
Jul 2017

I'm sending mine out today. Schumer should've found a better way to convey what he meant on Sunday. They are really taking certain demographics for granted since November and IMO need some pushback.

delisen

(6,039 posts)
60. Trump brings Clinton up in hopes she will take the bait
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 03:37 AM
Jul 2017

and join the fray, thus enabling Republicans and Trump to make her the topic and not the mess they have made.

Why work for the Republican agenda by tearing down your party's candidate--whom Republicans and Putin still fear even though she is supposedly defeated?



 

Awsi Dooger

(14,565 posts)
63. As much as I like Hillary I can't ignore the exit poll
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 04:15 AM
Jul 2017

National exit poll:

* Hillary -- 43% favorable, 55% unfavorable
* Democratic Party -- 47% favorable, 49% unfavorable

So Trump gains more from attacking Hillary than the Democratic Party in general. He figured that out ages ago.

It can be logically argued that the net opinion of our party would have been positive with a more popular nominee. There is not a clean separation.

BTW, Trump in the same exit poll was 38-60 and his party 40-55.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
65. Bill and Hillary have always played hardball politics
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 04:44 AM
Jul 2017

Yet suddenly this little slap from Schumer is seen by some as too much? Crazy world we live in..

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
71. Are you actually defending him?
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 05:43 AM
Jul 2017

From what I heard, the "progressives" were outraged that he came out in support of some policy positions they supported, until yesterday.


Hillary Clinton is out of politics. She's said very plainly she will not run again. Of course, Schumer would not have made those comments if she were still in. What he did wasn't hardball. It was an effort to placate critics who don't want his support for issues. If issues mattered, they wouldn't dislike Clinton so much. Since the GE, we've seen them absolutely giddy when Bernie endorsed positions that Clinton had proposed in detail. It's pretty obvious that what matters is not policy or issues but who proposes something. And they believe they are entitled to power, despite not being able to win a single elected anywhere, even in the bluest of districts. Schumer could lie down for every last one of their demands, and they'd still want his head.

Schumer obviously has no idea who he's dealing with.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
91. "A better deal" was made to suit progressives ..
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 11:34 AM
Jul 2017

and a lot of them are still bitchin - the name is wrong , it's "uninspiring"... LOL, I mean really?? LOL...Can't please people.

I often say it's best to take personalities out of the thing, it's foolish to characterize Democrats has having no message last year - it's the hot take by the armchair experts but it bears no semblance to reality:

"But here is the troubling reality for civically minded liberals looking to justify their preferred strategies: Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle-class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost.

She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.


What’s more, the evidence that Clinton lost because of the nation’s economic disenchantment is extremely mixed. Some economists found that Trump won in counties affected by trade with China. But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits. In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy. If the 2016 election had come down to economics exclusively, the working class—which, by any reasonable definition, includes the black, Hispanic, and Asian working classes, too—would have elected Hillary Clinton president.

The more frightening possibility for liberals is that Clinton didn’t lose because the white working class failed to hear her message, but precisely because they did hear it."


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/

People want to know why some folks get irritated when we hear "there was no message" - it's because it's an insult to our intelligence.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
92. Yet we see all of that ignored
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 11:38 AM
Jul 2017

despite having the evidence pointed to them repeatedly. Whatever prompts people to continue to push a false narrative is clearly too important to be encumbered by facts.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
98. And controlling how the message is disseminated is not the same as having no message..
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 12:21 PM
Jul 2017

I really wish there was a better understanding of this..Also we must have political power for our message to resonate, the minimum wage increase will be incremental after the legislative arm twisting and wage stagnation is a complex thing requiring more than just an increase by a couple dollars in the minimum wage. Did you see Justanothergen's post in AA group? https://www.democraticunderground.com/118762363 A one size fits all strategy won't work.

But we have to control political narratives... The GOP do this VERY well. It's why their swiftboating is so destructive and effective.

andym

(5,441 posts)
67. What that poll shows is the power of the GOP slander machine--in 2013 Hilllary was near 70%
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 05:25 AM
Jul 2017

when she was SS. More popular than Obama at the time. Since 2016 she has been in the low 40's to high 30's. The GOP was aided and abetted by the FBI investigation of her email server and to some extent Wikileaks and the Russians. Some rare politicians wear teflon coating: Reagan and Bill Clinton to some extent. Others (like Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and Hillary) are like magnets for slander and I'm not sure why. It's certainly unfair.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
69. Why do you even care about her popularity?
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 05:34 AM
Jul 2017

She has said very clearly she will not be running for office again. Why is it so important for you to ensure that she is treated with abject contempt? What is the goal?

The only reason such a poll exists is because Clinton hating is a multi-billion dollar industry. Where's the poll about Al Gore and John Kerry, or Mike Dukakis? Lots of Democrats have lost, but few of them generate the profits that pillorying Hillary does. That profit-making beast has to be fed.

Oh, wait. This is about dominance politics, isn't it? It's not Clinton that's the target but the majority of Democrats who voted for her. But guess what, we still have the right to vote, and we still are going to exercise it. No corporate media poll is going to change that. I fully intended to continue to exercise my vote based on policy, qualifications, and competence rather than corporate media image, mendacity, and white male dominance.

UCmeNdc

(9,589 posts)
73. Trump is running a campaign to destroy Hillary's brand. Hillary needs to make it
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 06:13 AM
Jul 2017

Personal .

She should attack not as a democratic leader but as a private citizen.

Demsrule86

(68,347 posts)
75. Yeah, and they are starting on Kamala Harris...why don't we just let the GOP pick our candidates so
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 06:22 AM
Jul 2017

we can lose every election.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
90. and no more relavent
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 11:26 AM
Jul 2017

since she is not running for office again. The obsession with Clinton is unparalleled. You'd think they've be happy to have defeated her once and for all. But even that can't satiate them.

 

nikibatts

(2,198 posts)
81. How about we stop helping the GOP push their memes against Dems and HRC?
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 07:15 AM
Jul 2017

Silence is agreement. Every time we allow all those now proved fake stories and negative comments about her campaign go unchallenged we are signaling that we agree. That is not the case. HRC is still popular among my family and friends and they are all over the country. They are angry about what was done to her from both the right and the left. And they are more angry about the current Dems in Congress who continue to bash her and her campaign, especially since they are learning how much fake news and how much Russia targeted and influenced the voters in several swing states.

ariadne0614

(1,692 posts)
83. If the GOP has become an incompetent, deranged cult of personality. . .
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 07:41 AM
Jul 2017

then maybe the Dems should form a united front, not a circular firing squad. Party leaders would be wise to pivot toward a coherent message based on policies that most Americans already support. The strength of the Democratic Party is the fact that it believes in good government, and knows how to govern. It's time to stop being ashamed of it, and use it as a selling point. By supporting the People's Platform, we can do our part to nudge them in that direction. https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/s4p?source=pda

Panich52

(5,829 posts)
85. She's not running f/ office again so why continue support?
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 08:39 AM
Jul 2017

Better to just try & get bogus conspiracy crap out of news cycle and look forward, not back as Trump and his cabal & cult would like

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
86. She's just a convenient lightning rod/punching bag for the right and left
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 08:52 AM
Jul 2017

and the pols/pundits who are so reliant on this crutch know they won't be able to lean on it for too much longer...

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
99. It's unfair to blast Schumer for something he DIDN'T say
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 12:38 PM
Jul 2017

Note that neither the link in the OP nor the HuffPo link added in #34 quotes or even mentions Schumer.

Note that in the Schumer interview that I assume is the basis for all this outrage, he doesn't mention Clinton.

This is all shit-stirring by headline writers trying to hype a nonexistent intraparty fight. Let's stop falling for this!

I stand ready to be corrected if someone provides a link to some actual words by Schumer (not a headline paraphrase). Unless and until I see that, I'll assume this hubbub is based entirely on a distortion of his statement on Sunday. Here's what happened:

Some Democratic leaders decided that, along with "We're not Trump," it would be useful for the party to have a short statement of positive goals. (This is hardly a controversial idea.) The Washington Post wrote about the plan in this story: "Trump had ‘The Art of the Deal.’ Now Democrats say their economic agenda is ‘A Better Deal.’" The Post interviewed Schumer, and its reporting included this passage:

The rollout comes as Democrats continue to struggle to sell a coherent message to voters. In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 37 percent of Americans said that the party “currently stands for something,” while 52 percent said it “just stands against Trump.” The same poll found that Trump’s overall approval rating has deteriorated to 36 percent — making him the most unpopular president of the modern era at this point in his presidency.

Those findings resonate with party leaders who are still stunned by Trump’s come-from-behind victory last year.

“When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things — Comey, Russia — you blame yourself,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in an interview previewing the new plan. “So what did we do wrong? People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) agreed, explaining in a separate interview that the new focus “is not a course correction, but it’s a presentation correction.”


You'll note that Schumer didn't even mention Clinton. You'll note further that he identified the issue as "what did we do wrong" (emphasis added). You'll note finally that he used the word "we" twice more in the next sentence.

Slate, however, decided that a misleading let's-you-and-her-fight headline might get some clicks, and reported this development as "Schumer Takes Aim at Clinton: Don’t Blame Russia or Comey, 'Blame Yourself'".

Pretty clever, huh? The verbatim quotation from Schumer is juxtaposed with something he didn't say to give a totally false impression. He wasn't reacting to polls about Hillary Clinton's unpopularity. He was reacting to the poll about the whole party's public image, namely not having a program.

All Schumer is saying is that the party should learn from 2016. Yes, our candidate won the popular vote, and we gained seats in the House and the Senate, but we -- we -- could have done better. If the problem is that the party is perceived as not standing for anything, then formulating a concise statement of what the party does stand for is a sensible (and non-misogynistic) response.
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
100. Schumer is absolutely right in what he's saying.
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 12:40 PM
Jul 2017

He didn't explicitly name Clinton, but he did say "you lost" not "we lost."

Clinton's blamestorming in the Recode interview rubbed a lot of Democrats the wrong way.

Politics is a cold business, when done right.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
102. In colloquial English, "you" often means "one"
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 01:21 PM
Jul 2017

Suppose I write, "When you post on DU, you must abide by the ToS." That doesn't mean specifically geek tragedy must abide; it's a general statement, i.e., that anyone who posts on DU must abide by the ToS. In some contexts, it might be read as implying that you (geek tragedy) did not abide by the ToS, but that's not the only interpretation (and here, obviously, would be the wrong interpretation).

You write:

He didn't explicitly name Clinton, but he did say "you lost" not "we lost."


As I pointed out, he said "we" three times in the next two sentences. Given the entire context, the reason he didn't explicitly name Clinton is that he wasn't talking to or about her. He was using "you" in the general sense. And I agree with you that he was absolutely right. The negative perception of the Democratic Party is largely unfair, but it is out there, and must be dealt with.
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
103. a lot of people say "but Hillary had plans for all of those concerns"
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 01:35 PM
Jul 2017

problem is no one paid attention to that.

Fair?

Absolutely not.

But, bottom line is that if we're going to get swing voters to give us a second look, we need to signal that things aren't the same (even if the policies that those voters want aren't new).

BamaRefugee

(3,476 posts)
101. To ensure accuracy...
Tue Jul 25, 2017, 12:57 PM
Jul 2017

the HRC polls were taken at the entrance to various Cracker Barrel restaurants along Interstate highways down South.

Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Very simple explanation f...