2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNYT TO HRC: STOP LYING ABOUT SANDERS.
Or you're going to keep losing. If I were Clinton... or a Clinton supporter.... I would pay VERY CLOSE attention.
"A Lesson for Mrs. Clinton in Michigan" --- Lead Editorial in today's NYT.
>>>>On the Democratic side, Hillary Clintons surprising loss in Michigan is still being analyzed, but it holds some lessons about how to approach future contests.
Mrs. Clintons candidacy speaks eloquently of embracing the people, values and thinking that make this nation a leader in the world. But her campaign tactics, particularly in Michigan, did not live up to this vision.
Even with a double-digit lead before the primary, she failed to avoid the type of negative tactics that could damage her in the long haul. A new Washington Post-ABC poll says that nationally, Mrs. Clintons margin over Bernie Sanders has shrunk: she polls at 49 percent compared with 42 percent for Mr. Sanders; in January her lead was more than double that. If she hopes to unify Democrats as the nominee, trying to tarnish Mr. Sanders as she did in Michigan this week is not the way to go.
Mrs. Clintons falsely parsing Mr. Sanderss Senate vote on a 2008 recession-related bailout bill as abandoning the auto industry rescue hurt her credibility. As soon as she uttered it in Sundays debate, the Democratic strategist David Axelrod registered his dismay, tweeting that the Senate vote wasnt explicitly a vote about saving the auto industry. Even as reporters challenged her claim, she doubled down in ads across the state. As The Washington Post noted, it seems like shes willing to take the gamble that fact-checkers may call her out for her tactic Sunday but that voters wont.
Though Mrs. Clinton spent more time in Genesee County, home to Flint, than Mr. Sanders, she only won narrowly there. Mr. Sanderss full-throated call for top-to-bottom government accountability for Flints drinking-water catastrophe contrasted with Mrs. Clintons tepid remarks about the need for a housecleaning at the Obama administrations Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Sanderss opposition to free-trade agreements resonated in Michigan, and are likely to help him in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois next week. He has consistently pointed out Mrs. Clintons past support for trade pacts, starting with Nafta when her husband was in the White House, and her shifting positions ever since. Mrs. Clinton is now opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she promoted as secretary of state. If she hopes to convince skeptical rust-belt voters that shes in their corner, she needs to explain why she once believed that trade pacts would help American workers.
The Clinton machine should stop trying to tie Mr. Sanders to the National Rifle Association. Though Mr. Sanders has a D-minus from the N.R.A., in Michigan Mrs. Clintons operatives took to >>>>
the rest: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/opinion/a-lesson-in-hillary-clintons-loss-in-michigan.html?_r=0
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)I think we've seen all the weapons in her arsenal. There's no "secret" weapon that might catch us off guard. Smears and lies are all she's got. She and her has-been hubby haven't got an OUNCE of integrity between the two of them. And the longer that fact has to come to light, the more it drags her down. Delegates - smellegates - she needs to step aside and let Bernie focus on shredding what's left of the Right.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Habitual lying by innumerable entities who want to preserve an unfair advantage is becoming worse at an exponential rate. Suppressing important facts leads to a need to hide the fact that you did that by more and more lying. The infrastructure and people used to keep it all out of the public eye corrupts and causes still more lying.
If you look at the Stasi museum in East berlin, they show how literally one in three East Germans was turned into a Stasi informant, usually by blackmail.
You can find the training videos they used for agents on the video sites. Translated into English.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)It's a well-oiled machine it is.
She's a snake. It's impossible for HRC to run a clean campaign. That should tell you a lot about how she would run a government.
She is not an honest person. 70 percent of the country thinks she's dishonest. And she stands up there on that debate podium in Florida and has some pity party for herself--because she is sooooo misunderstood.
No, we understand you very well Hillary.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Linking to articles from propaganda sites that are outright calling Bernie a communist.
I'm ready to block some people. They know they are "losing on Facebook" and are mounting desperate attacks!
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)There is a reason why, but I can't say it here.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Jarqui
(10,123 posts)Just as she is a weather vane when it comes to policy, she'll stop lying when her handlers tell her it's costing her votes.
Everything she's done is to win votes. Lying, deceptions, dirty tricks, David Brock, etc have always been on the table as options for her that she has used many times over.
Since the media wasn't calling her on her lies, she kind of said "hey, if they're letting me get away with it, why not?"
Looks like that party is over for the moment. She went so far, not even the media who is in her corporate pocket could collectively ignore it when folks like Axelrod or Michael Moore are calling her out on it in social media.
She will not entirely stop it. She never has. She'll reign it in until the heat dies down and go for other slippery tactics in the interim.
You'd think the Clintons would have learned by now how badly lying about stuff goes for them. I guess it's like the saying: you can't teach an older dog new tricks.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Seriously what does Hillary have to run on? I fail to see anything that would indicate that she has a snowballs chance in hell of being President of these United States of America. She's not picking up any new voters and there is no way she has enough to win shit. Bernie on the other hand is picking up new converts by the day. I personally know several republiCONs who wouldn't vote for Hillary on a bet but who plan to vote for Bernie in the general. They know the 'CONs don't have anyone worthy of their vote plus they like what Senator Sanders is saying. They really like the fact he's is not a johnny come lately on any issue. He's been fighting the same battles as long as he's been an adult. People like that
I mean what does Hillary have to offer us??? More of the same is all I see.
casperthegm
(643 posts)Loved the one about the Koch brothers, trying to tie them to Sanders. And the double down on the auto bailout lie. So predictable. She must really believe we are that stupid to believe this stuff. That might be what bothers me the most- that she really thinks we are stupid and uninformed. And yet we should be expected to support her "for the good of the party" if she gets the nomination?
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)Hatchling
(2,323 posts)Information on the internet never goes away.
LettuceSea
(337 posts)Ohhhh that pesky internet!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)But only for the truly stupid and/or willfully ignorant. Like Fox News affectionados , and the GOP talking heads they have on to spew their talking (lying) points. The execs at Fox News know that if they repeat a lie often enough, it doesn't matter that other voices that their viewers never even pay attention to, like Media Matters, are daily revealing the lies, and have proof.
Hillary is using the same tactics hoping to find enough of the willfully ignorant, and blind loyalists to simply take her at her word on everything, critics be damned. Only one problem: by and large Democrats are not stupid, they know how to use the internet.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)will definitely poll higher than "Sanders can win better since he treats the issues like issues rather than disposable campaign points"
her lies also irritated Michiganders, goading indeps against her
marew
(1,588 posts)This is all she knows what to do!
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)America will never look at her the same again
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)jham123
(278 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)like the New York Times?!
Wibly
(613 posts)Are we all supposed to fall in line, ignore dissent, all think the same way or something. What's wrong with listening to what the other side has to say? Just because you hear it doesn't mean you'll believe it.
One of the big problems in America today is the complete inability and unwillingness for people on both sides of the aisle to hear anything the other has to say. If that's the sort of America you want, then you may as well settle for a dictatorship or totalitariansim.
The NYT, left right or center, is one of the biggest papers in the country, and the opinions of its editorial board are shared by a large percentile of the people. Of course they should be posted and acknowledged.
To me, one of the great things about Sanders is his willingness to listen to all sides of the debate, unlike any of the GOPers or most of the Clinton crew.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Good one.
But "ouch!"
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)elljay
(1,178 posts)to get them to write this editorial! They have been leaning towards Hillary the entire way but she has managed to offend even them with her smears.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)the bottle. Plus, what will they do if Bernie supporters refuse to listen to their appeals in the general election. It's hard to manipulate when people tune you out.
jham123
(278 posts).....changes course mid-primaries, you know something is afoot. Something Yoooj is afoot. Not that you did, but Poopooing this article isn't advised
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Plus, some other stuff which I will reserve comment on. The one stance she has taken isn't going to fly so well in the general election (especially not in this environment).
jham123
(278 posts)As Social media continues to grab the Narrative and give it back to the voter, you are correct.
She may slide by the Dem-Primaries by a narrow margin, but in the GE, all this is going to explode in her face. Cruz and Trump are watching. Trump has enough money to pay people to read all we post here and take diligent notes. Hi Donald!! I see you!!
dchill
(38,489 posts)But WaPo won't let them.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Is the NYT running for president now????
I missed that bit of news.
Either that or your post is just "shoot the messenger" desperation.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Maybe her surrogates could start lying about Bernie supporters, too, and use that to campaign on.
Oh, yeah, wait...that didn't work out so well either, did it? Now they've gone all the way back to the 50's and Joe McCarthy for some red scare material to campaign against Bernie with.
Someone should tell Secretary Clinton that red scare McCarthyism tactics didn't work out so well for Nixon in 1960. And thank heaven for that, if people had fallen for Nixon's red scare BS, we would never have had John F. Kennedy for our President.
Speaking of lying, and "I am not a crook" Nixon, let us hope Secretary Clinton's various issues that she is reluctant to reveal and clarify don't result in a headline similar to the one below a year from now:
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)buy into the red scare crap
Maybe she's trying to shore up the 65and up cohort. (I'm 65 BTW)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Millennials generally recognize and dismiss BS at first sniff.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)by the time the late 1960's rolled around, we were teenagers who vaguely recalled the red scare from childhood, or - in my case - my mother watching the Army-McCarthy hearings on TV. Many if not most of us knew the "red scare" was bs.
elljay
(1,178 posts)elementary school kid who always asked the teachers how crouching on the floors in the hallway was going to protect us from the Soviets dropping a nuke on our heads. The paranoia was pervasive in those days.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)we all gathered against that cinderblock surface during duck and cover drills. (When you watch footage of nuke blast damage now, that kind of "protection" seems absurd.)
I tried not to think about the Soviet missiles, and instead focused on being sure I was next to Cathy Duncan when the class huddled next to that wall...
elljay
(1,178 posts)the hands over the back of your neck business. Used to ask what the hell that was for, too! So your fingers melt first?
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)elljay
(1,178 posts)Will have to look for those clips- thanks!
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)elljay
(1,178 posts)Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?
I was too far to the left for them, and and they wouldn't let me join.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)interesting.
Does that mean the LA times position is that Bernie was for the auto bail out before he was against it?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ol-sanders-auto-bailout-20160307-story.html
I find it most interesting that your copy and paste started just AFTER the word Opinion |
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)My cut and paste starts "just AFTER the word" "protestors."
>>>>Hes begun seeding crowds with plainclothes officers to sniff out dissenters, tightened efforts to corral reporters, and dances dangerously close to inciting violence against protesters.>>>>
The cut and paste begins at precisely this point.
Perhaps I don't understand your post. It's an *opinion* piece. By definition, editorials are *opinion* pieces.
It is labeled as such on the top of the page.
Are you sure you've read and understood the piece?
What's the confusion?
StandingInLeftField
(972 posts)Straight from the playbook. It's all they have, Smarmie Doofus.
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)trying to make an argumentative statement out of one's own misrepresentation is a tactic best practiced in private until mastered...
even Hillary is having trouble with it these days...
it looks like maybe the ClintonPlaybook came apart and the pages got put back together somewhat out of order...
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Carries a ton of weight with readers, and cannot be poo-pooed as "a mere op-ed" .. well ..
not if you regard yourself as remotely 'reality-based'.
jham123
(278 posts)and without seeing your post as of yet, I basically said the same thing. NYT changing course mid-primary is not something to be scoffed at
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)But the fact Hillary is a habitual liar doesn't interest you?
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)True 10 (14%)(10)
Mostly True 27 (36%)(27)
Half True 14 (19%)(14)
Mostly False 12 (16%)(12)
False 11 (15%)
If I waited on a politician that says more than a few sentences in a season and scores a 100% between the top 2 categories, I've a feeling I wouldn't be voting again in this lifetime.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And failing miserably.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The Banksters? The Warmongers? The Future?
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)she's counting on the credulity of her enamored supporters
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Who the hell believes she is a trusted and inspiring candidate?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I know I do.
And that is a huge reason why Hillary has so many women supporters.
But what I don't understand is why anyone would want a first woman POTUS who is so despised by so many Americans, and has shown such poor ability to make sound decisions. I'd think to make a good impression as a woman leader of this great country, you'd want to put up a woman who is admired and respected by most of America (well...except for republicans, but what can you expect). Someone like Warren, or many other women who have served this country well and with dignity.
If Hillary does win, she will leave a dark stain for women to overcome in the future.
fbc
(1,668 posts)It's all she really has.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)It's the same reason drunks keep on getting drunk, it lets them believe reality can be different while they are intoxicated.
Coincidence
(98 posts)islandmkl
(5,275 posts)Bill has a bullhorn...maybe she should use that!
Bernie has a stack of Marshall's and he hasn't even turned them past 6...yet....
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Merryland
(1,134 posts)"falsely parsing" Sanders' Senate vote = lying
"trying to tarnish" Mr. Sanders = smearing
"shifting positions" on trade agreements = flip-flopping
Will the Times reverse it's way-premature endorsement of her? How can they stand by a candidate they accuse of lying, smearing & flip-flopping in this editorial?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Certainly sounds like they may be having some serious second thoughts .. and
for good reason.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)What does he know that we don't?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The map for sanders is extremely narrow. And I mean the narrow part.
MidwestTech
(170 posts)Ok JUST looking at the delegate count, she'll win.
ALL she has to do is come in second for the rest of the primaries. 40% in each rave and she'll win.
NOW ... add in her small mountain of super delegates and there is almost no way for bernie to win delegate wise.
He's going to need a landslide in at least one super populace state like California if he's going to beat her at her own game.
In a real ironic twist, Hilary could win the nomination w/o winning the majority of physical votes!
and keep in mind Hartman is a H U G E fan of Bernie!
Personally I think it's a travesty of Shakespearean proportions. If the media had done it's job Bernie would already have it in the bag by now and the Dems could start pushing progressive and *gasp!* dare I suggest liberal senators.
Instead the BEST we're going to get is a Milquetoast congress with Hillary as the candidate (and yes I think it's unlikely she'll loose the general) and little change in the congressional math which means goodbye functional government!
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Look at the latest trends, people have had it up to here with her (puts hand up by forehead).
arcane1
(38,613 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)The NYT editorial board acknowledges Hillary's lies and dirty tricks but will never withdraw its endorsement of her. It's like Marco Rubio repeatedly referring to a con man in the last Republican debate, then later being asked if he would support Trump if he was the Republican nominee. He said yes.
jham123
(278 posts)Very Keen, indeed.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)The lies from Clinton drove me away in January.
I wonder about the DNC. Saw DWS last night on TV and she looked terrible. Wonder if the lies and control issues are backfiring on her.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)to me she is about as authentic as Hillary Clinton.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Faux pas
(14,672 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I say this as a media observer. When the gray lady goes there, well then
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...it will be very interesting to see if it develops further. But I agree wholeheartedly that she is in trouble. When the NYT editorial board tells their own preferred candidate to stop lying, in print, well then indeed.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)More and more Secretary Clinton is seeing that her hall pass from the left has expired. She's being called out for her lapses. For her campaign this an ominous trend, and a sign that there will be scant cover for any more revelations. Slow walking the facts of her server helped put the end to that, and the excuses for not releasing the Goldman Sachs transcripts had the New York Times Editorial Board throw their hands up in utter rejection of them.
Every new release of a troubling revelation regarding her tenure at State, or The Clinton Foundation, or her speeches, is going to represent an opportunity for a bi-partisan round of finger pointing and condemnation. Nobody wants to excuse away any more reveals representing bad judgement (at best).
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Lady MacBeth doesn't know any other way to operate.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Almost.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)But are caught up in back and forth of the primary like the rest of us.
It's just unfortunate that the candidate that they support doesn't actually represent their interests in the long run.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Lies...flip flopping...shape shifting...twisting and bending...
We've had 30+ years of Clinton baggage.
NO more.
No...More...Clintons!
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)And he has referenced the NY Times editorial.
But Thom's copout is that he's trying to deflect the blame off Hillary. He says she should fire David Brock, John Podesta and any others who are putting her up to this. He can't bring himself to acknowledge this is who the Clintons are, who they always have been and who they always will be.
It's what the press and fans always do when an athlete gets in trouble. He's got to get himself away from all those "bad influences" who are getting him into trouble. What they don't ever say is maybe he's the leader and the people around him are just following his lead.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)He was blaming call-ins for being disappointed with the state of things in America generally and the Democratic party specificially
Pretty much discounting the right of citizens to have dissenting opinions if they don't run for office. Not more than 2weeks ago people were upset when HRC did the same thing to a BLM activist.
Thom can go scare monger about the coming apocalypse and sell gold to someone other than me. He silences honest citizens and then does the work of investment houses.
Thom if gold is such a damned good for the coming apocalypse WHY are the companies holding it willing to sell it now?
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Is Hartmann plugging gold personally in radio spots? Those are generally ripoff companies and over the years they've done a lot of advertising on right wing talk radio like Limbaugh, Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, etc. I am very surprised that Hartmann would do those spots. They must be desperate for advertising dollars. FSTV has been doing a fundraiser on TV during breaks.
Hartmann gets on Hillary for the lies and then says he prefers Bernie but doesn't seem to care very much if Bernie or Hillary wins. He is smart enough to know the vast difference between them and how they would govern. My guess is that his audience is so small that if he totally alienates listeners who are for Hillary that he might go off the air.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)...... and so she just copies it. She's not alone. But what a short sighted, profoundly unimaginative tactic. Zero ideas.
Sanders is such a breath of fresh air!
MidwestTech
(170 posts)In California many years ago Gray Davis won his reelection campaign by using GoP tactics... the major difference was he told the truth.
it CRUSHED his opponents.
that's how come 18 months later the gop had the recall campaign run to elect Schwarzenegger... who honestly could have been a hell of a lot worse for California.
The reason Gray Davis lost his recall is because the dem's collapsed around him. They effectively refused, in the end, to run heavy anti-recall ads. Instead they all ran for office. An office already filled and competently being run by Davis!
Hillary sees these tactics that were so effectively honed over the last 30 years, especially first hand used against her and Bill, and sees a winning strategy.
Sadly she isn't able to run the kind of vicious truth ads that worked so well for Gray Davis in California because.. seriously what can you actually say negative about Bernie? That he believes in personal rights and freedoms?
That he's a gun owner (so am I btw)
That he's for rational gun laws?
That he walked with, was arrested for, and fought for equal right with MLK?
He's Jewish?
Oi VEY
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I still don't like the idea of becoming those you oppose.
MidwestTech
(170 posts)Just effective.
But yes, I agree with you
beedle
(1,235 posts)... another 'sexism' moment.
Attack Sanders with a pile of 'horse feathers' until Bernie loses it and has another "Excuse me, I'm speaking' moment.
Then she and her scum-patrol can play the 'victim card'.
Uncle Joe
(58,356 posts)Thanks for the thread, Smarmie Doofus.
Kall
(615 posts)staggerleem
(469 posts)She can't, because she doesn't now, and she really never did - she is not a fool. She believes that the TPP will help the large transnational corporations that donate to her campaign, and she HOPES that there are enough fools out here among the working class who will believe her when she SAYS she thinks will help American workers. The truth here is that her attitude is essentially identical to that of the transnational with respect to this agreement (which has been amply demonstrated by the scraps of the agreement we've been allowed to see) - workers be damned!
I've been told that nobody ever went broke by betting on the stupidity of Americans. I sincerely hope we can prove that adage false in this election cycle.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)Bernie is beating her in that department by 32 percent.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)pacalo
(24,721 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)You fuckers have been doing your fair share of lying about Sanders.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The NYT editorial title is: A Lesson in Hillary Clintons Loss in Michigan
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)candidate.
jillan
(39,451 posts)The Koch brothers are funding Bernie Sanders, the person who has been fighting against Wall Street for 20 years, needs to be fired . Did she honestly think that anybody would believe that?
glinda
(14,807 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #99)
Billsmile This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kall
(615 posts)and it's just repulsive.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Tell us again why you endorsed Hillary?
After you read this editorial make sure you read the comments. Some really good ones.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)p.s. no idea why they're spinning so hard for Bernie but I know what she said and she wasn't lying about Bernie's Detroit vote or his NRA ties.
nwnatural
(16 posts)I was hoping that Mrs. Clinton would follow Bernie's lead. The more she disrespects him the harder I find it to like her. She had better knock it off.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Because it deserves it!!!
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)Bernie has pointed out Clinton's statements of support for the companies in India bringing contract H-1b employees to the USA and Michigan. He also should say this is why we need to see what she told Goldman-Sachs for the $675,000. How much support did she give them? After all, Goldman-Sachs probably tax deducted the "expense" and therefore we have standing to ask what did we get for either paying more taxes or getting less services as a result of the deduction.
Also, she is "currently" against TPP. However the US Chamber of Commerce has put out a message to it's membership that after the election, they are sure she will find reasons to be "currently" in favor of TPP
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/02/chamber-of-commerce-chief-tom-donohue.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-lobby_b_9104096.html
AllyCat
(16,187 posts)What is this piece for?
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)maindawg
(1,151 posts)Since I have been banned from posting in some forums apparently by the Hillary people that the Bernie folks don't ban the Hillaries from the Bernie threads. Intolerance is not a favorable trait. We Democratic leaning people are inclusive. We welcome discussion. Even tolerate negative feedback. Therein lies the difference between democracy oriented opinion and Blind faith .