2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders, my preferred candidate, didn't lay a glove on HRC during the Primary season
Just wait for what's coming and what may be disclosed.
The people here who are staunch HRC supporters?
You'll be yearning for the Bernie Primary season once the carnival barker gets going on her.
This will be one ugly election.
And it isn't what democrats believe - it will be what Independents believe that matters.
Because the election in November is 'Open'
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)He went into attack mode. That's when he lost. He showed his nasty side.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Then it turned out she had not used the exact word but she had made a negative attack on him. In any event, his comment did not come out of nowhere.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Instead of reacting to a bogus headline
merrily
(45,251 posts)complain about him often.
Anyway...https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4dtqon/the_origin_of_the_qualifications_nonsense_as/
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)As a woman I find it very unsettling to see 'the first woman candidate' hiding behind her skirt! All conversation and topics are fair game. Bernie was civil. Don't expect any of that from the right.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)For a Presidential candidate to go out in public and say something like that without making sure he knew exactly what was going on was unbelievably irresponsible. Almost Trump-ian.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merbex
(3,123 posts)"So when, you have headlines in the Washington Post, Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president, my response is well, you know, if you want to question my qualifications, let me suggest this, Sanders said. That maybe the American people might wonder about your qualifications, Madam Secretary, when you voted for the war in Iraq, the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in the modern history of America.
Clinton went after his interview with that NY paper and said he 'hadn't done his homework', THEN, Morning Joe started the meme - asking HER is HE qualified to be President?
Pesky facts
A manufactured media fight.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)However, he was not President. He was on the campaign trail.
It's very interesting to observe how so many of you felt compelled to pick at him for every syllable for a year and still do.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)That sort of behavior is supposed to be off the table in primaries. We don't damage our own in ways that our real opponents can use. Especially not when it was all a stupid misunderstanding based on not doing the requisite homework.
peace13
(11,076 posts)She can dish it out but oh boy......it's not nice to hit girls. You guys are going to have to get a better argument because the right is going to throw everything they can at her and it is not going to be pretty. This is the problem with a candidate with too much baggage. By the way, Attack mode is a thing....and Hill does it all of the time! So sorry if Bernie defended himself!
merbex
(3,123 posts)onenote
(42,698 posts)Checkmate.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Who did that bt the way?
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Am I right or am I right?
merbex
(3,123 posts)What a selective memory some people have.
merbex
(3,123 posts)onenote
(42,698 posts)Did some of her supporters go over the top? Sure. But that's equally true of Sanders' supporters who leveled loads of attacks on Clinton that Sanders did not personally make.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Do you not recall the NOT ENOUGH BERNIE! crowd and wave after wave
of nonsense that came after.
She ran an 'anything but the issues' campaign.
onenote
(42,698 posts)And those are her surrogates.
As for her supporters, if you didn't see the attacks leveled against Clinton (INDICTMENT!!!!!) every day here you must have been somewhere else.
Finally, I have to admit I don't recall "Not Enough Bernie" and when I googled that phrase I came up empty. So if you could explain a bit more what you're referring to it would help.
merbex
(3,123 posts)Amazing how many said publicly how they disagreed with him, but that they liked and respected him.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)onenote
(42,698 posts)HA Goodman.
Seth Abramson.
I guess you think they were all throwing rose petals at Clinton.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I didn't think I said anything about rose petals. I thought I had simply t taken a potentially misleading statement of yours and made it somewhat less so.
Your post.
And Clinton didn't go after Sanders the way the repubs would
My reply.
No she left that to surrogates and friends in media. Standard Operating Procedure.
Ok. I was correct on both counts.
onenote
(42,698 posts)Discussion board poster asserts that Sanders didn't go after Clinton the way the repubs would, suggesting that it would be one ugly election. Implicit in the post is the notion that it wouldn't be so ugly if Bernie was the candidate. (Why do I say that is implicit? Because the post was by a Sanders supporter and what other message would they be trying to send?)
Discussion board poster responds by noting that Clinton didn't go after Sanders the way the repubs would either, negating the implied advantage the OP suggested would exist for a Sanders campaign.
Discussion board poster responds that Clinton's surrogates went after Sanders, thereby trying to rehabilitate the implied claim that the Clinton hasn't been put through the wringer yet and Sanders would have an advantage as a result.
Discussion board poster responds that Sanders also had surrogates going after Clinton, thereby again making the point that there neither Sanders nor Clinton has a particular advantage in the sense of having been or not been attacked by the other or their surrogates during the primary.
Discussion board poster responds by confirming one half of the discussion that wasn't being disputed (that Clinton surrogates and others attacked Sanders) and ignoring the other half -- that Sanders had his own surrogate leveling attacks at Clinton.
All of which leaves us exactly where we were at the beginning: yes, the repub attacks against Clinton will be ugly. And yes, if Sanders was the nominee, he too would be subject to ugly attacks.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Hillary also didn't go at Bernie.
By September, half the country would think he was a former member of the Politburo if he was the nominee. There'd be 8 ads an hour about his Soviet Honeymoon.
Stop being scared of Republican ads. It's pathetic. Fight and win rather than cowering terrified from the GOP.
yardwork
(61,591 posts)merbex
(3,123 posts)zero impact on the biggest demographic.
Don't think for one second it wasn't focused grouped and found to be worth NOTHING.
HRC and Bill LOVE focus groups.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Bernie would be smashed to pieces by the GOP attack machine. They've been trying it on Hillary for 20 years to no avail.
I'll go with tried and true over speculative nonsense. If you think stamping MARXIST on a politician doesn't fly with independents, you're delusional.
onenote
(42,698 posts)Obviously, it depends on what you define as the baby boom generation. But let's peg it at those born 1946-1964. And then let's remember that anyone born before 1946 will fit the profile when it comes to viewing "socialism" as a negative. Plus, anyone coming of age during the Reagan years -- we were still fighting the commie menace during the 80s, if you recall. So that adds in at least those born between 1964 and 1971. Finally, you have to eliminate everyone under the age of 17 since they can't vote.
And when you look at turnout -- take, for example, Wisconsin, one of the states where Sander had the best result. Fewer than half the voters were in what you claim is the "biggest demographic."
And while it is true that not everyone over a certain age would freak out at the idea of a "socialist" president, it also is true that not everyone below a certain age wouldn't freak out at it.
ALBliberal
(2,339 posts)that the bigger picture was more important and they needed to be in position to support nominee. Pretty classy stuff. I am very hopeful that we all join forces to take Trump down as well as those that stand with him.
I really don't watch TV much but was watching CNN last night. So I had read about Trump news coverage bad hadn't viewed. Unbelievable the lengths that the reporters and talking heads go to to give validity to this vaudeville act Trump is heading up. And I thought their coverage and support of GWB was bad! It's as if they are in pretend mode.... pretending that Trump is legit. They all sound so foolish and delusional. They all have egg on their faces. Fishing and searching for any shred of authenticity in the Trump campaign to compare it to Hillary's! False equivalency at its best!
Orsino
(37,428 posts)The GOP machine will mostly make bullshit ones.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Taking the high road...probably not going to happen. Either way, Hill has said and done many questionable things. Her opponent has the right to bring them up. During the primary she brought Bill into the mix, saying she will use his talents. This opens him up to fair examination....again, as well. Bernie was easy on both of them. He defended himself when necessary, most times. The right will be nothing like him.
Response to merbex (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
QC
(26,371 posts)If the primary campaign gave the faithful such bad cases of the vapors already, imagine what the GE will be like.
And I don't think the Republicans are afraid of being called meanies. That only works on decent people.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)And just think of all pearls scattered on the floor! Clutch them too hard and the string will break, you know!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Some here were going nuts over some political buttons going back a while. I was laughing. Should be fun.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)"something something Nader something something Cesar Chavez something something"
brooklynite
(94,503 posts)It'll all be a complete surprise.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)TwilightZone
(25,467 posts)Hillary has withstood this kind of nonsense for a couple of decades now. Your concern is noted.
brush
(53,765 posts)Have you not been watching the news lately?
Trump just came out full-on racist against Gonsalo Curiel, the Latino-American judge presiding over his scam university trial.
That's a double whammy anti-Trump ad right there he'll be painted as the racist he is, and as the crook and money scammer he is who cheated unsuspecting students out of their money.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are also the videos out there of him calling Latinos rapists and criminals, of him calling for a wall on the border, of him saying Megan Kelly had blood coming out of her eyes and wherever else, of him mocking the handicapped.
Come on, this guy is gonna get killed, and by his own words. Even other repugs are pulling away from him.
You're damn right it's gonna be ugly.
And he will lose spectacularly.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)I think she can handle it.
Demsrule86
(68,552 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)and isn't so concerned(or aware?) about hypocrisy biting him in the ass, but had any other Republican reached the top of the ticket we could mostly expect only attacks of the bullshit variety, which the other half of the machine would do a fine job of deflating for half of the voting populace. We'll get all that anyway, I'm sure. In the end, we'll have a horse race that Hillary wins 55 or 60 to 45 or 40, because enough independents will either be so afraid of Trump that they vote for Hillary, or so disgusted with both that they stay home.
MFM008
(19,805 posts)NOT been attacking HRC. Their attacks have been constant since 1991.