2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Is Winning: The Media and Sanders' Campaign Are Freaking Out
As Hillary appears to be increasing her lead in the Democratic primary, some of the media are looking for another way to go after her. One column is headlined Clinton goes on the offense and questions why. Other columns accuse her of doing a smear campaign against Sanders when in reality she is simply calling him and his staff to account for what they said and running a smart campaign. She is defining the differences in how they see the world and their positions on the issues.
As of this week it is clear both the media and Bernie Sanders are realizing Clinton is leading and leading big. Sanders has done what he promised he wouldn't, attacking Clinton's character rather than sticking to the issues. He is becoming what he claimed he isn't -- just another politician.
Clinton has struck a chord with the electorate by going after the NRA, an area in which she clearly differs with Sanders. Fighting the NRA isn't new for Clinton, who fought them for years while Sanders voted against the Brady bill and against allowing people to sue gun manufacturers. That is fair campaigning just as it is fair for Sanders to point out the differences in their positions on the minimum wage, he being for a federal $15 minimum wage and Clinton being for a $12 one allowing states and localities to decide if they want to go higher depending on their individual economies. Or pointing out the differences in their positions on how to deal with the big banks and allowing voters to decide which they like best.
The media will now need to invent new stories about Clinton to keep up an interest in the Democratic primary and guaranteeing TV ratings and newspaper sales. First it was Benghazi and emails, then Sanders surging, then hyping Joe Biden hoping he would run. Since all that has failed to keep people from supporting Hillary, we must assume they will try to find something to fill the void. My prediction is neither the media nor the Sanders' campaign will be able to find a way to stop Hillary because the majority of people really want her to succeed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/hillary-is-winning-the-me_b_8484506.html
Fearless
(18,421 posts)She also doesn't differ from Bernie on the NRA. But they'll print any lies they want.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)because I'm sick of that and the rah rah from other posts I've seen lately.
But I don't think anyone is "freaking out."
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)riversedge
(70,329 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)it takes before the posters start looking like the ones who are losing it?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)so it doesn't take much to draw some conclusions from that.
On edit: Make that at least 6 hit pieces.
woodsprite
(11,929 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)riversedge
(70,329 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)On DU... and they're all extremely HOMOPHOBIC?
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)At least this gay guy doesn't think so...
But hey, to each their own.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Good for you.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)And label gay men as being less than straight men. In the same way it's very anti woman in general. The idea that feminine equals weak is absurd in itself.
sheshe2
(83,940 posts)Not......
riversedge
(70,329 posts).....Fearless
9. You do realize that there is a long history of the "fainting" "pearl-clutching" and "vapors" comment
View profile
On DU... and they're all extremely HOMOPHOBIC?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)And also the person she was replying to.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=772074
Fearless
(18,421 posts)As do most LGBTers on DU from that era. I don't speak for or police others.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Well, two LGBT people who are not from "the era" might want to be clued in on the background, so they know what you are talking about.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)But you seem to want to. Why? Why do you want to tell others so fervently something you evidently don't believe?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)If you are going to apply some standard of gatekeeping phrasing as homophobic based on past usage on DU, you might want to exhibit just the tiniest bit of integrity. Just a suggestion.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)If someone responds to me using homophobic slurs, I will call them on it. If you want to police the site by all means. I don't have the time.
I don't lose the right to respond to errant posts because I haven't addressed every other instance of it ad infinitum.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)"I do give quite a shit about bigotry. Yet I also understand that blind rage is not the solution. We cannot fight bigotry by shunning those who spew it. We must invite them into our lives so that they can see that we are not the negative stereotypes that they associate with us. They're not going to go away if we ignore them. Their defiance grows stronger if we hate them back or if we shun them for their person and not for their actions, because that hate is their desired result. If we love them, truly love them, then we try to change their minds, one family member at a time, one coworker at a time, one parishioner at a time, etc. We must realize that the single most disarming weapon we have is love and that hate only breeds more hate."
Someone said that once, when a disgusting bigot was given a national platform. I wonder where that person went?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Do you seriously expect me to chase down every example of homophobia and/or misogyny posted on DU?
But have it your way... Me having spoken about one instance and you having spoken about neither referenced, who is doing the better job?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Search will produce such interesting results.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)This had nothing to do with Hillary changing positions biweekly!
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)It will all be over soon.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Cha
(297,774 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I will freak out and do my happy dance!
I say "if," not "when" because I think predictions and nya nya are becoming quite tiresome.
Personally, I will just work and advocate for my candidate. YMMV.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He's done a great job of focusing a few of his signature issues--but he is not Presidential timber. He just isn't. YMMV and that's dandy, but I think the voters are coming to that conclusion.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Be prepared to elevate your eyes.
MADem
(135,425 posts)like--I won't get upset at all, promise!
If I had to bookmark everything I disagreed with we'd be here for months.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I am prepared to support whoever gets the nomination. I've always said this, and I mean it.
That said, I do think it will be Clinton; she's just a FAR better candidate in terms of experience, knowledge, sheer talent, gravitas on the world stage, and flat-out ability. She's also got a spouse who is way more prepared for that First Spouse role than any other in history--can't wait to see HIS Holiday WH tour! And I'm quite sure all those foreign spouses will love shlepping him around to orphanages and schools while HRC talks to world leaders on state visits! They'll probably be the most invited pair to go on state visits in eons...!
It's a choice between a guy who has a narrow focus on specific issues that are of interest to him, and someone who has a more panoramic and global view of the issues that face us as a nation.
YMMV but that's my POV.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)And Bernie will win because he is right on the issues.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And here is where I am freaking out about one thing and went totally on another unrelated tangent about another thing
but but but i'm not freaking out AT ALL!!!@@@@@!!!!
A most remarkably STUPID paragraph. I suspect amphetamines
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)They are just gradually realizing Bernie has hit his ceiling after what was a promising start. Dreams die hard.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)MrWendel
(1,881 posts)that picked up about Hillary and her character, I would say so.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)MrWendel
(1,881 posts)would think for himself. And Huey is a fictional Character. A. Fictional. Cartoon. CHARACTER.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)MrWendel
(1,881 posts)Maybe your thoughts were on Bernie. I would argue about the Fictional part, but the rest are on point.
ksabin9325
(1 post)It not free when Corporations have to finally pay their fair share or when Wall Street have to pay or when the 1% have to pair their fair share. At least he has the Balls to do what is right for the middle class. Hillary will not do anything to Wall Street and she was for TPP lets see how that works out for you and future generations. She is a Liar and has always been one
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Who do you think you are convincing with that? All you are doing is getting raw raw cheers from the other Bernie Folks.
Cha
(297,774 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Gothmog
(145,631 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)....and it's just as acerbic as has been touted in anecdotes and articles past.
riversedge
(70,329 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/hillary-is-winning-the-me_b_8484506.html
....As of this week it is clear both the media and Bernie Sanders are realizing Clinton is leading and leading big. Sanders has done what he promised he wouldn't, attacking Clinton's character rather than sticking to the issues. He is becoming what he claimed he isn't -- just another politician.......
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-takes-gloves-off-against-hillary-clinton-in-interview-1446684586
Bernie Sanders Takes Gloves Off Against Hillary Clinton in Interview
Democratic presidential candidate draws sharper distinctions with front-runner, casting her policy reversals as a character issue
By Peter Nicholas
Nov. 4, 2015 7:49 p.m. ET
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is drawing sharper distinctions with front-runner Hillary Clinton, casting her policy reversals over the years as a character issue that voters should take into account when they evaluate the Democratic field.
Sen. Sanders of Vermont, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday,...
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)....for pushing this rush to anoint one candidate before most Democrats have had a chance to really understand the issues?
This Hillary rush is the same modus operandi that the TPP is. HURRY and make her seem inevitable!! Just like the Bushies did with W. in 2000. Same kind of tactics to shape the conversation.
MADem
(135,425 posts)How long ago did both candidates declare their candidacy?
Aside from Clinton's vastly superior foreign policy experience, they both know their way around the Hill, Sanders has more House experience, but Clinton has had a bird's eye view of the Presidency and has served in her FLOTUS capacity as both an envoy and a special projects wrangler.
People who need more time to make up their mind are the people who don't care anyway. More time isn't going to help them decide.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The scam has been exposed, and confirmed by your pushing, above.
It's the same game the Bushies pulled on America. Rush the aura of inevitability. Shove people into a hurried choice, and then shut down any doubters by any means possible.
The people aren't that easily corralled this time around. You'll see.
And your low opinion of Democratic voters above is noted.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"scam" doesn't make this either a scam or ridiculous.
And it's not having a "low opinion" of anyone to say that people who haven't been paying attention at this stage of the game really don't give that much of a shit. They'll vote the way they've always voted, they may vote their perceived pocketbooks, or they may vote for the one they want to drink beer with.
Perhaps ten percent of voters REALLY care. Twenty percent are interested. If you get past an active, excited, determined engagement of 40 percent, that's a miracle.
So you go on ahead and make a "note" of my realistic--not 'low'-- opinion of voters (and not just DEMOCRATIC ones either). It's shared by most people who study politics for a living.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...opinion of Democratic voters. It's kind of sickening.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I am sorry--I just don't understand what you are saying.
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)Finance committee member Hillary for America. Here's his website.
http://prosenstein.com/
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)But that "fact based stuff" doesn't matter to these morons
840high
(17,196 posts)you post about Bernie - the more worried you are.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)"Blah blah blah quit now 5+ months before the primary and make you knock kneed haters" whatever get back to us with issues.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)a flawed politician candidate the rightwingers won't be as nice as Bernie has been to her that is for sure...
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)paul ofnoclique
(81 posts)angrychair
(8,736 posts)During the first week of November in 2007, HRC was up an average of 22 points on then SBO (USA Today/Gallup had her up 28)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
HRC was crushing SBO in October of 2007:
"...and in October the same poll showed her commanding majority Democratic support, with 51% compared to Obama's 21% and Edwards' 15%."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008
Then SBO didn't start polling north of 30 points, as a constant average, until January of 2008.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
All major labor unions had endorsed HRC before December of 2007
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/labor/laborendorse08.html
She had hundreds of endorsements from Congress and other Democratic Party elite and SuperDelegates
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2008
And there was this observation from Gallup (bolded emphasis mine):
"The Democratic Race: Conditions Auspicious for Sen. Clinton to Win
Gallups 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama has not been an insignificant rival: he came within single digits of tying Clinton for the lead at two points this spring. But he has recently lost ground and is now in the weakest position relative to Clinton that he has been in all year.
No other announced or potential Democratic candidate has come close to threatening Clintons front-runner status since the campaign began, including former Vice President Al Gore and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102277/gallup-election-review-october-2007.aspx
Guess what, she didn't win.
Fast forward to 2015, in Brenie's campaign, 73%, more than any canidiate, D or R, comes from contributions of less than $200. More so, Bernie has a larger individual donor pool he can still pull from, both for primary and general, than any other canidiate, R or D.
Let's cut the "quite now for party unity/can't win" talk and let him run his campaign and let the American people decide.
Cha
(297,774 posts)yeah, but he's gonna kick her butt by getting the gop to keep going after the faux emails just like the faux Benghazi scandals.. and wasting taxpayers $$$$$. #berniesoscary
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, focused more of his Friday speech at his groups annual convention on attacks against likely presidential candidate Hillary Clinton instead of gun rights.
I vow on this day the NRA will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and good, honest decent Americans and we will stand and fight with everything weve got and in 2016, by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton, he said.
One day America will elect a woman
not because of her gender but because of her character and integrity and moral fitness to hold the highest office in land, he added. That is how a candidate should be judged
and how a president should be elected.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/wayne-lapierre-targets-hillary-clinton-during-nra-convention-speech
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)He's the leader of the people who grab on tight to their guns every time there is a mass shooting for fear somebody might care enough about the killings to do something.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)things that make you say hmmmm or should
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)" by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton, he said.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Guess he couldn't be bothered.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Because that's an attack, not praise.
Fail.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Now looks more like it's a victory lap.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)If Hillary was winning and this primary was over and the next few months was just a formality why would the Clinton's
want an article like this published?
Because their internal polling is probably making them nervous and Hillary is losing Iowa and NH
Just remember the Clinton campaign has millions to use to spread this BS
Papantonio: Bernie Sanders Scares The Hell Out Of Corporate Democrats
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017306209
It helps Hillary and the Democratic party for her to have an adversary no matter how weak. In the end everybody knows Bernie doesn't have a chance in hell in the Primary. That's why Bernie is breaking his promise not to attack Hillary (he's desperate).
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Even if they pretend to not believe them.
Bernies goin down hard so they are in panic mode for sure.