2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAll these endorsements tell me is that there's a Big Club, who's in it, and who's not.
On many issues, Bernie and Hillary are (on paper) so similar that there's no discernible difference between the two. (And on many issues, Bernie is way better, imo, but I'll let that go for now.) So all these people and organizations who endorse Hillary certainly aren't basing their decisions on policy positions.
Then I guess there's the electability argument. Maybe these people think that somehow Hillary is more electable in a general election than Bernie. But there isn't one single poll that they can point to for evidence of that. In fact, many polls indicate the exact opposite, that it would be Bernie that does better against the GOP candidate, whoever he may be. So all these people can't be basing their endorsement on electability, either.
So what's left? Plain old cronyism, that's what. Hillary has been in Washington for 25 years, she's raised boatloads of money for lots of these organizations and been photographed with lots of A-list celebrities. They're all connected. She scratches their backs, now they scratch hers. It has nothing to do with what's best for the country, and everything to do with not angering HRC, should she become president. Wouldn't want to be shut out from those White House parties!!!
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)all of whom are either evil,cowardly or ruthlessly ambitious.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)organizations endorsing Hillary?
Many of the organizations who endorsed Hillary, did not poll their members, so it has to be for political power gain.
Z
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)In every case the organization clearly explained their conclusions that lead to the endorsement. It then turns out a "majority" agreed with the endorsements.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)There's no denying how different the leadership Dems are splitting, vs the 55/35 split in nationwide polls.
What explains it? I say cronyism.
Hilalry people don't even bother to try to explain it. Because they know the answer...
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... it has spread to 95% of dem constituent
pangaia
(24,324 posts)War profiteers.
Hekate
(90,642 posts)TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These people went to the same universities and fraternities, they're on the same boards of directors, they're on the same country clubs, they have like-interests. They don't need to call a meeting; they know what is good for THEM, and they are getting it.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)-- she can win
-- she will be ready on day one
-- she will work hard for Democratic principles
-- she is a Democrat
Bernie is still a "crap shoot" for most Democrats.
cali
(114,904 posts)I also think it's about favors, fear of being on the outside and having little influence, the insiders club and more.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)Whodathunk
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Obviously you're ignorant to the facts. Even Chris Matthews an insider admits Bernie isn't an insider.
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)But I also know there's variations and nuance to the phrase "insider".
I still don't believe he qualifies as an outsider.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)Because I can easily say your belief that he's an outsider isn't fact either.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Hekate
(90,642 posts)I mean I know some people are pissed that HRC smiled and laughed with Kissinger and a host of other unpleasant types, but it's pretty much in the job description to not spit in your adversary's eye when trying to get something out of them.
Right?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And as far as we know, she doesn't disagree with his worldview in any significant way. And there is no practical justification for cozying up to a guy like Dr K, since nothing positive came of any of his actions(we didn't have to bomb the shit out of Vietnam and Cambodia to be able to make the China trip happen, and no Democratic-voting constituency benefited from what Kissinger did to East Timor or India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)She still buys into the intrinsically right wing "we have to lead the world" thing.
And for some delusional reason, she thinks this can help women and children(even though no U.S. use of force other than World War II ever has).
Hekate
(90,642 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)of money and power.
Money and power doesnt like that.
At the end of the day, which of these two can win in the GE, that is what matters.
The answer, is not known yet.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)In the end, it all boils down to this: Hillary is the choice of The Club. Everyone likes the network of favors and paybacks they've got going, and nobody has the guts to go against it.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)at this point in time. Furthermore most believe Bernie is the clearly bigger risk. He has too many unknowns and potential major negatives that could come up in a heated and ugly general election.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)of one mind in thinking that Hillary will do better?
The answer is they don't. It's cronyism that explains their 95/5 support for Hillary, even when the public is split 55/35/10. Nothing else adds up.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Hiilary has tons of money and a plethora of connections and extensive political experience. Futhermore she connects with women and minorities... voting groups who have helped Democrats win before. I think its a safe bet she will win.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)2014 being the year that DWS showed us the success of "at least we are not as evil as the GOP".
Clinton had plenty of bad judgement - Iraq, TPP, gay rights, and has shown a worrying unwillingness to come to better judgements unless polls and focus groups pretty much forced her to do so.
Clinton is a follower, not a leader, and I don't trust the companies she might follow.
All candidates in the Democratic Primaries are Democrats.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)For one thing that was a mid-term election which almost always goes bad for the party in office. Another factor is that Hillary is seen by most like an incumbent candidate due to her long and extensive political experience. Incumbents usually do not generate the type of enthusiasm as an insurgent candidate like Sanders or Trump.. but that doesnt mean she wont win.. incumbents usually do.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)The writing is on the wall - but team Hillary would declare itself analphabetic in order to be able to ignore it.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Suggests lack of anything intelligent to offer.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)No, it goes bad for Democrats generally, as the GOP's elderly voters are more regular voters. The Democrats' best assets (the young voters, the minorities) tend to stay away unless they have something or someone to really vote for.
The 2014 losses however were exacerbated by the party's attitude: "at least we are not as bad as the GOP" / "Who else are you going to vote for". That drove moderately enthoused voters (left-wing, young) away. That part of the losses, which was preventable, is DWS's responsability.
Another factor is that Hillary is seen by most like an incumbent candidate due to her long and extensive political experience.
I have not seen any evidence of a general public perception of this kind. Can you link to any evidence? If not, your argument is unsubstantiated.
Incumbents usually do not generate the type of enthusiasm as an insurgent candidate like Sanders or Trump.. but that doesnt mean she wont win.. incumbents usually do.
Clinton is well known, certainly, but she has a net negative favorability rating. Even if she were perceived to an incumbent - which is as yet an unproven statement of yours - her negative favorability would make her the equivalent of a very vulnerable incumbent. I don't know that we can risk the White House on such a weak candidate.
As for equating Sanders with Trump: shame on you.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Its a documented fact that the party in power usually does poorly in midterm elections.
Regarding Hillary seen like an incumbent. I admit I dont have any hard pollling evidence but Im convinced its true. It totally makes sense to me. But feel free to believe whatever you want.
Trump and Sanders are both insurgent candidates. Do you deny that?
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)As for calling denial on me: just two posts ago, I was accused of having no argument when using that phrase. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
The analyses of the 2010 and 2014 disasters were that key demographics stayed away, as the GOP did not actually attract any voters of ours. What documents are you referring to?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Apparently lacking in some.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Conventional wisdom is not the same as reason: one is conveniently conformist, the other confrontatively original. Feel free to acquaint yourself with the difference.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Just my opinion based on obvious factors... obvious at least to me.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)"Its a documented fact that the party in power usually does poorly in midterm elections." (response # 38)
If all this is just your unsubstantiated opinion, then I feel free to ignore it.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I was referring to the incumbent topic regarding being documented. Please go back and re-read and it should become clear.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)you facts just don't stand up, enthusiasm gap please.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)is considered bad form on this forum. Implying it is hardly better.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)if your talking about younger voters then, answer this why BS people are so desperate to engage them in Iowa...been lots of little memos out there. A lot of crap leaks out in twitter. EOM.....
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Care to rephrase your question and / or argument?
onecaliberal
(32,818 posts)Glad some of them showed their hand early. Frees up more money for Bernie.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... you look at cronyism, nepotism, corporate buttkissing, sleazy pay-for-play political favours, and corrupt arm-twisting as "relationship building," then you are absolutely correct, Senator Sanders really sucks at it.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts).... cause that wins friends and influences people :rolleyes:
Sanders CAN NOT throw a stone
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Senator Sanders throws truth.
Residents of Camp Weathervane don't like it and fling poo, because it's all they've got.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... along with human frailties.
Stating that Sanders can't throw stones isn't flinging anything... but o well...
99Forever
(14,524 posts)It's all you'got. Weak bullshit at that.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Kick that strawman's ass, tough guy.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... and you are upset about it.
Ok.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... dem constuents is something her opponents want to minimize
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... in the third Indiana Jones movie, a young Indiana Jones gets separated from his boy scout troop in a remote location ... he runs out sees that he's all alone, and declares ... "Everyone's lost but me!!!"
Apparently, they see great virtue in being alone.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Honestly some of them come across like angry right wingers.
Hekate
(90,642 posts)Jurors: From this very thread:
99Forever
32. Well if...
... you look at cronyism, nepotism, corporate buttkissing, sleazy pay-for-play political favours, and corrupt arm-twisting as "relationship building," then you are absolutely correct, Senator Sanders really sucks at it.
Note: It is an effing sad day when I have to be sure to quote in full the post I am referring to so that I don't get into trouble. Oy.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)They find new outrages in the most unusual places.
azmom
(5,208 posts)All players. They are getting rich off of it so they see no need to change the game. we will need to work together to change it for them.
In solidarity!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Wrong. He has been in Congress for twenty five years. He meets with lobbyists, there is a good reason lobbyists meet with congressional members.
Hekate
(90,642 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)No such endorsement has ever produced results that were to the good of any union's rank-and-file.