23rd June 2016, 7:45 PM
Weltall Wrote:You know why Clinton conceded so easily eight years ago?Hillary Clinton conceded late eight years ago, in fact. She waited all the way until every vote had been cast until she finally surrendered to the obvious and admitted defeat! That's not what candidates normally do; normally, candidates in both parties concede once their defeat is near-certain. This comes long before all votes have been cast. For a good example of this, look at all of the Republicans this year. They each gave up once it was obvious they were going to lose, excepting Kasich I guess but he wasn't a strong enough candidate to matter much outside of Ohio. Holding on until all the votes have been counted even though defeat is near-certain does happen every so often, Jerry Brown did that in '92 running against Bill Clinton, but more common is campaigns like Bill Bradley's in '00 or Howard Dean's in '04, candidates who conceded once they knew they couldn't win. Saying that Hillary conceded "easily" or "early" is bizarre and the opposite of what she did.
Quote:The only point to her running is to satisfy her tremendous sense of personal ambition. There was always next time. She wasn't advocating for transformative change that is decades overdue and the plight of millions working their hands to the bone just to make ends meet is not a plight that carries any meaning to her (why would it? She has no personal experience with actually struggling). It was just an unfortunate defeat for a career politician in the American Game of Thrones,I'm sorry, but I don't think there is any possible way that anyone would be criticizing a man for being ambitious as people, sadly including you, are critical of Hillary for. It's a purely sexist charge as far as I am concerned. I have never seen any male politician have this charge aimed at him like it is at Hillary, and I do think there's a gender-based reason for that.
Beyond that, you under-estimate Hillary's liberalism. You do know that Hillary was running to Obama's left on health care in '08 for example, yes? Between the two of them, Obama was slightly more to the left on foreign affairs, and Hillary more to the left on domestic affairs, I would say. But both were VERY close on most issues; the differences between them are relatively minor for the most part.
Quote:suffered because having the first black president was a bigger deal to America than the first woman president.I'd say that it's more that his victory showed that black men, despite being black, when compared to any woman still have the huge electoral advantage of being male.
Quote:Mark my words, her entire campaign from now going forward is going to be anti-Trump sentiment, scaring the electorate to vote against Trump because it's a lot easier than coming up with good reasons to vote for her. Now that she has purchased the nomination, she does not have to waste any time making promises she has no intention of keeping to the progressives she and the Democratic machine helped to quash for now. She's just another politician, completely lacking in sincerity or core beliefs.It is incredibly sad that you believe things like these... :bummed: Did you read any of the things I linked for you before?
A Black Falcon Wrote:http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10909354/mor...b-woodward - That Bob Woodward video was pretty shocking, seeing a famous journalist being so blatantly sexist like that...Look at that second article in particular. To repeat myself, because I don't see a response to my last post, Hillary won because she worked very hard for this through the normal way people gain support within a party, by building relationships -- see the second link above for more on this. You warp this into "buying the election" in a failed attempt to make success look bad. She won the election fair and square through the normal political processes. And while as president I'm sure she will sometimes frustrate, as Obama has, she will also bring through a lot of important changes, as Obama has.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11879728/hil...nomination - Research shows that women's voices are looked on negatively when they speak like we expect men to. Also, Hillary doesn't get the credit she deserves for her political skills.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/1...linton-won - And yet somehow it's HER who needs to make the changes to meet the man's demands, something Obama did not have pressed on him back in 2008 when he won.
Etc etc. You cannot say that gender has been an incredibly huge drag on her candidacy, it would not be true. This sketch from Jimmy Kimmel's show (with Hillary as the guest) a few months ago remains one of the best explanations out there of the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2wBpYT6Zlo
As for her campaign, she will run a campaign partially positive and partially negative, the way campaigns always are. There are a lot of positives to focus on -- appealing to women as the first woman with a major party's nomination, telling her personal story (about her mother, etc.), and such. For issue ads, I think that talking about gun control (I'm very happy to see this sit-in in the House, we need more things like this, to finally push this country to doing something about guns again!) will be something she surely mentions often. She'll also have ads about health care, education, etc., of course. And yes, there will be ads against Trump, if he is indeed the Republicans' nominee, but there are so many reason to vote FOR Hillary that it'd be quite foolish to run an all-negative campaign! And it wouldn't work either, people do not like too-negative politicial campaigns.