Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?

[Greg Davidson]

Within a very short time after Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, she has led a campaign effort that has absolutely devasted Donald Trump and the prospects that he will win the Presidency. I suspect that some people will not give her any credit, instead asserting that Trump's fall was inevitable and she's just a weak candidate who got lucky. And I think that way of thinking may be because she is a female politician.

Look at the evidence - Trump had previously ripped through a field of 15 other Republican candidates.  Over a year, his failure was supposed to be inevitable, and yet somehow that never happened. And then in just a number of weeks after Sanders endorsed her and she could focus on Trump, he appears to be heading towards the biggest Republican loss since the 1960's. And it is notable that many of the ways in which Hillary has done such damage to his campaign has been through approaches that don't fit in with our stereotypical view of what it is to be a powerfgul male political figure.

Part of her strength is the strong support from Barack (and Michelle) Obama, her bitter rival from the 2008 campaign.  How did she get there with him, and his coalition? Well, after a bitter loss, she got up and left her ego at the door, serving him loyally as Secretary of State. That's unusual behavior for a leading national politician, and one that won the loyalty of many Obama supporters.  She had a thorough and diligently planned convention, attacking the smears against her character with testimonials from a lifetime on service to regular human beings in ways that are different from traditional politicians (you may not be swayed by her personal involvement with the health concerns of her constituents after 9/11, but her lifetime of actions were persuasive to many moderates). She was very conciliatory to the Bernie Sanders coalition, more so than a number of other politicians would be. She picked Tim Kaine as a VP candidate, an interesting choice because she was both prioritizing governing experience over campaign cachet and yet also she did have a planned niche for his campaigning skills. 

And someone had to plan the political attacks and traps for Trump.  The Khans did not show up at the Democratic convention by accident. There has been a huge effort expended in get-out-the-vote. She is implementing close to a 50 state strategy (a current lead in Georgia? Utah close?). Of course she is not flawless as a candidate. She lacks the same level of personal charisma as other candidates, and she has sufferred some damage as part of the 25 years of attack. But that's what makes her current efforts demonstrate considerable political skill.

Donald Trump has gotten kudos over the past year for the success of his innovative campaign approach. Bernie Sanders has gotten kudos for his insurgent campaign in the democratic primaries. But I suspect that Hillary Clinton will not get anything near the credit given to them despite beating them both.

And I believe that one reason for that is that she is a woman.

[D.W.]

I will say that the tone set at the convention was well planned.  If that was largely driven by her tactics, bravo.  If it wasn’t, well she still gets credit for appointing the right staff for the job.  (a very important ability for the PotUS)  That said, to say “got lucky” under sells the situation to a comic level.  There is quite frankly no other possible opponent who would make victory easier than Trump.  He is a gift to the DNC and I think that a Mr. Potato Head doll could have been nominated and probably have a good shot at beating Trump.

I can’t say for certain that sexism doesn’t/didn’t contribute to getting to this point where a large number of people don’t trust her.  I personally think her gender is the least of those.  Most smear tactics over an extensive timeline, but some (to me at least) legitimate criticisms mixed in as well dwarf any preference to a man or woman in office.  I will say her last name is a strike against her IMO.  Any child, spouse, sibling or the like of a past president, I don’t like running for the office.  Not that this isn’t an advantage likely in both experience and knowing how the system works (not to mention the cash to pull it off) but it just sits wrong with me to even hint at a dynastic preference for the office.

Trump is a protest vote by the Republican base.  They courted crazies, AND refused to do their job unless you are of the opinion that obstructionisms was good enough given their options.  Their voting base either feels they are impotent, incompetent or using them.  Hence, candidate Trump.  You are focusing on Hillary’s ability to focus on Trump but you’ve got it backwards.  It was Trump’s ability to focus on Hillary that was the significant change.  Now, when Trump takes aim at her, his sexism may be a big factor.   Every time Trump opens his mouth her position is going to improve.  Her being a woman HELPS because Trump is sexist.  She’s not at a disadvantage because of her sex in any way.  It is only a boon given who her opponent is. 

Her backing by Obama and his administration is indeed a huge asset and she absolutely deserves credit for her political achievements and qualifications.  As far as being conciliatory to the Sanders coalition, I don’t know.  Seemed about par for the course.  They/we don’t trust her to close the gap between the two candidates.  Time will tell however.  That said, the gap policy wise was not as huge as it was made out to be.  Nothing compared to the gulf between Democratic and Republican policy preference. 

On the note about lacking Charisma I think this is just a case of bad luck.  Having her husband and Obama as direct comparisons to measure against… well that sucks for anyone.  I don’t think we can fairly say if gender factors into that measurement or not.  It was a pretty unfair comparison for anyone to live up to.  I don’t think Sanders came close either.  Maybe if he was the candidate we’d be talking about ageism instead of sexism? 

[Fenring]

Look at the evidence - Trump had previously ripped through a field of 15 other Republican candidates.

To quote Schwartzenegger, "yes, but they were all bad."

Part of her strength is the strong support from Barack (and Michelle) Obama, her bitter rival from the 2008 campaign.  How did she get there with him, and his coalition?

I'm pretty sure he had to support her, regardless of his personal feelings on the matter. I don't think she earned his support; she was always going to have it because that's how the party works. Just look at what happened when Trump briefly intimated he might not support some of the Republican Congressmen; the s**t hit the fan and he had to back off. Now imagine not supporting a Presidential candidate branded by the party. Ain't gonna happen.
 

Well, after a bitter loss, she got up and left her ego at the door, serving him loyally as Secretary of State.

That's not the way I would put it. Why not say she took the best opportunity she could to give herself chances at the Presidency down the road? In any case, to say she served him "loyally" is a very stacked statement, especially since I suspect Obama personally hates her and that they were politically at odds with each other for much of her tenure there. If I had to guess I'd say he had to put in some efforts to keep her and her people in check, sometimes having to relent and let them have their way (such as in Libya). But he may well have fought them back on the Syria topic. We'll probably never know the insider details there.

She was very conciliatory to the Bernie Sanders coalition

You mean after she had already beaten them? Yes, how gracious of her.

Donald Trump has gotten kudos over the past year for the success of his innovative campaign approach. Bernie Sanders has gotten kudos for his insurgent campaign in the democratic primaries. But I suspect that Hillary Clinton will not get anything near the credit given to them despite beating them both.

And I believe that one reason for that is that she is a woman.

I think people don't want to give her credit for different reasons. Some just don't like her, some think she represents a broken system that rigs elections, and some think, as D.W. mentioned, that she'll win due to having a weak opponent rather than being a superior candidate. You can argue against these reasons, but none of them has to do with her being a woman. I also agree with D.W. that being a woman has probably been a liability in some cases and an asset in others. However on the whole I suspect it will have gained her far more than it cost her, especially considering her hard campaigning on being the first WOMAN President. So even if it's true that her being a woman is 'out there' in people's minds, at the very least you should note it's because she made damn certain it was.

[scifibum]

I've done some introspection about why I don't like Hillary Clinton, and I think it's partly sexist.  The part of me that thinks she's too stiff and reserved, too calculated and overproduced: these are criticisms I'm less likely to be bothered by in men, I think. 

But it's hard to know for sure if the things I can chalk partly up to sexism have anything to do with my general disapproval, because it's also that she represents an extremely troubling dynastic pattern of leadership, and that she isn't progressive enough to satisfy me, and she got behind disastrous policies in the past.   

But I have to agree that the tone and content of the DNC was very well done, and her campaign deserves credit for letting Trump hang himself out to dry.  But some of the credit goes to Trump.  His attempt to scare people into accepting his protection racket was a huge target that the DNC could hardly miss, and his displays of impulsivity and immaturity have been constant and themed on xenophobia and his own ego, so it doesn't take geniuses to lob him some softballs. 

[scifibum]

One thing that has changed and is costing Trump support is the size and song of the choir of Republicans who are against him.  Now they are singing that they are willing to vote Clinton to stop Trump.  During the primary, many were extremely opposed to Trump but didn't have to go so far as to suggest Hillary was better.  Now she's the only realistic NeverTrump option.  Given how united the Republican machine has been in opposition to Hillary in the past, these defections are extremely telling.  It's like they are saying "All that stuff was just playing to win, now it *censored*ing matters." 

Her campaign gets credit for being mild enough not to make this impossible, I guess. 

[scifibum]

Sorry for the multiple posts in a row.

Greg, you are right that uniting with Obama shortly after she lost to him was a brilliant move that won over much of Obama's supporters to her this time around.  I don't expect that Sanders will be able to follow suit, but if Clinton appoints him as Secretary of Education or Labor I'll be impressed and pleased.

[D.W.]

Do you think he'd take the appointment?  I mean, if it was something he genuinely felt needed done and thought he could contribute... probably.  But I don't think he's in the same position of looking to build up his resume for "next time".

[Wayward Son]

Within a very short time after Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, she has led a campaign effort that has absolutely devastated Donald Trump and the prospects that he will win the Presidency.

In the immortal words of Yogi Berra: "It ain't over till it's over."

Or, perhaps more appropriately, the immortal words of James Thurber: "Don't count your boobies until they are hatched."

(Remember, Hillary is still enjoying the post-convention bump in her polls.)

[scifibum]

Do you think he'd take the appointment?  I mean, if it was something he genuinely felt needed done and thought he could contribute... probably.  But I don't think he's in the same position of looking to build up his resume for "next time".

I think he might feel like he could accomplish good things in either of those departments, but maybe not.  I don't think I've heard him say anything about whether he'd like a position in the new admin.

[Fenring]

I think he might feel like he could accomplish good things in either of those departments, but maybe not.  I don't think I've heard him say anything about whether he'd like a position in the new admin.

In a funny way I don't really think his opinion on the matter would be the biggest issue; Hillary's would be. Frankly I think she's bats**t insane not to have already publicly offered him a conciliatory post in her administration or cabinet in order to bring his voters into the fold and make peace with people who feel Bernie's influence will be lost in her administration. He absolutely should have been invited, and if he was willing to back down and endorse Hillary for the sake of the party I'm sure he'd take this job too for the same reason. There is no good strategic reason not to have tried to include him directly in her campaign. It's just a mistake, plain and simple. Even if Hillary isn't ready to announce who will have what position in her government, she could at least have said he'd have a prominent position of some sort to make use of his insight and his influence.

[scifibum]

I think it would be smart of her to make the offer, but maybe he's not interested and she doesn't want to be turned down by him in public.  Maybe it's still on the way - before the nomination was secured, it might have looked like an effort to buy him out, and it's early yet.

[D.W.]

Frankly I think she's bats**t insane not to have already publicly offered him a conciliatory post in her administration or cabinet in order to bring his voters into the fold and make peace with people who feel Bernie's influence will be lost in her administration.

Think of the repercussions if he snubbed her offer though?  That could be worse.  Or at least encourage all the Never Hillary crowd.

In fact, maybe she did, and he declined but for the good of the election they both agreed to keep that under wraps.

[Fenring]

Think of the repercussions if he snubbed her offer though?  That could be worse.  Or at least encourage all the Never Hillary crowd.

In fact, maybe she did, and he declined but for the good of the election they both agreed to keep that under wraps.

Agreed that if she made the offer it would be in private, and we'd never have heard about it if the answer was "no." So in that sense I guess it's possible this happened...but I wonder why Bernie would say no. As Secretary of State or Defence I could see someone like Sanders not wanting to butt heads with the President, with the intelligence agencies, etc. But as Secretary of Labor or the Interior or something it seems like it would be a more low-profile job where one could just do the job. It's not like Sen. Leahy is going anywhere, so Vermont would still be taken care of in Bernie's absence. Ah well, wait and see.

[D.W.]

Let's just assume that the "I want a political revolution" was more than a tactic or catch phrase for a moment.  Let's assume he knows that he can't bide his time for 8 years, build up his credibility in the party and 'call dibs' on the 8 years after that.

Why would he take the job?  It would have to be a pretty tempting offer.  Now maybe I'm being the naive one, but I don't think a token position or signing up for a job just to bring in his flock to support what he wanted to revolt against, makes even a lick of sense.

[Fenring]

Now maybe I'm being the naive one, but I don't think a token position or signing up for a job just to bring in his flock to support what he wanted to revolt against, makes even a lick of sense.

What you say makes sense, and it boils down to whether someone has an all-or-nothing attitude towards reform, or whether they have the mentality of "I can't change the system right now from the outside, but from the inside I can do some little good that will help." That would be the reasoning, as far as I can tell. It would have little to do with helping Clinton; you're right about that. But it would help Clinton, and in turn it would give him a chance to help the country to some extent. That's how I see it, anyhow. I don't think he has political aspirations, per se, so if he saw the job as merely a stepping stone to something else I agree he might not bother with it.

[scifibum]

He talks a lot about labor and education, and while the reforms he wants depend on the legislature, he could accomplish some improvement as an administrator. 

Perhaps more importantly, he could structure data collection and reporting to illuminate problems that need Congress's attention.

[LetterRip]

I suspect he is more interested in a powerful position in the Senate, and by helping other Senators get elected he can broker that into a powerful Senate chair.

[Gaoics79]

Within a very short time after Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, she has led a campaign effort that has absolutely devasted Donald Trump and the prospects that he will win the Presidency. 

I don't feel her campaign has much, if anything, to do with Trump's self-destruction. I will give her credit where it's due: unlike her opponent, she has the good sense to know when to get out of the way and allow her opponent to drive off a cliff.

[AI Wessex]

I don't think Sanders has any remote interest in a cabinet position in her Administration.  I also don't think there's even a remote chance that Schumer will offer him a committee chairmanship.  It takes more than caucusing with Democrats to be part of the inner circle.

[cherrypoptart]

I'm going to first disagree about her eviscerating anybody least of all Trump and second maybe most of you were sexist but I've got nothing against her based on the fact that she's a woman. I still like Sarah Palin and last time I checked (can't assume anything nowadays) she was a woman. The reason people don't support or agree with Hillary, people like me at least, is simply her politics. That's the same reason I don't support Obama. It's not because he's black but because his policies are a failure and because he has achieved his aim of weakening America.

Now Bill Clinton, I personally didn't like at all because he's a rapist. Not much to do with most of his policies because they weren't really all that bad. Sure I can probably point to a few that I disagreed with but by and large America was strong and a success back then which was also a compliment to the Republican Congress but also to be fair, a testament to Bill Clinton's willingness to compromise for the good of the country. And Bill Clinton is white and a male and yet I loath him most of all.

It's really looking like most of the accusations of sexism and racism coming from the left are simply based on projections of their own racist and sexist feelings.

[Pete at Home]

Some day, the US will have a female leader whose entire foundation doesn't rely on Greg's all too typical Emperor's new vagina arguments.  Greg starts this entire thread with the premise "if you disagree with me, you are a sexist."  Someday, we'll have a female leader whose accomplishments and speeches speak for themselves, rather than "being the first woman x and first woman y" being her primary accomplishments.

This is not that day.

Within a very short time after Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, she has led a campaign effort that has absolutely devasted Donald Trump and the prospects that he will win the Presidency. I suspect that some people will not give her any credit, instead asserting that Trump's fall was inevitable and she's just a weak candidate who got lucky. And I think that way of thinking may be because she is a female politician.

Look at the evidence - Trump had previously ripped through a field of 15 other Republican candidates.  Over a year, his failure was supposed to be inevitable, and yet somehow that never happened. And then in just a number of weeks after Sanders endorsed her and she could focus on Trump, he appears to be heading towards the biggest Republican loss since the 1960's. And it is notable that many of the ways in which Hillary has done such damage to his campaign has been through approaches that don't fit in with our stereotypical view of what it is to be a powerfgul male political figure.

Part of her strength is the strong support from Barack (and Michelle) Obama, her bitter rival from the 2008 campaign.  How did she get there with him, and his coalition? Well, after a bitter loss, she got up and left her ego at the door, serving him loyally as Secretary of State. That's unusual behavior for a leading national politician, and one that won the loyalty of many Obama supporters.  She had a thorough and diligently planned convention, attacking the smears against her character with testimonials from a lifetime on service to regular human beings in ways that are different from traditional politicians (you may not be swayed by her personal involvement with the health concerns of her constituents after 9/11, but her lifetime of actions were persuasive to many moderates). She was very conciliatory to the Bernie Sanders coalition, more so than a number of other politicians would be. She picked Tim Kaine as a VP candidate, an interesting choice because she was both prioritizing governing experience over campaign cachet and yet also she did have a planned niche for his campaigning skills. 

And someone had to plan the political attacks and traps for Trump.  The Khans did not show up at the Democratic convention by accident. There has been a huge effort expended in get-out-the-vote. She is implementing close to a 50 state strategy (a current lead in Georgia? Utah close?). Of course she is not flawless as a candidate. She lacks the same level of personal charisma as other candidates, and she has sufferred some damage as part of the 25 years of attack. But that's what makes her current efforts demonstrate considerable political skill.

Donald Trump has gotten kudos over the past year for the success of his innovative campaign approach. Bernie Sanders has gotten kudos for his insurgent campaign in the democratic primaries. But I suspect that Hillary Clinton will not get anything near the credit given to them despite beating them both.

And I believe that one reason for that is that she is a woman.

And since that's how you framed the entire argument, there's no room here for discussing anything other than Hillary's genitals.

Shame on you.

Pete out, in search of a more intelligent discussion.

[Greg Davidson]

Pete, your argument is lazy because it ignores what I actually say. Please present your argument that the fact that Hillary Clinton does not deserve any credit for the fact that Trump's campaign has been torpedoed for the same kind of nonsense that he has been getting away with for a year - I won't argue you are wrong because you are sexist, I'll argue you are wrong because you are. And Cherry, I did not stipulate you had to like Hillary Clinton in any way.

My assertion was that many people will not give Hillary Clinton credit for her political success in taking down Donald Trump. For 12 months, Trump has clobbered all of his opponents. Within a month of the Sanders endorsement, Clinton has had tremendous success relative to Trump. Politically, she has essentially won the election in a month - this is masterful politics. And she will get less credit than Sanders or Trump got for lesser accomplishments. 

[cherrypoptart]

It's yet to be seen whether or not she has taken down Trump. And I'll also disagree with her DNC performance being a great success too. Her speech may have been great, as were the other speeches, but she as the candidate is responsible for more than that. The American flags were hidden away on the first day and plenty of people noticed. She has disavowed Mateen because of his love for radical Islam and yet she let him play a prominent role in the convention.  The apple apparently doesn't fall far from the tree. The mother of Michael Brown was there and that guy is probably the worst martyr for a cause you could find, outside of the ones ISIS uses. He assaulted and robbed a poor shop keeper and it was caught on tape right before he assaulted a police officer who did his job and defended himself and the public from a violent criminal. The continuing Muslim terrorist attacks in Europe, and in America for that matter, make her insistence on subjecting more Americans to certain death at the hands of ISIS terror cells, sympathizers, and converts that will inevitably infiltrate in with the refugee population seem like someone who cares more for foreigners than she does for Americans. A lofty ideal to be sure, but one that will cost lives some Americans may not be willing to sacrifice. And let's not forget the Clinton body count that just recently rose by two,  along with her other mistakes are all adding up quickly and when they are taken in their totality come election time the electorate may well decide that Trump doesn't look so bad after all. I don't see how any of that has anything to do with her being a woman though.  After all, Obama is just as bad. We also have to wonder if her strong personal performances are taking a toll on her health. Wasn't that some sort of huge deal for the media when it came to McCain and releasing his health records?

Needless to say I don't believe these polls either. Many people are justifiably concerned for their safety when it comes to expressing their support for Trump as we just saw with the Hillary supporter who got into an argument when a Trumpeter in a bar so went out to his car to get his gun and come back in and ended up shooting the guy in the leg. People can get spit on, have their property vandalized, and of course lose friends and have their relatives ghost and fade them because of how crazy this election is making so many people. We saw an example at the college where students freaked out and said they got scared when Trump 2016 was written in chalk on a sidewalk.

[Gaoics79]

Please present your argument that the fact that Hillary Clinton does not deserve any credit for the fact that Trump's campaign has been torpedoed for the same kind of nonsense that he has been getting away with for a year 

I find the facts you have presented rather weak evidence of her success in "taking down" Trump. Trump has been entirely consistent throughout the primaries and the general campaign. He hasn't been "trapped" by anyone except himself.

Assuming, for the moment, that Trump is as damaged as he appears (By the way, I agree with Cherry that this is not certain yet) I'll tell you why it's different from during the primaries, since that seems to be your main point (look how he wiped the floor with all those Republicans, but is now breaking his teeth on Hillary):

1) The primary process is obviously alot different from a general election campaign. Trump feeds on victory, on validation, and each victory allowed his campaign to snowball. There is no such feedback validation loop in a long general election campaign.

2) Republican primaries are an entirely different demographic. Obviously his base of support lies in the disaffected of the Republican party. This is not the same group as in a general election and his belief that he could tap into a portion of the disaffected Bernie camp was probably a pipe dream

3) People have realized, finally, that he is exactly what he appears to be.

Let me elaborate on #3.

I admit I was an apologist for this man. I wouldn't say I liked him, but I admired the way he spat in the face of the media, turned cynical party politics on its head. Alot of us always knew he was a liar, but we assumed he would change his tune once he had successfully won the primary, to start acting presidential, to dial back on some of his whackier promises. We expected him to act rationally, the way a Hillary Clinton or most other politicians would act. What we didn't get until recently (and what I think the mainstream of the Republican establishment has finally woken up to) is that it wasn't an act. I'm not talking about him being a racist or such - it's much worse than that. Yes, Trump is certainly a liar, but not a rational one. Trump's lies are actually pathological. The man is almost certainly mentally ill or at a minimum, has major personality defects that compel him to certain self-destructive behaviours. I happen to think he is a megalomaniac, also in a clinical sense.

This is why this man should never be commander and chief.

But getting back to the original point - I see little evidence that Hillary "orchestrated" anything. Trump has destroyed himself. (assuming, and we all hope, he is actually as "destroyed" as he seems)

Regarding Khan, if it wasn't him it would have been something else. But in any event, I see little "genius" in Hillary doing what any politician with a brain in her scull would have done. She exploited an OBVIOUS weakness. Assuming she sought out Khan to speak at the convention (rather than Khan coming to her and asking to do so - and I'd like to confirm which way it was for this discussion), that's hardly genius in my book. It's about as obvious as it gets.  Have you seen Hillary's commercials? Most of the ones I have seen are just videos of Trump saying crazy *censored*. Seriously. I haven't seen a single one where Clinton even makes an appearance in weeks. Her ads are just Trump all the time. Again, because HIllary isn't an idiot - she's letting this guy destroy himself.

[Greg Davidson]

jasonr, I agree that general election audience is different from the Republican party audience.  But the steps that Hillary has taken to undermine Trump could have been taken by anyone - the Khans had publicly discussed their son as early as November 2015. Saying that Hillary's performance is not noteworthy because she exploited an obvious weakness is inconsistent with the fact that 15 previous Republican candidates failed to exploit the exact same obvious weakness.

The other Republican candidates were frightened by Trump, and when some of them did try to stand up to him, he swatted away their efforts and made them look pathetic in the process.  It runs against gender stereotypes, but Hillary Clinton projects more strength in standing up to Trump than any of the Republicans, and she does so without breaking a sweat. Those Republican candidates were said to be an embarassment of riches, but when Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz tried to attack Donald Trump, he made they pay immediately for it.

So can I hear any appreciation for the political skills and stature of Hillary Clinton for her efforts? For doing what many other candidates were unable to do?


========
Cherry, I actually think Hillary's speech at the convention was not strong. She's not a charismatic speaker for orations like that.  Let me also agree that the election is not certain - a lot happens over the last three months, but also that the next effect of the past month has been the most damaging to a major candidate since the attacks on Michael Dukakis in 1988.

 

[Fenring]

The other Republican candidates were frightened by Trump, and when some of them did try to stand up to him, he swatted away their efforts and made them look pathetic in the process.

Maybe it's because they actually were pathetic and he merely pointed it out?

[D.W.]

So can I hear any appreciation for the political skills and stature of Hillary Clinton for her efforts? For doing what many other candidates were unable to do?

What did SHE do?  Cite some examples.

I don't think any of us disagree with the timing.  What we disagree with is how much credit she deserves for Trump's decline.  I'd even be interested in a hypothetical of, If another candidate was the nominee rather than Hillary they could not have done X, Y or Z like she did.

You see an effect and have pointed to Hillary as the cause without any backup.  Further you started this out by suggesting that the only reason (or a prevalent one) to not agree that she is the cause, and fail to give her the credit due to her is sexism.  Pete's response, while more of a rebuke to short circuit your flawed way of looking at things, is legitimate.  Your made an assertion not an argument.  Care to expand on it or are you just proselytizing for your candidate of choice?

"I'm winning, there for I'm brilliant, a genius, I'm fantastic!"
That sounds like the other candidate to me.

[Gaoics79]

Greg, I think your points are adequately addressed by 1) and 2). Bashing Republican establishment candidates obviously appealed to a very large portion of the Republican electorate during the primaries. There is also Fenring's point - that they really were pathetic and weak candidates. I don't think bashing Hillary was going to get Trump very far with a general election campaign - after all what was he going to say about the woman that mainstream Republicans hadn't been saying for years?

You still haven't addressed what Hillary has DONE to bring Trump down. Her strategy as far as I can see has been to step aside and just let him do his thing. The most devastating blows of late haven't even come from Clinton but from fellow Republicans. Yes, Trump drew alot of that kind of fire during the primaries - but you'll agree that when your own party turns on you and calls you unfit AFTER being annointed nominee, that's a pretty different kettle of fish.

Regarding Khan, I think that either Khan recruited himself (in which case Hillary would have been a moron not to let him speak) or Hillary recruited him. In the first scenario you will agree no particular credit belongs to Clinton. In the second scenario, she deserves some credit, but again, hardly something that only a brilliant politician would have thought to do. I doubt Khan was some kind of trap - more likely they used him because it exposed an obvious weakness in Trump. What happened afterward when Trump attacked Khan's family was just gravy.

For the record, I never doubted Clinton's skill as a politician or her intellect. I just don't think Trump has come close to testing that skill or intellect. The man was a time bomb whose fuse has almost run out. Clinton is just waiting for him to blow up.

And by the way: the suggestion that somehow we aren't giving her credit for "taking down" Trump because Clinton is a woman is both insulting and laughably wrong.

[NobleHunter]

It strikes me as one of those campaigns where a general can look like a genius just by not screwing up. There's no need for innovative tactics or brilliant maneuvers, just a solid refusal to make mistakes. It's the kind of thing that sounds easy and simple but represents more skill than is readily apparent.

[Greg Davidson]

First, do we agree that she gets at least as much credit for how her campaign is run as we would give to male candidates leading their campaign? If anything, she tends to me more focused on hands-on details than average for Presidential candidates, and on that assumption, I am including major efforts of her campaign as part of what she has done.

These include the aforementioned effort to come from a strong rivalry with Barack Obama to an unusual demonstration of loyalty as Secretary of State that even won over a number of Obama campaign operatives who were initially resistant to her. She learned substantially from the weaknesses in her campaign team in 2008 (Mark Penn and others), and has assembled a more formidable staff composed by the best of her previous campaigns plus key Obama campaign people.

She has been running to the left on policy, but with a tone and sense of respect more typically perceived as being on the right. So she's established without controversy a position on free college for those making under $125K and a $15 minimum wage without significant Republican push-back.  She's dealt with the Sanders movement with an above average level of patience, resulting not only in a historically large percentage of Sanders supporters saying that they will vote for her, but she has even been well positioned in that the residual attacks from the farthest to the left (or merely the most bitter on the left) will mostly serve to provide ideological protection for the fact that this platform is the most progressive one for the democrats in 40 years.

The emergence of Khizr Khan demonstrates the skill and effectiveness of the Clinton Campaign. Khan, who was not a registered Democrat, was interviewed in a blog called vocativ on December 8, 2015 after not speaking publically about his son for years (see the full story in
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/seven-minutes-that-shook-the-convention-214126). A few days later a Clinton staffer contacted him, and that's what led to his strategic placement on the final day of the convention in early August 2016.  From a political perspective, this demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has built an exceptionally capable political campaign. Consider the kudos that have gone to Sanders and Trump earlier in this political season for the effectiveness of their campaigns, and note in comparison how little credit Hillary gets for the effectiveness of her campaign.

She has coordinated the efforts of many voices within the democratic party (and a number of independents and Republicans), both at the convention and afterwards. The convention itself did not do a "Sistah Soulja" distancing from controversial voices on the left (including some such as Michael Brown's mother), but they included those voices with a rather remarkable message that emphasized both the shared human value of mothers grieving for their children (regardless of their prior actions) with a religious faith and a message of hope to address the challenges collectively rather than by inciting more hatred. And she came to this not by brainstorming staff members in a campaign room, but rather by a real-life interaction she had in meeting with them back in November 2015 where she brought the mothers together as a group (they had not all been in contact before) and gave them suggestions on how to best make their voice heard.

I will decrement her performance by noting that she has been weak at dealing with the email scandal (or more specifically, the 7 Benghazi Congressional attacks, one of which uncovered the 30,000 emails, which led to the questions over classification), but she has been hurt but not significantly harmed by the assault (whereas Kerry, Gore, Dean, Dukakis, etc. all had no answer for the Republican attacks against them). And she turned back the Benghazi scandals in her favor by troucing Gowdy and the Republicans in the 11 hour hearing.   

[Greg Davidson]

And jasonr,

My language was unclear enough to create a misunderstanding, let me clarifiy one major meta-point. I am not saying that everyone who disagrees with the proficiency of her political campaign is doing so because she is a woman (because there is a great diversity of opinion between people, and they reach conclusions for all sorts of reasons), but I am saying that the aggregate level of appreciation for her political skills is lower because a subset of the population will instinctively explain away accomplishments of a woman that they would not similarly discount for a man. A simplistic example of this is in the NBC Olympics coverage, where they have several times described female Olympics medal-winners in terms of their husbands or non-athletic contexts - while they did not similarly describe male Olympics medal-winners in terms of their wives etc.

In terms of Hillary, the sexism comes from not judging her accomplishments to the same standard that has been used to ascribe credit to the campaigns of male candidates.

[Greg Davidson]

Oh, and I just read a statistic that will help to calibrate exactly where the race is today.  If you include Minnesota (which has barely been polled this year, but trends with Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia), then Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump by at least 10% in states that account for 273 electoral votes - enough to make her the next President ofthe United States.

No guarantees, and 3 months is a long time, but that is a historic lead for this phase in the campaign. And it's not because the economy and the world situation are doing terrifically (they are mildly positive, but not enough to sway an election).  And it is not because Hillary Clinton has unique charisma to connect with people in big speeches. It is because she is running a highly competent political campaign.  This is a remarkable turn-around from what people were predicting about her just a few months ago.

And blaming it all on Trump is inconsistent with the fact that the batsh-t crazy things he says today are not appreciably more batsh-t crazy than the things he has been saying for over a year, but only Hillary Clinton's campaign has been able to make him pay for that.

[Pete at Home]

Pete, your argument is lazy because it ignores what I actually say. Please present your argument that the fact that Hillary Clinton does not deserve any credit for the fact that Trump's campaign has been torpedoed for the same kind of nonsense that he has been getting away with for a year -x

Why would I argue something I don't believe?  I fully agree with you that Hillary has done a better job than the other Republican candidates at eviscerating Trump, but that's incredibly weak praise, Greg.  The Republican Candidates were for the most part, nimrods, with the exception being Fiorina who acted like a nimrod to compete with nimrods, and Kasich, who never had money to get the message out. 

What Hillary has yet to do is to eviscerate Trump to a greater degree than he has eviscerated himself. 

If Trump wasn't a piece of cake to beat, then why did Clinton himself recommend that Trump run in this election?

Face it -- Clinton's numbers go up every time she shuts up and lets Trump do the talking. 

Aside from the shallow sexist setup of your OP and Title, I'm appalled by the shallowness of your assumption that how someone "eviscerates" one's rivals in what amounts to a reality television competition is something worthy of serious attention in a race for president of the United States.

Now that you've established that Hillary can beat Trump in a pissing contest, why don't we talk about something that doesn't insult your intelligence and mine?

[TheDeamon]

And blaming it all on Trump is inconsistent with the fact that the batsh-t crazy things he says today are not appreciably more batsh-t crazy than the things he has been saying for over a year, but only Hillary Clinton's campaign has been able to make him pay for that.

I never came off the fence on Trump being a ringer in this election cycle, with the idea of getting the Republican Nominee to stake a political position the Democrats could make him pay for in the general. As Trump did to Romney in 2012. Only this time, the ringer became the nominee through a twist in the political tides.

Anybody can look like a genius when running against a Straw Man, gender is irrelevant.

[D.W.]

She has been running to the left on policy, but with a tone and sense of respect more typically perceived as being on the right. So she's established without controversy a position on free college for those making under $125K and a $15 minimum wage without significant Republican push-back.  She's dealt with the Sanders movement with an above average level of patience, resulting not only in a historically large percentage of Sanders supporters saying that they will vote for her, but she has even been well positioned in that the residual attacks from the farthest to the left (or merely the most bitter on the left) will mostly serve to provide ideological protection for the fact that this platform is the most progressive one for the democrats in 40 years.

This entire paragraph is just jaw dropping to me.  I’ll admit, I’m on the bitter end of the scale but my God man!  If not for the seriousness of Bernie’s challenge and the pressure from his supporters the first part would never have happened.  Would things have improved in that direction?  Yes, but we wouldn’t have landed as far left as we did without the contested race.  So yes, it is one of the most progressive platforms.  For that I thank the losing candidate.  I also thank Trump for giving her the option to not pivot back to a centrist position as soon as she got the nomination.  May she stay the course and keep it the most progressive platform all the way up to her inauguration. 

Your characterization of “an above average level of patience” makes me want to weep.  She had the disposition of a scolding parent pretty much from the start, from my perspective she just oozed disdain and disapproval.  The historically large percentage of Sanders supporters crossing over (compared to what?) are by and large voting against Trump and the cesspit he’d try to transform our country into, not for her.  Don’t kid yourself.  I think she’ll be a fine president.  I think she’ll pick up the baton effortlessly as Obama comes in for the handoff and we’ll have another 8 years of business as usual.  It’s a pretty damn decent consolation prize.

Otherwise, that was a much better attempt to make your point.  I’m not buying it, but it’s better than “pick up the pom-pom’s or you are a sexist”.    Your story about the Olympic announcer I would also note went viral and sparked instant outrage precisely because it was such a ridiculous outlier.  When these troglodytes reveal themselves we are swift to slap them down.  I see it as a demonstration that things are greatly improved rather than proof things are still awful when it comes to sexism.

[Fenring]

A lot of Bernie's popularity came through online awareness, as he was hand-down easily the landslide favorite of forums populated largely by younger people. Once he accepted defeat in the race I saw an absolute avalanche of social-media messages about how Bernie supporters needed to switch to Clinton to stop Trump. I have, to date, seen zero posts on social media, viral or otherwise, about how good Clinton is. No one is even pretending to adopt that position for the most part. Every message is "Trump must be stopped", "Trump is a neo-Nazi", "stop the idiot", and "we have to fight the real evil." Things like that. And I do credit the Clinton campaign for part of this because it's basically common knowledge that she is spending $$$ on an army of internet activists to post and propagate material. That's all well and good, and smart of her to take that approach. But even the approach of her shills is to point at how Trump must not be allowed to win. Which basically just reaffirms what people here like jasonr are saying. None of her sudden 'popularity' now is pro-Hillary, it's anti-Trump. Hey man, whatever works. But don't go and act like it's because of her great reputation. Even most pro-Hillary shill posts I see say things like "Hey guys, we all know Hillary isn't the best, but we need to step up and not let Trump ruin our country." The few posts I do see in places like Reddit that are out-and-out praise of her tend to be laughed down as paid advertising.

[Pete at Home]

Simply look at the vast array of money laid out against Trump right now.  Trump gets first credit for eviscerating himself, and Hillary comes in third, but #2 is simply the money and power influence, mostly from the Koch brothers, who keep pulling strings to get their pawns to come out against Trump.

How much money to defeat a straw man?

[D.W.]

To Fenring's point.  I do give her and her campaign credit for promoting the, "Don't do it for me, do it to stop Trump" line.

Ditching "I'm with Her" and picking up the "Stronger Together" slogan is smart.  Or at least, good damage control.

[Greg Davidson]

Fenring, one of the current aspects of how we get our news is that it can be tailored based on the individual. On my Facebook feed I get postings from those deeply in the Trump camp as well as a barrage (still) of Bernie or bust comments (note: I also make it a point to have dinner with as many of these friends I debate with and to post an image of us smiling, to humanize the discourse).

Your comment below is very different from my experience, and may reflect how social media filters to you:

I have, to date, seen zero posts on social media, viral or otherwise, about how good Clinton is.

Here's one article proporting to show why Clinton support is just emerging on Facebook (simple version; many of her supporters don't like nasty responses from trolls)http://fortune.com/2016/08/11/hillary-clinton-support-facebook/

But also scrolling down my Facebook feed from just today, I see a variety of articles reposted arguing aspects of the case for Hillary Clinton. Here's some from sites I have heard of before
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-activism-and-hillary-clinton-at-wellesley
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/while-wooing-republicans-clinton-sticks-progressive-policy-n628501

Here are others, from sites I have not heard of previously
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/
https://theringer.com/what-to-remember-when-the-trump-comeback-begins-1db1c4698eef#.wk6slcqbf

[Fenring]

Fenring, one of the current aspects of how we get our news is that it can be tailored based on the individual. On my Facebook feed I get postings from those deeply in the Trump camp as well as a barrage (still) of Bernie or bust comments (note: I also make it a point to have dinner with as many of these friends I debate with and to post an image of us smiling, to humanize the discourse).

A lot of my FB 'friends' are of the liberal persuasion, but not all. I live in a liberal city and, being in the arts, have a lot of liberal contacts. So you're right that an absence of pro-Trump (or pro-GOP) elements in my feed would figure into this. But one of your points is that Hillary managed to sway the Sanders crowd over to her, and my comments were largely related to that point. I know a bunch of people who were Bernie supporters, and the refrain of late without exception has been the civic duty to oppose Trump. FB, however, is not my only online media source, but it's just an example of things I see being passed around by people I actually know. I don't know any liberals IRL, however, who are pro-Hillary, as in, they actively believe in her. It always seems to be a lesser-of-evils position. I know there are real Hillary supporters, of course, but I don't think they populate social media as much due to their demographic. I also think that by and large they were going to support her anyhow regardless of how the GOP primaries went or whether Sanders even existed. So what we're talking about, really, is the Bernie crowd moving over to her (which I've addressed in my previous comment), and on-the-fence Trump supporters who may be jumping ship. The latter group can certainly be accounted for by Trump's own actions.

[Greg Davidson]

I disagree that Trump people jumping ship is unrelated to her campaign efforts. As I said earlier, her conventione created a community-based, optimistic, patriotic, and faith-infused tone that was used to promote progressive policies.  She didn't make the policy pronoucements the main focus, but at the same time she didn't in any way back down from what I believe we all agree are historically progressive policy proposals. 

She has taken on two traditionally dangerous political positions that Republicans have repeatedly use to devastate Democratic candidates (gun control, support for Muslims), and she has done so in such a masterful way that they are strengths for her and not vulnerabilities (and she has done this exceptional framing of treatment of Muslims in a year that has seen an above average level of attacks by people who are - or proclaimed that they were - acting in the name of Islam). 

 

[Fenring]

She has taken on two traditionally dangerous political positions that Republicans have repeatedly use to devastate Democratic candidates (gun control, support for Muslims), and she has done so in such a masterful way that they are strengths for her and not vulnerabilities

I kind of think Republicans have their hands full right now arguing about Trump. They haven't even begun their attempt to devastate her yet. Her best case scenario is that they remain focused on Trump and don't have time for her. But if and when the right settles down in support of Trump and turn their sights towards the coming election, we'll see how masterfully she can defend her 'progressive' policies. I'm not actually sure what's so progressive about them, other than having adopted a couple of Bernie's talking points. Overall I agree with D.W. that a Clinton Presidency will be looking to be 4-8 years of no change. It would, in fact, be kind of strange to attack her on 'progressive' grounds, since by all rights she's an extreme right-wing Democrat in some areas (such as foreign policy and security) and centrist in others (such as economic and social). The GOP may eventually go after her with the usual anti-left stuff, but to be honest I think they're going to change things up and go after her rather than her platform in this one.

[D.W.]

To her credit, those traits centrist/right can overcome the knee jerk hate the Republicans seem to have for her personally.  At least in the face of Trump representing them or stealing their identity and wiping his ass with it.

The patriotic, pro military flavor of the convention is not something I expect Sanders could have pulled off.  SoS creds compared to Sander's shall we say, less interventionist tendencies is a pretty stark contrast.  She and/or her campaign leveraged them expertly.  Trumps then fumbled the same tools as if he was going above and beyond to hand her the ball didn't hurt either.

[Greg Davidson]

It would, in fact, be kind of strange to attack her on 'progressive' grounds, since by all rights she's an extreme right-wing Democrat in some areas (such as foreign policy and security) and centrist in others (such as economic and social).

Here's her top 10 policy proposals as determined by politifact based on her website and public comments. Clearly, each of these will be challenging to implement, but the question here is the degree to which these are progressive or centrist policies, and they seem pretty darn progressive to me:

1. "For families making less than $125,000 a year, we will eliminate tuition" for in-state students at public colleges.
2. "Pass comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship that keeps families together."
3. "Stand up to Republican-led attacks on this landmark (health care) law—and build on its success to bring the promise of affordable health care to more people and make a ‘public option’ possible."
4. "We will do everything we can to overturn Citizens United."
5. "Fighting for equal pay."
6. "I will not raise middle-class taxes."
7. "Say no to attacks on working families and no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership."
8. "We’re going to increase the federal minimum wage."
9. "As president, Hillary will expand background checks to more gun sales."
10. "Clinton would increase federal infrastructure funding by $275 billion over a five-year period."

See analysis of specific policy details at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22/hillary-clintons-top-10-campaign-promises/)

[Fenring]

Some of those are simply status quo, such as 'fighting for equal pay' and standing by ACA. I actually disbelieve that she will stand against the TPP but I look forward to being proved wrong on that one. The tuition and minimum wage things were concessions to the Sanders camp but at least they're there, which is fine.

The one thing that stands out in the list is Citizens United. If she actually does do something to overturn it then I'll be the first to sing her praises about that. I'll be very surprised if she does since the path to her Presidency was laid by it being the way it is right now. A politician can go renegade on the people that sponsored the candidacy, but there are extreme risks that go along with doing so. I'll believe this one when I see it.

[cherrypoptart]

I don't think her gun position is going to work out that well for her. I see more traction on the internet every day for the reality that her Supreme Court justice will put liberals in the majority to overturn Heller and eviscerate the 2nd Amendment. She can say whatever she wants and everyone can insist she isn't for banning guns but the fact is all of that's irrelevant because the President doesn't have that power anyway. The Supreme Court does. So the only thing that matters is her nominee and history shows that every single liberal Supreme Court justice would decide to ban and confiscate guns, every time. The last time Democrats went after guns they lost elections big time. We always hear stories about how Obama has been the greatest American gun salesman in history, and I have a feeling the vast majority of those gun buyers aren't going to vote for someone who is going to appoint to the Supreme Court the justice who is going to take them away. The trick is just getting those people to understand, again, that her personal position on the issue doesn't matter in the least, and as the new quote I keep hearing goes, "It's the Supreme Court, stupid". Trump put out his list of potential nominees and as far as I know the NRA doesn't have a problem with any of them.

If people think the tide has turned and most voters are for European and Australian style gun confiscation and banning, this election will prove it one way or the other.

[cherrypoptart]

She can overturn Citizens United simply with her Supreme Court nominee the same way she can void the 2nd Amendment as it is currently understood. I think those are both promises she can and will keep. The liberals on the Supreme Court will not hesitate to fast track cases to do exactly that.

[Greg Davidson]

Fenring, read the details. She's not just standing by the ACA, she says she is going to fight for creation of a "public option". This is not a small thing.

And with respect to pay, she has specific plan to address a real problem that women face with opay equity - From Politifact: "On the subject of closing the pay gap for men and women, Clinton is advocating for the Paycheck Fairness Act, which attempts to make it easier for individuals to challenge sex-based pay discrimination. Clinton introduced a version of this bill as a senator in 2007"

[Pete at Home]

I disagree that Trump people jumping ship is unrelated to her campaign efforts.

There's no question that the people jumping ship because of Koch brothers funding.  Since securing Koch brothers funding both direct and indirect while they continue to decline to actually endorse her (which would be the kiss of death) is her "campaign efforts," then I agree.  But again, why is this a good thing?

She's a Clinton.  Of course she runs a strong campaign.  Doesn't remotely mean she'd be a good president.

[Fenring]

Fenring, read the details. She's not just standing by the ACA, she says she is going to fight for creation of a "public option". This is not a small thing.

Ok, I don't have a lot invested (intellectually) on the specifics of that so I'll take your word for it.

And with respect to pay, she has specific plan to address a real problem that women face with opay equity - From Politifact: "On the subject of closing the pay gap for men and women, Clinton is advocating for the Paycheck Fairness Act, which attempts to make it easier for individuals to challenge sex-based pay discrimination. Clinton introduced a version of this bill as a senator in 2007"

Having read a lot on the subject on both sides, I have altered my previous opinion from some years ago on this subject. I no longer believe there is substantial sex-based discrimination in the workplace, in an apples-to-apples sense. I think it's a sensationalist claim at this point with some small substance to it but overall used to leverage social/political capital. I've even heard prominent feminist speakers on this topic say that the popular myth of the 75 cents on the dollar and so forth is simply false, full stop.