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

[Greg Davidson]

Pete, I am glad you finally agree that Hillary Clinton has led a strong political campaign against Donald Trump, which was part of my original point.  And the way you expressed your opinion validated the rest of my point

She's a Clinton.  Of course she runs a strong campaign

So your assertion seems to be that her skills are related to carrying the same name as her husband. You have in a Trump-like way answered my question about whether sexism is a factor in not giving Hillary Clinton herself an appropriate share of credit for her political success.

========
Bonus request: please show evidence for your assertion that a primary reason for "people jumping ship because of Koch brothers funding" - sounds like unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

[Greg Davidson]

the popular myth of the 75 cents on the dollar and so forth is simply false

That can be true but not relevant - it's not the claim behind this specific policy. Current law permits discriminatory differentials in salaries paid to women for the same work of the same quality unless you can overcome some tough hurdles for proof - among other things, I believe that you need to bring forward evidence within a very short time frame like 6 months (if you discover the real discrimination after that time there is no recourse - and it can be hard for employees to get access to that comparative data).   

[Pete at Home]

She's a Clinton.  Of course she runs a strong campaign

So your assertion seems to be that her skills are related to carrying the same name as her husband.

Don't be obtuse.  Hillary Clinton is half the Clinton brand name, and always has been. 

If you are half the man I think you are, you will admit that was a ridiculously sexist assumption on your part, and quite unfair to Hillary. Me, I'd just a soon give her credit for some of his wins.  I don't know where he ends or where she begins, but I'm fairly sure that he never would have gotten so far without him. 

She's a Clinton, meaning she's been up to her armpits in the gore and mud of campaigns since most people on this board were in diapers.  If you want to read something "sexist" into that statement, then you are twisting words and breaking your pledge to me above. 

You said you wouldn't do that crap. 

Again, shame on you.

[Pete at Home]

Pete, I am glad you finally agree that Hillary Clinton has led a strong political campaign

How many falsehoods can you cram into one post, Greg?  Does election time just bring this side out of you?

I haven't "finally" agreed on anything here.  I never denied or disagreed that Hillary was a strong campaigner, but think it's disingenuous to pretend that Trump was anything but a wet dream for any democrat to campaign against.

against Donald Trump, which was part of my original point.  And the way you expressed your opinion validated the rest of my point

Bonus request: please show evidence for your assertion that a primary reason for "people jumping ship because of Koch brothers funding" - sounds like unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

Unsubstantiated my ass.  Run a search on Koch and my name and follow the plethora of links.  Is Huffington Post too conservative for you? 

[Fenring]

That can be true but not relevant - it's not the claim behind this specific policy. Current law permits discriminatory differentials in salaries paid to women for the same work of the same quality unless you can overcome some tough hurdles for proof - among other things, I believe that you need to bring forward evidence within a very short time frame like 6 months (if you discover the real discrimination after that time there is no recourse - and it can be hard for employees to get access to that comparative data).

I think the subject is discussed in a way that's far too pat. I've heard a lot of discussion about the specifics in cases like this, and in the end I find that broad comments about the alleged problem tend to miss the mark entirely. Only when you get down to the specifics of the particular company, the particular job, and the particular people involved do you find out what the issue was. I'm quite sure some of the time there are sexist managers, and from what I hear more often than not women tend to hold back other women more so than male managers do. However that still admits to sexism, just not of the type often trumpeted over the airwaves. But just as that does exist to some extent, the question is what percentage of instances of unequal pay are strictly because of this, as opposed to other causes. One of those causes that comes out a lot when you hear a case in question (often from the mouth of the woman herself who was receiving less pay than a male counterpart) is that women tend not to negotiate as aggressively as men do for a raise, or at the onset when hired. This accounts for many cases of women making less; it's because they accepted less. We can, in turn, even break down this scenario to a few sub-scenarios, one of which is how women are brought up (a feminist issue, but not a legal one), how culture educates and/or informs the general public about gender-appropriate behavior (another feminist issue), and also perhaps bosses taking advantage of differences in temperament between men and women in order to get away with paying them less. This last one could be called sexist, but on the other hand it could also be called capitalist, which is perhaps worse.

These are only a scant few examples of what the case might be, but unless specific instances are brought up I find it generally unconvincing when I hear talk of this massive pay-wage gap that is affecting women in the workplace. I don't really think the problem exists on the aggregate, even though obviously there will always be some cases of abuse of all kinds. But even if we were to admit that there is still some trace of outright systemic unfairness to whatever extent, it's quite another thing to get the Federal government involved. That requires not only certainty of the problem (which I do not believe there is), but also a certain fix for it.

Honestly I didn't intend to make a big issue out of this one point because I see it as being probably the least important item on the list you presented. But for what it's worth, I don't think Hillary's stance on the issue amounts to much more than pandering for votes. If she really wanted pay equality *for anyone* she wouldn't be working for the people she's working for.

[cherrypoptart]

I didn't want to get involved a lot on this pay gap issue mostly because I don't know anything about it but one criticism of Hillary is that she actually paid her own female workers less than the men in comparable jobs.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-still-decrying-gender-wage-gap-despite-paying-women-less/article/2561032

"Using the same metric as the study demonstrating the wage gap Clinton cited, women in Clinton's senate office earned 72 cents to the dollar that men earned. The reason for this, of course, is not discrimination (Clinton's spokesman told the Washington Examiner that many of the top positions in her senate office were held by women) but primarily the choices women tend to make in their careers."

[Pete at Home]

On the previous page, in response to my concern about joining a thread that promised to be an Emperor's new clothes suck-a-thon, Greg pledged: "I won't argue you are wrong because you are sexist." A couple of exchanges later, following the smirking mendacity of his tin goddess Hillary, Greg twists my words to cook up an accusation of sexism:

Pete, I am glad you finally agree that Hillary Clinton has led a strong political campaign against Donald Trump, which was part of my original point.  And the way you expressed your opinion validated the rest of my point

She's a Clinton.  Of course she runs a strong campaign

So your assertion seems to be that her skills are related to carrying the same name as her husband. You have in a Trump-like way answered my question about whether sexism is a factor in not giving Hillary Clinton herself an appropriate share of credit for her political success.

What you just did is exactly what both Clintons do, and why 46% of the country at one time even entertain the notion of electing Trump to stop her.  Lying about what people say in order to demonize them.  I just said that HRC is, at this point in history, the strongest political campaigner alive, based on her decades of history working through her husband, then in the Senate, then in the Cabinet.  She is part of what made the Bill Clinton brand strong, and that was just the beginning of her career. 

I don't give her credit for it, because unlike you, I don't think that being skilled at lying about other people's positions is a skill that we should value as a society.  You seem to think that it should make her president.  I think it probably will make her president, but that it shouldn't.  I think the entire premise of your thread is as shallow as it is dishonest and poisonous.  But I've showed that already above.

[TheDeamon]

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."

Numbers 1 and 6 are going to come in conflict with each other. There is no way to pay for it without it penalizing the middle class one way or the other. It also raises some other potentially disturbing issues beyond essentially making it official that they've essentially federalized the State University system. Number 3 also tends to back-door the middle class in particular, as it either gets supported through official taxes, or through ever increasing health insurance premiums they must pay, or get taxed.

I have "issues" with regards to the likely implementation that she would pursue on #2.

#4 is terrifying in a number of OTHER ways, nice idea on paper, but the "unintended" consequences are terrifying, IMO.

#5 is boilerplate nonsense, they talk the talk, but I highly doubt she'll bother to walk the walk, much like Obama and her husband did before him.

#7 is nonsense and pandering.

#8 is an entirely different ball of wax, and actively harmful for the poorly educated, oh wait, they get "free" University tuition now paid for with magic money(Is it coming from Obama's secret stash of cash?), never mind.

#9 Requires MUCH more detail.

#10 Not going to object to that one, but again, that money has to come from somewhere, and as the preferred funding source for Highway monies is usually by way of a gas/fuel tax, I find it hard to see how she's going to fund it without the Middle Class getting hit by a tax hike she says she won't do in #6.

[TheDeamon]

That can be true but not relevant - it's not the claim behind this specific policy. Current law permits discriminatory differentials in salaries paid to women for the same work of the same quality unless you can overcome some tough hurdles for proof - among other things, I believe that you need to bring forward evidence within a very short time frame like 6 months (if you discover the real discrimination after that time there is no recourse - and it can be hard for employees to get access to that comparative data).

The thing you're forgetting is "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Data can be manipulated to present almost any point you want to make if you work at long enough. If you're comparing a salaried (male) employee who has been with the company for 15 years against a salaried female employee who has been on the job for 1 year, you probably will find the guy who has been there for 15 years gets paid more, even though their job titles and descriptions are exactly the same.

And that is just one way to manipulate the data. Also in the mix are part time mothers vs full time males(again, the full time employee probably gets paid more per hour just by virtue of being full time), work experience differentials, and so on.

[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.

Another really good reason Sanders won't get a committee chairmanship is that if the Dems have a clear majority in the new Senate, they won't need to coddle him.  I doubt very much he be petty enough to attack them outside of the chamber if they pass over him for someone considered more loyal and reliable.

[AI Wessex]

I didn't want to get involved a lot on this pay gap issue mostly because I don't know anything about it but one criticism of Hillary is that she actually paid her own female workers less than the men in comparable jobs.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-still-decrying-gender-wage-gap-despite-paying-women-less/article/2561032

"Using the same metric as the study demonstrating the wage gap Clinton cited, women in Clinton's senate office earned 72 cents to the dollar that men earned. The reason for this, of course, is not discrimination (Clinton's spokesman told the Washington Examiner that many of the top positions in her senate office were held by women) but primarily the choices women tend to make in their careers."

cherry, I know that you don't really care,  but you might want to expand your sources to get a fuller picture of this.

  http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/jul/19/sharon-day/floridas-sharon-day-misleads-hillary-clinton-and-g/

[cherrypoptart]

Thanks. It was interesting, but still a bit confusing.

[DJQuag]

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.

Another really good reason Sanders won't get a committee chairmanship is that if the Dems have a clear majority in the new Senate, they won't need to coddle him.  I doubt very much he be petty enough to attack them outside of the chamber if they pass over him for someone considered more loyal and reliable.

Yeah, but the new way of looking at politics and politicians sees this as a bug, not a feature.

They can go ahead and try to shunt him to the side if they want, but it's going to alienate the types of Democrats and progressives that were drawn to him in the first place.

[Greg Davidson]

TheDeamon,

The purpose of showing these policies was to demonstrate Clinton's political skill in attracting independent and Republican support despite having a progressive agenda. Elsewhere, we could talk specifics about the merits of these policies, but their inclusion here is to show that she has not had to change policy to attract a wide range of supporters.

The overall point I wanted to make in this thread is that Hillary Clinton is not getting the same level of personal credit for running an effective political campaign as is often given to male candidates.   

[AI Wessex]

Greg, your concern about her not getting sufficient credit is reminiscent of complaints (mine included) that Obama is denigrated because he is black.  There's some truth to both concerns, but I doubt there are very many people who would admit to either one.  Those who do are usually easily dismissed for other reasons, like they don't really know many actual facts about what either of them have done or what they really stand for.  It's a lot easier to dismiss someone for superficial reasons that don't amount to much than to make the effort to understand them.  That effort is beyond some of those people's abilities, anyway.

[Greg Davidson]

Thanks, AI. I did find the responses interesting and helpful, and they certainly spanned a wide range. I think that at least for some, this perspective had not been raised, and it was worth a little thought. 

[cherrypoptart]

If the denigration of Obama is because he is (half) black and people don't give Hillary the respect and credit she deserves because she is a woman then how do we explain that Jimmy Carter, a white man, is widely regarded as the greatest failure of a President in recent history?

At least until Obama came and knocked him off his pedestal.

I'm going to guess it's because results matter. And so do facts. Obama's results are terrible and the facts about Hillary are even worse.

[AI Wessex]

I'm going to guess it's because results matter.

In your case it's because bias matters far more than facts.  Carter is actually widely considered a mediocre President and Obama is considered better than average, but since he hasn't finished his term his ranking is likely to change (for the better).   Bush II is consistently ranked much lower than either of them, and is generally considered one of the worst Presidents ever.  IIRC, it was Bush II who sent you to war.  How does it make you feel to have risked your life to serve in what historians generally believe was the biggest military and foreign policy disaster in the nation's history?  It should make you feel at least a little reassured that neither Obama nor Hillary are likely to take that title away from him.

[cherrypoptart]

What Obama did was even worse with the premature pullout to destroy a fledgling democracy and give the vacuum needed for ISIS to rise. It would be like if instead of occupying Germany and Japan after WWII we just pulled out and let them rise again, actually just like we did after WWI with Germany. Or like it would have been if we had pulled out of South Korea after we repulsed the commies. Or like it actually was when we pulled out of South Vietnam after the North signed a peace agreement we knew they never intended to keep. Why should we still be in South Korea, Japan, and Germany where they are relatively stable but leave Iraq to the wolves when it was still vulnerable. If you say Status of Forces Agreement that is where Trump is right again that Obama and Bush too are failures at negotiation. If it meant strong arming them and not giving them a choice in the matter then that still would have been better than what we've got now with ISIS. It turns out that McCain was right and if we had to occupy Iraq for another 100 years that would have been the right play. Instead Obama let a Christian genocide occur in the Middle-East and there is just no way it can over go back to anywhere near the levels of Christianity there was before in large part because so many of those Christians are dead. That fatal blunder alone makes Obama the worst President in recent times and one of the worst ever. Unless the genocide of Christians in the Middle-East is not very important in which case I guess it doesn't matter. And Hillary was his partner in crime there. Even seeing the results in Iraq they still took out the secular dictators of Libya and Egypt when anyone could see that the power vacuum would only help the Islamists. And then even after that and even right now they still want to take out Assad who, even with all of his faults, still was always relatively nice to the Christians in Syria. At least he never gave them the choice to convert or die and then carried out the executions of those who refused and sold into sex slavery those who converted. That is all Obama and Hillary.

[AI Wessex]

What Obama did was even worse with the premature pullout to destroy a fledgling democracy and give the vacuum needed for ISIS to rise.

He did what Trump said we should do back in 2007, only not so abruptly as Trump wanted.  He fulfilled the terms of the withdrawal agreement that Bush had put in place in 2008.  Do you agree with Katrina Pierson that the only thing Obama did that was worse than pulling out of Iraq was then invading Afghanistan?

[TheDeamon]

Trump saying that in 2007/2008 was why he was a non-factor in the 2008 Republican Presidential Primaries. He's had 8 years to reinvent himself, and as he has no governmental voting/decision record....

[AI Wessex]

Which suggests that *nothing* he says now matters. He's rubber, she's glue.

[TheDeamon]

And neither one ever stopped being a terrible candidate for President. So your point is?

[AI Wessex]

That people hold Hillary responsible for everything she's ever said or done, as well as things she never said or did.  Trump can flip-flop whenever he feels like it, sometimes up to twice in a single day, and it doesn't seem to matter.

[Fenring]

He fulfilled the terms of the withdrawal agreement that Bush had put in place in 2008.  Do you agree with Katrina Pierson that the only thing Obama did that was worse than pulling out of Iraq was then invading Afghanistan?

Yes, wasn't the plan to pull out of Iraq Bush's plan? Why is Obama fulfilling that plan Obama's fault, when it was the previous administration's policy with regard to the previous administration's war?

[TheDeamon]

That people hold Hillary responsible for everything she's ever said or done, as well as things she never said or did.  Trump can flip-flop whenever he feels like it, sometimes up to twice in a single day, and it doesn't seem to matter.

Like John Kerry in 2004?

Trump's flippant behavior is expected, and he hasn't done much to be taken seriously on the political stage. So his continued behavior as the court jester doesn't draw negative attention to him, and eye rolls at the people who do take him seriously. (On either side of the aisle)

Hillary has always presented herself as a serious candidate or presence(When it was Bill) on the political stage. As such, her statements are taken seriously by nearly everyone, even the ones she didn't make.

Hey, if Palin can get clobbered for Tina Fey on SNL. It's only fitting Hillary gets comparable karmic payback for not stepping up and putting a stop to that bull---- in 2008.

[Seriati]

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.

   

Honestly, what I've seen, and others have pointed out is that she's very shrewdly taken herself out of the public eye.  She recognized that both candidates are repugnant and the one that was going to win would be the one that people hated less (or less recently).  As such, I don't see a campaign effort being led.  Is it really your view that someone is "leading" by staying completely out of the direct public view, fighting completely by proxies and generally avoiding any unscripted/uncontrolled media situations?  It's definitely shrewd and effective, don't see it as leading.

I'd also like to point out, that the primary factors devastating Donald Trump are his own mouth and the deliberate media coverage designed to magnify whatever comes out of it.

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.

Trump's fall was not inevitable, but it may have been unrealistic to expect anything different with his personality flaws.  She's not a weak candidate who got lucky, she's a horrible candidate who got lucky with her opponents.  I mean honestly, the last 3 candidates were Trump (who's a complete disaster), Cruz (who seems to be a bigger sleaze than Hillary) and Kasich (who is so weak its funny).

And I think that way of thinking may be because she is a female politician.

That says more about your agenda than everyone else's.

Though I will give you some support - in my case - because I don't honestly believe that any male candidate could have gotten where she is with the negatives she has.

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.

The single biggest difference is that while doing so, the media fully backed his attacks on the other candidates while only partially focusing on his negatives.  Running against Hillary, the media has completely buried his attacks and gone to continuous repeat on his negatives. 

The funniest thing I EVER saw on media bias was when Hillary ran against Obama and the media treated her the way they typically treat a Republican (though even then with kid gloves) and the outrage that caused was hilarious.

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.

They're exactly the same ways - ie proxy attacks and media manipulation - that male politicians try, it just used to be that the media held itself to a standard of pretend neutrality and balance, and now openly believes in slanting the coverage.

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?

Because she's a career party workhorse, and Barack has no interest in alienating the entirety of the Democratic party?

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.

What's unusual about that behavior?  All party insiders do that, heck even people from the other party generally serve "loyally" in Cabinent positions.  It's not like we're fully privy to their actual interactions.

I note you focus on her loyalty rather than focusing on her actually doing the job, can't say I disagree with that.

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).

This is all true, the convention was very well done.  Of course, I always see the giant thumb of the media influence there.  It's no accident that the Democratic convention can fill itself with speakers (some like former President Clinton) who've had massive scandals, others like the Black Lives movement speakers who are embroiled in actual major controversies and the media focuses on their grandness and inclusiveness, where when they look at a Republican speaker ALL they can see is the controversy.

But it definitely was a great move for her to completely avoid any talk of substance or policy, her campaign doesn't rest on any real ideals afterall, and all talking about her policies will do is alienate voters.  And honestly, her loyalists don't actually care what specific positions she takes, and those she hopes to sway are more swayed by "not that guy" sentiments than the "I'm with her" ones.

She was very conciliatory to the Bernie Sanders coalition, more so than a number of other politicians would be.

Really?  I can't imagine any competent and very few incompetent politicians that wouldn't have been at least that conciliatory with him. 

In fact you completely missed the most savvy thing she did with Bernie.  She DID NOT make him part of her coalition, but just shuffled him off as soon as she could.  The one thing she absolutely doesn't want is someone like Bernie speaking on her behalf and risking this election turning into one about issues (well at least until she's already convinced voters to vote for her, then its fine to do so as their cognitive dissonance will keep them in line through the election).

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.

Still don't know a lot about him, and don't expect that I will learn about him, because again, she doesn't want this election to be about issues and positions.  And that is absolutely the right tactic to take.

And someone had to plan the political attacks and traps for Trump.

Did they really?  The man foot faults every day, all that has to be in the plan is lining up the obedient media clowns to run with any thing they can repeat directly, and to be prepared with "analysis" that twists anything else (while burying anything exactly equivalent that comes up about candidate Clinton as a "non-issue" or "old news").

There has been a huge effort expended in get-out-the-vote.

It's been a long standing Democratic policy to bring out as many voters as possible who would not otherwise choose to vote on their own.  You can of course tell yourself that this is part of a noble drive to enfranchise people, but it's also perfectly rationale to wonder why a party needs so strongly to bring people with little interest or knowledge of politics and the actual impact of the policies a party pursues to the polls in great numbers.  Especially, when they've deliberately crafted their mass market message to focus purely on media bites and promises of give aways that sound good but that have hidden strings and consequences.  Definitely clever, but done purely in a cynical manner.

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.

She's suffered damage based on a 25 year history of unethical and in some cases illegal behavior.  Every politician is attacked, I challenge you to name Republican politicians who have NOT been attacked.

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

I think the truth about Hillary is that only inspiring thing about her is that she is a woman.  She's not a great speaker, she's not particularly likable, she has a reputation for dishonesty (and in my view is the most dishonest and corrupt candidate I've ever seen), she doesn't have a history of success in any of the political offices or positions she's held and she's not really running on any particular positions that are inspiring either (don't get me wrong, she's got platform pieces that people do like, but she's not emphasizing them).  I've seen plenty of her commercials, 90% of them are about Trump and the rest are trying to build her cult of personality.

[Seriati]

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."

Or like pigs to the trough, both parties establishment candidates have more interest in preserving the establishment than they do in the actual differences their constiuents care about.  I know you guys love the idea of repealing Citizens United, but we'd get far more actual benefit by instituting hard term limits (for government service in total, not just by office).

[Seriati]

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.

No, it's actually not a mistake, there is no strategic reason to include him.  With him out of the way and silent, she's the only voice that even approximates what his voters want, and she's shrewdly focused the attention on why Trump is completely unacceptable for them.  Allowing Bernie any kind of continuing voice would completely undermine her actual campaign by putting issues that WILL cost her votes back into the front of the public's mind.

Honestly, she'd have to have been insane, or an incredibly weak candidate (she's many things, but she is not weak), to even consider putting Bernie into that position.

[scifibum]

Seriati:

I'd also like to point out, that the primary factors devastating Donald Trump are his own mouth and the deliberate media coverage designed to magnify whatever comes out of it.

This hasn't changed, these were the same factors that won him the nomination.  When you say the media focused on his attacks before and his blunders now, I don't know what you're talking about.  He's been blustering and boasting and being ridiculous the entire time.  "Blood coming out of her whatever", remember?  That helped him in the primary.

[Seriati]

What's changed is the focus, Trump labeled his opponents and the media reported on the labels extensively.  Trump has tried the exact same tactic with Hillary, and the media has refused to play along.  In the Republican primary, Trump had just as many gaffes and they were widely reported and quickly dropped in favor of new things he was saying.  The man has not stopped talking, yet now we get lovingly refocused back to older points and the newer things don't get wall to wall coverage.  Nothing has changed about him, really nothing at all, except the media won't back his attempts to focus on Hillary the way they would on "lying Ted Cruz," "Little Marco," and the rest.  The media themselves spent hours talking about those labels, how long are they spending talking about "crooked Hillary"?

[Seriati]

Not to mention, if you watched the Republican debates, the "questions" that got asked did the same thing.  'Mr. Rubio, Mr. Trump has said that Mr. Bush is a weak candidate, do you think that's a fair criticism?'  'Mr. Bush, would you like to respond to Mr. Trump calling you a weak candidate'  Not real quotes, but not far off in some cases.  With Hillary, they don't ask her about what Trump says - how could they after all when she won't give press conferences - but instead they go way further and they put up questionable fact checkers and media talking heads to defend her without her having to respond.

[AI Wessex]

Not to mention, if you watched the Republican debates, the "questions" that got asked did the same thing.  'Mr. Rubio, Mr. Trump has said that Mr. Bush is a weak candidate, do you think that's a fair criticism?'  'Mr. Bush, would you like to respond to Mr. Trump calling you a weak candidate'  Not real quotes, but not far off in some cases.  With Hillary, they don't ask her about what Trump says - how could they after all when she won't give press conferences - but instead they go way further and they put up questionable fact checkers and media talking heads to defend her without her having to respond.

In other words, he's no longer a fresh, new face with no history.  The longer he sticks around the more everyone tries to find out about him.  His old insults haven't gone away, and he makes sure to make new ones every time he opens his mouth. Since he's long on epithets and short on policy statements, it's no surprise that his tweets and bile tongue are what get reported on.  If you've read the reviews and analysis of his economic and foreign policy teleprompter drone readings, you will understand why those don't get much attention.

Also, he has the world's most fantabulous national spokesdummy in Katrina Pierson.  It's like every day she and Trump get together to spin the magic 8-ball and see what new nonsense they can come up with.  I loved her comment that releasing tax returns is just a novelty, so it has little real meaning.  Reminded that it has been a tradition for every candidate for over 40 years, she corrected the interviewer and said, Right, it's a novelty tradition.  What does that even mean?  That was in the same week that she pointed out that Obama and Hillary were responsible for Khan's son's death, that Obama invaded Afghanistan in 2007, and that even though Trump talked about 2A people taking matters into their own hands after the election, he was talking about them voting.

But Trump is extra-special Trumpy these days.  Michael Moore now says he has proof that Trump only got into the race to boost his salary for next season's Apprentice.  He tried to screw it up at every chance with stupid remarks, but it kept getting worse instead of better.  Now he's going to have to do something even more bizarre than he's already done to get his point across.  We'll keep watching in horror and anticipation to see what that will be.

[Seriati]

In other words, he's no longer a fresh, new face with no history.

No.  If you want to try and put words in my mouth they should be accurate.  Trump was NEVER a fresh face with no history.

The accurate version of paraphrasing me would be, "In other words, he's no longer running against [evil] Republicans."

If you've read the reviews and analysis of his economic and foreign policy teleprompter drone readings, you will understand why those don't get much attention.

On the other hand if you'd read the same on Hillary's policy, you'd realize voting for her will be an economic disaster and our foreign policy will be redefined as "for sale to highest bidder."

I loved her comment that releasing tax returns is just a novelty, so it has little real meaning.  Reminded that it has been a tradition for every candidate for over 40 years, she corrected the interviewer and said, Right, it's a novelty tradition.

Honestly, it's a silly tradition designed to hamper any one who's not part of the political class from running for office.

He tried to screw it up at every chance with stupid remarks, but it kept getting worse instead of better.

It's possible this is true.  But it's a certainty that the media did their level best to make sure he got the Republican nomination and will do their level best to ensure he's not President.

[Fenring]

No, it's actually not a mistake, there is no strategic reason to include him.  With him out of the way and silent, she's the only voice that even approximates what his voters want, and she's shrewdly focused the attention on why Trump is completely unacceptable for them.  Allowing Bernie any kind of continuing voice would completely undermine her actual campaign by putting issues that WILL cost her votes back into the front of the public's mind.

I see what you're saying about her systematically avoiding the issues, and Bernie being a direct magnet right back to them. However she could just as easily have made him her 'issue man' while standing back personally and directing the campaign as she's been doing. Let him be a scarecrow to get the voters to side with her, while doing whatever she was going to do anyhow. The problem you raise would create the danger of the GOP pointing back to the issues while she's trying to avoid them, but sooner or later it will come back to them anyhow. She can stall that for now, but it's inevitable that she'll have to address them, and her message would be stronger when that time comes with Bernie on board. She has had no shame to date naming her perceived strengths (I AM A WOMAN) and I have no doubt she could have played the "With good men like Sen. Sanders on our side" card to strong effect.

What's changed is the focus, Trump labeled his opponents and the media reported on the labels extensively.  Trump has tried the exact same tactic with Hillary, and the media has refused to play along.  In the Republican primary, Trump had just as many gaffes and they were widely reported and quickly dropped in favor of new things he was saying.  The man has not stopped talking, yet now we get lovingly refocused back to older points and the newer things don't get wall to wall coverage.  Nothing has changed about him, really nothing at all, except the media won't back his attempts to focus on Hillary the way they would on "lying Ted Cruz," "Little Marco," and the rest.  The media themselves spent hours talking about those labels, how long are they spending talking about "crooked Hillary"?

What's changed is we met Trump in this election cycle positioned face to face with his opponents, who had to stand there and take what he was dishing out. In fact, based on the debate rules the more they attempted to refute him the more air time he got in the 30-60 second rebuttals due to his name being mentioned. He ended up taking up the majority of the air time purely because he strategically inserted himself into other candidates' speaking time due to them having to respond to his statements. Some of the candidates even called him out on this but that even gave him more time!

Contrast with now, where Trump's campaign against Hillary, which in all seriousness has just begun, is being conducted from the shadows, though the media, and over social media. Just wait until they are face to face in the same room and you'll see what happens. Maybe he'll screw it up or maybe she will, but either way that is the format that allowed him to destroy the others and that's what will give him the momentum he would need to win over Hillary. I predict she attempts to limit Presidential debates to the absolute minimum possible in order to neutralize what would surely be his best arena. Hillary knows that her own presence and her own voice and the greatest weapons that can be used against her, and she's going to limit exposure to these as much as she realistically can.

[NobleHunter]

I predict she attempts to limit Presidential debates to the absolute minimum possible in order to neutralize what would surely be his best arena. Hillary knows that her own presence and her own voice and the greatest weapons that can be used against her, and she's going to limit exposure to these as much as she realistically can.

I think she'll instead push for debates with an off-the-cuff style where she can put people to sleep and he can run at the mouth. He'll get scandal fodder and she'll avoid unforced errors. Trump's camp has sent some signals that he's going to be difficult wrt the debates since he's clearly got a problem being respectable without a teleprompter.

[Seriati]

I see what you're saying about her systematically avoiding the issues, and Bernie being a direct magnet right back to them. However she could just as easily have made him her 'issue man' while standing back personally and directing the campaign as she's been doing.

Why would she want him to be her "issue" man?  I don't think she - or more significantly the establishment she represents agrees with him.  That however is a substantive point, using him as a front costs her votes in the current environment and undermines her strategy.

There certainly could have been situations where it was strategic to include him, like for instance if he had credibly committed to running a third party campaign.  In such a circumstance I have no doubt Clinton would have included him, but that's because I honestly believe she'd change anything about her campaign to win.

Let him be a scarecrow to get the voters to side with her, while doing whatever she was going to do anyhow.

Under what circumstances does he add more voters than he costs her?  Only if there is a real risk of losing voters to her own left to a third party.  Literally that's the only situation where bringing him in helps.

She can stall that for now, but it's inevitable that she'll have to address them, and her message would be stronger when that time comes with Bernie on board.

I honestly don't believe she'll have to address the issues.  The media is in the tank, she doesn't even do press conferences and they let it slide.  She directly gaslights them and they let it go.  What makes you think this election will ever turn to the issues?

And again, even if it did, how does including someone from her left help her win the general?  Bernie's voters have no where plausible to go, the only risk is that they stay home in greater numbers than Clinton picks up in centrist voters.

She has had no shame to date naming her perceived strengths (I AM A WOMAN) and I have no doubt she could have played the "With good men like Sen. Sanders on our side" card to strong effect.

Of course, not to call you out, but do realize how sexist that kind of line is?

Contrast with now, where Trump's campaign against Hillary, which in all seriousness has just begun, is being conducted from the shadows, though the media, and over social media. Just wait until they are face to face in the same room and you'll see what happens.

Maybe, I agree somewhat with your point about why he was so effective face to face, even where what he actually said in the debates often was incoherent.  But again, he was successful because of the repetition the media gave him and the constant framing they imposed, every interview with any Republican candidate was focused back on things Trump said about them.

You'll see the exact same thing happen in the general, except - as you've already seen with Trump proxies - the media will turn every interview with/about Trump into either defending himself against misstatements or absurd claims from the Clinton camp and its proxies, while Clinton will continue not having to react to anything real or asserted.

Maybe he'll screw it up or maybe she will, but either way that is the format that allowed him to destroy the others and that's what will give him the momentum he would need to win over Hillary.

I predict (which I don't usually do) that the two party debates will be worthless to Trump in the end.  I doubt if he "wins" a single one. 

I predict she attempts to limit Presidential debates to the absolute minimum possible in order to neutralize what would surely be his best arena. Hillary knows that her own presence and her own voice and the greatest weapons that can be used against her, and she's going to limit exposure to these as much as she realistically can.

Much like Hillary's campaign, his best bet is to put her front and center in the publics' mind.  The difference is the media isn't going to help him do it.

[NobleHunter]

Much like Hillary's campaign, his best bet is to put her front and center in the publics' mind.  The difference is the media isn't going to help him do it.

If Trump wants to make the election about Clinton, he needs to stop being more newsworthy than her. That means he has to stop being novel and outrageous. His problem is that I don't see how he can do that without mortally offending his base.

Going back a little:

The man has not stopped talking, yet now we get lovingly refocused back to older points and the newer things don't get wall to wall coverage. Nothing has changed about him, really nothing at all, except the media won't back his attempts to focus on Hillary the way they would on "lying Ted Cruz," "Little Marco," and the rest.  The media themselves spent hours talking about those labels, how long are they spending talking about "crooked Hillary"?

As he keeps saying new things, the new things get reported. "Crooked Hillary" is old news; in the primaries Trump could say new outrageous things about each presumed challenger and so the name-calling would get fresh-air time. If he wants the same effect in the general, he needs to keep coming up with new names for Clinton.

[Fenring]

Under what circumstances does he add more voters than he costs her?  Only if there is a real risk of losing voters to her own left to a third party.  Literally that's the only situation where bringing him in helps.

This is really what our disagreement is about. I think it's fairly clear that a lot of hardcore Bernie supporters will choose not to vote at all rather than vote for Hillary. It's not a question of them voting for Stein, but rather just not voting. In my mind it's not really a question whether having Bernie on board would rally those people to Hillary. The question, then, is whether it would alienate centrist or undecideds more so than Hillary without him on board would do. What makes you think Bernie's presence would somehow make her turnout worse? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it certainly doesn't sound intuitively clear to me. You yourself said that typical Democrat strategy is to try to get people out to the polls who normally wouldn't vote. Since that is precisely Bernie's strength (and not Hillary's) you'd have to show a pretty high certainty of Bernie costing her votes to show that bringing him on board would be a net loss.

Of course there's also the matter of the severely faltering belief in the DNC in the first place, especially among young people. Even if his presence made her campaign a net wash it could help bring people back into the fold of feeling like the DNC isn't just out to screw them. Including Sanders would be a meta-message about inclusion, just as much as it would be about this particular election. By excluding him they're basically saying "if we have enough to win without you losers then you can just screw off." That's bad long-term strategy. 

She has had no shame to date naming her perceived strengths (I AM A WOMAN) and I have no doubt she could have played the "With good men like Sen. Sanders on our side" card to strong effect.

Of course, not to call you out, but do realize how sexist that kind of line is?

Pointing out what Clinton has repeatedly drilled into people's heads is "sexist"? My comment was meant to illustrate that she has no problem with actually naming her own strengths rather than being what she is and assuming they're just evident. In other words, she'll verbatim say them rather than imply them, just as she has done many times about being a woman candidate. Don't see what my observing this has to do with my remark being sexist.

[Seriati]

If Trump wants to make the election about Clinton, he needs to stop being more newsworthy than her. That means he has to stop being novel and outrageous. His problem is that I don't see how he can do that without mortally offending his base.

Trump's problem is that he's the only spokesperson he has who gets attention.  He simply can't be "less" newsworthy than her and still get the attack to stick, unless he wants to call in as a "friend" again.

"Crooked Hillary" is old news;

Anytime I hear the phrase "old news" I know Clinton's strategy is effective.  How one person can avoid any responsibility for any issue by declaring it old news is beyond me.  Especially when if she were a Republican it wouldn't apparently be "old news" that say, she picked on someone in a locker room in high school, but it is exactly 10 minutes after any current scandal breaks.

[TheDeamon]

"Old News" is a tried and true tactic of the Democratic Party for decades now, and the press let's them get away with it. Only Republicans need to be constantly confronted with their not-so-recent sins on an ongoing basis. Although admittedly, the Republicans do a good(bad?) job of creating new ones, real and imagined(by the Democrats) alike.

[Seriati]

Under what circumstances does he add more voters than he costs her?  Only if there is a real risk of losing voters to her own left to a third party.  Literally that's the only situation where bringing him in helps.

This is really what our disagreement is about. I think it's fairly clear that a lot of hardcore Bernie supporters will choose not to vote at all rather than vote for Hillary. It's not a question of them voting for Stein, but rather just not voting. In my mind it's not really a question whether having Bernie on board would rally those people to Hillary.  The question, then, is whether it would alienate centrist or undecideds more so than Hillary without him on board would do.

We're in agreement on this part, that is exactly the question.  You've seen the answer from Hillary, which is why you were surprised that she didn't take the "no brainer" route and include him, and I see it as a "no brainer" that she did exactly what she did and get him out of the spotlight immediately.

What makes you think Bernie's presence would somehow make her turnout worse? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it certainly doesn't sound intuitively clear to me.

It's really just a question of Demographics.  Bernie increases her voter pull with Core Democratic voters, but allowing him to speak loudly about socialist policies suppresses all potential for "cross over voters" including the vast majority of the independent middle.  If you disagree, explain why it is always the policy of the Democratic candidate to tack to the middle after they are nominated?

If you keep Bernie active, you have exactly two choices:  1. stay left, which terrifies every party insider with memories of the Carter backlash, or 2. tack middle and then either you separate from Bernie (with big betrayal costs among those motivated people you're trying to retain) or force Bernie to come with you (it which case he is also betraying them).  Bernie can't come middle and "stay true" to the people who support him.

You yourself said that typical Democrat strategy is to try to get people out to the polls who normally wouldn't vote. Since that is precisely Bernie's strength (and not Hillary's) you'd have to show a pretty high certainty of Bernie costing her votes to show that bringing him on board would be a net loss.

Two things.  I uncharitably stated that their goal is to bring uninformed new voters to the polls, that doesn't really describe Bernie supporters.  The Democrats will be ecstatic if the Bernie voters turn out to be consistent and regular Democratic voters and that will change how they pitch to them, but for now, they have to see these idealists as a high risk to get educated and make informed decisions.  That puts them at severe risk to change parties, whether towards the Green or left parties or even towards the Republicans.

And second, it's a simple calculus, if they're really serious they will still vote (even without Bernie) and Hillary is there only real option.  They flat out expect the incremental gain of keeping Bernie to not be significant.  If they get 80% support of the true "new" voters (not disaffected Dems who also supported him) and could get 90% with Bernie actively stumping there is no chance that they don't lose more in the middle from letting Bernie's policies become their message (which is the only way they could ensure the 10% bump in the hard core voters).  All numbers made up of course, but I bet you big time that's the kind of analysis they did.

Of course there's also the matter of the severely faltering belief in the DNC in the first place, especially among young people. Even if his presence made her campaign a net wash it could help bring people back into the fold of feeling like the DNC isn't just out to screw them. Including Sanders would be a meta-message about inclusion, just as much as it would be about this particular election. By excluding him they're basically saying "if we have enough to win without you losers then you can just screw off." That's bad long-term strategy.

I honestly believe they viewed including Bernie as putting them at risk to lose the general election.  They might have made a different decision on today's numbers.  But you can't assume they had good will to burn with the middle when - at the time - Trump was polling even with them.

"With good men like Sen. Sanders on our side" card to strong effect.

Of course, not to call you out, but do realize how sexist that kind of line is?

Pointing out what Clinton has repeatedly drilled into people's heads is "sexist"?

Saying that she could call to the support of 'good men on her side' as a 'strong card,' is decidedly an anti-feminist message.

Apologies for implying your comments was sexist, however a call to the support of "men on her side" is inherently an anti-feminist message that implies a need for a male endorsement.  It's almost a dog whistle.

[NobleHunter]

Anytime I hear the phrase "old news" I know Clinton's strategy is effective.

Yeah, "crooked Hillary" is old news. He started calling her that weeks ago. What's there to report about it?

Trump's problem isn't old news, it's new news. It seems like he can barely go a couple of days without mouthing off on camera. If he stopped saying outrageous things, people would stop reporting on them. He's shoveling coal into a fire and then complaining that it keeps getting hotter.

[Fenring]

Seriati, I guess we'll just see how things go. I still think it would have been better, given my limited information, to take on Bernie, but maybe you're right and their decision was the result of long-term projections. I think the party is in more trouble than they're letting on, though, and I think Bernie may have been a way to fix things for themselves.

Regarding my "good MEN like Sen. Sanders" comment, I can see we've come a long way and down a muddy path with the English language in the last 10-15 years. This is nothing against you, but the fact that "man" is now routinely taken to mean "male" as opposed to "human being" (as in, MANkind) is really sad to me.

ETA - It's true, though, that the language has an asymmetry given the patriarchal past, insofar as "good man" doesn't have any special gender connotation (i.e. a good man, qua being a male) whereas if one was to employ "good woman" it seems to connote more of the womanness rather than the humanness. In any case I meant it purely as "good person".

[D.W.]

Anytime I hear the phrase "old news" I know Clinton's strategy is effective.

Yeah, "crooked Hillary" is old news. He started calling her that weeks ago. What's there to report about it?

Trump's problem isn't old news, it's new news. It seems like he can barely go a couple of days without mouthing off on camera. If he stopped saying outrageous things, people would stop reporting on them. He's shoveling coal into a fire and then complaining that it keeps getting hotter.

It's only a problem if you are trying to win.    If your goal is publicity, both the acts and the feigned outrage of how his detractors react to them, are steps along the same path.

[D.W.]

This is nothing against you, but the fact that "man" is now routinely taken to mean "male" as opposed to "human being" (as in, MANkind) is really sad to me.

While I tend to agree with this sentiment, you did use this language in a thread about sexism being a factor.  If you didn't realize someone would go there, that's kinda sad to me. 

[Seriati]

What D.W. said, though I only "went there" because the first part was literally "I am woman".  Following that will a call of endorsement of good men is hard to ignore.  Good people is of course a better formulation. 

I still think this all a purely strategic level of analysis.  I happen to think that's the only one Clinton operates on, but if you believe she's sincere, then she hasn't really shown that she thinks Bernie is right in his positions and has only move towards them with reluctance.  That too would weigh heavily against naming him as a spokesperson.

[TheDeamon]

Trump's problem isn't old news, it's new news. It seems like he can barely go a couple of days without mouthing off on camera. If he stopped saying outrageous things, people would stop reporting on them. He's shoveling coal into a fire and then complaining that it keeps getting hotter.

It's only a problem if you are trying to win.    If your goal is publicity, both the acts and the feigned outrage of how his detractors react to them, are steps along the same path.

Pretty much, what is happening plays right into the whole "Trump ran for President for the publicity, not to become President" scenario.

[Fenring]

What D.W. said, though I only "went there" because the first part was literally "I am woman".  Following that will a call of endorsement of good men is hard to ignore.  Good people is of course a better formulation. 

I understand that the juxtaposition of "woman" and "man" in the same thought brought itself out as a contrast to you, but did you really think it was meaningful within the context? Especially as "good man" is a colloquial term in and of itself and not a mere construction of gender + good that I strung together randomly. "Good person" would have been a fine descriptor to use in the context of what I wrote but I was actually going for a classic usage such as we might have heard in the past in military movies and such, where "these are good men" carries the connotation of camaraderie, more so than merely "good people" which is a generic compliment. The camaraderie element is something I was deliberately including in as part of the theoretic message I was having Hillary say.

So while I can understand an eyebrow raised as you see "woman" followed by "man" and wonder to yourself if there's a deeper meaning there (e.g. "Is Fenring trying to say something about how Clinton needs good males in her campaign") it should have been clear to you that none of what I was saying carried this content. And since I've, to whit, never made sexist comments here before you might have chosen instead to surmise that the incidental juxtapose was just that - incidental and irrelevant. The fact that it occurred in a thread about sexism doesn't somehow increase the likelihood that a given phrase is sexist.

[D.W.]

I can't speak for Seriati on this, but I think this is one of those, "Careful, what you said can be viewed as sexist" rather than, "Hey you are being sexist!" things.

It's a close relative to remarking when your friend makes a timely and clever pun.  Someone has to remark on it because it seems obvious the statement was intentionally crafted to provoke the reaction.  Even if just to groan your disapproval at their inappropriate humor.

It never occurred to me for a moment that this was a slip of the tongue.  I assumed you were poking fun at the topic with the choice.