How Badly Will the GOP Have to Screw Up in November to Lose to Clinton?

-->
Obama Administration

This was Hillary Clinton being interviewed on MSNBC last night. She’s basically telling Sanders supporters they can kiss her ass; she doesn’t need their votes.

The only way she’s going to win in November with that attitude is if the GOP accomplishes the biggest pooch-screwing in human history. And, of course, that is entirely possible. The fall campaign is not exactly going to be another Clash of the Titans, in other words.

Share Button
32 Comments

31 Comments

  1. Doug  •  Apr 26, 2016 @10:47 am

    I don’t know how universal my position is among Sanders supporters. My suggestion has been that we support HRC over any of the republicans – but that we oppose her centrist policies even BEFORE she’s sworn in. No honeymoon. If HRC is going to give Sanders the middle finger, then Sanders should indicate that he wants to keep the revolution intact post-election as a faction Clinton must acknowledge.

    The entire Sanders block must exert the maximum pressure on Clinton w/out any pretense of solidarity. How can I put this and get past the twit filter. The message mid-November: “FU, HRC – you are president because you are one step above the neanderthals of the GOP.”

    And that’s a very low bar.

    Political campaigns and administrations are like wars. The Nazis fell because they failed to dispatch England and Russia refused to fall. They were committed to a two-front war. Having to defend on the East and the West, Germany fell. HRC is demanding, without making any political concession, that as the nominee, she automatically gets the support of the left. She’s demanding we join forces to defend against the right. I suggest a strong sustained attack from the left as soon as she has won.

    The thing is, we have to threaten the thing most dear to her – a second term – if we want to force her to govern as a progressive. And be real – we will have leverage over a President Clinton – we will have no leverage over President Trump. I think she will govern as a progressive in the first term, if it’s the only hope she has for a second term.

  2. paradoctor  •  Apr 26, 2016 @11:01 am

    What Doug said.
    She’ll probably be a one-termer anyhow.

  3. moonbat  •  Apr 26, 2016 @11:05 am

    I agree with you, her attitude is entirely off-putting, everyone outside her rarified bubble picks up on it, and it’s maximally shooting herself in the foot, without her even knowing it. Trump is going to have great fun with it in the debates, especially after many, many practice debates with the GOP primary losers. I really believe he’s going to skewer her like a fat pig over a fire. She literally won’t know what hit her.

  4. c u n d gulag  •  Apr 26, 2016 @12:44 pm

    Good/great politician, like good/great tennis players, don’t make unforced errors.
    THAT, was an unforced error of astounding proportions!

    moonbat,
    If/when she wins the nomination, I hope her staff takes her on a tour of local bars in red-neck areas – including in NYC – and has her talk to the drunks in there.
    That’ll be good practice for debating tRUMP!

  5. Swami  •  Apr 26, 2016 @12:45 pm

    She ought to dilute that attitude with a little humility. My attitude is if you’ve got it all sewn up, and in the bag, than you don’t need my vote. I’ll just leave that box blank and vote the down tickets who might be a little more appreciative.

    I’m offended by her comment that Sanders couldn’t answer the Daly News question of how he was going to accomplish breaking up the big banks. If the signers of the Declaration of Independence were asked how they were going to accomplish a separation from England, I’m sure none of them could have provided a detailed plan..Or if Kennedy was asked how he specifically intended to put a man on the moon he couldn’t have answered other than to say by directing energies toward a vision to create a reality. Pragmatism doesn’t serve us well in all situations. At times it can become a crippling mindset. If you limit your possibilities based on the strength of the opposition you’ll always be held captive to the boundaries that the opposition puts around you.

  6. uncledad  •  Apr 26, 2016 @12:59 pm

    “FU, HRC – you are president because you are one step above the neanderthals of the GOP.”

    Oh come on one step above, give me a break:

    The GOPers are threatening to eliminate the IRS, EPA, department of education, NATO, Roe-v-Wade, gay marriage, unions, SSI, medicare, pretty much any program that does not benefit the fossil fuel industry, wall street and or the defense industry. Hillary is more hawkish than I care for but she is nowhere near as bad as the GOP on any host of issues. And last time I checked Paul Krugman wasn’t endorsing any of the GOP’ers domestic plans? Sour Grapes?

  7. grannyeagle  •  Apr 26, 2016 @1:09 pm

    As I have indicated in, my opinion, HRC is desperate. She has lost any insight and/or perspective she may have had and maybe her mind. Time to pray even if you don’t believe.

  8. Swami  •  Apr 26, 2016 @2:32 pm

    But when pressed about whether he would encourage his young supporters to back Clinton, the senator said the primary responsibility will be on Clinton, not him, to convince people that “she is the kind of president this country needs to represent working people.”

    Well, at $225,000.00 dollars for one hours work we’ve got a lot in common. Yeah, I can relate!

  9. Lucilius  •  Apr 26, 2016 @2:44 pm

    HRC doesn’t want my vote? Fine, I’ll just write in Sanders come November. I won’t feel bad since she said she doesn’t need my vote anyway, right? Good god, what oblivious arrogance.

  10. uncledad  •  Apr 26, 2016 @2:54 pm

    Well she could be a bit more contrite but this thing aint over yet and she is still in fight mode, she is a Clinton. I don’t think what she said was 10% as bad as the TYT bobble-head exaggerates! Those two shmucks are the lefts version of O’Reilly and Hannity, blather and bullshit!

  11. Swami  •  Apr 26, 2016 @4:03 pm

    she is a Clinton
    That’s not a positive attribute…Clinton’s are known for pivoting on a dime for any issue that is politically expedient or beneficial to their own political survival. Principles are secondary in the Clinton household.

  12. CH  •  Apr 26, 2016 @4:08 pm

    It is at times like this that one is able to find silver linings in the seemingly darkest clouds. My cloud is that I live in Texas, the biggest and most certainly red state in the Solar System, especially when it comes to a presidential election starring HRC. My silver lining is that, such being the case, my non-R vote will be an effective nullity and my conscience won’t bother me one whit when I either don’t vote in November, or vote Green, or write in Bernie Sanders or, what the hell, the late Martin Van Buren. As far as appeals for money are concerned, if HRC needs money, well, let some Clinton or other go make a 60-minute speech in the financial district. My money’s too hard to come by to piss it away on their ilk.

  13. justsomeguy  •  Apr 26, 2016 @4:11 pm

    Doug said “My suggestion has been that we support HRC over any of the republicans”.

    That is true for DEMOCRATS. Democrats, Republicans and Independents each make up (roughly) 1/3 of registered voters. In my opinion, Hillary will lose several percentage points of Independent voters that Sanders could have won.

  14. uncledad  •  Apr 26, 2016 @4:59 pm

    HRC doesn’t want my vote?

    Huh I’ve watched that clip (the part with Hillary talking not the part were frick and frack put words in her mouth) and I never heard her say she didn’t want anyone’s vote? What she said was she has more votes than Bernie. I’m not sure how anyone can parse what she said in that clip and come away with “she doesn’t want my vote”, maybe you should watch again and skip the amateur hour commentary before and after.

  15. maha  •  Apr 26, 2016 @6:55 pm

    uncledad — She was basically asked if she intended to make any appeals to Sanders voters, perhaps by adjusting positions, to win their votes in November. She said she didn’t have to because she was winning, period. Sounds like a “they can kiss my ass” to me.

  16. JBM  •  Apr 26, 2016 @8:59 pm

    The faux-expert commentary of this clip is unfair, to put it mildly. (Thanks, guys, for picking up where Fox News leaves off–unfair and unbalanced in action.) Please watch the clip and listen to what HRC actually says. No, she isn’t the perfect progressive candidate. Neither is Sen. Sanders. Work for the platform positions that are good for the U.S. Vote for what’s best for all of us.

  17. uncledad  •  Apr 26, 2016 @9:06 pm

    “Sounds like a “they can kiss my ass” to me”

    I don’t see it, she has not won this thing yet, she’s a politician she is not going to give her opponent an advantage while they are still fighting for the nomination, I just don’t see it as anything more than that? The same question was basically asked of Sanders (would he encourage his supporters to support Hillary) he basically said no, she’ll have to earn the votes, its politics here, nothing new that I can see?

  18. maha  •  Apr 26, 2016 @10:02 pm

    uncledad and JBM: It’s politics, but it’s also reality. First, Sanders can’t order his followers to vote for Clinton. Even if he did, they wouldn’t do it just on his say so, and many would turn against him for it. It kind of baffles me that people haven’t figured that out. I think he’s actually trying to help her — he can’t endorse her unless she gives up something. No, that’s not how these things usually work, but the Sanders candidacy is not how things usually work, period. Second, she’s really got to lose the arrogance with the Sanders voters. It doesn’t help.

  19. syskill  •  Apr 26, 2016 @9:37 pm
  20. MilitantlyAardvark  •  Apr 26, 2016 @11:31 pm

    Clinton really has a talent for making herself look arrogant and unpleasant. There’s a reason for those high unfavorables she’s toting around – and it isn’t all GOP smear-mongering. She was frequently crass and clueless like this in 2008 and I can’t for the life of me see why anyone believes she’s anything other than a greedy little chancer, just like her husband. If this is what the Cronycrat wing of the party wants to nominate,they can go ahead and do it – but she’s going to have to do much better than this to earn my vote, as are her voters.

  21. uncledad  •  Apr 27, 2016 @2:11 am

    “but she’s going to have to do much better than this to earn my vote”

    So you’ll be voting for Trump then, let us know how that works out?

  22. MilitantlyAardvark  •  Apr 27, 2016 @5:45 am

    uncledad, if you take some moments to think, you will realize that the spectrum of choices is not limited to Clinton or Trump. I might decide that no party has earned my vote for its presidential candidate, I might decide to vote Green, I might write in Sanders. I will however, tell you quite clearly that this sort of simplistic nonsense by Clinton supporters pushes me away from their unimpressive candidate, rather than the reverse. You can decide for yourself whether your comment was the smart thing to say under the circumstances.

  23. JBM  •  Apr 27, 2016 @8:04 am

    Maha, I have been reading your blog for many years, respect it greatly, and am happy to respectfully disagree. I fully agree, though, that it’s also reality. In reality, then, since it appears that Sen. Sanders will not win the nomination, I hope that he does help HRC. He would do an amazing job there as well, I’m sure. What his supporters do is, of course, up to their own consciences. The clip that initiated this particular conversation, however, was unhinged; it was puerile, condescending, and irrational. It was politics without the reality. Please, let’s have the reality instead.

    And, by the way, before some jump all over my comments, I will vote for Sen. Sanders. I believe in him. I am greatly pleased with the issues he has raised and that has pushed the Democratic party to the left, toward what is rational and good for the country. I hope that he continues to do so, for the benefit of all of us.

    Namaste.

  24. maha  •  Apr 27, 2016 @8:54 am

    //The clip that initiated this particular conversation, however, was unhinged; it was puerile, condescending, and irrational. It was politics without the reality. Please, let’s have the reality instead.// I realize Clinton is probably exhausted and in a state of raw nerves herself, but she’s got to tone down the arrogance. She really does. This is for her own sake. And she’s got to acknowledge that Sanders and his supporters have a legitimate point of view that she’s got to at least keep in mind and respect, even if she disagrees with it. If she can do that, she’ll probably win most of the Sanders voters in November. If she doesn’t, she will probably lose at least a large proportion of them. This is the reality. And even if Sanders goes out and campaigns for her, that’s not going to change. It’s really all on her.

  25. Mary Hannon  •  Apr 27, 2016 @8:25 am

    Thanks, Uncledad. You said everything I was thinking about the clip only better than I could. I didn’t know the left had their own O’Reilly and Hannity, but your analogy was totally apt. Just shows how someone’s words can be distorted taken out of context.

    The anti-Clinton comments scare me. I remember Bush v Gore and we all know how that worked out. Does anyone believe Gore would have invaded Iraq in response to Saudi hijackers? Or believe it would have even come to that? He would have been on top of the terrorist threat and listened to his advisors, and might have even prevented the attack in the first place. No Alito or Roberts on the Supreme Court. I hope the Nader purists are happy.

  26. maha  •  Apr 27, 2016 @8:50 am

    Mary Hannon — This is an example of hostage taking. Months ago we were warned to not support Sanders because of George McGovern in 1072 or Mike Dukakis in 1989. Now we have to stifle all criticism of Hillary because of Ralph Nader in 2000. How’s about running candidates who don’t have to blackmail people into voting for them?

    First, I believe that Clinton will be the Dem nominee, and if Trump is the GOP nominee she will beat him. Frankly, the Dems could nominate a can of soup and beat him. However, if the GOP manages to substitute another Republican, all bets are off. Clinton would be about the worst nominee imaginable against a more establishment Republican, and that’s true even if she picks up most of the Sanders’s voters. So it really all comes down to who the GOP nominee will be.

    Because of Clinton’s own dirty, scorched-earth style of campaigning she’s got a ton of work to do to persuade Sanders supporters to vote for her in November. I think he’ll help her if he can. He’s said more than once that she’d make a better President than any of the Republicans. But she’s got to tone back the arrogance and be willing to give him something, policy-wise, before he can do that. If he simply throws his support to her without her making that effort, it won’t mean anything to the Sanders voters. This campaign was never about his personal ambitions but about what he represents that Clinton doesn’t.

    Especially if Trump is the nominee a lot of people who are yelling “Bernie or Bust” now probably will change their minds by November, but Clinton and the Dems can help themselves a lot by how they handle Sanders from now on and at the convention. They’re going to have to be very careful.

  27. joanr16  •  Apr 27, 2016 @8:46 am

    I remember Bush v Gore and we all know how that worked out.

    Seconded. For the love of all that is sensible, let us NOT turn this country over to anyone in the Republican field. I am not convinced that Clinton would be half as bad as even Kasich.

  28. uncledad  •  Apr 27, 2016 @9:09 am

    “simplistic nonsense by Clinton supporters pushes me away from their unimpressive candidate”

    Spare me the mellow-drama, if some strangers “simplistic nonsense” on a blog comment roll cause you not to vote for someone you really should re-evaluate what it is you are voting for!

  29. MilitantlyAardvark  •  Apr 27, 2016 @4:52 pm

    @uncledad

    I vote for the candidate or party that has earned my vote. Which, at this point, won’t be the corrupt corporatist Clinton.

    Also: melodrama.

  30. Joel Dan Walls  •  Apr 27, 2016 @5:06 pm

    That guy on “Young Turks” is just way, way extrapolating from anything that Hillary Clinton said: he’s saying nonsense about how “she’s just disgusted by the very idea” of reaching out to Sanders’ supporters, invoking her facial expression as justification for his claim. Really now. What she actually spent the most time on, in that clip, was talking about her “Wall Street plan” and how it was more specific than anything Sanders had had to say on the subject. That and pointing out the fact that she’s way ahead in terms of votes cast and pledged delegates. Look, I’m not an HRC supporter, but let’s quit inventing reasons to bash her.

  31. maha  •  Apr 27, 2016 @5:24 pm

    Joel Dan Walls — give it a rest. My reaction was the same as the Young Turks guy. Clinton lied again, distorting the Daily News interview. You don’t want me to have to explain why that was below the belt. If she wants Sanders supporters to be able to stomach voting for her, she has to stop that crap now.

1 Trackback



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile