Two new polls released on Thursday highlight a disturbing reality: In a race between two unpopular candidates, an excited base could mean everything. And in the case of the current presidential contest—a race that observers say is "hers to lose"—the failure of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to inspire voters could prove her ultimate downfall.
It's not merely that Hillary Clinton has failed "to inspire voters" but that she and her campaign have gone out of their way to alienate her potential voters. In their absolute adherence to the neo-liberal status quo, she, her campaign managers and the DNC have shat on progressive Democrats and basically all Independents. If your constituency is the one percent, and you do nothing to gain the support of any of the 99%, you can't expect to win - even in a rigged system.
Sonali is so right! Clinton never did feel she had to listen to the Bernie supporters and she still doesn't . still see her as someone who feels the presidency is due her, not something she has to earn from the voters. this is not the woman I had hoped to see become president in my lifetime.
The 'actve, excited base' is progressives and young people. The Clinton campaign has done everything they can to discourage those groups, including many independents. Now, vs a populist like Trump, how is that pandering to the right working out? And the debates haven't even started...
I won't vote for Trump, but he is so mentally disorganized versus the cold calculating cunning of Hillary that he might actually do less damage. Also, if Hillary loses, it might hasten the demise of the Democratic Party. Failing that, it might at least push more workers away from the Dems, which is necessary if we are ever going to have a strong Socialist or Green Party. The next decade or so is going to be crappy regardless; I'll shed no tears if Hillary loses.
Clinton has numerous detailed policy statements while Trump has hardly any. Her vision is basically to push the Obama agenda further. Certainly one could call it a progressive vision although many would not. I think Trump is gaining because the media is echoing the Republican attempts to create scandals involving Clinton. Essentially everything Clinton does is seen as a scandal by the Republicans. Her e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, getting sick, etc. This goes all the way back to Whitewater and even earlier to when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. The media loves scandals. It can't resist. No matter how times in the end it is found out that there actually was no scandal the media always falls for it. The media also likes a contest and is treated Trump as a legitimate candidate even though he has no qualifications and by the frequency of his lies should have been outed long ago. He has nothing in common with anyone who as ever served as president. You would have to go to foreign dictators to find any leader with similarities. Basically the Republicans are succeeding in spreading scandals about Clinton and the media isn't holding the Republicans accountable for all of their lying. The press is failing to do their job and the country could be given over to violent white supremacists who appear to Trump's most enthusiastic supporters.
The decline of the Clinton campaign has less to do with her rival's
success and more to do with her failure to articulate a bold, inspiring
vision for voters
Obama could get away with his "change you can believe in" BS because in 2008 he was largely an unknown quantity, a blank slate onto which voters could project their hopes and ideals. Hillary Clinton, having been in the public eye for over thirty years, can't get away with pretending to be a bold visionary, or indeed any kind of visionary. All she can really offer is a continuation of Obama-ism, with some extra helpings of neocon inspired warmongering, along with even more heavy-handed and overt pay-to-play corruption.
And to think voters aren't falling all over themselves to embrace such a prescription. Whoda thunk it?
The Putin attack by Obama in support of Clinton was yet another blow to the pro Israeli Clinton base making them appear warlike and conflict creators.
Jill Stein is the real choice for first woman president.
Sonali got this wrong: " a sane woman over an insane man" - they are both at the same level of 'instanity' - this is what voters see through, imo. Vote Green
Lol... I thought your clip would be this one:
The same thing happened in California many years ago. A progressive democrat won the nomination and the democratic party stepped aside so the republicans could win.
An even more similar 2014 experience in Massachusetts led to the current pro charter school republican governor. A democratic candidate was to be coronated and better candidates were squeezed out by a corrupt democratic party.
Yes. If Hillary is sane, that makes her worse, since she knows what she's doing and chooses to do it anyway.
Coupled with the fact that she's totally not likeable, a warmonger, secretive, shifty, and the biggest panderer to bankers and Wall Street that this country has every seen - oh yes, add in that she's married to the unctuous Bill Clinton - and yeah, I can see how she might not have this election "in the bag."
Push the Obama agenda further?
I think you mean, shove the TPP up our a****, while "incrementally" tossing the masses tiny bits of crumbs, to keep them appeased.
If you get paid to post here, they're wasting their money. That sentence which begins, "Basically the republicans...", is the purest form of empty, political rhetoric.
Suggest you consult an expert on what is really happening at the Clinton Foundation before posting again. Your delusions are getting to be clownish.
I will categorically state without fear of contradiction that Hillary will be elected in November, whether alive or not.
The oligarchy has already made those arrangements.
If the Left does what it knows to be the right thing to do and votes en masse for Stein, then Hillary will not be able to govern.
The ability to govern is the only game Left to be settled.
Well as an outsider looking in I make this observation.
Whether one likes Trump or not he has earned the support he has. Most that support him do so because he is Trump not because he Republican.
Clinton counted on inheriting all of her support just because she a Democrat.
The polls and people here on these boards suggested in a Sanders versus Trump matchup , Sanders would win in a landslide.
The 1 percent did not want Sanders and the DNC followed orders to make sure Clinton won.
Now they whine about the bad choice they made and suggest it all Putin's fault.
My feeling (no proof/evidence) is that the oligarchy can live with Trump, even though they would clearly prefer HRC.
(Constitutionally speaking, I think you have to be alive to be president.)
Good summation of the sad suicidal state of the Clinton campaign. I have nothing to add.
We better start organizing resistance to Trump now - and we will need to be brave. It may be the days of Logan County, of Homestead, of 1877 all over again. Under the latter-day Democrats, the capitalists and their police used tear gas and pepper spray and dogs. Under Trump, the capitalists will once again feel free to use bludgeons and bullets.
But, but, all August 2016, the likes of the NY Times told us that it was in the bag for Hillary.
I'm shocked, shocked, that a weak candidate like Hillary Clinton, who likely had to have the nomination stolen for her, is in a position to now lose in the general election--sarc.
Nominee Sanders wouldn't have been so stupid to run a non-campaign in August--not sarc.