Hillary to blame Bernie in a chapter in her new book (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 07, 2024, 05:54:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Hillary to blame Bernie in a chapter in her new book (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Hillary to blame Bernie in a chapter in her new book  (Read 4632 times)
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,489
United States


« on: September 05, 2017, 02:03:05 PM »

I don't necessarily think she's blaming him for her loss. She is correct that Sanders really did help contribute to the "Crooked Hillary" persona by continually implying that she was bought, even though he was unable to provide a specific example. I have read that Hillary also goes on to write about how her speeches to Goldman Sachs were a terrible idea, and she was naive to think they would be accepted by voters. She also talks about using the private email server as week. So it's not like she's attributing the blame to others exclusively. Rather she's mentioning everything that factored into her loss, whether it was attributed to others or herself. She is literally explaining "What Happened"

Fair enough, but I still don't recall Nixon doing this after losing to JFK or 1962 with the Press Conference.

I don't recall Al Gore doing this either, despite arguably having an even more compelling case to write about [ya' know, since he probably won the election after all].

If President Ford wrote extensively about his loss to Carter, arguably helped by Reagan's challenge, well gee, I don't recall such a book.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,489
United States


« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2017, 12:40:20 PM »

I said as early as 2014 that a left wing primary challenge would hurt Hillary in the end. Just like Reagan did to Ford, Kennedy did to Carter, and Buchanan did to Bush. And I hate to say "I told you so, but...

You're treating Hillary as if she was an incumbent President, and not a challenger for an open Presidency, are you not?  This post is a precise illustration of the sense of entitlement Hillary Clinton possessed regarding the Presidency.  "It's my turn!"  And you wonder why folks don't like her?  Most folks can't say "It's my turn!" at much of anything and have a valid claim.

Isn't an open Presidency a time where there are multiple challengers?  Not since 1960, when Richard Nixon was virtually unopposed for the GOP Presidential nomination, was a nomination for the open Presidency so uncontested.  Bush 41 wasn't derailed by Dole.  Bush 43 wasn't derailed by McCain.  Obama wasn't derailed by Hillary, and McCain didn't lose because of a rigorous challenge for the nomnation.  

Hillary lost because (A) people didn't like her, and (B) close scrutiny emplified the reasons why they didn't like her.  She's someone who should, very much, take her defeat personally.  2016 was a very, very PERSONAL rejection of Hillary Clinton.  It was also an event that those clearing the decks for her should have seen coming.

You conveniently forgot about Al Gore, aka the guy that won 2000 but got screwed out anyway.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,489
United States


« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2017, 09:26:12 AM »

I said as early as 2014 that a left wing primary challenge would hurt Hillary in the end. Just like Reagan did to Ford, Kennedy did to Carter, and Buchanan did to Bush. And I hate to say "I told you so, but...

You're treating Hillary as if she was an incumbent President, and not a challenger for an open Presidency, are you not?  This post is a precise illustration of the sense of entitlement Hillary Clinton possessed regarding the Presidency.  "It's my turn!"  And you wonder why folks don't like her?  Most folks can't say "It's my turn!" at much of anything and have a valid claim.

Isn't an open Presidency a time where there are multiple challengers?  Not since 1960, when Richard Nixon was virtually unopposed for the GOP Presidential nomination, was a nomination for the open Presidency so uncontested.  Bush 41 wasn't derailed by Dole.  Bush 43 wasn't derailed by McCain.  Obama wasn't derailed by Hillary, and McCain didn't lose because of a rigorous challenge for the nomnation.  

Hillary lost because (A) people didn't like her, and (B) close scrutiny emplified the reasons why they didn't like her.  She's someone who should, very much, take her defeat personally.  2016 was a very, very PERSONAL rejection of Hillary Clinton.  It was also an event that those clearing the decks for her should have seen coming.

You conveniently forgot about Al Gore, aka the guy that won 2000 but got screwed out anyway.

Gore had a challenger

A really really week challenger who was done after NH. Arguably that was a token challenge.

Sanders was much stronger than that.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 8 queries.