Author Topic: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter  (Read 809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 284
  • Gender: Male
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/?ex_cid=538twitter

I think the piece is good.  It specifically says it's not about excusing every decision the Clinton campaign made,  but compared to the other factors it's easier to determine the impact of the letter on the polls. 

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24883
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2017, 08:13:22 PM »
I dunno. I feel like she was destined to lose. The people upset by the e-mails were never going to vote for her anyway.

What cost Hillary the election was that, plus her public persona, plus democratic apathy, plus a true rival in Bernie, plus an opponent that she had no clue how to combat.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 284
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2017, 08:18:41 PM »
I guess it is hard to put myself in the mind of someone who wavered between the two,  if I was american there was absolutely no way in hell I ever would have not voted for Hillary in the general.    But I'm sure there were people who hesitated, and a lot of the states were close, like 1 point close,  so it wouldn't take that many to be swayed by the COmey letter for it to have an impact. 

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24883
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2017, 08:21:28 PM »
I can only speak from my experience (I didn't vote for either of these people) but all of the "BUT HER E-MAILS!!!!" that I saw were from people who were never going to vote for Hillary anyway. She could have offered a free blow job and pancake to every American (not from her directly) and the people angry by the e-mails STILL wouldn't have voted for her.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 284
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2017, 08:25:23 PM »
but the Comey letter had a direct, measurable impact on voting intentions.  I know polls got something of a bad rap out this election but I think it's more due to people mis interpreting them than anything else. 

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25630
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2017, 08:33:07 PM »
There is no single reason.  It was a variety of factors.  Did the Comey letter have an impact?  Probably, but I don't think it was one of the main reasons.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24883
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2017, 08:40:03 PM »
but the Comey letter had a direct, measurable impact on voting intentions.  I know polls got something of a bad rap out this election but I think it's more due to people mis interpreting them than anything else.

Oh it totally had an impact. I just don't think it was the only impact or even the biggest one. It just became the biggest meme.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 755
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2017, 09:20:52 PM »
Of course you're all right in a sense. But let's not forget just how few votes in the states that swung for him we're talking about here. I feel like EVERY factor broke perfectly for Trump to win. He won MI by ~11k votes. Penn by ~44k votes, Wisconsin by ~23k votes. 86k votes total decided those 3 states combined (and the 96 EC votes they hold). That's less people than attend University of Michigan football games. Any small factor could've swayed that vote. I do think there's more to learn for the Dems than simply blaming Comey (nor are they only doing that, let's not confuse Hillary with being all of the Democratic party now), but it's also fair to say had Comey's letter not happened when it did she likely would be the embattled current POTUS.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24883
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2017, 09:23:56 PM »
Of course you're all right in a sense. But let's not forget just how few votes in the states that swung for him we're talking about here. I feel like EVERY factor broke perfectly for Trump to win. He won MI by ~11k votes. Penn by ~44k votes, Wisconsin by ~23k votes. 86k votes total decided those 3 states combined (and the 96 EC votes they hold). Any small factor could've swayed that vote. I do think there's more to learn for the Dems than simply blaming Comey (nor are they only doing that, let's not confuse Hillary with being all of the Democratic party now), but it's also fair to say had Comey's letter not happened when it did she likely would be the embattled current POTUS.

Well to be fair, Trump would have won by WAY more if it wasn't for the millions of illegal voters.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1471
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2017, 09:38:56 PM »
Of course you're all right in a sense. But let's not forget just how few votes in the states that swung for him we're talking about here. I feel like EVERY factor broke perfectly for Trump to win. He won MI by ~11k votes. Penn by ~44k votes, Wisconsin by ~23k votes. 86k votes total decided those 3 states combined (and the 96 EC votes they hold). Any small factor could've swayed that vote. I do think there's more to learn for the Dems than simply blaming Comey (nor are they only doing that, let's not confuse Hillary with being all of the Democratic party now), but it's also fair to say had Comey's letter not happened when it did she likely would be the embattled current POTUS.

Well to be fair, Trump would have won by WAY more if it wasn't for the millions of illegal voters.


 :)

On a related tangent; some illustrating information from a conversation I had today with a co-worker, or other department worker. The individual is a first generation Africa immigrant, who is quite colorful in their negative opinions about President Trump. Either some of the person's co-workers, or people they personally outside of work are Muslim. The co-worker indicated that the people they are referring to voted for President Trump because he is a man, and H.Clinton is female. So there is that as a factor in addition.
---

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2017, 10:14:22 PM »
The damage had already been done. I don't think anybody needed that 10/28 announcement to finally realize that she sucked.

And I still maintain that the determining factor was the "what have we got to lose?" voters. For every gaff that Hillary made, Trump made 3. Yet they were still essentially in a dead heat. Trump's advantage was being a crazy fuck rather than a politician. Something that mattered in 2016.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3889
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2017, 07:41:52 AM »
The damage had already been done. I don't think anybody needed that 10/28 announcement to finally realize that she sucked.

And I still maintain that the determining factor was the "what have we got to lose?" voters. For every gaff that Hillary made, Trump made 3. Yet they were still essentially in a dead heat. Trump's advantage was being a crazy fuck rather than a politician. Something that mattered in 2016.

I think that sums it up nicely.

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5426
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2017, 09:06:11 AM »
I'm with Barto. Trump because of people who thought, "literally anything different has to be better than now."

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 442
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2017, 11:05:04 AM »
I've bought Hillary's book (because 13.60 for 500 pages of purest, unalloyed Schadenfreude is a steal) and am around two thirds through it.

I'll start with what may be my only ever defence of that woman: some sections of the media aren't being fair on her when they say she "blames everyone but herself" in the book. To me it doesn't read like she's blaming everyone, she's just trying to write a thorough account of all the factors that played a part in her losing, as she sees them. As people here have said, it wasn't one particular thing. When FOX analysts publish articles on "The 20 main reasons Hillary lost" they're being 'balanced journalists', yet when Hillary considers all the factors, she's "blaming everyone". That isn't fair to her.

Thus ends my defence of her. Now for what's wrong with her book, at least what I've read so far - it's a lot 'thinner' than I was expecting. I was hoping for proper analysis (especially self-analysis) but there is almost none. This is not a political book, and anyone hoping for one will be disappointed. There is nothing factual in this book that isn't already widely available. My interest in this book is related to foreign policy, yet the description of the alleged 'intelligence on Russia's interference' is nothing that isn't already known, and her discussion of the personality of Putin and her opinion on what his global intentions are (which I was most looking forward to, because she knows him as well as any Western politician except Merkel) is frustratingly vacuous. A lot of mindless posturing about what she would have done had she won (with what seems to be unintended hilarity she conveniently ignores how Lavrov and Putin danced circles around her when she was Secretary of State), she hasn't addressed exactly why we were so against her, and I was hoping for some insight and self-awareness on that. Not some witless and childish shit about being "tough on Putin's aggression", but actual political analysis of how her proposed foreign policy unavoidably clashed with Russia's, and why (in my opinion) she was a fool to loudly and aggressively advertise this fact before she was elected. She doesn't touch on any of this.

Another fault of the book, and it's on the issue of 'blame' - there are many examples where she references the part someone or something played in her loss, but she doesn't go deeper and examine her own role. Several times she comes across like a criminal who, when asked why he's in prison, replies "Because those fucking police arrested me and told the judge all the shit I'd done. Bastards!". She takes very thinly-veiled swipes at the incompetence of my old pal Robby Mook, yet at no point does she address the issue that she personally hired him, and she personally kept sending him out to speak for her. She is annoyed at Bernie Sanders for helping fan the 'Crooked Hillary' label when he bashed her for her lucrative Wall Street speeches, but she doesn't fully address the fact that he had a damn good point in bashing her for it. You can't run on an agenda of redressing 'wealth inequality' while taking millions for Wall Street speeches.

That's where the charge of her 'blaming everyone' is closest to being accurate. Her general conclusion so far seems to be "I'd have been president if everyone hadn't kept bringing up all the shady hypocritical shit I was doing".

The other off-putting part of the book is the style she adopts when she talks about the night of her election loss. It is so inappropriately hyperbolic. She uses the language of profound grief, and speaks about a numbness, an emptiness, a total inability to feel or think, an absence of appetite, an unreal oneiric state, a complete emotional and intellectual detachment from the world. I have known mothers lose their children who responded with more perspective and dignity than this. In my lifetime, every other candidate who lost an election did so with at least a modicum of elegance, and usually a lot of it. Hillary's reaction is not a normal one in my opinion, this is not some grand Sophoclean tragedy she's involved in. There is something not right in her attitude to herself and losing the election, and several times reading it I've found myself thinking "This is not a psychologically healthy reaction to losing an election".   

Finally for now (I might write a proper review when I've finished it), I was hoping for some insight from her on how Western democracies are changing when it comes to elections, and how the tone of successful campaigns is more and more revolving around who and what the candidate is against, rather than what they are for. I despise Hillary Clinton with every bone in my body, but as a political mind, I respect her as much as any of the electable Americans. She isn't stupid, and when the subject is not herself, she is perceptive. I want to know her take on how the political landscape is changing over there, and which kind of direction she sees it heading. What exactly does she mean when she says she is "literally afraid for the future of our country"? Trump was successful at tapping into many groups of people who had a common (if somewhat vague) enemy. "This guy is against what I am against" is a powerful political trick, people vote with passion for a guy like that (Theresa May found this out with the ass-kicking she took at the last election, with her airy-fairy 'A Safe Pair Of Hands" slogan, which may as well have been "The Same Old Shit"). What does Hillary think can be done to counter that in the future? So far, there have been no thoughts from her on how the nature of Western electioneering has changed (if indeed it has changed). Maybe she'll address this in the last part of her book. I hope she will.


edit: for a more 'political' take on why the Clinton campaign failed (as well as a more overt hatchet job on Robby Mook and his smarmy contempt for the public's intelligence), I recommend the book 'Shattered' by Jonathan Allen. It has its own flaws but it also has an emotional detachment that Hillary's book doesn't.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 05:04:24 PM by Dave_Manchester »

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2017, 11:25:33 AM »
^Great post and great insights.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 442
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2017, 06:23:32 AM »
Here's Hillary's full interview with Anderson Cooper (from CNN's own YouTube channel).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s8a-lxXu68

I'd have preferred someone other than Cooper to do this interview, but he still covers some decent ground. He never really presses her on anything and makes little attempt to hide what good old pals they are (there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I get sensitive when a Clinton and a Vanderbilt sit down to discuss the plight of disadvantaged people over a glass of Chateau Lafite), but he does do a proper journalistic job of at least asking her uncomfortable questions. Among other things, she expands on her belief that the Electoral College must be abolished, and offers lessons in alternate nostril breathing, for those times when divine comfort and wine doesn't quite cut it.

She's as candid as can be expected though, so I give her that much credit. She and Cooper again use an inappropriate and self-absorbed style of language, speaking of being resentfully unwilling to offer "absolution" to people who come up to her and apologise for not doing more to get her elected (when she's not using the language of Greek tragedy to describe her loss, she instead opts for Biblical allusions), and that irritates me. I'm generally not a fan of people who make their lives into something epic, let alone politicians who do it. But that aside, it's probably very difficult for her to do interviews like this, so I'll let her have a few soft ones to begin. Hopefully in a few months when she's settled down she'll agree to sit down with less servile interviewers who will press her more.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 06:44:19 AM by Dave_Manchester »

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2017, 07:40:03 AM »
Hopefully in a few months when she's settled down she'll agree to sit down with less servile interviewers who will press her more. she'll go away.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15699
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #17 on: September 14, 2017, 09:45:16 AM »
Hopefully in a few months when she's settled down she'll agree to sit down with less servile interviewers who will press her more. she'll go away.

Yea this.  Feels like she is on a sour grapes tour.

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 442
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #18 on: September 14, 2017, 10:47:17 AM »
She's trying to sell more copies of her book, and it's interesting for me to watch the interview route she's going to take in doing it, because I can't quite pin down who she imagines her target audience is for this. It isn't people like me, who were hoping for her to address the book's title question (What Happened) from the political angle. This is wafer-thin commentary, particularly on those issues which she herself claims were most instrumental in her loss (Comey, Russia, and an angry sexist white male population). She says she was looking forward to "staring Putin in the eye" (this is during a section in which she derides Trump's impotent rabble-rousing rhetoric by the way), but offers absolutely no hint at what would have come after that (when Putin would have simply stared back at her and said "Crimea is ours, deal with it"). This book, when it gets 'political', too often reads like a campaign speech aimed at simpletons.

My opinion is that there are 2 audiences for this: the first is the anti-Hillary crowd who want to savour the last few precious drops of her misery and pain (there is plenty of that to be had), and the second is that predominantly female section of her supporters who are keen to share her (hysterical) grief. I'm thinking that latter is who she's written this for. There is a lot of tedious shit about marriage, couched in the kind of embarrassing canned wisdom you see printed on greetings cards, and she also clearly has one careful eye on the tweetable soundbite (today's most effective marketing tool), because there's plenty of distilled Oprah-lite advice about 'perseverance' and 'strength' which can be printed onto photos of sunrises and retweeted 8 million times.

But I hope she doesn't go away quite yet, because I am still interested to know her thoughts on an issue she hasn't addressed in the book (at least yet - I haven't finished it): what advice can she give to the next Democrat candidate who has to go up against Trump 3 years down the line? Hillary has a unique insight into how it feels to share a stage with that man, during what must be an extremely mortifying and humiliating farce. You can't 'fight' this guy with conventional methods it seems. You can't 'debate' him, because he won't stand for it, he doesn't tolerate sustained questioning. You can't articulate your position, because he won't allow it, he'll shout over you and take control away from the debate moderators. Somebody is going to have to think up a way to counter Trump's unique approach to electioneering, which (hopefully) doesn't involve simply descending to his level. I'm interested to hear Hillary's thoughts on what that might be.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 11:22:45 AM by Dave_Manchester »

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1471
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #19 on: September 14, 2017, 03:16:46 PM »

The other off-putting part of the book is the style she adopts when she talks about the night of her election loss. It is so inappropriately hyperbolic. She uses the language of profound grief, and speaks about a numbness, an emptiness, a total inability to feel or think, an absence of appetite, an unreal oneiric state, a complete emotional and intellectual detachment from the world. I have known mothers lose their children who responded with more perspective and dignity than this. In my lifetime, every other candidate who lost an election did so with at least a modicum of elegance, and usually a lot of it. Hillary's reaction is not a normal one in my opinion, this is not some grand Sophoclean tragedy she's involved in. There is something not right in her attitude to herself and losing the election, and several times reading it I've found myself thinking "This is not a psychologically healthy reaction to losing an election".   



My only contention here is it was shock for her. Much like a shock and loss for us; yes a death, end of a relationship, or job loss. All have the propensity to send someone into a depression. And different people who have lost more act more swiftly sure, but this was her subjective experience and therefore her perception. Much like someone experiencing abuse by parents and be alright, and another sibling with a similar experience turns attempt suicide.

Now the amount it is played up at this current point, and how awful it was, I'd be with you. She lost a job, on the biggest stage yes, but everyday people lose gigs.
---

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2017, 10:41:00 PM »

The other off-putting part of the book is the style she adopts when she talks about the night of her election loss. It is so inappropriately hyperbolic. She uses the language of profound grief, and speaks about a numbness, an emptiness, a total inability to feel or think, an absence of appetite, an unreal oneiric state, a complete emotional and intellectual detachment from the world. I have known mothers lose their children who responded with more perspective and dignity than this. In my lifetime, every other candidate who lost an election did so with at least a modicum of elegance, and usually a lot of it. Hillary's reaction is not a normal one in my opinion, this is not some grand Sophoclean tragedy she's involved in. There is something not right in her attitude to herself and losing the election, and several times reading it I've found myself thinking "This is not a psychologically healthy reaction to losing an election".   



My only contention here is it was shock for her. Much like a shock and loss for us; yes a death, end of a relationship, or job loss. All have the propensity to send someone into a depression. And different people who have lost more act more swiftly sure, but this was her subjective experience and therefore her perception. Much like someone experiencing abuse by parents and be alright, and another sibling with a similar experience turns attempt suicide.

Now the amount it is played up at this current point, and how awful it was, I'd be with you. She lost a job, on the biggest stage yes, but everyday people lose gigs.
I think this is a good point, but it goes much further than losing a gig. She's spent more than half of her life trying to  become president. Her life has been mapped out to a large extent, and the presidency represented both the pinnacle and the endgame. Due to her arrogance she was expecting the final chapter to play out as planned. What's left? This isn't losing a job where you go out and get another one. It's not a planned retirement. It was the end of her life's work before its culmination. At this point she was basically forced with the realization that she had to become a very different person than what she had always been and intended to continue being.

And before people spend time explaining how awful she is and undeserving of sympathy, I'll throw out now that this is the fault of her own arrogance and ambition. I'm not trying to garner sympathy for the woman. I'm just pointing out how this would be a significant existential crisis.

Lastly, for Dave, she possessed inherent traits that both led her to, and were necessary to attain, a specific goal. A goal that she eventually missed in large part to her reliance on those very traits, leading to her own collapse. Just sayin.   :biggrin:
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15699
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2017, 07:21:55 AM »

The other off-putting part of the book is the style she adopts when she talks about the night of her election loss. It is so inappropriately hyperbolic. She uses the language of profound grief, and speaks about a numbness, an emptiness, a total inability to feel or think, an absence of appetite, an unreal oneiric state, a complete emotional and intellectual detachment from the world. I have known mothers lose their children who responded with more perspective and dignity than this. In my lifetime, every other candidate who lost an election did so with at least a modicum of elegance, and usually a lot of it. Hillary's reaction is not a normal one in my opinion, this is not some grand Sophoclean tragedy she's involved in. There is something not right in her attitude to herself and losing the election, and several times reading it I've found myself thinking "This is not a psychologically healthy reaction to losing an election".   



My only contention here is it was shock for her. Much like a shock and loss for us; yes a death, end of a relationship, or job loss. All have the propensity to send someone into a depression. And different people who have lost more act more swiftly sure, but this was her subjective experience and therefore her perception. Much like someone experiencing abuse by parents and be alright, and another sibling with a similar experience turns attempt suicide.

Now the amount it is played up at this current point, and how awful it was, I'd be with you. She lost a job, on the biggest stage yes, but everyday people lose gigs.
I think this is a good point, but it goes much further than losing a gig. She's spent more than half of her life trying to  become president. Her life has been mapped out to a large extent, and the presidency represented both the pinnacle and the endgame. Due to her arrogance she was expecting the final chapter to play out as planned. What's left? This isn't losing a job where you go out and get another one. It's not a planned retirement. It was the end of her life's work before its culmination. At this point she was basically forced with the realization that she had to become a very different person than what she had always been and intended to continue being.

It's no different than the NFL QB who is past his prime and got so close, but couldn't win the Superbowl.  Most stories don't get the fairytale ending, and Hillary did not either, but just like the NFL QB, she could still say she had a very accomplished life, far more than the average and she can be proud of that.  Regardless of what anyone may think about her.

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10223
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2017, 07:24:49 AM »
I'd be catatonic if I blew an election to Donald Fucking Trump, too :lol

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 442
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2017, 07:31:14 AM »
Lastly, for Dave, she possessed inherent traits that both led her to, and were necessary to attain, a specific goal. A goal that she eventually missed in large part to her reliance on those very traits, leading to her own collapse. Just sayin.   :biggrin:

For my interest, which traits are you thinking of here? What is it that both took her as far as she got and yet prevented her from going any further? 

To my earlier overall point, while I agree that it can't be easy having your life's goal snatched from you unexpectedly, I still say that her self-obsessed reaction spoke to an undesirable feature of her character (i.e. her vision of her own historical 'fate'), and one ill-suited to the job she thought she was going to get. Politicians at her level are unusual people, but they are still people, with their own individual characters and emotions, and some will react to disappointment more dramatically than others. I get this and allow for it, but at the same time, to be a high level politician you need to be able to function normally in the face of extraordinary personal stress. Long story short (and by way of a single example), she should have been able to give her concession speech the night of the election, but she couldn't, because she writes in her book about her "numbness". To be incapacitated so easily and to have so little command over your emotions is fine in people like you and I, but not in a world leader. This is the woman who, from the safety of her writing desk, assures me she was going to stare the former boss of the KGB in the eye and give him a dressing down? In chapter one she writes about being a quivering emotional wreck who can't eat, sleep or feel her legs anymore, chugging casks of wine while she breathes through one nostril, and a hundred pages later she's posturing about how she was going to personally (not politically, but as a personality) stand up to Putin? This is inconsistent. And it reveals again an inaccurate perception of herself. You know well my views on her direct responsibility for the Ukrainian carnage (I give her a 20% equal share with John Kerry, Victoria Nuland, Samantha Power and Obama), I won't rehash them here, and also my disgust at her shameful "We came, we saw, he died, HAHAHAHA!" reaction to the butchering of Gaddafi. A person who so easily and joyfully accepts the deaths of others, yet reacts so emotionally to her own non-fatal disappointment, is someone whose self-absorption and lack of perspective has been taken to an extreme level in my opinion. 

Promethean ambition is a requirement in any politician, I don't blame her for that, but before the election she was very passionate about the strength of American institutions and how the president is merely a servant of the people, and 'the people will never allow America to fall'. Yet now she's lost, she's "literally afraid for the future of our country", and bigoted sexist white guys like you (Barto) are a threat to your democracy. That last part is not hyperbole, she actually says that in the book. She writes that the inherent sexism in America is what put Trump in power, and Trump in power is a direct threat to American democracy (naturally I roll my eyes when she spends page after page droning on about how systemically racist, homophobic, sexist, misogynistic and xenophobic white America is, while at the same time reminding me that America is the greatest, freest, most tolerant country in the world and the world needs to follow its beacon-like example). Hillary is fond of talking about the importance of the institution, the dignity of the office, and how it is greater than any one person (necessarily then, including Trump). No need, then, for the hysterics.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2017, 08:09:00 AM »
Good post. I was referring to ambition and arrogance. Mostly I was making a quip about her fitting the bill as a tragic figure. Sophocles wouldn't have found her interesting or unique, but she would qualify based on my half-assed understanding of Poetics.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20103
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2017, 10:18:25 AM »
It's no different than the NFL QB who is past his prime and got so close, but couldn't win the Superbowl.  Most stories don't get the fairytale ending, and Hillary did not either, but just like the NFL QB, she could still say she had a very accomplished life, far more than the average and she can be proud of that.  Regardless of what anyone may think about her.

I'd be catatonic if I blew an election to Donald Fucking Trump, too :lol

It's like Dan Marino losing the SB to Tim Tebow.
Dream Theater Forums: Expanding musical tastes and shrinking wallets since 2009.
Note to forum, jingle is usually right.
I'm actually disappointed he's not Kim Jong-Il

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 442
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2017, 01:17:24 PM »
Good post. I was referring to ambition and arrogance. Mostly I was making a quip about her fitting the bill as a tragic figure. Sophocles wouldn't have found her interesting or unique, but she would qualify based on my half-assed understanding of Poetics.

What's your take on her claim of fundamental sexism contributing (to a decisive degree) to her loss? You're a keen observer of the social fabric over there, and your part of America is, fairly or unfairly, synonymous over here with traditionalism. Do you find that a lot of people in your neck of the woods meet her description of sexism, and were against her not because she was precisely that woman, but because she was simply a woman?

Not much in her book is thought-provoking, but one of the few interesting and observant passages concerns her discussing the difference in America between a woman being Secretary of State or National Security Advisor or Attorney General, which are all acceptable (because in those roles the woman is supporting the main boss, who is invariably a man, which is the proper order of things), and a woman being the actual 'boss' of the country (the President) which she insists many Americans still won't accept. Do you find this to be the case? It's impossible to generalise, I know, but I'm asking about your perception of your immediate environment. Firewings ('Kattelox' here) often says he frequently hears the 'N' word used about Obama where he lives. Do you hear much 'chauvinism' towards Hillary where you are? Do you think she has a point (about the difference between SoS and President, when it comes to what America is ready to accept), or is she apportioning blame where it doesn't belong?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 01:45:17 PM by Dave_Manchester »

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2017, 01:38:40 PM »
Racism and sexism definitely exist.  And I am convinced there were people who didn't vote for her simply because she is a woman.  But I am just as confident that that did not cost her the election.  This county would absolutely vote in and support a woman president.  That isn't even an issue.  And while racism and sexism still exist, one would have to be blind to fail to notice that those that espouse those kinds of views are the smallest of minorities.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2017, 01:54:32 PM »
Good post. I was referring to ambition and arrogance. Mostly I was making a quip about her fitting the bill as a tragic figure. Sophocles wouldn't have found her interesting or unique, but she would qualify based on my half-assed understanding of Poetics.

What's your take on her claim of fundamental sexism contributing (to a decisive degree) to her loss? You're a keen observer of the social fabric over there, and your part of America is, fairly or unfairly, synonymous over here with traditionalism. Do you find that a lot of people in your neck of the woods meet her description of sexism, and were against her not because she was precisely that woman, because she was simply a woman?

Not much in her book is thought-provoking, but one of the few interesting and observant passages concerns her discussing the difference in America between a woman being Secretary of State or National Security Advisor or Attorney General, which are all acceptable (because in those roles the woman is supporting the main boss, who is invariably a man, which is the proper order of things), and a woman being the actual 'boss' of the country (the President) which she insists many Americans still won't accept. Do you find this to be the case? It's impossible to generalise, I know, but I'm asking about your perception of your immediate environment. Firewings ('Kattelox' here) often says he frequently hears the 'N' word used about Obama where he lives. Do you hear much 'chauvinism' towards Hillary where you are? Do you think she has a point (about the difference between SoS and President, when it comes to what America is ready to accept), or is she apportioning blame where it doesn't belong?
To begin with, a woman can absolutely be president here. I have no doubt of that. So her claim about only being able to support the male boss is nonsense. The problem was with her.

Having said that, I think the biggest problem she had was that people found her repugnant. I certainly did. However, I think it's very likely that her repugnant qualities wouldn't have been as problematic for a man. I've often said that I found her ambitious, in a Shakespearean sort of way. I found it off-putting. Yet I can't honestly say that I'd have had that problem if she were a man, nor can I say that men who attain the presidency are any less ambitious. In fact I'm pretty sure they're not. So she's probably half right. Her gender did hurt her, but not as overtly as she might be claiming. A woman can be elected president, but she has to be the right kind of woman, and that in and of itself is a gender-specific quality, and thus sexist.

On a related note, I doubt you read the NFL thread, but a woman announced a Monday Night Football game the other night, and I thought she was fucking terrible. I have no problem with a woman in that role, but this particular woman spoke like a man in her demeanor and articulation and I found it highly disturbing and distracting. This is the same sort of problem. They both have qualities that worked against them, but they were qualities that would have been seen favorably, or at least neutrally in a man. Is it sexism of the sort where a woman can't be president or announce a football game? Nope. Does their gender penalize them? Yeah, I have to think so, and I have to call that sexism.

I also think it's overlooked in this country in favor of the simpler narrative. Just like the liberals now want to view things superficially, "he said nigger in his sleep so clearly he's a white supremacist," I think there's a similar problem where conservatives dismiss things just as superficially. "Hillary thinks she lost because she's a woman. LOL. What a silly girl. I'd vote for a woman, just not her." Conservatives, even most religious conservatives, would absolutely vote for a woman, so that makes a more nuanced discussion of the matter a pointless waste of time.

And interestingly, if Sarah Palin had the intellect of oatmeal, she'd be electable. She's a better example of "womanliness." I'd give her 1/50th the qualification for the job as Hillary, but she has the "proper" demeanor for a "woman president." Sexist?

Lastly, while her gender did cost her votes on some level, it also helped her. There were very definitely people, my mom is one of them, that overlooked her faults simply because she was a woman.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 442
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2017, 02:58:02 PM »
Interesting points, and I guess one thing it's made me think about is the corollary role of 'manliness' which men face when they campaign. A lot of Trump's epithets ('Little Marco' for example) were designed to 'unman' his opponents, at a boneheaded primal level. Because of their handsomeness, Trudeau and Macron are the current darlings of international politics, despite being political mediocrities (well Macron is, I shouldn't say that about Trudeau because I'm not familiar enough with him). I suppose male candidates face a gender-based scrutiny of their own.

Your post raises the question though: what kinda gal is the electable kind, in your opinion? If not Lady Macbeth (Hillary), then who is "the right kind of woman", as you wrote? Could America be persuaded to elect a Thatcher figure (forthright, rude, extraordinarily intelligent, makes Grace Jones look effeminate), a Theresa May figure (motherly, soft-spoken, bland and predictable), Angela Merkel (imposing, erudite, awkward in public, privately brilliant so they say), Mara Carfagna (beautiful and charismatic)? You mentioned adding an intellect to Palin (which would necessarily then change her views and stances on most things), but let's go back to Hillary: what feature could have been taken away or added (pertaining to her person and her gender) that would have made her electable (to you personally, and in your opinion to the country as a whole)? Hillary contends that if she wasn't able to become the first female president of America, then no woman at this time can (I'm paraphrasing her words, but I'm not misrepresenting them). Clearly you don't agree, but then: what kind of woman, if not her?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2017, 03:50:10 PM »
I think I'm going to catch hell for this, but a conservative one. I have a few reasons for thinking this, but I'll stick to the least inflammatory one, for now. A common knock against the liberal side is the touchy-feelyness thing. You refer to manliness, and this has long been an issue used against democrats. Democrats want to coddle criminals. They want to appease dictators to avoid conflict. They want to sing Kumbaya while Moslems murder us. Essentially a lack of balls. This is also a problem for women (the touchy feely part, not the lack of balls, which most of us prefer). When the two combine it compounds the perception. Is Chuck Schummer really any different than Nancy Pelosi? Chuck's not particularly well liked, but Nancy is absolutely despised by the right and held up as an example of everything wrong with the democrats. She's actually used as a means of ridicule. Why? What's the difference? She's the ultra-liberal, despite being no more so than most of her party.

Also, a younger woman. I won't attribute it to sex appeal, though there is that element, but more about being relatable. Sara Palin looked like somebody you knew. Someone you could talk to. Older women in politics don't. Hillary didn't. Nancy Pelosi doesn't. Carla Fiorina didn't. There's a tendency for older, career politician women to look superficial and glib, and that hurts them. Male presidents can look superficial, as we're seeing now. Women can't. They have to appear natural looking.

If you knew nothing bout their politics, who would you view more favorably?

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2017, 04:04:26 PM »
If you knew nothing bout their politics, who would you view more favorably?


Maybe I'm in the minority, but the problem I have is that the question doesn't compute.  If the "view more favorably" is in terms of "more favorably for election to a public office, namely the office of POTUS," then it's all about their politics.  I couldn't view one as more favorably than the others unless and until I found out more about their politics.  So I wouldn't even really know how to answer the question. 

And, by the way, none of those pictures are very flattering, including the Palin one.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2017, 04:41:42 PM »
If you knew nothing bout their politics, who would you view more favorably?


Maybe I'm in the minority, but the problem I have is that the question doesn't compute.  If the "view more favorably" is in terms of "more favorably for election to a public office, namely the office of POTUS," then it's all about their politics.  I couldn't view one as more favorably than the others unless and until I found out more about their politics.  So I wouldn't even really know how to answer the question. 

And, by the way, none of those pictures are very flattering, including the Palin one.
Setting aside the question of whether or not you're indicative of the average voter, I agree with you on a practical level. However, I think it goes well beyond that. For better or for worse likeability plays a very big role in elections. It doesn't have to be enough to override practical political considerations to matter. Some people will vote for the person with the right letter after their name. Others won't care and will choose between two specific people. The one that seems more likable to them will generally win that decision. Consider how many people were on the fence during this election. Clearly these aren't people voting on policy matters.

This guy could be the world's greatest candidate. If he had the logical brain of Spock, the caring personality of Carter, and the political sensibilities of Nixon, would you think him electable? You might vote for him, I probably would, but would 51% of America?



edit: And I thought it was a flattering picture of Palin. It's certainly not intentionally unflattering, like Pelosi/Hillary. In any case, I was just thrilled to find it. Perfect for my point.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20103
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2017, 04:55:42 PM »
Trudeau and Macron are the current darlings of international politics, despite being political mediocrities (well Macron is, I shouldn't say that about Trudeau because I'm not familiar enough with him). I suppose male candidates face a gender-based scrutiny of their own.

You most certainly can say that about Justin.  He's only the leader of the liberals because of his name; he's only PM because most up here had had enough of with 12 years of the Conservative Party + Stephen Harper had some bad PR/scandals leading up to the election.

He's definitely a "mediocrity" politician.  Listen to any unscripted interview, and count the "uh"s.
Dream Theater Forums: Expanding musical tastes and shrinking wallets since 2009.
Note to forum, jingle is usually right.
I'm actually disappointed he's not Kim Jong-Il

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 755
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #34 on: September 15, 2017, 05:02:42 PM »
If you knew nothing bout their politics, who would you view more favorably?


Maybe I'm in the minority, but the problem I have is that the question doesn't compute.  If the "view more favorably" is in terms of "more favorably for election to a public office, namely the office of POTUS," then it's all about their politics.  I couldn't view one as more favorably than the others unless and until I found out more about their politics.  So I wouldn't even really know how to answer the question. 

And, by the way, none of those pictures are very flattering, including the Palin one.


I think the idea is that sexism is more latent than conscious. I think if you asked this question in a poll the vast majority of Americans would say your second sentence. But in practice that's shown to not really be the case.

I'm not saying you specifically are sexist, but this to me is a lot like recent discussions about bias. No one thinks bias is affecting their decision making. It's way more subtle but is still there for large portions of the public.


edit: And to go full sexist. If I'm 77 and my wife looks like Nancy I'm not complaining. She's older than Bernie and looks pretty good for her age. Hill dog used to actually be pretty attractive in her younger days. Palin hooked up with jocks in college (Glen Rice...). She used to have "Coldest State, Hottest Governor" bumper stickers. Yeah, Nancy and Hill are older. But none of them are actually hideous looking, especially considering their ages. I actually think all 3 are more attractive than the norm you'd get for someone in their ages. (Well, depends on the day for Hill I guess.) Elizabeth Warren is more homely looking and gets even more remarks about being a woman, from what I've seen.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 05:09:22 PM by portnoy311 »