Anthony Kennedy

[pondwater]

When a criminal gang robs a bank, you should spend less time blaming the bank teller, the manager, or the security guard, and more time blaming the robbers.

Are you referring to the Clinton crime family? LMFAO.....

[CF DolFan]

Is there a point where Democrats ever admit they had a bad candidate? I mean seriously ... she lost a rigged election against an over the top reality tv business guy.  It shouldn't have even been close. 

I think the Democratic party needs to move right and get closer to the middle in order to succeed. They let the extreme make the talking points and it makes them look crazy to middle America and independents. Wearing pussy hats, getting naked, dressing in black with masks and having your pussy scream at Trump doesn't even excite the base. It only pumps up the extreme leftist.  They need a Bill Clinton in the worst way.

[masterfins]

Hillary was the most popular politician in the country in January 2013, and in 2008 gathered more primary votes than any candidate in history that didn't win the primary.  These are normally signs of an extremely strong candidate.

If you're saying that we should have known the press would treat e-mail account management as a critical campaign issue when a) they didn't before 2015 and b) they don't now when even worse stuff is going on, you are engaging in pure hindsight quarterbacking.  There was no "better candidate" for the Democrats in 2016.  And to say that Democrats "ran" Hillary, in some sort of passive party-bosses-decide sense, is also misleading; Hillary was the Democratic nominee because more people (a LOT more) voted for her than anyone else in the primary.  Who do you think would have gotten more votes than Hillary in the primary... Joe Biden?  John Edwards?  Howard Dean?

The fault does not lie with Democrats or Hillary Clinton.  The fault lies with Mitch McConnell for refusing to hold hearings on Merrick Garland; with James Comey for violating the most serious policies and laws when it comes to law enforcement interfering with an election; with Paul Ryan (and Mitch McConnell) for refusing to come forward about the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in our elections; and with Donald Trump for (allowing his campaign to participate in?) colluding with a foreign power to affect an election.

My god, I knew you were a far left liberal, but I didn't think you were delusional until this post.  I'm a life long Democrat, more middle of the road, and I didn't vote for Hillary, and it had nothing to do with the e-mail fiasco that she brought upon herself.  The election against Trump was rigged for her from the time that the democrats chose Obama over her.  Did you ever think to ask yourself why she had no real full fledged democratic opponents against her in the primary, whereas the republicans had so many that they had to hold two debates on the same night because they had so many candidates?  Did you ever ask yourself why when Trump held a rally there were lines around stadiums to get in, whereas the only way Hillary could fill a stadium was to invite Beyoncé to sing?  You talk about Trump somehow profiting off of foreign governments, while the Clinton Foundation refused to stop taking in millions and millions of dollars from foreign countries, until after the election supposedly.  If Hillary was such a great vote getter in 2008 why wasn't she the parties' nominee?  I actually would have voted for her in 2008.  The only people to blame for Hillary's loss are Hillary and the people she surrounded herself with to advise her, heck her husband actually had some gaffes against her during the election.

[Spider-Dan]

Is there a point where Democrats ever admit they had a bad candidate?

[...]

They need a Bill Clinton in the worst way.

So Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate, and the Democrats desperately need another Bill Clinton?
You can't make this stuff up.

To answer your question: Kerry was a bad candidate.

[CF DolFan]

So Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate, and the Democrats desperately need another Bill Clinton?
You can't make this stuff up.

To answer your question: Kerry was a bad candidate.

By the time she ran she was no Bill Clinton. Bill is likable and made you feel like you could trust him. I think the whole "Don't ask Don't tell" was great for appealing to the most people which is what I think a politician should be doing.  Hillary is cold and has too much baggage at this point. She is no 1992 Bill Clinton.   For the record ... Bill Clinton is no 1992 Bill Clinton either.

[Spider-Dan]

Did you ever think to ask yourself why she had no real full fledged democratic opponents against her in the primary, whereas the republicans had so many that they had to hold two debates on the same night because they had so many candidates?

Because at the start of the 2016 cycle, the most popular politician in the country was a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state who had gotten over 17 million votes in the last Democratic presidential primary, and everyone (correctly) presumed that it would be virtually impossible to get more votes than her in the primary.

Meanwhile, the GOP field had no dominant candidates. Their field was extremely wide but shallow; so shallow, in fact, that a reality show host with no political experience joined in summer 2015 and absolutely stomped everyone in the primary, dominating wire-to-wire.

Did you ever ask yourself why when Trump held a rally there were lines around stadiums to get in, whereas the only way Hillary could fill a stadium was to invite Beyoncé to sing?

Romney and Bernie also had huge rallies.  Rallies are not votes.

If Hillary was such a great vote getter in 2008 why wasn't she the parties' nominee?

Because she lost to a guy that went on to win two terms?

I have no interest in comparing personal profiteering to charity work, so you'll have to find another person to listen to conspiracy theories about the Clinton Foundation.  Unlike Trump's transparently corrupt "charity" used as a money laundering front to evade taxes, the Clinton Foundation actually has a record of helping people in need.

[SCFinfan]

Now you are going into name calling. You can think of me what you will. I won't call you stupid because I know better but you better believe that I feel you are one of the most ignorant  members of our board. I hope you enjoy that work of fiction that you have guiding your life.

[Spider-Dan]

I would also like to address this point:

I mean seriously ... she lost a rigged election against an over the top reality tv business guy.  It shouldn't have even been close.

Trump absolutely obliterated the entire Republican primary field.  Every Republican with even the slightest shine was in that primary, and none of them even got CLOSE to Trump.  So what is the basis for this theory that Trump should have been easily defeated?

Trump speaks to everything today's GOP stands for.  He is the living embodiment of the will of the Republican base: he doesn't really care about getting the government out of healthcare (he flip-flops between promising to expand Medicare and repealing Obamacare), he doesn't really care about tax rates (he flip-flops between promising to raise taxes on the rich and lowering them), he doesn't care about the deficit.

The only things he cares about - the only things he has been consistent on - are racism, xenophobia, and owning the libs.  This is why the base loves him: he says what everyone is thinking without caring about the backlash.  And his base honestly believes everyone is thinking that Mexicans are criminals and we need to ban Muslims from this country... but people are just too afraid to say it.  This is just another manifestation of the right's war against "political correctness": they want to be able to say despicable things without all that criticism that they receive when they say them.  So if I say that homosexuals are an immoral blight on our society, I'm just exercising my constitutional right of free speech, but if you use YOUR right of free speech to criticize me for saying such a thing, you're oppressing me!  Free speech for me, but not for thee.

And just think: with Anthony Kennedy's retirement, soon the conservatives can correct that heinously-decided Lawrence vs. Texas that legalized homosexuality in America, along with Obergefell vs. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage.  Remember, both of those were 5-4 cases in which Kennedy was the swing vote.

[Phishfan]

Hillary was the most popular politician in the country in January 2013, and in 2008 gathered more primary votes than any candidate in history that didn't win the primary.  These are normally signs of an extremely strong candidate.

If you're saying that we should have known the press would treat e-mail account management as a critical campaign issue when a) they didn't before 2015 and b) they don't now when even worse stuff is going on, you are engaging in pure hindsight quarterbacking.  There was no "better candidate" for the Democrats in 2016.  And to say that Democrats "ran" Hillary, in some sort of passive party-bosses-decide sense, is also misleading; Hillary was the Democratic nominee because more people (a LOT more) voted for her than anyone else in the primary.  Who do you think would have gotten more votes than Hillary in the primary... Joe Biden?  John Edwards?  Howard Dean?

The fault does not lie with Democrats or Hillary Clinton.  The fault lies with Mitch McConnell for refusing to hold hearings on Merrick Garland; with James Comey for violating the most serious policies and laws when it comes to law enforcement interfering with an election; with Paul Ryan (and Mitch McConnell) for refusing to come forward about the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in our elections; and with Donald Trump for (allowing his campaign to participate in?) colluding with a foreign power to affect an election.

When a criminal gang robs a bank, you should spend less time blaming the bank teller, the manager, or the security guard, and more time blaming the robbers.

Primary votes do not equate to general election wins. Hillary had no message to a large portion of blue collar America, which always carried the Democrats. Until someone speaks to that group from the Democrats we are going to be forced into another four years of Trump and his judicial picks. Long game importance. Until the focus gets there they are going to keep losing.

[Spider-Dan]

Phishfan, what "message to blue collar America" do you believe was present in the Obama and/or Trump campaigns, but missing from the Hillary campaign?

[Phishfan]

I think the message needs to be customized to your audience. I personally hate the coal industry and it's barons but you can't go into WV and tell a pool of voters that are already struggling that you are going to put more of them out of work. The message should be about how there will be a drive to create training and bringing of other industry into an area. Blue collar families aren't concerned with hearing about academia and elitism. They are concerned about infrastructure and dependable jobs. The Clinton message did not resonate with them. I can't speak for all of them but it is pretty clear she had trouble connecting with them. I can't tell you how many people admitted voting against a candidate rather than for one in that election. If she really was the best to be offered then we really are in deep shit because a lot of liberal leaning voters didn't like her from the jump. Aside from the messaging, we were clearly in an environment where people were asking for a change and Democratic leadership ignored that and offered up a name we had been familiar with for over a decade. It was tone deaf decision making.

[Spider-Dan]

I personally hate the coal industry and it's barons but you can't go into WV and tell a pool of voters that are already struggling that you are going to put more of them out of work. The message should be about how there will be a drive to create training and bringing of other industry into an area.

Full, direct quote in context:

"So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?  And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.  Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on."

That was not a message about academia and elitism.  She recognized that coal jobs need to go away, but planned to replace them with clean energy jobs instead.  Now, I'm receptive to the position that it is bad political strategy to be honest about that; you could just lie and tell them "We're going to bring back coal, we're going to bring back all the jobs you had before, the steel foundries will be running again like the 1950s, everything will be great again."  I don't think that strategy works long term, but reasonable people can disagree.

Furthermore, if you're approaching it from a position like CF and saying that Hillary needed to run further to the right, fine; I disagree with that suggestion, but it's at least ideologically consistent.  But I have the feeling that's not what you're saying, in which case I don't think your problem is solvable through candidate strategy.  Hillary had the most progressive general election platform in the history of the Democratic Party, so I'm not sure there is support for the idea that she didn't listen to her base.  And she also had some of the most detailed policy positions of any candidate ever, not that anyone would know that, because of media coverage like this (from 5/15 to 11/16):



That's not to say that I think it's wrong for the media to give more coverage to more important issues.  But best security practices in e-mail account management is not an important issue.  It wasn't before 2015, and it hasn't been since 2017 (even though the Trump Administration is far worse than Hillary ever was in this matter).  The media gave outsized coverage to Hillary's e-mails for the same reason they covered the Clinton Foundation more than the Trump Foundation: they all assumed that Hillary was going to win easily, and so they felt they would get a head start on insulating themselves from "liberal media" criticism to come by obsessing over any minor Clinton scandal they could find.

Aside from the messaging, we were clearly in an environment where people were asking for a change and Democratic leadership ignored that and offered up a name we had been familiar with for over a decade.

I don't know what "Democratic leadership" means in this context.  Hillary got the most votes in the primary, and it wasn't close.  Should "Democratic leadership" have cast her to the side and installed... a guy that's been in Congress for a quarter-century?  Or maybe the Vice President with two failed presidential campaigns himself?  Perhaps the mayor from The Wire?

I mean, for whatever you want to say in hindsight today about the 2016 election, if the Democrats had nominated anyone BUT Hillary and lost the 2016 general, the overwhelming perspective now would be "The Democrats had a politician who barely lost the 2008 primary to a guy that then comfortably won 2 terms, and they chose NOT to run her?  How stupid can you be?"

[Phishfan]

You asked what message was missing and I really gave too complicated of a response before, as simple as it was. Hope was the message that was missing. As terrible as it is, the voters I am describing had no way to relate to Hillary Clinton. They have a different thought process. You provided the full quote but to expect that crowd to hear anything other than (paraphrase) "putting coal miners out of work" is a tough sell with her delivering the message. She may not have given a speech on academia and elitism but her inability to read the audience and relate to them is what I meant. People are looking for something different on top of policy anymore. Clinton and Obama had some serious swagger. I will even give GWB credit as having enough charisma that I would like to cook out and have a beer with him. Hillary had nothing that caused a connection for too many people.

[Spider-Dan]

You provided the full quote but to expect that crowd to hear anything other than (paraphrase) "putting coal miners out of work" is a tough sell with her delivering the message.

I think the overwhelming majority of people who "heard" that were only hearing what was being reported, which goes back to what I was just saying about the media's focus on scandal and horserace politics over substance.  This isn't something like Romney's secret "47 percent of Americans are moochers" video, or even Obama's "bitter clingers to God and guns" comment.  Those are statements that are intended to dismiss a group of people, even in context.  (You could put Hillary's "basket of deplorables" statement in the same category.)

But it's clear that her statement about putting coal miners out of work was not even remotely an attack on workers, yet it was reported as such (when it was even reported at all).  Her policy positions simply weren't covered by the media in 2016, so it doesn't make sense to criticize Hillary for that.  No one cared what her policy positions were.

People are looking for something different on top of policy anymore. Clinton and Obama had some serious swagger. I will even give GWB credit as having enough charisma that I would like to cook out and have a beer with him. Hillary had nothing that caused a connection for too many people.

In that case, I guess I can only repeat what I just said: I don't think the problem you cite is solvable through candidate strategy.  If you want to chalk it up as "she couldn't connect with the voters," then fine.  However, I would like to point out that she seemed to do a pretty good job of connecting with the voters in coal country 8 years prior, when she was running in the primary against a black guy.

[Dolphster]

The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret Constitutional Law and apply it as it pertains to current, modern day legal matters.  Their rulings should be apolitical.  They clearly are not.  Conservative justices interpret with a decidedly conservative viewpoint and liberal justices interpret with a decidedly liberal viewpoint.  That is not the way their job is supposed to work.  Their decisions are supposed to be made as an unbiased ruling as to the Constitution and how it applies to specific cases.  Instead, on every single issue, conservative justices make their decisions based on their own political bias and liberal justices make their decisions based on their ow political bias. 

They are no different than Congress who votes almost 100% of the time based on their party lines as opposed to the merit of any particular proposed legislation.  Whether it is good for the country or not is a secondary or even tertiary concern for both politicians and the Supreme Court.