IMO, the number one reason Hillary has been demonized for so long, and had high negatives

[NRQ891]

because for 16 years, many have placed the idea as 'inevitable' that she would be the first woman president.

So, if you're an operative on the other side, where do you place your opposition resources? The resources are never unlimited.

Suppose your team says 'we will win the Superbowl, with a pass sometime during the season, from quarterback X to receiver Y'

Guess who the other teams are going to cover?

There should always be a stable of candidates to deploy, with essentially similar policy, ready to go, with spares for issues of personal negatives, and to give the other side a dispersal of targets to deploy resources on. Given all the money spent on an election, and how much there is at stake, there's no reason this can't be done.

That's why this side lost this election, period. (IMO). It was a tactical error above and beyond anything else. A candidate with lower negatives would have won.

[DURHAM D]

1. It goes back way more than 16 years.

They have been watching her since college.

In the mid 70s a young leader of the new conservative movement told me they were watching her. He mentioned her name and I just looked at him. Then he said - Life magazine cover 1969. I just looked at him. Then he said Wellesley grad who spoke at graduation. I finally tumbled.


He explained they were afraid of her because she would emerge as a leader of the women libbers and if the women got their shit together they would take over the government. She had to be stopped.

That young leader went on to be elected to congress and was one of the three people who founded the Heritage Foundation.

[NRQ891]

4. but that only makes my point even moreso

that I think there should be a 'basket of deployables' in *any* professional party's stable, so that the opposition is at best playing 'catch up' in opposition propaganda - even having some as decoys

that's how any football team operates

[DURHAM D]

6. I assume you think all women of substance

should not be on the list.

[NRQ891]

8. i believe that more women than one, have substance

don't you?

[DURHAM D]

9. You are missing the point because

you have an agenda. Do you think it is not obvious?

Read down the thread. We get it.

[NRQ891]

10. I do have an agenda - a more practical perspective about what happened

and how to not have it happen again

[DURHAM D]

11. Who were you before on DU? nt

[NRQ891]

12. 'Who were you before on DU?'

just a multi-generational member of the Democratic party

[DURHAM D]

13. non-responsive

[NRQ891]

16. you asked who I was, before I came on DU

and I answered.

[DURHAM D]

20. No I didn't.

Reading is fundamental.



done

[Arkansas Granny]

2. Hillary has been demonized since she first came to national attention.

The establishment doesn't much care for strong, smart women who are not afraid to speak their mind, so they try to shut them up with bullshit stories and lies.

BTW, the only people I ever heard referring to Hillary as "inevitable" were those on the right who were trying make her appear overconfident and expecting the office to be handed to her.

[BobbyDrake]

15. "Inevitable" was also used by the brocialist movement, for the same reasons.

It was easy to tell who on the left's arguments boiled down to nothing but, "How dare she?"

[still_one]

3. They have been attacking her since 1992 when she introduced her healthcare plan

[tammywammy]

29. Longer than that.

She's been attacked since she showed up in Arkansas and wanted to be Hillary Rodham during Bill's first term as governor.

[still_one]

30. Ture

[boston bean]

5. Like she is responsible for what the right has done to her.

When do people themselves start taking responsibility for what it is they allow themselves to believe and take at face value.

Blaming hillary for this is just par for the course I guess. Hell, if the sun didn't shine tomorrow, someone could find a way to pin that on her to.

[NRQ891]

7. you are missing my point entirely

I'm talking about tactics in a political reality of 'what is', not what 'should be'.

I'm talking about winning vs losing, and there's nothing unethical about what I'm suggesting - it's simple risk management in political reality

[Fast Walker 52]

17. Any Dem would have had a tough time in this climate, and fact is, Hillary had a lot of strong

enthusiastic supporters that other candidates didn't have.

Bernie maybe, maybe not, could have broken through.


I think there was something about Trump that tapped deep into the the Republican lizard brain, and really propelled him.

[NRQ891]

19. Biden would have won hands down

but because of issues with his son he (understandably) wasn't available. Why weren't more Bidens groomed, regardless of their gender?

[Garrett78]

23. Yes, Biden probably would have won. But I have no interest in more "Bidens."

The Democratic Party needs to get more progressive, not less so.

[Raster]

26. Actually I believe Biden did harbor thoughts of running...

... the situation with his son definitely gave him pause; and also the tacit understanding that Secretary Clinton would be running... hint, hint, hint.

[Garrett78]

18. "inextricably tied in the minds of conservative Christians to their loss of the culture war battles"

Probably the best article I've read on why Clinton is so hated by some: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/10/09/the-deep-disgust-for-hillary-clinton-that-drives-so-many-evangelicals-to-support-trump/?utm_term=.a5b7e1721ac0.

The only ones I've ever heard use the language of inevitability (such as "it's her turn&quot are Obama supporters in 2007-2008 and Sanders supporters in 2015-2016, as a strategy to defeat her in the Dem primary. And I say that as someone who isn't a big Clinton fan, though I obviously voted for her this year (there was no alternative).

[NRQ891]

21. 'The only ones I've ever heard use the language of inevitability '

'The only ones I've ever heard use the language of inevitability (such as "it's her turn&quot are Obama supporters in 2007-2008 and Sanders supporters in 2015-2016, '

that's actually a lot of people

[Garrett78]

22. As a strategy to defeat her in the Dem primaries.

But to suggest that's the main reason why she's so disliked is beyond silly. Read the Washington Post article.

[NRQ891]

24. i suggested that she was unliked, because she was a high probable target for GOP to deploy resources

on

[LexVegas]

25. There was a stable of candidates...she whipped them or they were too scared to run. nt

[kydo]

27. No, it's because she doesn't always bake cookies, and she used her maiden name.

This hate on Hillary goes all the way back to like 1978 or so.

It was there the whole time she was First Lady of Arkansas.

It got a trillion times worse when Bill was elected President, thanks to hate radio and print.

It went off the scales when Bill was impeached and faux noise started airing.

Oh sure she was given a little breather from the onslaught of hate while Obama was President. They used what they learned on demeaning Hillary to demean Obama.

So now Hillary was on the verge of becoming what they have always feared since pretty much day one. Hillary was gonna be the next President.

So on comes every hate, and hating on one person you can possibly mustard.

That even wasn't going to be enough. So they rigged it by lots of voter suppression, fake news and the Russians.

And won.

All because she didn't always bake cookies and she used her maiden name. Crazy huh?

[world wide wally]

28. The Clinton Presidency brought about the creation of Fox News (check it out)

All hey did was attack the Clintons to establish their identity and their following. They have never let up.

[radius777]

31. Without Comey/FBI she wins easily.

She won all three debates and had the narrative in the final month, Trump was melting down.

All major prediction models showed her with an easy win.

Then pro-Trump Comey/Rudy/FBI violated the Hatch Act with 11 days to go and threw the race into turmoil, which cost her the race (along with voter suppression and intimdation in key states).

They likely would've done the same to any Democrat (and Biden has been around a long time, with alot of his own baggage) as the pro-Trump forces are driven by white nationalism and other fringe ideologies, and are fanatical in their belief that "this was the last chance to save 'Murica", thus justified in doing anything to install their "saviour" Trump.

[ismnotwasm]

32. Bullshit.

There are several names--they didn't run, didn't put themselves out there. Hillary did.

[Paladin]

33. Those negatives you're bleating about came largely from the right-wing media and politicians.

And in each instance---from Whitewater to Benghazi to the emails---when there was an investigation, the charges against Hillary Clinton were proven to be without any real substance. It's one thing for republicans to smear Democratic candidates---that's to be expected and defended against. It's an entirely different thing for Democrats (or those posing as Democrats) to utilize republican smears to undermine their own candidate. When that happens, we end up with unschooled lunatics in the White House, fingering the nuclear codes and figuring out how many ways they can monetize the presidency.

[Coyotl]

34. Bullshit. It is because she's been an influential Democrat since the Watergate Committee.

The more influential you are, the bigger the target you wear. Republicans think politics is warfare and they attack people as a tactic. They go low.

[mtnsnake]

35. I don't know if that's the only reason she lost, but there is a lot of truth in what you're saying

Trouble is, there are a lot of people who just can't bear to hear the truth. Very interesting premise, though. Well done!