Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
right. hillary was a shit candidate, let's face it. i was against her vs. obama. this time i supported her because it was she or bernie and i think bernie was too pie in the sky to win (he'd have been branded a red) and hillary had presumed appeal to the working class-- but she didn't. she gored herself. liberal elite bla bla bla. had to keep speaking in long complex sentences for fucks sakes.
anyway look at this--- haaa ahaaa haaaahaaaaa
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory
basically obamacare can't be thrown out (i did read your extensive thing about medical billing changes btw) but perhaps the repukes can fix it since they have all branches of government at their disposal
a few things i wouldn't mind seeing:
--competition across state lines. i can't get freelancers union in NM. stupid. destroy the cartels.
--expanded medicaid and guaranteed for the year for those who get it
--option for catastrophic health insurance + HSAs for healthy people (yours truly). after obamacare those became unavailable to me
--some other way to lower costs. don't know what this could be. |
I disagree that she was a shit candidate. I think she was a prime hunk of candidate rib, but she allowed herself to be exposed to air for too long and started to color. She didn't run a very good campaign at any point, I'll say that. But I've already made it clear that I've been supportive of HRC since the '90s, and I've voted for her thrice now. I think she's an excellent and competent leader, but she didn't make the right choices and she underestimated within-group class resentment.
In many ways, I think Hillary was the candidate all along, in many people's minds. Where do you go from having a black male president? "Pie-in-the-Sky" logic dictates that you go one step further, to a female president. Many MANY people wanted to see this happen (or at least claimed to), and over the past 8 years I've asked a number of folks who they thought was a logical choice to fill this role. Hillary Clinton was the only name I heard in response until recently (couple mentioned Warren).
What could she have done differently? Aside from what I've outline already?
She and Bernie both could have handled the primaries differently. I was worried a year ago at the level of animosity between Democrat factions in the early days. It presented us as a fractured, weak party. It also made vying for the presidency look like a power grab, turned attention away from the voters and what they wanted. Made Dems look Republican. Bernie didn't help this. Not a bit.
If either one of them had stopped to look at the big picture and consider what was best for the party, they would have been in this together right out of the gate. Bernie as a VP pick sounded silly to so many, but it actually would have made the most sense from a demographic perspective. Would have perhaps resored a bit of legitimacy to the DNC process.
But ultimately, the odds were always against the Dems. Statistically, historically, and nobody--NOBODY should have ever assumed that Hillary would win, and acted based on that assumption.