One can make a very compelling argument that our current presidential electoral system is anti-democratic and should be changed. One cannot make a very compelling argument that Clinton beat her opponent in the general election. She didn’t. She won the popular vote, and lost the election.
1 Like
Yes, exactly. She won the popular vote. She literally beat her opponent in the election, but her opponent was declared the victor based on the way we count votes.
And that’s what I’m saying. If you’re looking for advice on how to win an election and win debates, going to the people who actually won the popular vote and succeeded in getting the most votes in the election, and thus did by far the most research on their powerful opponent, seems like the best idea I can think of.
2 Likes
I’m sorry, but no, that’s literally not true. Our election is conducted under a set of stupid, archaic rules (the same stupid, archaic rules that will decide who wins the 2020 election). She didn’t win under those stupid archaic rules. She didn’t win the election. The winner of the election was Donald Trump, which is why he’s currently President.
It’s like claiming you won a game of chess because you took way more of your opponents pieces even though they took your king first. The rules are what they are.
As I said in my first post, I don’t bear this guy any ill will, but if using one’s position in the Clinton campaign as an argument from authority makes sense, we should definitely take advice from Mook, Podesta, DWS and the rest of the crew if we’re interested in replicating their results.
1 Like
Oh look, a thread about the upcoming election has turned into yet another rehash of 2016! So very helpful and informative! /s
13 Likes
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it
–Abraham Lincoln (probably)
Yes, I know, as I’m a historian, so please thanks so much for pointing out the importance of history to me, since I was unaware. 
However, I don’t see how yelling past each other about a person who is not in this current election at all helps us. There is a huge difference between ignoring the past (even the recent past) and distracting from what’s happening today. These go nowhere debates about Hilary Clinton have turned into a useless distraction that gets us nowhere.
14 Likes
Of course, it may have been a winking quote, given the nonsense attribution 
Indeed, there is a huge difference between ignoring the past and distracting from what’s happening today. And when the authority of the person being discussed is wholly due to his position in Clinton’s campaign, and default position of many is that Hillary Clinton won the election so we should listen to the people who ran her campaign, I think that falls under the former category. You may disagree, I suspect.
ETA:
I think that assumes some bad faith on BB’s inclusion of Clinton in the title and article that I disagree with.
Hmmm…it’s as though Clinton is mentioned to deliberately derail discussions about the policy proposals of the 2020 candidates. 
9 Likes
That might well be, but the topic is debating tactics, not Clinton losing the presidency.
9 Likes
There’s a difference between cherry picking specific advice for specific tasks and flowing the entire strategy or plan.
I would agree, that replicating the entire Clinton strategy is clearly a bad idea. However, cherry picking specific items for discrete tasks where Clinton did well or has perspective or learned from failures for advise is completely valid.
In this case, it’s advice specifically on debating and NOTHING ELSE. It should be viewed in that context, “how to deal with Trump in a debate” and nothing more. I wouldn’t even consider it advice on if debating is a good or bad idea either, but only about after you’ve already decided there will be a debate. In this context, it’s worth listening too for a perspective.
Likewise, if someone else from Clinton’s campaign offered advice of “we really screwed up X, you should deal with it a different way, we didn’t account for Y”. That would be super helpful advice about that fact that Y is an issue with X that needs to be included in strategy.
Discounting out of hand everyone that was anywhere near the Clinton campaign throws away a lot of useful information.
4 Likes
I don’t think that’s necessarily the assumption here, actually. It is a fact that she won the popular vote. It’s also a fact that there was Russian interference. It’s likewise a fact that, objectively, she gave a much superior actual performance in the debates, but was a candidate with baggage and a woman facing a great deal of ingrained misogyny. Let’s not forget the gerrymandering… The people who worked for her made some mistakes (ignoring the rust belt states was a bad idea, but given the misogyny, it might not have made a difference). That doesn’t mean they might not be able to contribute something useful in a strategy going forward, both what they screwed up and both what they did right. Despite losing the elections, she gave an objectively good debate performance. I likewise suspect that (depending on the candidate) the general election debates might matter more.
Doubly so if they can be objective about what went wrong, rather than doubling down on it.
11 Likes
Completely fair point. And it’s also fair that I was being a tad bit hyperbolic in my original post.
I don’t literally want Podesta, Mook, and DWS launched into the sun never to be heard from again, but I still say it sometimes.
I very much agree with that, but I’m not entirely sure that position is terribly prevalent among that group.
Honest, non-snarky question here: is that how you interpreted the framing of this specific advice? Because to me, it seems much more of the latter than the former.
If you believe it’s bad advice, does it matter about the 2016 election? Do I think it’s decent advice… possibly so, yes. Pointing out how he lies all the time does seem helpful.
But since you continue to not take me seriously, I’ll just bow out of this conversation.
Good day…
4 Likes
The article is about individuals involved in 2016 politics informing the decision making of those in 2020 politics. You can’t really declare 2016 decisions a “derail” in that context.
2 Likes
How about just refusing to debate. Refuse to to do it. It serves no purpose and will not change anyone’s mind. It’s a sideshow and will not inform voters. He will always claim victory even if the nominee wipes the floor with him. And if the Democratic nominee wipes the floor with him, it will only provide fodder and soundbites to distract the electorate from the real issues.
He is an illegitimate president and candidate. Treat him as such. He deserves no respect.
2 Likes
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
– Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon
5 Likes
If you look at my post (without taking my words out of context) I’m talking about the popular vote. Which she garnered more of than her opponent did.
The point here is not to rehash the past. That’s done.
The point is that the person who won the popular vote did a great deal of research on her opponent, which some people think is irrelevant, and I am disagreeing with that very strongly.
I don’t know if that tactic has ever really worked as a counter to a Gish Gallop of lies. I hope it can, but Trump can lie way, way faster than anyone can tell the truth. And people tend to repeat the Trump lie when trying to counter it, so the claim by trump still often wins because we tend to remember what we here most, forgetting the negation. (This is why it’s so dangerous for the news media to quote lying trump tweets, especially in their headlines. They are spreading the lies like an infectious virus. We need infection control for Trump lies.)
My solution would be to provide chairs for the debaters, and make sure Trump’s is a high chair with a plastic tray.
Give him a hamberder, and some ketchup, and let him smear it around to keep him occupied when it’s your turn to speak.
5 Likes
