Advertisements

Clarissa's Blog

An academic's opinions on feminism, politics, literature, philosophy, teaching, academia, and a lot more.

Recognizing Mistakes

Sessions went to the border and gave an impassioned speech about narcos. What I don’t get is why it has to be Sessions. Why couldn’t Hillary go there and say that narcos are horrible and bring death and devastation? Good luck getting better results with Hispanic voters without that. 

Unlike many people, I don’t mind recognizing my mistakes. I was wrong when I thought Hillary was a good candidate. She wasn’t. She neglected the most basic things that her campaign needed. I so wanted her to win that I made myself blind to the most obvious things.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

16 thoughts on “Recognizing Mistakes

  1. adrianaurelien on said:

    What’s frustrating is I feel she’s not intrinsically a bad candidate. She’s a skilled debater, very accomplished, and started out hugely popular. But her campaign staff was bad, they didn’t make good strategic decisions and didn’t come up with a message other than “not Trump.” I feel they failed her, but ultimately choosing campaign staff is her responsibility. I didn’t notice because negative campaigning is incredibly effective for me (W Bush and Trump inspired me more than Obama could ever hope to), but other people need to feel “inspired” I guess.

    I’m not even as down on Hillary as you are. I still like her a lot, and while her campaign was flawed I don’t think she was the “worst candidate in history” (I’ve heard that exact phrase used.) I think her loss was largely a symptom of Democrat’s unpopularity and disorganization/incompetence; Hillary’s loss was close in comparison to how Democrats across the nation are getting absolutely creamed. But even people who like her should be able to acknowledge flaws; when we fail, we should always look to see what we could do better next time, rather than repeating the exact same strategy in the future.

    Like

    • That’s precisely what it is, a symptom. It’s not a fluke loss like some people keep insisting. If the Democrats can’t even lock in Hispanics, then we are done for. I’m still hopeful, though. This has got to get better eventually.

      Like

      • “If the Democrats can’t even lock in Hispanics”

        Hispanics don’t really vote in large enough members to be worth courting. If you get them fine, if you don’t then look for a group that turns out in bigger numbers.

        Like

        • It has an enormous symbolic value, though, that Trump got 30% of Hispanics.

          Like

        • Shakti on said:

          Hispanics don’t really vote in large enough members to be worth courting.
          Ok,
          For “not worth courting” or paying attention to, Texas is trying mighty hard to make it difficult to vote. I mean, this all seems quite unneccessary.
          Federal judge rules — again — that Texas voter ID law was passed to intentionally discriminate

          Last July, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law discriminated against Latinos and other minorities but made no ruling on whether it was intended to be discriminatory. It sent the case back down to a district court to reconsider that question. On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos ruled that it was.

          In her ruling, Ramos said the Legislature had rejected changes to the bill that would have made it less discriminatory such as allowing allowing “additional types of photo identification , a more liberal policy on expired documents, easier voter registration procedures, reduced costs for obtaining necessary ID, and more voter education regarding the requirements.”

          Also in wholly unnecessary measures if “they don’t vote anyways”:
          Rebekah Mason suggested closure of DMV offices in majority black counties, report shows

          Governor Robert Bentley’s former top advisor and secret paramour Rebekah Mason led a politically-motivated effort in 2015 to close 31 driver’s license offices in mostly black counties, a move that embarrassed the state and was later reversed.
          …Alabama requires photo ID to vote, meaning that a driver’s license is a key document which allows residents their place at the polls.

          If you want to just let your opponents decide that only the people they appeal to far better than you are can easily vote, and fight with them over those voters go ahead. I still think that’s another great way to lose again though.

          Like

          • While gerrymandering and vote suppression are very real, I also feel that they have become a sort of an excuse for Democrats not to work on coming up with an interesting platform and convincing campaigns. It’s their job to work with the existing situation and TO WIN. I also have a million constraints in my work, but if I stop preparing classes and use the excuse that it’s OK because students are not good enough, resources are limited, and life is hard, nobody will put up with that.

            I’m tired of their excuses. I want them to start delivering.

            Like

            • Shakti on said:

              Well, yes. They need to appeal to people who can vote AND make sure the people they can persuade to vote for them can actually vote. You need both. They’re failing at both. I don’t want to repeat my story of how I almost wasn’t able to vote because of conjunction of REAL ID laws and voting laws requiring ID (and parental “oops”.) I’d be driving around without a current license if I didn’t get a sympathetic DMV worker. The Bernie people shrugged at this story and lost my state by 20 points and then proceeded to whine.
              As a voter, personally, it turns me off to see this kind of attitude from people who yelp about the sky falling and the judicial system, oh please donate your time and money, and then want to bark at me for what: the vote not going their way? For fucking up their grand compromise “coalition” with my inconvenient needs?

              It’s political malpractice.

              Like

  2. ” Why couldn’t Hillary go there and say that narcos are horrible and bring death and devastation?”

    This would imply that recreational drug users (largely democrats when and if they vote) are also partly responsible for the death and destruction the narcos bring. Very uncomfortable. It’s easier to retreat behind the libertarian “drug laws are to blame!” argument while they occasionally indulge in the end product…

    Like

  3. Stringer Bell on said:

    “What’s frustrating is I feel she’s not intrinsically a bad candidate.”

    Hillary 2020!

    I completely disagree with you. Losing elections with all the personal and institutional advantages that she has can only mean she intrinsically is a bad candidate.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “Hillary 2020!”

      • Not even as a joke should this be said. This gave me cold sweats. Jesus, I HOPE she has enough self-awareness not to do that.

      Like

      • adrianaurelien on said:

        Luckily she’s said she intends to never run for office again. It’s time for her to take the Jimmy Carter approach. Sometimes soon all 2016 candidates (ahem) should fade a little bit into the background to make room for new faces.

        Like

        • “It’s time for her to take the Jimmy Carter approach. Sometimes soon all 2016 candidates (ahem) should fade a little bit into the background to make room for new faces.”

          • Including the winner. 🙂

          Like

  4. Stringer Bell on said:

    Speaking of scum, here’s a wife-beating piece of shit who needs to be in jail and then reported. But he’s a rich tech CEO in the bay area, so he gets off easy with reduced charges that’ll have no impact on his immigration status.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/17/silicon-valley-ceo-pleads-no-contest-to-abusing-his-wife-and-is-offered-a-deal-for-less-than-30-days-in-jail.html

    “For ten years, Neha Rastogi says, she was abused by her husband, Abhishek Gattani. But despite her recordings recording some of that abuse, the Santa Clara District Attorney’s office let him plead no contest to offensive touching and felony accessory after the fact and agreed to a deal in which he would serve less than two full weeks in jail.”

    Her statement, which she read out in court.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/17/here-is-the-powerful-statement-a-wife-read-aloud-to-the-court-and-her-abusive-husband.html

    Like

    • Stringer Bell on said:

      “The prosecutor in the case, Assistant District Attorney Steve Fein, described the plea deal to The Daily Beast as a fair outcome, noting that accessory after the fact is also a felony, though not a violent one that would place Gattani at risk of being deported back to his native India.”

      Aww, look how all of a sudden the system has concerns for immigrants now.

      Like

      • ” noting that accessory after the fact is also a felony, though not a violent one that would place Gattani at risk of being deported back to his native India.”

        • Disgusting, absolutely disgusting. I hate it when some rich jerkwad is suddenly a suffering immigrant whenever it’s convenient.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: