• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    I mean she could have spent a weekend in Michigan. That was an unforced error.

    She could have addressed her relationship with Goldman Sachs, and all the other banks that fucked over the entirety of the American people during the housing crisis that she earned millions upon millions giving “speeches” to.

    She could have made an olive branch to the progressive caucus.

    She could have not said “Sit down and shut up” to BLM activists.

    There are a lot of things she could have done.

    • lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 month ago

      Or, like, hear me out, the Democrats could have not nominated her and nominated someone who isn’t strongly disliked by both sides.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think she would’ve won regardless of everything else, but it would’ve been closer. Really the mistake from the primaries is that she didn’t really try to incorporate any of Bernie’s ideas into her platform, or even work with him at all. She treated him as an opponent and obstacle, not as a rival and peer.

        This is where Biden was successful however – he didn’t dismiss Bernie nor his platform ideas. He did incorporate some into presidency, most obviously the climate change policies and student debt forgiveness where possible.

        And where I sincerely believe this difference came down to – Biden was friendly to Bernie in the Senate and made an effort to be friendly colleagues, if not work friends. Clinton didn’t. It shows the power of cooperation allying together with progressives, instead of allying together with “moderate” Republicans.

        • dudinax@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Maybe, but it happened right before the election. I observed noticeable shift in attitude. That’s not good evidence, I know, but Clinton’s polls which had been steady, took a 3% dip at the time and stayed down through election day.

          People talked about the polls being off compared to the election, but the election matched the post-Comey polls pretty well. It’s only the polls that mixed pre-Comey data that were too high for Clinton.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      There were a lot of factors at play in 2016, and the margin was tiny. She had a lot of factors under her control that could’ve led to victory.