Presidential election, 2016

[Warren Dew]

(12-02-2016, 04:39 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-02-2016, 03:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-02-2016, 02:56 PM)Odin Wrote: The problem with your reasoning is that Clinton WAS the moderate.

The reason the left lost was because they thought Clinton was in any way moderate.

No, it's mostly because Clinton sucked in general as a candidate. Poor ability to connect (that's typically something hard wired into a person's brain, they either have it or they don't). Lots of baggage due to association with Slick Willie. Plus other issues (especially when compared with an obvious "knows how to energize and connect with the crowd" sales puke like Trump).

Now, speaking of polity and ideology, it was actually Clinton's perceived associations with corporate people, the Establishment, what have you - in other words, what revolutionaries and other radicals term "the oligarchy" - that also harmed her. In an election where it was all about crowds carrying pitchforks (figuratively speaking), someone as ordinary and milquetoast as Clinton had a serious headwind. Obviously she could not overcome it. It was anything but radicalism / New Left / Far Left ideology that did Clinton in.

You don't have to be radical to be extreme.

I agree that much of Clinton's extremism was in her degree of service to the establishment elites.  The Democrats have been the party of "the oligarchy" for some time - just look how the centers of "the oligarchy", like New  York City, are the bluest of blue.  However, Clinton took sacrificing of the interests of the common man for the benefit of "the oligarchy" to the extreme.