I probably shouldn't go here now but this gets me going. This tweet:
"The most amazing thing about this election is that both Clinton and Trump are probably the only opponent that the other could ever beat."
https://twitter.com/tinyrevolution/status/757345803191156736
This is a narrative that's out there, I've noticed. It's almost like even if she wins the Hillary haters are going to somehow act like she was just lucky to have such a horrible opponent, and even then, 'she barely won.'
"The most amazing thing about this election is that both Clinton and Trump are probably the only opponent that the other could ever beat."
https://twitter.com/tinyrevolution/status/757345803191156736
This is a narrative that's out there, I've noticed. It's almost like even if she wins the Hillary haters are going to somehow act like she was just lucky to have such a horrible opponent, and even then, 'she barely won.'
In other words, even then her legitimacy will be questioned.
This is driven by the same old false equivalence in the Beltway. We can't say Trump is horrible without saying that Hillary is almost as bad even though that's not even almost true.
I touched on this in my last post.
"People agree that Obama is a once in a lifetime politician. So if that's true, then Hillary pushing him to the absolute wire, getting more popular vote than he, with 18 million votes is no small feat."
"If she were really a bad politician why didn't she fall on her face in 2008 whatever her ambitions like, say Joe Biden did in 1988 and 2008?"
"Now she beat Bernie Sanders by 4 million votes. I note that the Beltway narrative on this seems to be that she got lucky somehow. Against another, better politician, they seem to presume, Bernie would not have gotten 2 percent."
"This is wrong. I don't agree that the Bernie Sanders challenge was easy to defeat at all. There is clearly a large constituency for that sort of leftist populism. She beat him by double digits."
"Who was the mainstream Center Left Democrat who would have done better against Bernie? He did not get all that support simply because they were anti Hillary."
"The hunger for a Bernie like campaign was apparent to me in 2012 over at Jane Hamsher's old Firedoglake website."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/07/real-change-is-hard-and-some-say-its.html
Basically if you want to say she's weak, explain all her electoral success. She won two double digit wins for NY Senate. She pushed Obama to the absolute brink. If she is weak then she should have melted down after Iowa like John Edwards did.
Like in 2016 what would these boobirds expect a very good politician to do? Would they have beaten Bernie 96-4?
Like who? Name me the Center Left establishment candidate who would have done that? There's no one in the current field who could have. Bernie clearly has a real constituency. In retrospect we may be more impressed that she was able to stop him in his tracks with a double digit win and a 4 million vote plurality.
Now with Trump there again seems to be absurd expectations. Hillary has always been covered differently than other candidates. She is never judged against her opponent but against the All Mighty.
Apparently, she's expected to beat Trump by 50 points or she's a 'weak candidate.' We hear Marco Rubio is a strong candidate who would have beaten her in a landslide.
Sure, the same guy who lost by almost 20 points to Trump in his own home state and was reduced to a stammering robot in NH. He obviously is a strong politician with no flaws.
Hillary is certainly doing better vs. Trump than Little Marco did. Yet, somehow, she's the flawed candidate.
She can supposedly beat no one except Trump. I guess they forget what she did to Bernie.
In saying Trump is the only candidate she could possibly beat, are these Beltway pundits saying she couldn't beat Jeb? Jeb couldn't even get beyond his last name.
Ted Cruz? Ok, she could beat Ted Cruz.
As for Trump, let's see where this race is in two weeks to start saying exactly how close it will or won't be.
Even a skeptic like Ezra Klein now admits the truth: Hillary is a very talented politician.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11879728/hillary-clinton-wins-nomination
This is driven by the same old false equivalence in the Beltway. We can't say Trump is horrible without saying that Hillary is almost as bad even though that's not even almost true.
I touched on this in my last post.
"People agree that Obama is a once in a lifetime politician. So if that's true, then Hillary pushing him to the absolute wire, getting more popular vote than he, with 18 million votes is no small feat."
"If she were really a bad politician why didn't she fall on her face in 2008 whatever her ambitions like, say Joe Biden did in 1988 and 2008?"
"Now she beat Bernie Sanders by 4 million votes. I note that the Beltway narrative on this seems to be that she got lucky somehow. Against another, better politician, they seem to presume, Bernie would not have gotten 2 percent."
"This is wrong. I don't agree that the Bernie Sanders challenge was easy to defeat at all. There is clearly a large constituency for that sort of leftist populism. She beat him by double digits."
"Who was the mainstream Center Left Democrat who would have done better against Bernie? He did not get all that support simply because they were anti Hillary."
"The hunger for a Bernie like campaign was apparent to me in 2012 over at Jane Hamsher's old Firedoglake website."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/07/real-change-is-hard-and-some-say-its.html
Basically if you want to say she's weak, explain all her electoral success. She won two double digit wins for NY Senate. She pushed Obama to the absolute brink. If she is weak then she should have melted down after Iowa like John Edwards did.
Like in 2016 what would these boobirds expect a very good politician to do? Would they have beaten Bernie 96-4?
Like who? Name me the Center Left establishment candidate who would have done that? There's no one in the current field who could have. Bernie clearly has a real constituency. In retrospect we may be more impressed that she was able to stop him in his tracks with a double digit win and a 4 million vote plurality.
Now with Trump there again seems to be absurd expectations. Hillary has always been covered differently than other candidates. She is never judged against her opponent but against the All Mighty.
Apparently, she's expected to beat Trump by 50 points or she's a 'weak candidate.' We hear Marco Rubio is a strong candidate who would have beaten her in a landslide.
Sure, the same guy who lost by almost 20 points to Trump in his own home state and was reduced to a stammering robot in NH. He obviously is a strong politician with no flaws.
Hillary is certainly doing better vs. Trump than Little Marco did. Yet, somehow, she's the flawed candidate.
She can supposedly beat no one except Trump. I guess they forget what she did to Bernie.
In saying Trump is the only candidate she could possibly beat, are these Beltway pundits saying she couldn't beat Jeb? Jeb couldn't even get beyond his last name.
Ted Cruz? Ok, she could beat Ted Cruz.
As for Trump, let's see where this race is in two weeks to start saying exactly how close it will or won't be.
Even a skeptic like Ezra Klein now admits the truth: Hillary is a very talented politician.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11879728/hillary-clinton-wins-nomination
No comments:
Post a Comment