this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2025
713 points (96.1% liked)
Not The Onion
18789 readers
1582 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So she couldn't have won no matter what. You're saying she wasn't a bad candidate, I guess.
She was such a bad candidate that she personally couldn't win no matter how far to the right she went. She might have stood a better chance if she treated the left flank of the party like she actually needed their votes.
Why should she have to play games 'motivating' people who could see she was significantly better than trump? People didn't bother to vote against trump - so they got trump. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Because that's called politics. When you actually care more about winning than about making sure progressives lose, you try to get people to vote for you instead of regarding them with open contempt.
It seems like you are projecting this 'open contempt'. In an ideal democracy, a politician should state their platform and people should select the best one and vote.
She was clearly a better candidate with better policy than trump - and if people saw that they should have voted for her. Saying 'she didn't pander to me enough', or 'wasn't perfectly aligned with my ideals' is stupid in the face of trump as the other option.
Yes, she could have said a bunch of pings - she could have lied and attempted to get votes through a populist approach, and maybe that's what the democrats need to do, as sad as it is. But that's only because too many Americans are stupid and won't vote for the obviously better candidate for ... reasons.
I am saying she could have won if she moved left and promised to improve the material conditions the people she was asking to vote for her.
Moving right does not earn democrats republican votes, it only decreases their own turnout.
How would that have made her win? Her policy, and the history of the Democratic Party in contrast to the republicans is that she would be better for the people. Better is better. It doesn't matter how much really. If people wanted better, they would already vote for her.
Her messaging was "America is already great", her policies were means-tested bullshit that anyone who's gone their entire life not getting help understood wouldn't apply to them. Hillary was the status quo candidate.