Hillary: Being a capitalist "Probably" cost me votes in the primary

[Rookie Yinzer]

It's amazing how everything Hillary says gets seized upon as an opportunity to dig up old criticisms, no matter how irrelevant they are.

This.

She keeps these people foaming at the mouth and for what I really don't know.

[RogueBeaver]

No, being corrupt and out of touch did.

There's no doubt that it did.

TBH, you have to be pretty dumb to be a socialist.

[Bidenworth2020]

yes, it did, but it was a tiny factor, and an insult to the people who just believed in bernie's message. It's like Cruz saying "not being a neo-nazi likely cost me votes in the primary".

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Let's also be clear that Bernie being a socialist also cost him votes.

[Sadader]

it’s great that everyone has gathered together here for the 3rd daily Hillary bashing thread, only tangentially related to anything she said.

Her point, while obviously not correct if you take socialist as what it is meant to mean (aka what everyone thinks Communism is), but it is obviously correct in the sense that demsoc voters and organisations like the DSA are not, and were not, totally insignificant in the 2016 primary in driving Sanders’ enthusiasm. It’s more that her language was pro-capitalist, unlike Sanders, who I wouldn’t say today as a politician wants to seize the means of production, but his language is never pro-capitalism in any way (whether you like that or not).

This is all about perspective and the unique American discourse about capitalism v socialism, which is framed by voters to be about things like redistribution, not about the fundamental economic system that we have. So when Clinton says “40% are socialist”, she clearly means demsoc, which wouldn’t be too much of a highball.

[Pandaguineapig]

It had more to do with her being a sociopath, but hey whatever new excuse she can come up with so she doesn't have to blame herself

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is what we all wanted from the beginning, for her to be "authentic" and "honest." Now when she is, people still complain. Hillary can never make anyone happy.

That's not the point.  She's completely delusional, and she's focus on every single one of the thousand paper cuts that did her in as the *reason* she lost, depending on which interview she's given.  Sexism cost her the election?  Democrats were peddling the narrative of "anyone who wouldn't vote for a Black/female/gay/foreign/whatever candidate is voting Republican already" narrative MANY, many years before 2016.  Being a "capitalist" cost her votes in the primary?  So what?  You WON the primary; why do you even care?!  It just comes across as her chastising 40% of her own party.  Trump won in places that "weren't dynamic" and were kind of down and out?  THAT'S YOUR FAULT.  You're the frickin' Democratic nominee for President, stopping in town halls across the country claiming that you're the party that stands up for the little guy and that Republicans only stand up for affluent, White men, and then you turn around and talk about Trump voters like they're these icky undesirables that weren't good enough to vote for you?

The woman, through the most subtle ways (ways that are easy to explain away and defend by her supporters on a case by case basis but start to point to a trend when they're literally all she talks about now) but over and over, gives off the impression that she's an elitist.  Period.  That, predictably, cost her votes that she needed as the nominee of a liberal political party (an ideology that is at least SUPPOSED to stand against elitism and concentrated wealth and power), and now she's bitter about it even though she should have seen it coming from a mile away.  Being a woman cost her votes.  Being a "capitalist" (like every other Democratic nominee ever, BTW) probably cost her some primary votes.  Refusing to be as *racist* as Trump cost her votes (but won her others).  You know what would have EASILY made up the difference?  If she had appeared to genuinely care about the disadvantaged in America.  Did she actually?  How the hell would I know?  Is that unfair that enough voters doubted her authenticity?  Sure, but I think it was unfair that Romney suffered the same problem.  Her job as a politician - and specifically a Democratic one - is to convince voters that she cares about their problems and that she'll be the one to improve their struggling situation.  She failed, pure and simple, and since that is the career she entered by choice, it's a pretty bad look for her to be making excuses.

HagridOfTheDeep is a nauseating Elitist, but at least he's honest about it.  I'll give him props for that.

Hillary is a poser.  Go to video clips of her when she was First Lady of Arkansas and listen to her fake a Southern accent.  (I'm amazed she isn't hammered more over that than she is.)  The problem with being a poser is when you get caught posing, and this has happened to her over and over again.  She really does think she's intrinsically better, and more entitled, than other people, and when politicians can't keep that under control, that's when they have problems.

I'll put it another way:  Donald Trump, rude and crude and loutish Donald Trump, has nowhere near the sense of entitlement Hillary Clinton has.  Trump, despite his many, many personality and character issues, does not believe he has it coming to him; indeed, he believes that he's going to have to fight for everything he gets.   This difference is the reason people seem to be incredibly longsuffering about Trump, but not with Hillary.  Don't argue with me; just look at people in your own lives and consider how you view the folks who are scrappy to a fault and how you view the folks who view themselves as having nothing to prove.

[TPIG]

I have to admit, one of the only times during the 2016 campaign that I found myself cheering on Hillary Clinton was during the October 2015 CNN debate when she extolled the benefits of the free market system, declared "We are not Denmark", and said turning our back on capitalism would be a mistake. To say that her saying things of that vein didn't affect her support among younger, more socialist Democrats is non-nonsensical. Yes, Hillary mainly lost because she was corrupt, cold, and rather unlikeable, but I'd say that in this case, she actually does have a bit of a point.

[Mr. Smith]

Duh, that's what happens when "capitalism" just becomes a word for the laissez-faire, focus-on-the-top results that did few all that many favors and all the demonization of "socialism" loses its stigma as The Cold War is long gone.

Of course, "capitalism" could have been either better defined in a better light, but the DLC Hacks that surrendered to Reaganomics just ran with the "supply-side" definition.

"Supply-side" has done no favors for the young, poor, or urban downtrod at all. So naturally, the word that opposes such things is attractive..especially when it triggers the favored class of said "supply side" economics.

Bush Jr didn't let conservatism fall through the roof as it deserved, he called himself a "compassionate conservative" and managed to keep it going.

Hillary was simply caught in the crossfire of that surrendered thinking. Bernie was not.

[Politician]

Nope, Bernie Sanders is a 'capitalist' too, just one who believes there needs to be a degree of regulation.

[Burke Bro]

Please, go away

[RINO Tom]

Let's also be clear that Bernie being a socialist also cost him votes.

It's almost like a Democrat who didn't have far left economic views but FOCUSED mostly on economic populism, especially in tone, would do quite well!

[Young Conservative]

I mean....obviously. The Democrats are becoming more radical by the day.