←back to thread

184 points praneshp | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
1024core ◴[] No.15752149[source]
Is she planning to run for Governor again?
replies(2): >>15752180 #>>15752267 #
patorjk ◴[] No.15752267[source]
Some people think she may be thinking about running against Trump in 2020 - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/21/kevin-oleary-thinks-meg-whit...
replies(2): >>15752362 #>>15757266 #
junkscience2017 ◴[] No.15752362[source]
Silicon Valley is trending for like-ability about where Wall Street was in 2008. But of course she should run, as should Zuckerberg, Thiel, Altman etc because it would be a hoot watching them go down in flames.
replies(3): >>15752422 #>>15752744 #>>15757618 #
013a ◴[] No.15752744[source]
If Clinton's 9-figure campaign couldn't get a handle on what the average American voter wants from their government, it would be downright hilarious to watch someone from Silicon Valley try. The region is so far out of touch, they aren't even on the same planet.
replies(4): >>15752931 #>>15753285 #>>15753321 #>>15754034 #
dragonwriter ◴[] No.15752931[source]
The problem wasn't Clinton's campaign, it was the candidate; it's amazing that a candidate that widely hated and whose negatives were rock solid from decades of political exposure still managed to get more votes than Trump, who came in with slightly higher negatives, but about whom voters had far less firm opinions.
replies(4): >>15753781 #>>15753997 #>>15754091 #>>15754733 #
starik36 ◴[] No.15754091[source]
The conventional wisdom is that Bernie would have won the general election. I disagree with that - it's wishful thinking. His ideas might be palatable inside the democratic party, but I think he would have hard time pushing his ideas in the states that mattered.
replies(1): >>15754220 #
dragonwriter ◴[] No.15754220[source]
> His ideas might be palatable inside the democratic party, but I think he would have hard time pushing his ideas in the states that mattered

Sanders did better in primaries that allowed people outside the Democratic Party to vote and was throughout the election seasons (and remains, as of the last pollI saw earlier this year) the single most popular national political figure in the country. Every objective indication is that he would have done better than Clinton in “the states that mattered”.

In any case, much as one might prefer policy ideas to be decisive, elections are less about policy ideas and more about soft personal factors than people like to think.

replies(2): >>15754826 #>>15755198 #
1. starik36 ◴[] No.15755198{5}[source]
Will never know. Keep in mind that only 28.5% of voters participated in primaries, so I am not sure the open primaries reasoning holds water. Plus, Trump also won more primaries when they were open. Precisely twice as often. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/22/trumps-big-advantage-open-pr...

Plus, Bernie wasn't attacked because of his policies because HRC's were similar. He would have been in the general election.

replies(1): >>15756947 #
2. dragonwriter ◴[] No.15756947[source]
> Plus, Bernie wasn't attacked because of his policies because HRC's were similar

Yes he was, from the right, by Clinton—that was a key part of Clinton's primary campaign—and, no, they weren't that similar. But I agree that there would have been more focus on policy in a general election campaign with Sanders as the nominee, which would have been bad for Trump.