Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
Mon May 23, 2016, 12:59 PM May 2016

Was Hillary's bigger mistake underestimating Sanders' strength or overestimating her own strength?

What evidence is there that she is not in the process of making a parallel error with regard to Trump in preparation for the general election she assumes she will win?

54 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Was Hillary's bigger mistake underestimating Sanders' strength or overestimating her own strength? (Original Post) Attorney in Texas May 2016 OP
She won. She hasn't made a big mistake. nt DURHAM D May 2016 #1
Maybe you were out of the country when Hillary predicted a 50-state sweep, then a 49-state sweep, Attorney in Texas May 2016 #10
Kind of like how Sanders is now saying that he will get a majority of pledged delegates? anotherproletariat May 2016 #22
He is not saying he WILL, but he COULD karynnj May 2016 #31
"he wasn't saying the same things everyone else did" winter is coming May 2016 #33
You can't have a "change election" when you're the incumbent party! ContinentalOp May 2016 #38
Oh? It's impossible to say, "X has done well, but it's time to go further"? winter is coming May 2016 #42
That's not what Sanders is saying. ContinentalOp May 2016 #45
Obama is part of the establishment, not the whole of it. winter is coming May 2016 #47
Obama is the current leader of the Democratic party. ContinentalOp May 2016 #51
I didn't realize the party had evolved to the point where it can't be questioned or improved. winter is coming May 2016 #53
As win is a win, regardless of the spread... except to the petulant. LanternWaste May 2016 #29
What evidence is there that she made a mistake with Sanders at all? randome May 2016 #2
My guesses -- oldandhappy May 2016 #3
I underestimated trump and thought he was done when he said NWCorona May 2016 #4
There's no evidence she did either of those things. n/t Orsino May 2016 #5
She's on track to losing more states than Obama 2008 to a candidate with no Super PAC. Hillary clear Attorney in Texas May 2016 #14
Don't hold a politician to any predictions of electoral success. Orsino May 2016 #18
Not to mention, no big Democrats on his side karynnj May 2016 #34
My biggest concern is that... Else You Are Mad May 2016 #6
She has poor judgement which has been evident throughout her entire career. pdsimdars May 2016 #7
She doesn't even bother with judgement. pangaia May 2016 #27
Very few misteps this time. She's ready. Bring it Trump. BootinUp May 2016 #8
Based on her history judgement is not her strength. gordianot May 2016 #9
No Mistake At All jamese777 May 2016 #11
these numbers mean nothing, all caucus contests had 0 votes at the end. Unless you can litlbilly May 2016 #40
Yes, we can add in the caucus votes, and you're right that changes the 3 million number. ContinentalOp May 2016 #49
She is the nominee. NCTraveler May 2016 #12
You miss that she was suppose to be the inevitable nominee both times karynnj May 2016 #36
I'm not big on inevitable in politics. NCTraveler May 2016 #44
Depends what you count karynnj May 2016 #46
It's really not in doubt that she has been ahead... NCTraveler May 2016 #50
There was no mistake. There's simply a core of people who irrationally hate her. CrowCityDem May 2016 #13
Neither zipplewrath May 2016 #15
Over estimated that the MSM could sell her to the American people. peace13 May 2016 #16
Lol. She won. It's over. On to the General and the White House. Beausoir May 2016 #17
Maybe the primaries are over, maybe not. But, IMO, if Ms. Clinton becomes President, the most ladjf May 2016 #43
Both. (n/t) spin May 2016 #19
Hubris and ego Faux pas May 2016 #20
Both and to those of us not new nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #21
Trump is attacking Hillary, not Sanders. That's "proof" enough. nt procon May 2016 #23
What mistake. She'll win the nomination. MineralMan May 2016 #24
Did she underestimate what would happen in Syria, Iraq or Libya? Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #25
If she beats Trump as badly as she beat Bernie, I'll be very happy. YouDig May 2016 #26
Both AgingAmerican May 2016 #28
Sanders was never a threat to winning the nomination....trump is target beachbumbob May 2016 #30
wow that's quite a stretch... themaguffin May 2016 #32
She obviously overestimated her strength timmymoff May 2016 #35
Considering that she's the presumptive nominee, I think that she's strong enough. Beacool May 2016 #37
With Hillary's unfavorability ratings looking about the same asTrumps, I would B Calm May 2016 #39
Wrong on both counts. So much for her judgement. No evidence. Seeinghope May 2016 #41
Having an higher expectation of Sanders claim to integrity. seabeyond May 2016 #48
The mistake is going to be by those who don't understand what a scorched earth policy is going to be samsingh May 2016 #52
I think she has a good idea of her own (lack of) strength. That's why she bought superdelegates lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #54

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
10. Maybe you were out of the country when Hillary predicted a 50-state sweep, then a 49-state sweep,
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:09 PM
May 2016

then it would be over after South Carolina, then over by Super Tuesday, then over by March 15, etc.

It was a thing.

The primary has been harder for her that she anticipated. Why was her expectation so far off? Dis she underestimate Sanders (probably) and overestimate her own strength (probably), but which was the dominant problem. You cannot fix a problem by denying it exists.

 

anotherproletariat

(1,446 posts)
22. Kind of like how Sanders is now saying that he will get a majority of pledged delegates?
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:46 PM
May 2016

I hate to break it to you, but that is poli-speak...it's what politician do to fire up their supporters. The objective may be a wish of theirs, but politicians are aware of the practicalities.

karynnj

(59,430 posts)
31. He is not saying he WILL, but he COULD
Mon May 23, 2016, 03:27 PM
May 2016

Now, I would say that is not likely, but compared to when he spoke on the beautiful Burlington lakefront and no one thought he would get more than 5% or 10% nationwide --- he has far exceeded expectations. In fact, I doubt anyone thought he would be not mathematically eliminated by May.

I think it is a good question, but one that ultimately has no concrete answer. Everyone could guess, but I can think of no way that one could really make a strong case that it is one not the other.

For instances, my own opinion as a 65 year old liberal living in Vermont was that - in spite of all the good things I ever heard about Bernie - and the more human stories that show he is really not perfect, I had thought that his huge popularity was mostly the second time many wanted to say no thank you to the Clintons. Then I spoke to my youngest, a 25 year woman living in WA. She spoke of how Sanders really inspired her with his vision and the fact that he wasn't saying the same things everyone else did. She went on to caucus for Bernie and was a district and county delegate.

Of her cousins - and I am from a very big family so their are cousins all over the country, there are many Sanders supporters, but some Clinton ones as well. The ones that appear the most personally engaged are the Sanders ones - this in spite of the fact that he never was favored to win. The big question was when, not if, he would lose.

I am worried by the unfavorable numbers and take comfort in the fact that Trump's are higher. I have long wished that some one would poll the people unfavorable to both - and there have to be some because both are over 50 - to see if they could see themselves voting for one or the other. It also mystifies me as I know,that as much as I do not like HRC, I would answer favorable to that question - especially as it usually is more favorable or more unfavorable. I actually did get called once on Bill Clinton back in the impeachment days - I really really was not happy hearing the conversation of the young teens in the car pool I drove and Bill Clinton had been among the candidates I liked least even in 1992 - in spite of all the media hype and puff pieces. Let's just say it was the environment and character issues then. What did I say - favorable. Why, though one answer changed the result either not at all or very little, I wanted the number to be better by the little bit I could do.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
33. "he wasn't saying the same things everyone else did"
Mon May 23, 2016, 03:41 PM
May 2016

This, IMO, is Hillary's biggest problem: she's a conventional candidate in a change election.

Going all the way back to the IWR vote, she's said/done things that should have set her up for an easy victory as a traditional candidate. She's lined up lots of rich donors, made a shit-ton of political alliances, positioned herself as the "pragmatic" candidate.

And while she's been painstakingly setting herself up to be the sort of candidate conventional wisdom would support, the ground has been shifting underneath her feet. Decades' worth of the damage done by pragmatists has come home to roost, and a sizeable chunk of the electorate wants nothing to do with it.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
38. You can't have a "change election" when you're the incumbent party!
Mon May 23, 2016, 04:13 PM
May 2016

Particularly when the president's popularity is so high.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
42. Oh? It's impossible to say, "X has done well, but it's time to go further"?
Mon May 23, 2016, 04:41 PM
May 2016

If so, we're doomed to failure in November.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
45. That's not what Sanders is saying.
Mon May 23, 2016, 05:05 PM
May 2016

He's running against the Democratic establishment (which means Obama) and said he thought Obama should have been primaried in 2012. The problem for him is that over 80% of Democrats approve of the job Obama has been doing and his overall favorability is over 50% right now. The people who want change are in the minority, which is why Sanders is failing.

Clinton is the one who represents "we did well, but it's time to go further." For example by expanding the ACA rather than starting over.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
47. Obama is part of the establishment, not the whole of it.
Mon May 23, 2016, 05:11 PM
May 2016

You can approve of what someone's accomplished and still think a better job could be done. As much as Hillary might wish it, this election isn't about Obama, it's about the political process as a whole. Obama never claimed the ACA was the ultimate solution. It was something of a start, but it's beginning to come apart at the seams. We need to devise a better solution before that happens.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
51. Obama is the current leader of the Democratic party.
Mon May 23, 2016, 05:19 PM
May 2016

Sanders is running on a platform of radically reshaping the party. He came in from the outside and is questioning and suing the party establishment at every turn. My point is that a "revolution" or "change" campaign like that doesn't make sense when you're currently the party in power and when the leader of your party is widely popular. The proof of that is that Sanders is losing badly.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
53. I didn't realize the party had evolved to the point where it can't be questioned or improved.
Mon May 23, 2016, 05:24 PM
May 2016

The notion that Sanders is losing "badly" is ludicrous. In a normal election year, a candidate like Bernie never would have gotten off the ground in the first place. His campaign would have died from a lack of funds and volunteers shortly after New Hampshire. That that hasn't happened--that Bernie's out-fundraised HRC for the last four months--is a strong indication that he's got something a lot of voters really want and Hillary can't/won't/doesn't offer them. If she can't figure out what it is and offer it before November, she won't be President.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
29. As win is a win, regardless of the spread... except to the petulant.
Mon May 23, 2016, 02:54 PM
May 2016

As win is a win, regardless of the spread... except to the petulant.

You cannot redefine words by pretending they mean something else. (six of one, half a dozen of the other-- each as useless and irrelevant as the other)

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
2. What evidence is there that she made a mistake with Sanders at all?
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:02 PM
May 2016

He was an excellent opponent and he lost. Why do you have to see everything in terms of a 'mistake'? I don't get that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

oldandhappy

(6,719 posts)
3. My guesses --
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:02 PM
May 2016

underestimated Sanders
overestimated Bill's pull at this point
and now knows Trump will bash her but thinks she can handle it

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
4. I underestimated trump and thought he was done when he said
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:03 PM
May 2016

That POW's were losers because they got caught.

I quite a few people making the same mistake unfortunately.

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)
14. She's on track to losing more states than Obama 2008 to a candidate with no Super PAC. Hillary clear
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:13 PM
May 2016

did not anticipate this pathway. Why was her prediction so far off?

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
18. Don't hold a politician to any predictions of electoral success.
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:18 PM
May 2016

They all predict wins up until the moment they've lost.

But again, she's rinning for president. We don't know what her real predictions were, and that she met with a challenge doesn't mean any of her estimates were off.

karynnj

(59,430 posts)
34. Not to mention, no big Democrats on his side
Mon May 23, 2016, 03:48 PM
May 2016

Obama had Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, Durbin - all in public. He also had Harry Reid encouraging him privately we learned later.

Admittedly, Sanders did have Ben and Jerry.

Else You Are Mad

(3,040 posts)
6. My biggest concern is that...
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:04 PM
May 2016

The Hillary capaign will suffer from a 'boy who cried wolf' problem. She already has painted Sanders and his supporters as sexist, violent and vile. See, e.g., the Bernie Bro meme. The campaign will inevitably create a Trump Bro meme saying that they are sexist, offensive and vile -- and Trump will call her 'unoriginal Hillary' and say on every Sunday show he calls into and at every rally and debate that she can't even create new attacks.

This will make the average, non politically aware voter believe the above -- even though Trump supporters are the most vocally racist, sexist, and vile supporters of any candidate since the 60s.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
27. She doesn't even bother with judgement.
Mon May 23, 2016, 02:52 PM
May 2016

She just says and does what will be best for her.

My take on her vote on Iraq was she just wanted to be president.

gordianot

(15,220 posts)
9. Based on her history judgement is not her strength.
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:08 PM
May 2016

Listen to her first read you might want to focus on her revision.

jamese777

(546 posts)
11. No Mistake At All
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:10 PM
May 2016

Bernie Sanders is a strong primary election opponent but his ass has been thoroughly kicked.
Primaries' total popular vote as of May 20th
Hillary Clinton: 13,192,713 (55.5%)
Bernie Sanders: 10,158,889 (42.7%)
Donald Trump: 11,266,041

Clinton over Sanders: 3,033,824
Clinton over Trump: 1,926,672
Trump over Sanders: 1,057,152

Hillary Clinton: 1,775 pledged delegates
Bernie Sanders: 1,499 pledged delegates

Hillary Clinton: 522 superdelegates
Bernie Sanders: 42 superdelegates

Hillary Clinton: 2,297 total delegates
Bernie Sanders: 1,541 total delegates

Hillary Clinton: 26 contests won
Bernie Sanders: 21 contests won

Hillary Clinton needs 89 delegates
Bernie Sanders needs 842 delegates

 

litlbilly

(2,227 posts)
40. these numbers mean nothing, all caucus contests had 0 votes at the end. Unless you can
Mon May 23, 2016, 04:21 PM
May 2016

add those somehow, your numbers are bullshit. She is not ahead by 3 mil votes.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
12. She is the nominee.
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:11 PM
May 2016

What mistake are you talking about? There is greater separation now than at the same time in '08.

What was Obamas biggest mistake in his primary? Ohhh. That's right. He won also.

karynnj

(59,430 posts)
36. You miss that she was suppose to be the inevitable nominee both times
Mon May 23, 2016, 04:02 PM
May 2016

In 2008, Obama stunned everyone by not just still being viable on supertuesday, but slightly ahead. That was the day that HRC was expected to be the defacto nominee. The day was designed for her - with 23 contests so no one could personally go everywhere and win people over - and she was known since 1992. It also included many big primaries in states where it was expensive to run and she was already well liked.

Stop a minute and compare this to 2000, a more comparable year with a candidate endorsed by nearly the entire party. Gore ran the table and lost not a single state. Or, if you say that Gore was more entrenched, look at 2004. Kerry, who had fallen out of favor with the Democratic powers that be and needed to loan his campaign money and who had less media support and fewer superdelegates pre Iowa, won all but 4 states - 2 after favorite sons in those states had conceded.

There were mistakes made, but she had plenty of room for mistakes. Her interviews around her book showed she was very rusty compared to 2008. In her book, she chose to distance herself from Obama on foreign policy by speaking of how often she disagreed - always on the more hawkish side. (She cynically corrected this by basically defining herself as with Obama on foreign policy, taking credit for everything in Obama's second term, and saying that Sanders has no experience. ) The question is how many people were listening in 2014 when she was the hawkish HRC.

karynnj

(59,430 posts)
46. Depends what you count
Mon May 23, 2016, 05:09 PM
May 2016

After NH, ehere Bernie won by 20 points and Iowa that HRC won by a fraction of one point, he was ahead in pledged delegates. I hate the fake metric of popular vote that the Clinton supporters in 2008 and this year push, but here Bernie was also ahead especially as Iowa has no popular vote.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
15. Neither
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:15 PM
May 2016

She is what she is. She's never understood the Bernie thing and she won't understand the Trump thing either. People are pissed and they are pissed at people like her. Not much she can do about that. Mostly, she's gotta hope that people don't want Trump more than they don't want her.

 

peace13

(11,076 posts)
16. Over estimated that the MSM could sell her to the American people.
Mon May 23, 2016, 01:15 PM
May 2016

Under estimated the memory of the American people.

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
43. Maybe the primaries are over, maybe not. But, IMO, if Ms. Clinton becomes President, the most
Mon May 23, 2016, 04:49 PM
May 2016

likely change will be the increase of the Clinton Family's net worth and the decreased wealth of everyone
else except for the billionaires. There also might be some very high priced speeches during her term.





MineralMan

(146,062 posts)
24. What mistake. She'll win the nomination.
Mon May 23, 2016, 02:27 PM
May 2016

She'll win in November, too, if we all vote for her. Celebrations will be in order.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
25. Did she underestimate what would happen in Syria, Iraq or Libya?
Mon May 23, 2016, 02:45 PM
May 2016

Did she underestimate what her Iraq vote would do?

Did she underestimate what the consequences of doing her private server thing against national protocols would be?

Did she underestimate Bernie?

Did she underestimate the consequences of all her high paying speeches to Bankster would have?


Underestimate Trump?...............Inconceivable


 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
28. Both
Mon May 23, 2016, 02:53 PM
May 2016

She thought name recognition would give her the nomination after Iowa, and that the DNC's election manipulation with their media allies would sink Sanders campaign.

She was wrong on both counts.

 

beachbumbob

(9,263 posts)
30. Sanders was never a threat to winning the nomination....trump is target
Mon May 23, 2016, 03:09 PM
May 2016

She has been building the case against trump since she was securely in position in becoming our nominee

 

timmymoff

(1,947 posts)
35. She obviously overestimated her strength
Mon May 23, 2016, 03:52 PM
May 2016

She thought everyone would get in line to stop the shit sandwich known as Trump. A person by design to help her coronation, but like always, she miscalculated how her former donor would be received. Now she is hoping everyone wants to get in line for her offal brand. Oh well, she always does this, thinks she knows how we will react and then missed the whole damn thing.

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
39. With Hillary's unfavorability ratings looking about the same asTrumps, I would
Mon May 23, 2016, 04:15 PM
May 2016

say she grossly overestimated her strength!

samsingh

(17,531 posts)
52. The mistake is going to be by those who don't understand what a scorched earth policy is going to be
Mon May 23, 2016, 05:20 PM
May 2016

if those trolls who pretend to be Bernie supporters, but are trump supporters will be screwed by a trump presidency - unless they are in the top .1%.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
54. I think she has a good idea of her own (lack of) strength. That's why she bought superdelegates
Mon May 23, 2016, 05:57 PM
May 2016

... And set up all the money laundering infrastructure with the DNC.

She underestimated Sanders and the intelligence of half of Democrats.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Was Hillary's bigger mist...