Hillary's loss is a triumph of arrogance and poor strategy. She got outflanked by a buffoon.
Hillary's loss is a triumph of arrogance and poor strategy. She got outflanked by a buffoon.Hillary lost against the greatest campaign of lies & deceptions of the modern era. Trump's win is a triumph of propaganda.
The Republican party lost 6 House seats.What facts. The irrelevant popular vote win that I am sure we will be hearing about ad nauseum for the next four years?
Hillary's loss is a triumph of arrogance and poor strategy. She got outflanked by a buffoon.
You can't accuse me of moving the goal posts when you dont even understand the rules of the game.The Republican party lost 6 House seats.
The Republican party lost 2-3 Senate seats.
Hillary Clinton received 2.5 million more votes than Strongman Trump... Strongman Trump received the most votes as a Republican candidate ever.
Those facts. Champ.
But keep moving those goalposts.
It was a total Republican rout!
Imagine if you nominated a candidate not so easily vulnerable to such attacks. Obama was able to deflect the birtherism bullshit quite easily. It was a distraction but it never derailed him. The only people who bought into it never had a seat at the adults table, yet ironically its leader is now President-elect.Hardly. The Repubs were running their email scam, their "can't trust Hillary" scam, long before Trump was nominated. They've also been softening people's brains with serial trainloads of bullshit from Vince Foster to Ben-fucking-ghazi. They got a lot of help from foreign actors in the form of hacked emails & fake or exaggerated news. James Comey beat the last nail into her coffin.
Trump? He doesn't look like a buffoon to his voters. It's like this-
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...e4a-ab43-f4587adc9efb/56d0eacf3267c.image.jpg
Quit trying to claim it's some sort of rational phenomenon. It's not. It's a trance like state of delirium. It's culture warrior branding.
In objective reality, political propaganda is astonishingly effective in winning elections, as demonstrated by this so-called worst candidate in modern history.In objective reality the Democrats lost an election to the worst candidate in modern history for exhibiting similar denial
Do you think Obama could have beat Trump?In objective reality, political propaganda is astonishingly effective in winning elections, as demonstrated by this so-called worst candidate in modern history.
I mean, cmon, there are still millions of Americans who sincerely believe bullshit like Hillary sold America's uranium to Russia for personal profit, or that Hillary was the Wall Street candidate while Trump fills his cabinet with GS executives.
Impossible to say, but Trump chose not to make a full-fledged run at it in 2012, so I think that speaks for itself. And even winning the popular vote, Hillary still got less votes than Obama did in 08 and 12, especially in key electoral states, so I guess that's my answer.Do you think Obama could have beat Trump.
So, not only do you continue to ignore that Republicans lost House and Senate seats, in addition to the "worst candidate in history" squeaking out an EC victory after losing the popular vote HARD, but you're still trying trying to argue that Democrats should listen to Republicans and their very very concerned tone.You can't accuse me of moving the goal posts when you dont even understand the rules of the game.
The Republicans seem absolutely devastated that they now have the opportunity to dismantle Obamacare and set the direction of the SCOTUS for a generation. Those 2.5M votes and seats are absolutely meaningless given the sweeping power Republicans now wield both at a federal and state level.
After depression you are supposed to advance to acceptance, not revert back to denial.
Imagine if you nominated a candidate not so easily vulnerable to such attacks. Obama was able to deflect the birtherism bullshit quite easily. It was a distraction but it never derailed him. The only people who bought into it never had a seat at the adults table, yet ironically its leader is now President-elect.
Eventually you will come to understand that Clinton was the absolutely worst candidate to field in an election year of populism.
Obama, had he been able to run, would have beaten Trump, hell, a ham sandwich could have beaten Trump.
Hillary was just too polarizing, plain and simple.
I am not ignoring it. I am considering and dismissing it. Would have could have should have...but didn't.So, not only do you continue to ignore that Republicans lost House and Senate seats, in addition to the "worst candidate in history" squeaking out an EC victory after losing the popular vote HARD, but you're still trying trying to argue that Democrats should listen to Republicans and their very very concerned tone.
Protip: if Trump was "the worst candidate in history", than all the Democratic party had to do was run a decent candidate, and they obviously would have won the EC. And they would have won even more popular votes, and as many/more House seats, and as many/more Senate seats.
Which means that the Democratic party needs to learn not to run,uh, Hillary Clinton ever again.
You're oh so concerned that Republicans are going to dismantle X, Y, and Z because they now have the White House. Well, that's what a minority of voters want, so that's what the majority of voters are going to get. That's the extent to how much the Republican concern choir matters to anyone who lives here in objective, observable reality.
Running up the score in safe harbor states is not an indication of anything. Kind of like winning states during the primaries that she had no hope of carrying in the general.That's why she won the popular vote, obviously.
Running up the score in safe harbor states is not an indication of anything. Kind of like winning states during the primaries that she had no hope of carrying in the general.
The electoral college is a rather large technicality. One she overlooked.She got more votes than any candidate in history & lost the election on the basis of technicalities. That doesn't make her a bad candidate. Quite the contrary.
The electoral college is a rather large technicality. One she overlooked.
Last I checked, Obama still received the most votes in history.
You've got to give Trump credit for knowing his audience. He didn't preside over a popular reality show for years w/o learning what the mass tv audience wanted and expected. He also learned what they did and didnt' care about. And the most important thing he learned was that reality was fungible and ultimately, didn't really matter.You're right about Obama. My mistake.
Give Trump & the Repubs their due. It was a masterful exercise in lies & distortions, tuned to bring the culture warriors to the polls in droves while unfairly discrediting Clinton. Going on about Hillary being a "bad candidate" just obfuscates the awful truth of that.
Thank you for being honest on the data. Where we will have to agree to disagree is on how masterful Trump was, as I think even the GOP is still in shock that he pulled off such a decisive electoral win. I am still in shock. He pulled off a hail mary pass more than anything.You're right about Obama. My mistake.
Give Trump & the Repubs their due. It was a masterful exercise in lies & distortions, tuned to bring the culture warriors to the polls in droves while unfairly discrediting Clinton. Going on about Hillary being a "bad candidate" just obfuscates the awful truth of that.
So what if Hillary won more votes, it just doesn't matter. The Democrats should have picked up 14 -20 seats in the House and at one time they thought they might regain a majority. They also should have picked up at least 6 - 8 seats in the Senate, if not more. In 2018 the odds shift dramatically in the Republicans favor to bolster their advantage in the Senate, possibly even having a veto proof majority, (not that it matters as much since Reid's nuke option). By any yardstick the Democrats got their asses handed to them in 2016. By any measurement at all.Clinton lost the EC but won the popular vote by 2.5 million votes.
Democrats picked up 6 seats in the House.
Democrats picked up 2 or 3 seats in the Senate.
Here in objective, observable reality, the Democratic party picked up seats in both Houses of Congress and more people voted for the Democratic party candidate for President.
The Democratic party thanks all of you for the concern about the state of the party.
I'm ecstatic about Nancy's win! It's good for the Republican party, as will be shown. The establishment Democrats are out of touch and the decline will continue. What used to work doesn't work anymore and their ways are staid. Tim Ryan is a Democrat I actually like and his fresh ideas might have been a way forward for some bipartisan results. Not with nana. Age has reduced her to a babbling ding bat.
I'm ecstatic about Nancy's win! It's good for the Republican party, as will be shown. The establishment Democrats are out of touch and the decline will continue. What used to work doesn't work anymore and their ways are staid. Tim Ryan is a Democrat I actually like and his fresh ideas might have been a way forward for some bipartisan results. Not with nana. Age has reduced her to a babbling ding bat.
That's an odd thing to say considering the Democratic candidate got more than two million more votes than the Republican and picked up a net gain of two senate seats and a net gain of six seats in the house.
But then again, you've always been out of touch with reality.