I've said she was a terrible politician back in 2015. That doesn't mean she wasn't the most qualified.
As an aside both Hillary's and trump's unfavorable ratings were pretty flat this whole election cycle.
What do you think the over/under on how long it will take for folks like ivwshane and Jhhnn to accept that Clinton was a terrible and hugely disliked candidate that was a bad choice to run? I bet Jhhnn goes to his grave thinking Hillary was great, and ivwshane will admit it once the next set of nominees is in play and he can focus on how great they are instead.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/lesli...clintons-accomplishments-speak-for-themselves
Now to compare and contrast, pull up trumps record, or bush's.
If I can say anything about Hilary it's that she's a horrible politician and by that I mean that she sucks at communicating with voters and hyping herself up. She's the exact opposite of trump (as a politician).
?? You ask a question, which is answered in the beginning of the paragraph, at the end of the same paragraph.Trump's racial messaging may have fired up turnout among his base, or perhaps not. If you listened to Trump supporters, they talked more about despising Clinton than about any of Trump's messaging. Hatred of Clinton could also have increased their turnout. I support this theory because if racial resentment was what pivoted this by firing up the turnout on the right, you'd think a black man running would have done the same, but this turnout among rural whites was lower when Obama ran. Why were the bigots fired up enough to defeat Clinton in 2016 but not enough to defeat an actual black candidate in 2008 or 2012?
Klein: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate
Frank: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ld-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals
Greenwald: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09...gerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/
I hope Democrats learn the right lesson from this election. I fear they won't. Smarter liberals such as the three writers above understand, but most establishment Democrats and the morons in this forum are blaming racists, misogynists, Bernie, 3rd parties, and everyone but themselves.
The Democrats should have beaten Trump easily, but the it's a party of fools.
Here's a clue idiot: Republican turnout was less than it was in 2012, there was no energizing of Republicans because of Democrats hate. Democrats, like always, simply didn't show up.
More reasons of why HC lost (beside what already discussed) -
1) She was unable to keep the votes that went to BO last time. true
2) Latinos/Hispanics did not vote for her as much as she hoped (29% or so voted for DT). False, the Latino vote was up.
3) Turnout (overall) was lower for HC than for BO last time. True
4) Rural whites (with no college degree) turned out in droves to vote for DT (the most important criteria for DT victory). No. The turnout was about the same the difference was the margin, Hillary lost more percentage wise.
5) Not enough women votes (that HC was counting on from DT stupid comments on that tape/Kelly comments/etc.). True. I think I read trump actually improved the margin.
Nice analysis and we got a major fucking epiphany on how and why NOT to communicate with emails or on a private server.
I think that's one of the core points: Republican turnout was less than it was in 2012 because Trump was a terrible candidate. Had the dems not put up an even worse one, they would have taken Trump out behind the shed for a whoopin.
From what you just said wouldn't that technique still overweight the opinion of that one group that was over sampled? Assuming that group has an opinion that is drastically different from all other groups involved?
Any reasonable candidate would have taken Trump behind the shed. He's disliked by the vast majority of the population, had no real political qualifications, he has tons of baggage, embarrassing skeletons in his closet, he fought against his own party, said offensive things about several groups, had no "ground game", no campaign to speak of, no giant war chest of big donor contributions, had to battle the full might of the lefty media and the leftist social media empires (facebook, google, twitter etc). He went up against the queen, the anointed one, her majesty in waiting for 8 years for her rightful crown....... and yet he won. You'd think that would be reason for for some soul searching to say "what went wrong here, what did we do wrong", but instead is just leading to the same tired blathering: must have been racists, misogynists, hatemongers etc etc.
I think it's terrific
When you see all the email leaks, instead of thinking "damnit, why did we use emails!", the focus should be on "damn, what a bunch of corrupt crooked crap going on within the DNC, the media and the clinton organization". How the crooked mess got revealed is a secondary issue.
Again, that's assuming people actually came out and voted. I'm not sure the case is as cut and dry as you think. Would the Clinton supporters have come out for Bernie if he had won? Considering she got way many more votes than him he would have needed all of them to show up.
No, I personally think Bernie would have gone down in even bigger flames because he was fatally flawed as a candidate as well. illary didn't lose because there was some massive wave of Trump support. She lost because the gop held their collective noses and voted for Trump even though they don't like him (based on the exit polls), and many democrats stayed home instead of voting for her because she's such a dirtbag. She's lucky Trump was so terrible, because that helped drive many people to vote for her just to try and prevent a Trump presidency, otherwise her numbers would have been even lower.
Dems, grow a brain. You saddled the wrong pony. As afraid of Trump as most reasonable people are, they still hated Hilary even more. Get that through your heads. It wasn't the message or the changing face of liberalism, it's Hilary. Moderate, rational Republicans were desperate to jump the fence here. The dems could have lined up women, minorities, the poor, the undecideds, the independents and the moderates into one unstoppable juggernaut to rally against Trump because he's really that bad. And you failed because Hilary is even worse. The women didn't come out to vote for her. The minorities didn't come out to vote for her. The moderates and independents didn't come out to vote for her. No fence-sitting republicans would vote for her. The democrats lost because you picked the only candidate on Earth that could not beat Trump. All you had to do was not shoot yourself in the foot and not put up a person that makes people think "geesh, maybe Trump isn't so bad after all" and you failed. You failed. Not the process, the the EC and not rural redneck voters. The dem powers that be failed when they decided to ram Hilary down everybodys throats. The end.
Here is why Hillary lost plain and simple:
...
The democrats let Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Schultz replace a popular anti-establishment candidate with someone whose unfavorability rating was up there with Trump's. And even after the truth came out.... the media, liberals, and Bernie did nothing!
That 2nd article in the guardian nailed it. To the screaming in Republican's faces...
No they haven't learned, and they're not going to learn. The democrats are so hopelessly corrupted by the Clinton machine that spent a decade stacking the deck it'll take years to clean it up.
.
How did they subvert their primary? No need to reply if the answer is "Superdelegates."Exactly. Poltics is like darwinism, survival of the fittest. That's the purpose of a primary, to put your strongest candidate forward.
By subverting their primary, they put a weak candidate forward.
Close.
See bolded
Great analysis. It reminds me of how everyone was certain that the republicans would never again win the whitehouse after 2012 unless they fix their massive demographic and message issues. I don't think you read the 3rd article, did you?
Validation that America has changed racially-unbiased when in fact it hasn't changed all that much. The only problem area was the south, everywhere else blacks and whites were segregated by home owner associations. If we elect a black president, we then could remove legislature that removed segregation as it isn't needed anymore. We have & had a black president goal achieved, job done, now we can segregate again. Thus, America is finally great again.I love the point that the article made that if these voters were racist bigots why did they vote for Obama.
Validation that America has changed racially-unbiased when in fact it hasn't changed all that much. The only problem area was the south, everywhere else blacks and whites were segregated by home owner associations. If we elect a black president, we then could remove legislature that removed segregation as it isn't needed anymore. We have a black president goal achieved, job done, now we can segregate again.
People often talk about “racism/sexism/xenophobia” vs. “economic suffering” as if they are totally distinct dichotomies. Of course there are substantial elements of both in Trump’s voting base, but the two categories are inextricably linked: The more economic suffering people endure, the angrier and more bitter they get, the easier it is to direct their anger to scapegoats. Economic suffering often fuels ugly bigotry. It is true that many Trump voters are relatively well-off and many of the nation’s poorest voted for Clinton, but, as Michael Moore quite presciently warned, those portions of the country that have been most ravaged by free trade orgies and globalism — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa — were filled with rage and “see [Trump] as a chance to be the human Molotov cocktail that they’d like to throw into the system to blow it up.” Those are the places that were decisive in Trump’s victory. As the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney put it:
Low-income rural white voters in Pa. voted for Obama in 2008 and then Trump in 2016, and your explanation is white supremacy? Interesting.
— Tim Carney (@TPCarney) November 9, 2016
Good stuff.
After the shock and anger and disgust of Tuesday night, I've actually come around to being quite proud of and happy for these people that totally kicked us in our collective asses. I don't really know why, other than it shows that democracy pretty much works.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/03/trump-supporters-us-elections
My greatest fear now is what happens to those outside this country--a situation that so few really do appreciate--because I think this country will (eventually) weather the potential contraction of a Trump presidency and, hopefully, come out all the better for it. But that isn't much solace for those that absolutely depend on NATO and a USA that both supports and validates this cause, without petty and nonsensical threats, and gives no quarter to those that threaten its mission and the sovereign nations that it protects.
Ignoring this reality is the same as ignoring the real pain and anger of the people living in these devastated communities that righteously punished the elites by giving this world Trump. Real people outside, and many inside this country, naturalized citizens or 1st and 2nd generation, have very real families whose lives depend on this alliance. My hope is that Trump was just being the standard PoS clown by blustering over issues that so few of us supporters would care to appreciate. He hasn't once shown the character, the curiosity, the interest in being a real president--so I hope that was indeed "just the show" that his diehards promised that it was.
I think the article is wrong.Is the article right or wrong?