HRC - "Trump/Sanders capitalized on anger, I beat both, 3rd party ppl are crazy" (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 11:57:59 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  HRC - "Trump/Sanders capitalized on anger, I beat both, 3rd party ppl are crazy" (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: HRC - "Trump/Sanders capitalized on anger, I beat both, 3rd party ppl are crazy"  (Read 3913 times)
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,272


« on: May 29, 2017, 03:26:48 PM »

She needs to own up to the fact she's responsible for her loss. She created the conditions for Trump making it as close as he did and losing to him. Russia and whatever might have contributed but she lost the election fair and square. In fact a disciplined Republican beats her by about the same margin and probably wins the popular vote.

More than any candidate who has attempted to seek a third term for the same party she had huge advantages. If Nixon had this set of advantages he would've won 1960 55-45% (don't laugh - Nixon was arguably the most skilled politician in 50 years from FDR to Reagan). Gore would've killed for the advantages she had.

Had she taken her ethics seriously she would've won. She's almost as paranoid and deeply secretive as the current president. Ranging from Whitewater to all the Clinton scandals to the email server Hillary has demonstrated a long history of being dodgy. Nothing like Trump as we're finding out but definitely enough to lose a presidential election.

I really don't like how she doesn't own up that her neoliberal dynastic image is a huge reason she lost. But I suppose that's a bit too hard to own up to. She should've won so we could've avoided the current forest fire (and beaten her in 2020) but she and Bill Clinton never owned up to all of their flaws.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,272


« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2017, 04:23:34 PM »

She needs to own up to the fact she's responsible for her loss. She created the conditions for Trump making it as close as he did and losing to him. Russia and whatever might have contributed but she lost the election fair and square. In fact a disciplined Republican beats her by about the same margin and probably wins the popular vote.

More than any candidate who has attempted to seek a third term for the same party she had huge advantages. If Nixon had this set of advantages he would've won 1960 55-45% (don't laugh - Nixon was arguably the most skilled politician in 50 years from FDR to Reagan). Gore would've killed for the advantages she had.

Had she taken her ethics seriously she would've won. She's almost as paranoid and deeply secretive as the current president. Ranging from Whitewater to all the Clinton scandals to the email server Hillary has demonstrated a long history of being dodgy. Nothing like Trump as we're finding out but definitely enough to lose a presidential election.

I really don't like how she doesn't own up that her neoliberal dynastic image is a huge reason she lost. But I suppose that's a bit too hard to own up to. She should've won so we could've avoided the current forest fire (and beaten her in 2020) but she and Bill Clinton never owned up to all of their flaws.

Some truth, but she did just barely lose.

And had it not been for Russia's collusion with Trump as well as Comey investigating a now known to be fake lead, she most likely would have won.

So there was definitely outside influence working against her that certainly made a difference (arguably THE difference).  Having said that, there were also a lot of mistakes made by her and her campaign where the blame can only be put on them.

Possibly but I disagree Russia overturned the election.

Millions wanted a reason to vote against her and did so freely. At best Russia and Comey's October actions gave them license. It would be a serious mistake by Democrats to assign any value to Russia's interference in the election. I do think we should investigate the Russian - Trump connection but that's an entirely separate issue for the substantive purposes of evaluating her loss and why.

Think of it this way. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania should've maintained their 2012 numbers. That they didn't is on her. She cost herself like 80-90% of the Obama - Trump vote bloc on her own. (Note: Bernie would've probably lost for other reasons too. He had skeletons in his closet and could conceivably have lost states Hillary Clinton won).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 10 queries.