HRC - "Trump/Sanders capitalized on anger, I beat both, 3rd party ppl are crazy"

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I would be happy to let her know that, without 3rd party voters, she might have lost the popular vote too!

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I would be happy to let her know that, without 3rd party voters, she might have lost the popular vote too!

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

The poll has her and trump winning both winning 47% without third parties. In the actual election, she won 48% with third parties. Exit polls aren't known for their accuracy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Jesus F**king Christ.

[Doimper]

She gave this country so much, wasted her entire adult life on it, and this is how she is thanked.  Hillary is too good for America.  She's the leader America needs, but not the one it deserves.  So she'll be attacked and disparaged, but she can take it.  She's a silent guardian, our watchful protector.

And you call the third-party voters crazy?

What kind of lunatic votes 3rd party? They are bunch of batshi* crazy losers & basement dwellers & will be living on food stamps all their lives. These people screwed Hillary of a win. It is only logical they get called crazy !

I'm very curious as to why someone who's possibly the most devoted Bernie cultist on this forum is demeaning people on food stamps

[Technocracy Timmy]

She gave this country so much, wasted her entire adult life on it, and this is how she is thanked.  Hillary is too good for America.  She's the leader America needs, but not the one it deserves.  So she'll be attacked and disparaged, but she can take it.  She's a silent guardian, our watchful protector.

And you call the third-party voters crazy?

What kind of lunatic votes 3rd party? They are bunch of batshi* crazy losers & basement dwellers & will be living on food stamps all their lives. These people screwed Hillary of a win. It is only logical they get called crazy !

I'm very curious as to why someone who's possibly the most devoted Bernie cultist on this forum is demeaning people on food stamps

Because he's beetposting.

[I Won - Get Over It]

She is totally right. Voters were and still are angry with corrupted lying politicians and neocons.

That't why she lost.
That's why Bernie would win.
That's why GOP will lose midterms.

[Santander]

She gave this country so much, wasted her entire adult life on it, and this is how she is thanked.  Hillary is too good for America.  She's the leader America needs, but not the one it deserves.  So she'll be attacked and disparaged, but she can take it.  She's a silent guardian, our watchful protector.

And you call the third-party voters crazy?

What kind of lunatic votes 3rd party? They are bunch of batshi* crazy losers & basement dwellers & will be living on food stamps all their lives. These people screwed Hillary of a win. It is only logical they get called crazy !

I'm very curious as to why someone who's possibly the most devoted Bernie cultist on this forum is demeaning people on food stamps

Because he's beetposting.

This has to become a thing.

[The_Doctor]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

In all likelihood, her quote about "plus, you know, the crazy third party people" was almost certainly referring to the candidates and not the voters, if you care about/actually follow the context of that sentence - and it's totally accurate. I only wish Hillary were so sassy as to imply the alternative.

[Inmate Trump]

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.

[SingingAnalyst]

"God is great, beer is good, and 3rd party people are cra-zy." -with apologies to Billy Currington

Yet another "deplorable me" moment.

[The_Doctor]

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).

[Shadows]

In all likelihood, her quote about "plus, you know, the crazy third party people" was almost certainly referring to the candidates and not the voters, if you care about/actually follow the context of that sentence - and it's totally accurate. I only wish Hillary were so sassy as to imply the alternative.

Someone as flawed as Hillary, should not be sh**t*ting on 3rd party people struggling very hard against enormous challenges by calling them "crazy". That is downright insulting especially coming from a fraud.

But anyways you are wrong here. She specifically called 3rd party voters as crazy, not the candidates.

When I mention MSNBC’s hiring of conservatives including George Will, and the New York Times’ new climate-change-skeptic opinion columnist, Bret Stephens, her brow furrows. “Why … would … you … do … that?” she says. “Sixty-six million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people. So there’s a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them! It’s clearly a commercial decision. But I don’t think it will work. I mean, they’re laughing on the right at these puny efforts to try to appease people on the right.”

[Beet]

When you are involved in a campaign, third party voters are treated with contempt because you know they're basically just throwing away their vote. The opposite-candidate supporters are respected as people making a rational choice, the third party voters aren't. I've worked on campaigns and that is how it is, and you have to admit there is a logic to it. I say this as someone who, I myself have voted third party before and could again.

[Shadows]

When you are involved in a campaign, third party voters are treated with contempt because you know they're basically just throwing away their vote. The opposite-candidate supporters are respected as people making a rational choice, the third party voters aren't. I've worked on campaigns and that is how it is, and you have to admit there is a logic to it. I say this as someone who, I myself have voted third party before and could again.

Whether or not you believe they are throwing away their votes, for a former First lady & Dem nominee to openly berate millions of third party voters as "Crazy people" (most of them aren't your racist bigoted kind) when the 2 nominees in 2016 were the most hated in history, is unfortunate. High profile politicians need to have the maturity to not admonish voters publicly (especially considering the % of 3rd party voters is pretty high in the younger generations).

What pleasure is she really getting by publicly shi*ting on 3rd party voters as "Crazy"? It is not going to change the 2016 result! There is a certain contempt in her for people unwilling to toe the line & support her. It seems she has learned nothing from the Basket of deplorables gaffe & how it hurt her!

[This account no longer in use.]

Hillary calling Trump supporters deplorables contributed to her loss, but sure I see nothing wrong with this 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

[Lachi]

In retrospect...maybe Hillary should of been locked up

What, for having an opinion? That's what we call blatant fascism

[dead0man]

It's kind of sad that there are still people smart enough to form complete sentences that think the FBI investigation is why she lost.  If you think she lost because of the investigation against her you're a moron.  That's like blaming the lab guy after you lost your murder trial.

"I would have gotten away with that murder if you hadn't shown everybody my DNA that was all over the victim!  LOSERS!"

[This account no longer in use.]

I hate to say it, but dead0man is right in a way. Hillary lost because she alienated Trump supporters, which made them switching to Clinton far less likely, and spent time campaigning in states like Arizona and Texas where she had no chance instead of keeping an eye on the Midwest and swing states. Honestly, there's a good chance she would have lost even if the FBI investigation hadn't been reopened.

[dead0man]

I wasn't arguing she lost because she alienated Trump supporters.  She lost for a lot of reasons.  A big reason was because she was an idiot with email thing, got caught, and then handled getting caught very poorly.  That, combined with the decades of the public seeing her accused of all kinds of shady sh**t just killed her...and yeah, she might not have been guilty of a lot of them, but there was an awful lot of smoke for there to be no fire.  Could it have been one of the best long term smear campaign in history?  Possibly.  Could she be the lying, corrupt, dictionary definition of a slimy politician most Americans seem to think she is, including many of her own supporters?  Seems more likely to me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

When you are involved in a campaign, third party voters are treated with contempt because you know they're basically just throwing away their vote. The opposite-candidate supporters are respected as people making a rational choice, the third party voters aren't. I've worked on campaigns and that is how it is, and you have to admit there is a logic to it. I say this as someone who, I myself have voted third party before and could again.

There is no such thing as a "rational choice" in voting.

[publicunofficial]

I repeat my earlier observation that every time Hillary has spoken since the election, I'm more convinced the loss was entirely her fault and she is a terrible candidat.

That new magazine cover she's on is the most out-of-touch thing I've seen in a while.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I repeat my earlier observation that every time Hillary has spoken since the election, I'm more convinced the loss was entirely her fault and she is a terrible candidat.

That new magazine cover she's on is the most out-of-touch thing I've seen in a while.

I'm inclined to agree. Even with so much out of her control, she could have won with a few not-particularly difficult choices (better VP, coherent campaign message, better campaigning in Rust Belt).

What we saw in 2016 was a better packaged - but not any more effective - version of her 2008 primary campaign. Especially in how it was run. What we've seen since the election makes me question my belief that she would have been a competent technocrat as chief executive. Instead, we might have gotten a lower-key version of the endless meltdown that is the Trump administration.

[DrScholl]

I've said it before, but I'm glad that she lost. Trump is exactly the disaster that Democrats in 2018 need to win state governments in order to have a say in redistricting.

[Doimper]

I've said it before, but I'm glad that she lost. Trump is exactly the disaster that Democrats in 2018 need to win state governments in order to have a say in redistricting.

I've said it before, but I'm glad that he lost. Bush is exactly the disaster that Democrats in 2002 need to win back the House.