Hillary Clinton: "I won in places that are dynamic, moving forward."

[Beet]

^ ^ People on a message board don't set Democratic party policy.

The idea of demographic change is overblown. Millennials are 55% white, Gen Z is 52% white... wow, how dramatic. Not... minority birthrates are falling. I honestly don't know why people feel so threatened by non-white immigrants. The vast majority of them aren't hurting anyone. They all assimilate. They come here to live, work, pay taxes and raise a family just like everyone else.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

She's just sounding bitter and a bit entitled at this point, and honestly every time Clinton comes up I worry a large enough chunk of the electorate is going to be reminded freshly why they stayed home in 2016 and do so again during the midterms.

To be fair, it's not just her. There's a whole class of Democratic establishment figures who make me wonder if being wrecked by Trump and the GOP isn't something our nation deserves.

[7,052,770]

She's just sounding bitter and a bit entitled at this point, and honestly every time Clinton comes up I worry a large enough chunk of the electorate is going to be reminded freshly why they stayed home in 2016 and do so again during the midterms.

Anyone who does that deserves what they get.

[TJ in Oregon]

Mortimer's question of whether or not it is racist to explicitly want a more racially diverse society really is a question that we have to take seriously as part of a discussion on racial justice. That doesn't mean we shouldn't welcome immigrants and try to give minorities a fair chance in life, just that we should do it because they're people, not because they're minorities.

It's a nonsense discussion because even if all immigration to the United States were to be set to zero tomorrow the country would still be diversifying because minorities are younger than whites and have more children. The idea that it's a specific policy goal of Democrats is just dumb.

Other posters correctly perceive Mortimer's posts as racially prejudiced (apart from stereotyping all immigrants from Latin America as a faceless welfare-stealing horde) because seeking to arbitrarily maintain the ethnic makeup of the United States as 70% white or whatever implicitly requires a policy of deportation of minorities and/or a whites-only immigration system. There's no other way to do it.

^ ^ People on a message board don't set Democratic party policy.

Both of you are misunderstanding my point. It's not that there's this massive Democratic Party conspiracy trying to figure out how they can best make America less white, but that wanting America to be less white is, at least in part, a motivating factor for some Democrats (often white Democrats who are most interested in racial justice). That is the context in which I meant that post to be taken, not as a question of what will happen, or a specific policy, but the motivation for wanting it. You can call it moot or pointless, but that doesn't make it nonsense.

[7,052,770]

You had your shot against the most easily beatable candidate in history.

You lost.

Why are people still clinging to this? Trump inspires a certain set of Americans in a way no other candidate ever has. Literally millions of Americans came out to vote for him that wouldn't have come out to vote for any other Republican nominee.

He was a total black swan that Hillary and her machine were completely unprepared for, but understandably so.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You had your shot against the most easily beatable candidate in history.

You lost.

Why are people still clinging to this? Trump inspires a certain set of Americans in a way no other candidate ever has. Literally millions of Americans came out to vote for him that wouldn't have come out to vote for any other Republican nominee.

He was a total black swan that Hillary and her machine were completely unprepared for, but understandably so.

Bernie bros are such myopic idiots that they don't understand that by belittling her as a candidate they make their cult leader, who lost to her in a landslide, look even worse.

[DavidB.]

That’s the reaction I was waiting for hajaha.
Kazakhstan #1 exporter of potassium
Turkmenistan have cleanest prostitutes in region
Uzbekistan full of very nosy people with bone in brain
Tajikistan
Kyrgyzstan next to glorious nation of Kazakhstan

Forgot Pakistan and Afghanistan though.

[Annatar]

Clinton's claim is dubious to say the least, Trump won 7 of the 10 fastest growing states in terms of population between 2010 and 2017. Furthermore, the 30 states that he carried had 180 million people in them compared to the 140 million in the 20 states that she carried and had a GDP of around $9 trillion vs $8 trillion for the states Clinton won. In essence, Trump not only won a majority of states with a majority of the population and economic output, he also won most of the fastest growing states.

[Beet]

Mortimer's question of whether or not it is racist to explicitly want a more racially diverse society really is a question that we have to take seriously as part of a discussion on racial justice. That doesn't mean we shouldn't welcome immigrants and try to give minorities a fair chance in life, just that we should do it because they're people, not because they're minorities.

It's a nonsense discussion because even if all immigration to the United States were to be set to zero tomorrow the country would still be diversifying because minorities are younger than whites and have more children. The idea that it's a specific policy goal of Democrats is just dumb.

Other posters correctly perceive Mortimer's posts as racially prejudiced (apart from stereotyping all immigrants from Latin America as a faceless welfare-stealing horde) because seeking to arbitrarily maintain the ethnic makeup of the United States as 70% white or whatever implicitly requires a policy of deportation of minorities and/or a whites-only immigration system. There's no other way to do it.

^ ^ People on a message board don't set Democratic party policy.

Both of you are misunderstanding my point. It's not that there's this massive Democratic Party conspiracy trying to figure out how they can best make America less white, but that wanting America to be less white is, at least in part, a motivating factor for some Democrats (often white Democrats who are most interested in racial justice). That is the context in which I meant that post to be taken, not as a question of what will happen, or a specific policy, but the motivation for wanting it. You can call it moot or pointless, but that doesn't make it nonsense.

I do think there's some projection going on though. The immigration policy supported by Democrats welcomes people because they're people. It's the Alt Right that sees this as a problem. My view I think is the same as the socially liberal view which is that race is a social construct that should not be sanctioned as official government policy.

[7,052,770]

Clinton's claim is dubious to say the least, Trump won 7 of the 10 fastest growing states in terms of population between 2010 and 2017. Furthermore, the 30 states that he carried had 180 million people in them compared to the 140 million in the 20 states that she carried and had a GDP of around $9 trillion vs $8 trillion for the states Clinton won. In essence, Trump not only won a majority of states with a majority of the population and economic output, he also won most of the fastest growing states.

But she won the smart, successful people who are driving that growth. That was the point she is trying to make. (Or maybe trying not to make.)

[TJ in Oregon]

Mortimer's question of whether or not it is racist to explicitly want a more racially diverse society really is a question that we have to take seriously as part of a discussion on racial justice. That doesn't mean we shouldn't welcome immigrants and try to give minorities a fair chance in life, just that we should do it because they're people, not because they're minorities.

It's a nonsense discussion because even if all immigration to the United States were to be set to zero tomorrow the country would still be diversifying because minorities are younger than whites and have more children. The idea that it's a specific policy goal of Democrats is just dumb.

Other posters correctly perceive Mortimer's posts as racially prejudiced (apart from stereotyping all immigrants from Latin America as a faceless welfare-stealing horde) because seeking to arbitrarily maintain the ethnic makeup of the United States as 70% white or whatever implicitly requires a policy of deportation of minorities and/or a whites-only immigration system. There's no other way to do it.

^ ^ People on a message board don't set Democratic party policy.

Both of you are misunderstanding my point. It's not that there's this massive Democratic Party conspiracy trying to figure out how they can best make America less white, but that wanting America to be less white is, at least in part, a motivating factor for some Democrats (often white Democrats who are most interested in racial justice). That is the context in which I meant that post to be taken, not as a question of what will happen, or a specific policy, but the motivation for wanting it. You can call it moot or pointless, but that doesn't make it nonsense.

I do think there's some projection going on though. The immigration policy supported by Democrats welcomes people because they're people. It's the Alt Right that sees this as a problem. My view I think is the same as the socially liberal view which is that race is a social construct that should not be sanctioned as official government policy.

Perhaps you're right. Still, your attitude toward all of this is, uh, pretty vastly different than the majority of Democrats I seem to encounter, who view the position that race shouldn't be sanctioned as government policy to be a racist position itself.

[Green Line]

I'm done with Hillary.  #NotHerTurn

[Mondegreen]

At this point I wish I had wasted my swing state vote on Jill Stein rather than voting for this sociopath. Thankfully the Democratic Party, minus a few unhinged Shareblue cultists, is moving on without her.

[Tekken_Guy]

She's right. The places she won and/or swung hard to her were white-collar, affluent suburbs. Trump did best in dying blue-collar small towns in the Midwest and in rural places. All a part of the partisan divide becoming increasingly cultural rather than economical like in the past.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why would an immigration moratorium imply atrocity? That's crazy. Is Japan committing atrocities daily?

America is a much greater country than Japan

All countries are great.

Tell me something great about each of the “Stan countries”

They didn't vote for Trump. (or Clinton)

[RINO Tom]

Clinton's claim is dubious to say the least, Trump won 7 of the 10 fastest growing states in terms of population between 2010 and 2017. Furthermore, the 30 states that he carried had 180 million people in them compared to the 140 million in the 20 states that she carried and had a GDP of around $9 trillion vs $8 trillion for the states Clinton won. In essence, Trump not only won a majority of states with a majority of the population and economic output, he also won most of the fastest growing states.

But she won the smart, successful people who are driving that growth. That was the point she is trying to make. (Or maybe trying not to make.)

"Smart," I assume, is to be equated with education, and "successful" is to be equated with income in this sentence?  Here is how the college-educated and highest income brackets voted in those 10 states:

1. TEXAS
College-Educated: 53% GOP, 41% DEM (White college grads went GOP 62%-31%)
Highest Income: 53% GOP, 41% DEM

2. NORTH DAKOTA: N/A ... I'd be shocked if Trump didn't win both groups, though.

3. UTAH
College-Educated: 38% GOP, 29% DEM (White college grads went GOP 39%-26%)
Highest Income: Not available ... again, I'd be shocked if the group didn't break for Trump, though.

4. FLORIDA
College-Educated: 49% GOP, 46% DEM (White college grads went GOP 62%-35%)
Highest Income: 56% GOP, 40% DEM

5. COLORADO
College-Educated: 54% DEM, 38% GOP (White college grads went DEM 53%-39%)
Highest Income: 51% DEM, 41% GOP

6. NEVADA
College-Educated: 49% DEM, 44% GOP (White college grads went GOP 51%-43%)
Highest Income: 58% GOP, 37% DEM

7. WASHINGTON
College-Educated: 57% DEM, 34% GOP (White college grads went DEM 58%-31%)
Highest Income: 59% DEM, 34% GOP

8. ARIZONA
College-Educated: 47% GOP, 46% DEM (White college grads went GOP 50%-44%)
Highest Income: 54% GOP, 40% DEM

9. Idaho: N/A ... I'd be shocked if Trump didn't win both groups, though.

10. SOUTH CAROLINA
College-Educated: 52% GOP, 43% DEM (White college grads went GOP 64%-31%)
Highest Income: 64% GOP, 32% DEM

So, of those 10 fastest states...

- Trump won 7 of them overall.
- Trump won the college-educated vote in 7 out of the 10 (and the White college grad vote, a recent obsession of Forum Dems, in 8 out of the 10).
- Trump won the wealthy voters in 8 out of the 10.

I'm sure Hillary Clinton is nothing short of ecstatic that she made gains among wealthy Republican leaners in solidly blue states, but her statement looks to be objectively false, regardless of how Democrats currently fancy themselves and their coalition ... probably won't sway Tekken Guy, though.  LOL.

Additionally, let's not act like the states that have had the worst growth are monolithic in their Republican support:

1. West Virginia: 68.50% GOP, 26.43% DEM
2. Vermont: 56.68% DEM, 30.27% GOP
3. Illinois: 55.83% DEM, 38.76% GOP
4. Connecticut: 54.57% DEM, 40.93% GOP
5. Mississippi: 57.94% GOP, 40.11% DEM
6. Maine: 47.83% DEM, 44.87% GOP
7. Rhode Island: 54.41% DEM, 38.90% GOP
8. Michigan: 47.50% GOP, 47.27% DEM
9. Pennsylvania: 48.18% GOP, 47.46% DEM
10. Ohio: 51.69% GOP, 43.56% DEM

Exactly half and half.  Republicans won the slowest growing state quite easily, but Democrats won the next three slowest growing pretty easily themselves.  This idea that we are in some type of realignment between the "forgotten" and the "cosmopolitan" is laughable.

[RINO Tom]

She's right. The places she won and/or swung hard to her were white-collar, affluent suburbs. Trump did best in dying blue-collar small towns in the Midwest and in rural places. All a part of the partisan divide becoming increasingly cultural rather than economical like in the past.

Care to provide us with some data or further insight?

[7,052,770]

Why in the world would you think smart = has college degree?

[RINO Tom]

Why in the world would you think smart = has college degree?

I don't, but how else was Hillary Clinton using it?  Does she have some set of data showing that she won voters of higher intelligence in places that were growing?  LOL.

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

Cue everyone being offended by Clinton acknowledging the reality while continuing to give everyone who uses "coastal elites" a pass as millions of average Californians, New Yorkers, etc... get written off.  Her acknowledging the situation doesn't mean she views those people as lesser; talking about the racial motivations that Trump exploited for his path to victory is something that needs to be spoken about candidly rather than swept under the rug of 'economic anxiety'.

What about the racial motivations of people who voted for Clinton? Clinton supporters openly say their goal is to make the country less white. Nancy Pelosi was crying on the house floor talking about how beautiful it was.

Taking systematic advantages whites/males/etc... have and systematic disadvantages minorities/females/etc... have out of the equation is not 'trying to make the country less white'.  Celebrating our diversity and the strength our country has with the many unique cultural backgrounds its citizens possess is not a bad thing.  Bridging the gap of opportunity between whites/miniorites/males/females/etc... is a good thing.  Further pushing down minorities/females/etc... so whites/males/etc... can enjoy advantages at their expense is not.

I'm not talking about equalizing standards between people who are already here. I'm talking about bringing in new people to make the country less white. This is an explicit policy of the Democrats.

Why is it wrong for the Republicans to "play to racial anxieties" by opposing immigration or supporting skills based immigration but it's okay for the Democrats to play to racial resentment by purposely trying to change the country's racial make up?

Can you honestly not comprehend the fact that we find diversity a good thing in of itself? Stop protecting your racism on to us. Not everything's about some conspiratorial destruction of the "white race".

On some level it is hard to comprehend. If you think all people are the same, why is having 60% white people better than having 90% white people? If race doesn't matter, then it shouldn't make a difference.

Why is it socially acceptable to want less white people but not socially acceptable to want more white people or even just the same amount of white people? Either race matters or it doesn't.

It seems like if you think less white people is inherently good, then race really does matter to you.

It's hard to verbalize, but it's definitely different than whatever reasons you have for your racist ramblings. It's part of a general appreciation for difference, a desire for difference, to see all sorts of cool people living together. We have a problem with preventing people from being welcome because of their skin. And seeing whiteness lose it's hold on our society is kind of a good thing.

Plus, the country becoming less diverse would imply atrocities. There is no equivalence between wanting to welcome people and see the dominance of white ego centrism fall and wanting to deport (at best) people for not being white.

No one (of any power) is advocating deporting people for not being white. Legally the reason people are being deported is because they are not citizens, they are from somewhere else. I would concede that people would not be as anxious to deport these illegal residents if they were contributing greatly to the economy as leftists often claim. That's not the case though. They and the children they have are a drain on the economy and a burden on taxpayers and that's why people want them gone.

You're not fooling anyone. I'm not going to respond further unless you respond to my post instead of strawmanceptioning(straw manning my words into a strawman) me.

What specific questions do you want me to respond to?

Read the post and actually respond to it. This isn't hard.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Clinton's claim is dubious to say the least, Trump won 7 of the 10 fastest growing states in terms of population between 2010 and 2017. Furthermore, the 30 states that he carried had 180 million people in them compared to the 140 million in the 20 states that she carried and had a GDP of around $9 trillion vs $8 trillion for the states Clinton won. In essence, Trump not only won a majority of states with a majority of the population and economic output, he also won most of the fastest growing states.

But she won the smart, successful people who are driving that growth. That was the point she is trying to make. (Or maybe trying not to make.)

"Smart," I assume, is to be equated with education, and "successful" is to be equated with income in this sentence?  Here is how the college-educated and highest income brackets voted in those 10 states:

1. TEXAS
College-Educated: 53% GOP, 41% DEM (White college grads went GOP 62%-31%)
Highest Income: 53% GOP, 41% DEM

2. NORTH DAKOTA: N/A ... I'd be shocked if Trump didn't win both groups, though.

3. UTAH
College-Educated: 38% GOP, 29% DEM (White college grads went GOP 39%-26%)
Highest Income: Not available ... again, I'd be shocked if the group didn't break for Trump, though.

4. FLORIDA
College-Educated: 49% GOP, 46% DEM (White college grads went GOP 62%-35%)
Highest Income: 56% GOP, 40% DEM

5. COLORADO
College-Educated: 54% DEM, 38% GOP (White college grads went DEM 53%-39%)
Highest Income: 51% DEM, 41% GOP

6. NEVADA
College-Educated: 49% DEM, 44% GOP (White college grads went GOP 51%-43%)
Highest Income: 58% GOP, 37% DEM

7. WASHINGTON
College-Educated: 57% DEM, 34% GOP (White college grads went DEM 58%-31%)
Highest Income: 59% DEM, 34% GOP

8. ARIZONA
College-Educated: 47% GOP, 46% DEM (White college grads went GOP 50%-44%)
Highest Income: 54% GOP, 40% DEM

9. Idaho: N/A ... I'd be shocked if Trump didn't win both groups, though.

10. SOUTH CAROLINA
College-Educated: 52% GOP, 43% DEM (White college grads went GOP 64%-31%)
Highest Income: 64% GOP, 32% DEM

So, of those 10 fastest states...

- Trump won 7 of them overall.
- Trump won the college-educated vote in 7 out of the 10 (and the White college grad vote, a recent obsession of Forum Dems, in 8 out of the 10).
- Trump won the wealthy voters in 8 out of the 10.

I'm sure Hillary Clinton is nothing short of ecstatic that she made gains among wealthy Republican leaners in solidly blue states, but her statement looks to be objectively false, regardless of how Democrats currently fancy themselves and their coalition ... probably won't sway Tekken Guy, though.  LOL.

Additionally, let's not act like the states that have had the worst growth are monolithic in their Republican support:

1. West Virginia: 68.50% GOP, 26.43% DEM
2. Vermont: 56.68% DEM, 30.27% GOP
3. Illinois: 55.83% DEM, 38.76% GOP
4. Connecticut: 54.57% DEM, 40.93% GOP
5. Mississippi: 57.94% GOP, 40.11% DEM
6. Maine: 47.83% DEM, 44.87% GOP
7. Rhode Island: 54.41% DEM, 38.90% GOP
8. Michigan: 47.50% GOP, 47.27% DEM
9. Pennsylvania: 48.18% GOP, 47.46% DEM
10. Ohio: 51.69% GOP, 43.56% DEM

Exactly half and half.  Republicans won the slowest growing state quite easily, but Democrats won the next three slowest growing pretty easily themselves.  This idea that we are in some type of realignment between the "forgotten" and the "cosmopolitan" is laughable.

I appreciate the fact that you're using data, and I agree that Clinton's statement is pretty coarse and unnuanced, but this analysis is woefully insufficient for analyzing whether or not people of higher education levels voted a certain way. You really should be comparing higher education voting patterns with those of lower education voters in the same state, while also controlling for other factors like race and income. Really this is the type of question that's best answered by a mixed effects model.

edit: also why are people doing geographic grouping at the state level? States aren't monolithic so it's really inadequate to say "X candidate won high-growth areas because they won state Y". If you look at the areas in these high-growth states, they mostly (with some exceptions like ND) are growing in cities and their sububs, which voted overwhelmingly for (and are trending quickly towards) Democratic candidates, including Clinton.

edit 2: I bet if you looked at these highest-growing states, they had shifts to Trump that were much smaller than corresponding slower-growing states. Even in some cases they trended Democratic (e.g., Texas, Arizona, Georgia).

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

If you can't beat them with "smart, successful people" - well, at least you can say you made gains with them!

[RINO Tom]

Clinton's claim is dubious to say the least, Trump won 7 of the 10 fastest growing states in terms of population between 2010 and 2017. Furthermore, the 30 states that he carried had 180 million people in them compared to the 140 million in the 20 states that she carried and had a GDP of around $9 trillion vs $8 trillion for the states Clinton won. In essence, Trump not only won a majority of states with a majority of the population and economic output, he also won most of the fastest growing states.

But she won the smart, successful people who are driving that growth. That was the point she is trying to make. (Or maybe trying not to make.)

"Smart," I assume, is to be equated with education, and "successful" is to be equated with income in this sentence?  Here is how the college-educated and highest income brackets voted in those 10 states:

1. TEXAS
College-Educated: 53% GOP, 41% DEM (White college grads went GOP 62%-31%)
Highest Income: 53% GOP, 41% DEM

2. NORTH DAKOTA: N/A ... I'd be shocked if Trump didn't win both groups, though.

3. UTAH
College-Educated: 38% GOP, 29% DEM (White college grads went GOP 39%-26%)
Highest Income: Not available ... again, I'd be shocked if the group didn't break for Trump, though.

4. FLORIDA
College-Educated: 49% GOP, 46% DEM (White college grads went GOP 62%-35%)
Highest Income: 56% GOP, 40% DEM

5. COLORADO
College-Educated: 54% DEM, 38% GOP (White college grads went DEM 53%-39%)
Highest Income: 51% DEM, 41% GOP

6. NEVADA
College-Educated: 49% DEM, 44% GOP (White college grads went GOP 51%-43%)
Highest Income: 58% GOP, 37% DEM

7. WASHINGTON
College-Educated: 57% DEM, 34% GOP (White college grads went DEM 58%-31%)
Highest Income: 59% DEM, 34% GOP

8. ARIZONA
College-Educated: 47% GOP, 46% DEM (White college grads went GOP 50%-44%)
Highest Income: 54% GOP, 40% DEM

9. Idaho: N/A ... I'd be shocked if Trump didn't win both groups, though.

10. SOUTH CAROLINA
College-Educated: 52% GOP, 43% DEM (White college grads went GOP 64%-31%)
Highest Income: 64% GOP, 32% DEM

So, of those 10 fastest states...

- Trump won 7 of them overall.
- Trump won the college-educated vote in 7 out of the 10 (and the White college grad vote, a recent obsession of Forum Dems, in 8 out of the 10).
- Trump won the wealthy voters in 8 out of the 10.

I'm sure Hillary Clinton is nothing short of ecstatic that she made gains among wealthy Republican leaners in solidly blue states, but her statement looks to be objectively false, regardless of how Democrats currently fancy themselves and their coalition ... probably won't sway Tekken Guy, though.  LOL.

Additionally, let's not act like the states that have had the worst growth are monolithic in their Republican support:

1. West Virginia: 68.50% GOP, 26.43% DEM
2. Vermont: 56.68% DEM, 30.27% GOP
3. Illinois: 55.83% DEM, 38.76% GOP
4. Connecticut: 54.57% DEM, 40.93% GOP
5. Mississippi: 57.94% GOP, 40.11% DEM
6. Maine: 47.83% DEM, 44.87% GOP
7. Rhode Island: 54.41% DEM, 38.90% GOP
8. Michigan: 47.50% GOP, 47.27% DEM
9. Pennsylvania: 48.18% GOP, 47.46% DEM
10. Ohio: 51.69% GOP, 43.56% DEM

Exactly half and half.  Republicans won the slowest growing state quite easily, but Democrats won the next three slowest growing pretty easily themselves.  This idea that we are in some type of realignment between the "forgotten" and the "cosmopolitan" is laughable.

I appreciate the fact that you're using data, and I agree that Clinton's statement is pretty coarse and unnuanced, but this analysis is woefully insufficient for analyzing whether or not people of higher education levels voted a certain way. You really should be comparing higher education voting patterns with those of lower education voters in the same state, while also controlling for other factors like race and income. Really this is the type of question that's best answered by a mixed effects model.

edit: also why are people doing geographic grouping at the state level? States aren't monolithic so it's really inadequate to say "X candidate won high-growth areas because they won state Y". If you look at the areas in these high-growth states, they mostly (with some exceptions like ND) are growing in cities and their sububs, which voted overwhelmingly for (and are trending quickly towards) Democratic candidates, including Clinton.

edit 2: I bet if you looked at these highest-growing states, they had shifts to Trump that were much smaller than corresponding slower-growing states. Even in some cases they trended Democratic (e.g., Texas, Arizona, Georgia).

Obviously, an exit poll is pretty "simplified," and another layer to add is that certain fields predisposed to a certain ideology require different education.  A graduate degree in finance (a field that leans Republican) isn't that important to make a good living, whereas a graduate degree in education (a field that leans Democratic) is damn near required.  Also, as smilo said below, who cares if she made gains in certain wealthy areas if she didn't win them?  Her quote said she won them, not that she got beat there less than other Democrats before her (which, again, who cares at the end of the day?).

[Torie]

"I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product," Clinton continued. "So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, 'Make America Great Again,' was looking backwards."

I interpret this more as her celebrating the Democrats/her deep inroads into the upper middle class in more urbanized areas, and rural ones where urbanized folks decamped to that have amenities that the upper middle class of a certain genre like (e.g. where I decamped to). I find such a sentiment cringe worthy. She should be far more worried about that alienation of wide swaths of the working class (many of whom are in deep distress on so many levels as their quality of life disintegrates, which I see in my now very diverse neck of the woods up close and personal) who think with some reason that the Dems don't care about their issues anymore, rather than chortle that I for example supported her. It's time she just faded away.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's time she just faded away.

Well, that's kinda hard to happen if a bunch of angry white guys in the media are obsessing over every little utterance she makes.