Hillary Clinton: No One Ever Told a Losing Male Candidate to Shut Up

[new_patomic]

I almost wonder why people who don't like her and want her to go away, instead of whining for her to shut up, why they don't just stop paying attention to her? Or stop listening to her? And treat her as irrelevant as they believe her to be. That seems like the obvious answer here.

[Hammy]

I almost wonder why people who don't like her and want her to go away, instead of whining for her to shut up, just... stop paying attention or listening to her, instead? That seems like the obvious answer here.

Most are likely worried about her impact on the election midterm--GOP is already putting her in ads to drive up GOP enthusiasm.

[new_patomic]

I almost wonder why people who don't like her and want her to go away, instead of whining for her to shut up, just... stop paying attention or listening to her, instead? That seems like the obvious answer here.

Most are likely worried about her impact on the election midterm--GOP is already putting her in ads to drive up GOP enthusiasm.

Which is ridiculous.

No one in November of 2018 is going to go to the ballot box, or not go, because of something Hillary said. She's not the incumbent, she's not on the ballot, and at any point in time you're going to have 10-20 other weekly stories competing for attention.

[Wells]

I almost wonder why people who don't like her and want her to go away, instead of whining for her to shut up, just... stop paying attention or listening to her, instead? That seems like the obvious answer here.

Agreed. It's fascinating how every thread about her is at least the length of this thread or longer. All that's needed is Trump tweet about it at this point, and maybe another 24 hours of discussion, then it will be over.

[Landslide Lyndon]

She's free to speak her mind obviously, but I think the backlash to her is more nuanced than sexism. That's all.

Not really. For God's sake, a respectable liberal publication told her to "take up knitting".
What's nuanced about that?

He won because Perot was comfortable enough with Bill's centrism to launch a spoiler campaign against HW. Had the dem nominee been a leftist like Brown or Tsongas, Perot would've just endorsed Bush, and Bush would've been reelected.

That's the zombie lie that refuses to die even a quarter of a century later.
For the zillionth time, exit polls showed that Perot's voters would have split evenly if he wasn't running.

[Progressive Pessimist]

She's right. It's not any more complicated than that.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I almost wonder why people who don't like her and want her to go away, instead of whining for her to shut up, just... stop paying attention or listening to her, instead? That seems like the obvious answer here.

Agreed. It's fascinating how every thread about her is at least the length of this thread or longer. All that's needed is Trump tweet about it at this point, and maybe another 24 hours of discussion, then it will be over.

There is an entire cottage industry that relies on Clinton-hatred. People at Fox News aren't treating her like the incumbent president because they have a problem with her personally, they do it because it's good for the ratings.
Especially now that the alt-left has embraced that hatred too.

[Sumner 1868]

She's right. It's not any more complicated than that.

Dworkin's thoughts:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dworkin is 100% right, as always.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Still, there's point to this complaint. Hillary does generate more vitriol than them and let's not kid ourselves, sexism was one of the factors.

But again, I would distinguish between sexism of the voters vs. sexism of Democratic elites vs. sexism of "pundits".

Many Democratic elites want her to disappear not because they themselves don't like her, but because she's unpopular with voters, in a way that previous presidential losers weren't.  That may be largely because of sexism, but it's the sexism of voters rather than that of the actual people saying they'd like her to exit the public stage.

The Clinton's are just vile people. That's why they should go away. Bill Clinton's so called popularity is one of the most overrated in history....he never got more than half the popular vote. Hillary on the other hand is not electable and never has been.

He gets way too credit for winning the 1992 election. I would have said that anyone could have beaten Bush in 1992. But then the 2016 Hillary campaign happened. OK, anybody but Hillary.

He won because Perot was comfortable enough with Bill's centrism to launch a spoiler campaign against HW. Had the dem nominee been a leftist like Brown or Tsongas, Perot would've just endorsed Bush, and Bush would've been reelected.

Just LOL at the idea of Tsongas being a leftist.

[King Lear]

As much as I'm not pleased with the Centrist wing of the Democratic Party (of which Hillary Clinton is a central figure), I had no problem voting for Hillary in 2016, because of how lousy Trump was. Honestly, I believe the Democrats would have been much better of if She won, because, they would have had a Senate majority, a Supreme Court majority, would have defeated Republicans in three consecutive presidential elections, and the Bernie wing would have forced her to the Left on economics and foreign policy. Instead, Trump won with a blatant appeal to White identity politics, and this has forced Democrats to talk even more about cultural issues (and even less about economics), which in turn has excasterbated the Racial, Religious, and cultural divides in American politics, thus putting Democrats in a position to get wiped out this Midterm without holding the White House (if they would have been wiped out in 2018 with a President Clinton, they would have at least had a shot to hold the Presidency in 2020 if Republicans nominated another whack job).

[Hammy]

I almost wonder why people who don't like her and want her to go away, instead of whining for her to shut up, just... stop paying attention or listening to her, instead? That seems like the obvious answer here.

Most are likely worried about her impact on the election midterm--GOP is already putting her in ads to drive up GOP enthusiasm.

Which is ridiculous.

No one in November of 2018 is going to go to the ballot box, or not go, because of something Hillary said. She's not the incumbent, she's not on the ballot, and at any point in time you're going to have 10-20 other weekly stories competing for attention.

Don't forget Dem control of the Senate rests on holding onto seats in heavily Republican states.

[TheSaint250]

I just love how deeply false this is. Ferraro became a UN Commission ambassador. Elizabeth Dole became a senator. Even HILLARY CLINTON became SECRETARY OF STATE by the SAME GUY who beat her.

Hillary Clinton just loves to make people feel guilty for things that aren’t even true.

[mvd10]

Hillary 2020. She's the only one that can save America from Bernie, Trump and the other (mostly sexist) idiots at the fringes. Break that glass ceiling!

[new_patomic]

I almost wonder why people who don't like her and want her to go away, instead of whining for her to shut up, just... stop paying attention or listening to her, instead? That seems like the obvious answer here.

Most are likely worried about her impact on the election midterm--GOP is already putting her in ads to drive up GOP enthusiasm.

Which is ridiculous.

No one in November of 2018 is going to go to the ballot box, or not go, because of something Hillary said. She's not the incumbent, she's not on the ballot, and at any point in time you're going to have 10-20 other weekly stories competing for attention.

Don't forget Dem control of the Senate rests on holding onto seats in heavily Republican states.

And?

Is the idea here that some unenthusiastic Republican is going to wake up on November 6th and because of something they saw about Clinton on Fox News or Twitter drag themselves to the polls?

If that somehow is the case, that Hillary Clinton a deciding factor in an election, then I'd say something has gone wrong and we were probably never likely to win it anyway, really. Or we're confusing people who would have voted anyway and Fox News coverage with actual justification for why some voters chose to turnout.

[Hammy]

I almost wonder why people who don't like her and want her to go away, instead of whining for her to shut up, just... stop paying attention or listening to her, instead? That seems like the obvious answer here.

Most are likely worried about her impact on the election midterm--GOP is already putting her in ads to drive up GOP enthusiasm.

Which is ridiculous.

No one in November of 2018 is going to go to the ballot box, or not go, because of something Hillary said. She's not the incumbent, she's not on the ballot, and at any point in time you're going to have 10-20 other weekly stories competing for attention.

Don't forget Dem control of the Senate rests on holding onto seats in heavily Republican states.

And?

Is the idea here that some unenthusiastic Republican is going to wake up on November 6th and because of something they saw about Clinton on Fox News or Twitter drag themselves to the polls?

If that somehow is the case, that Hillary Clinton a deciding factor in an election, then I'd say something has gone wrong and we were probably never likely to win it anyway, really. Or we're confusing people who would have voted anyway and Fox News coverage with actual justification for why some voters chose to turnout.

It has nothing to do with Fox coverage but campaign ads--with Clinton still going on and on two years later (as no other losing candidate in recent history has done) as we head into the midterms, it's nothing but giving ammo to your opponent, and again keeping 2016 fresh in people's minds and tying incumbents to her when they might not have been consciously thinking about it otherwise.

Even incumbent senators are seeing the problem here. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/15/politics/heidi-heitkamp-hillary-clinton-not-soon-enough/index.html

[new_patomic]

I almost wonder why people who don't like her and want her to go away, instead of whining for her to shut up, just... stop paying attention or listening to her, instead? That seems like the obvious answer here.

Most are likely worried about her impact on the election midterm--GOP is already putting her in ads to drive up GOP enthusiasm.

Which is ridiculous.

No one in November of 2018 is going to go to the ballot box, or not go, because of something Hillary said. She's not the incumbent, she's not on the ballot, and at any point in time you're going to have 10-20 other weekly stories competing for attention.

Don't forget Dem control of the Senate rests on holding onto seats in heavily Republican states.

And?

Is the idea here that some unenthusiastic Republican is going to wake up on November 6th and because of something they saw about Clinton on Fox News or Twitter drag themselves to the polls?

If that somehow is the case, that Hillary Clinton a deciding factor in an election, then I'd say something has gone wrong and we were probably never likely to win it anyway, really. Or we're confusing people who would have voted anyway and Fox News coverage with actual justification for why some voters chose to turnout.

It has nothing to do with Fox coverage but campaign ads--with Clinton still going on and on two years later (as no other losing candidate in recent history has done) as we head into the midterms, it's nothing but giving ammo to your opponent, and again keeping 2016 fresh in people's minds and tying incumbents to her when they might not have been consciously thinking about it otherwise.

Even incumbent senators are seeing the problem here. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/15/politics/heidi-heitkamp-hillary-clinton-not-soon-enough/index.html

I'm going to go out on a limb and say she hasn't done anything really that unprecedented in American politics. She's doing speeches and wrote a book and like every other person these days has a SuperPAC.

But really, if Republicans want to waste money running ads on Hillary Clinton two years after 2016, they're more than welcomed to. It'll go great with the tens of millions they're going to use trying to sell tax reform, trying to make 2018 a referendum on Nancy Pelosi, that every Democrat is a radical liberal socialist, and everything else.  

And what would you expect Heitkamp, McCaskill, or anyone else to say, really? When directly asked about her? Any answer is bound to be some variation of "Yeah I realize Hillary Clinton is not popular I gain no points defending her." Which is great for the beltway press because they get to write another article about Hillary, gain some clicks, and suddenly here we are days later still typing about it, but that's not the same as 'has an actual impact on the election.'

[Hammy]

I almost wonder why people who don't like her and want her to go away, instead of whining for her to shut up, just... stop paying attention or listening to her, instead? That seems like the obvious answer here.

Most are likely worried about her impact on the election midterm--GOP is already putting her in ads to drive up GOP enthusiasm.

Which is ridiculous.

No one in November of 2018 is going to go to the ballot box, or not go, because of something Hillary said. She's not the incumbent, she's not on the ballot, and at any point in time you're going to have 10-20 other weekly stories competing for attention.

Don't forget Dem control of the Senate rests on holding onto seats in heavily Republican states.

And?

Is the idea here that some unenthusiastic Republican is going to wake up on November 6th and because of something they saw about Clinton on Fox News or Twitter drag themselves to the polls?

If that somehow is the case, that Hillary Clinton a deciding factor in an election, then I'd say something has gone wrong and we were probably never likely to win it anyway, really. Or we're confusing people who would have voted anyway and Fox News coverage with actual justification for why some voters chose to turnout.

It has nothing to do with Fox coverage but campaign ads--with Clinton still going on and on two years later (as no other losing candidate in recent history has done) as we head into the midterms, it's nothing but giving ammo to your opponent, and again keeping 2016 fresh in people's minds and tying incumbents to her when they might not have been consciously thinking about it otherwise.

Even incumbent senators are seeing the problem here. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/15/politics/heidi-heitkamp-hillary-clinton-not-soon-enough/index.html

I'm going to go out on a limb and say she hasn't done anything really that unprecedented in American politics. She's done a few speeches every few weeks and wrote a book.

But really, if Republicans want to waste money running ads on Hillary Clinton two years after 2016, they're more than welcomed to. It'll go great with the tens of millions they're going to use trying to sell tax reform, trying to make 2018 a referendum on Nancy Pelosi, that every Democrat is a radical liberal socialist, and everything else.  

And what would you expect Heitkamp, McCaskill, or anyone else to say, really? When directly asked about her? Any answer is bound to be some variation of "Yeah I realize Hillary Clinton is not popular I gain no points defending her." Which is great for the beltway press because they get to write another article about Hillary, gain some clicks, and suddenly here we are days later still typing about it, but that's not the same as 'has an actual impact on the election.'

As far as the tweet thread, the problem here isn't simply that Clinton 'isn't shutting up and going away' but that two years later, it's still all about her--the continued excuses for losing etc, which is wholly unproductive.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It has nothing to do with Fox coverage but campaign ads--with Clinton still going on and on two years later (as no other losing candidate in recent history has done) as we head into the midterms, it's nothing but giving ammo to your opponent, and again keeping 2016 fresh in people's minds and tying incumbents to her when they might not have been consciously thinking about it otherwise.

Democrats ran a ton of ads about W. in 2010.
We all know how that ended.
Midterms are referendums on the incumbent and nothing Republicans do will change that.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Oh, good grief. Shut up.

[new_patomic]

As far as the tweet thread, the problem here isn't simply that Clinton 'isn't shutting up and going away' but that two years later, it's still all about her--the continued excuses for losing etc, which is wholly unproductive.

Thankfully for everyone, she's in a position of power now where she doesn't, well, have to be productive? It's sort of the beauty of not actually having power or real relevance. She's free to speak her mind about what she thinks of the current administration or why she lost in 2016 or what the election signified, and it amounts to pretty much nothing.

It has nothing to do with Fox coverage but campaign ads--with Clinton still going on and on two years later (as no other losing candidate in recent history has done) as we head into the midterms, it's nothing but giving ammo to your opponent, and again keeping 2016 fresh in people's minds and tying incumbents to her when they might not have been consciously thinking about it otherwise.

Democrats ran a ton of ads about W. in 2010.
We all know how that ended.
Midterms are referendums on the incumbent and nothing Republicans do will change that.

In difficult midterm election, Democrats back to bashing George W. Bush

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's like staring into a mirror.

[Progressive Pessimist]

She's right. It's not any more complicated than that.

Dworkin's thoughts:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I regret posting in this thread...

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Folks, even the establishment-establishment Dems have thrown her under the bus already.  Literally no one wants anything to do with Hillary Clinton anymore.  She's alienated herself enough from just about every wing of the party except bitter Twitter #resist bots.

I am not at all surprised that her favorability ratings in public polls have gone down since the election in spite of Donald Trump.  That doesn't mean sexism has no part here, but as others pointed out, most losing presidential candidates move on from their defeat, not continue whining about it years afterwards.

[OneJ]

I'm assuming she's never heard of Jeb Bush...


...please clap.

[CookieDamage]

Y'all "leftists" and Bernie bros showing your true colors. Imagine if Warren or Gabbard lost and was told to shut it, y'all would be screeching.