Sorry I'm standing by this. To lose to Trump of all people you have to be an awful candidate, she couldn't galvanise anyone on the right nor left and even lost the woman's vote to a vehement misogynist...despite being a woman herself. She represents the establishment rot at the Democrat party and hopefully now they can drain their own swamp, starting with her and her cronies.
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Sorry I'm standing by this. To lose to Trump of all people you have to be an awful candidate, she couldn't galvanise anyone on the right nor left and even lost the woman's vote to a vehement misogynist...despite being a woman herself. She represents the establishment rot at the Democrat party and hopefully now they can drain their own swamp, starting with her and her cronies.
She had no business ever running for office to start nevermind SOS. Refrain you routinely hear about her is that she evokes great hatred - I think a career littered with corruption and controversy likely has something to do with it
For me, she epitomizes the cesspool that persists in DC. If we're lucky, she disappears without a trace
For me, she epitomizes the cesspool that persists in DC. If we're lucky, she disappears without a trace
Not true
She garnered more female votes than Trump, but 53% of white women voted for Trump. That's an awful battleground to lose.
White women always vote Republican. She closed the gap.
That's not suprising. Overall she got 12% more votes with women.
Its easy to say that in retrospect and after Trump received considerable support from disparate sources like Assange, Comey, and Putin. Sanders may have fared better, or he may have crumbled under Trump's tsunami of attacks. We just don't know, but to say one would have to be terrible candidate after losing to someone like Trump is just not accurate. Trump managed to capture a certain sentiment that was there for the taking this year, which when combined with outside help was just enough to push him across the finish line.
I agree with you. Her campaign is guilty of everything Trump refers to as the forgotten peoplw which is ironic because those people should be represented by Democrats.
The neo liberal champagne socialist movement drank too much of its own kool aid and is guilty of alot of the 'political corruption' which Trump highlighted.
All things being said, it's important to note that she got more votes and that 54% of voters did not vote for Trump.
Still it's the same rules for everyone and she would have understood electoral maths instinctively and far better than Trump.
I'm still staggered she lost, with all that experience and a campaign budget 3 times bigger than Trump... Its incompetence which proves she would not have been very good at the job itself
Still it's the same rules for everyone and she would have understood electoral maths instinctively and far better than Trump.
I'm still staggered she lost, with all that experience and a campaign budget 3 times bigger than Trump... Its incompetence which proves she would not have been very good at the job itself
James Comey choosing sides had nothing to do with competence.
Easy on the non-sequiturs there.
Think there were too many forces beyond her control. Looking at it objectively, she was as good as any candidate the Dems could have produced.
Trump was given tens of billions worth of free air time. it's silly to use normal campaign metrics to this election. In my opinion she was largely a victim of circumstance.
I'm still convinced any man of her qualification would have won easily against the PMOTUS.
*Prime moron
If it was a landslide victory I would agree with you. The margins however were so thin there were many other factors that tipped the scales in Trump's favor beside Hillary's mehness.
Hillary won over minority women and didn't capture the white woman vote. That was better dissected by people on both sides of the political spectrum. Why are women in red states anti-women legislation like equal pay and reproductive rights?
The Democrats will embrace their progressive wings a bit more as a result of the defeat, but it was a centrist candidate who won with record numbers in 2008 and 2012, and Hillary did win the popular vote by a good amount, so I'm not convinced that her platform was terrible. It was flawed enough for a perfect storm to overtake it.
I'm stealing this.
No she wasn't, she was probably the worst candidate they probably could have fielded. Despised by both the right and the left, the anti-populist, and very much the embodiment of the establishment rot that everyone one both sides of the spectrum had grown tired of. Not to mention it didn't help she was campaigning while being investigated by the FBI.
Raoul is right in that there's no guarantees Sanders would have beaten Trump, but I definitely would have fancied his chances over her. Heck I would have fancied anyone the dems put forward ahead of her. It's largely thanks to their blinded stupidity that we have this tragedy as POTUS.
The forums are full of crime! SAD!
Considering the incompetence, scandal, bigotry and flat-out petulence hovering over Trump, any defeat to him is a humiliation. A centrist candidate winning in the previous two elections means nothing today. There's been a yearning for an anti-establishment populist sentiment, the Dems failed to realise this by hamstringing their best chance while championing the very embodiment of what the masses hate about modern politics.
She had the most money, was endorsed by a respected president, was against Trump and lost - yeah she was just unlucky.....
That is correct. Her efforts to pivot to the left after winning the nomination were too little too late. To be fair, I think it caught a lot of us by surprise. I can't even pinpoint where the turning point was between Obama's victory in 2012 and today.
Is it?
'the masses' voted for her.
She lost marginal states she didn't campaign in for months. She lost because she got complacent.
She campaigned plenty in Pennsylvania.
She lost because of an outdated and basically undemocratic election system.
She lost because old white people in swing states are more likely to vote.
For all the scorn poured on uneducated whites by the lefty elites, it was the uneducated blacks who didn't bother turning out in the metropolitan areas of the swing states.
You mean the system that she and her husband have been completely immersed in for 25 years? Her incredibly experienced campaign staff decided to ignore electoral math and just get lots of votes in Los Angeles?
In the Philly suburbs, not the light blue small towns. It was a tactical mistake.
Same with Michigan.
WI was a genuine shock.
The Clinton Global Initiative is closing down as she lost and will not be President. The donors and corporations are not donating to her now. Coincidence?
They still held the convention there and had plenty of stops from the likes of Obama, Bill and Biden. Still received the same big swing against and still suffered turnout problems. Unconvinced that all three could've been flipped just through more campaigning. In retrospect, Iowa and Ohio were complete wastes of time.
Was announced before the election - http://www.syracuse.com/news/index....tiative_to_lay_off_74_at_new_york_office.html
But I see the IBD are running it as proof they were right all along, great standards that place.
Biden was doing the rounds in traditional working class Dem voting area in PA like Scranton. The Michigan stops late on in the campaign pretty much mirrored Obama '12 schedule.
There just seems to be no correlation b/w campaign time spent on the Midwest and turnout. She was, in restropect, a terrible candidate in that neck of the woods (tbf, should've been quite evident from primary results)
IDB?
Ohio was a pure shock in terms of magnitude.
One of the wikileaks emails had her people arguing with Bill's about campaigning there (he wanted more, and to go himself)
It was reported by Politico I think. Bill was correct the whole while regarding catering to whites w/o degree but he was marginalised by the Obama gang.
Still, surrogates at the end of the day can't make up for the candidate, and the candidate was a bad fit. Michelle Obama camped out in NC and black turnout was still down (voter suppression permitting).
Investor's Business Daily, they hate Clinton and love Charles Krauthammer.
Definitely, but if you need to treat Wisconsin and Michigan seriously, Ohio's a lost cause.
Was the last Marquette's WI poll before or after Comey's letter? Across the battlegrounds post election data point to a lopsided break in late decider to Drumpf.
Trump's team have reportedly fired all foreign ambassadors appointed by Obama without having replacements lined up.
Was after, I remember the sigh of relief I gave
EDIT - Actually looking at the field dates, the letter happened halfway through the sample.