What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?

Cheesy said:
Yep, I think he'd have been ideal. Has the experience of Hilary, but would've ultimately probably appealed to a lot of voters in the swing states that Hilary lost by a margin.

Whenever I hear someone reasonable defending Trump it's almost always on the basis that Hilary was just as corrupt, that she was a criminal, and that her husband wasn't any better than Trump when it came to the sexual assault allegations. Irrespective of their truthfulness it's what people believed...and that was influential. No one could have reasonably said Biden was as bad as Trump without being a die-in-the-wool Republican already.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he would have suffered some similar weaknesses in terms of voting record, trade deal support (would've been harder for him to flip flop on TPP in particular) and general identity as an establishment politician, and he's more prone to the odd gaffe than she is, but in all you'd have to say it would be a net vote winner by a fair amount.
 
Aldo said:
She seems to have aged 10 years in one week.
Click to expand...

People forget she's an old woman. She's probably worn plenty of makeup/been done over to make her look younger than she is. Same with Trump, I suspect.
 
Anyone else find it less than surprising that donations to her foundation has suddenly dropped 37%
 
There are plenty of reasons. You could blame Comey and Wikileaks, which would be fair, but ultimately its because she was a candidate of yesterday who was pushed to run this time, was anointed by elites at the DNC, and wasn't able to address the needs of blue collar white voters. Had she done that, she would've won. But instead, she opted for fundraisers and to propped up by celebrity elites like Beyonce, Springsteen, and Bon Jovi.
 
Raoul said:
There are plenty of reasons. You could blame Comey and Wikileaks, which would be fair, but ultimately its because she was a candidate of yesterday who was pushed to run this time, was anointed by elites at the DNC, and wasn't able to address the needs of blue collar white voters. Had she done that, she would've won. But instead, she opted for fundraisers and to propped up by celebrity elites like Beyonce, Springsteen, and Bon Jovi.
Click to expand...

she was not pushed.
She desperately wanted to be president since 2008.

On that we must strongly disagree.
 
Red Dreams said:
she was not pushed.
She desperately wanted to be president since 2008.

On that we must strongly disagree.
Click to expand...

She wanted to run in 2008 but had to be cajoled into running again in 2016. I asked someone on her staff around 2011/12 and was told she was interested in retirement, and her campaign performance this time seemed to reinforce that.
 
Raoul said:
She wanted to run in 2008 but had to be cajoled into running again in 2016. I asked someone on her staff around 2011/12 and was told she was interested in retirement, and her campaign performance this time seemed to reinforce that.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt what you were told. But it cannot have been the truth. Either that staffer honestly did not know or merely pushed what he/she was told to say.

In 2008 when she knew she was about to lose the nomination she and Obama met to cut the 'deal' which was that she would be made SoS in his administration so that she could have creds to run in 2016. Obama did this to unite the party, the machinary of which very much belonged to the Clintons. This was comendable. But perhaps he did not forsee how much she was distrusted. This distrust was hightened by emailgate.
In the end the most hated candidate in the history of the presidency trumped (excuse the pun) the most distrusted candidate of the presidency.

Obama and the DNC could have allowed the normal nomination process to go through. Whoever won then would have had the support of democratic voters. Importantly too any other candidate would have run a more positive campaign, about the vision they had for All Americans. She simply had too much baggage...NAFTA included which nosedived with what Trump was saying. Some months ago when I looked at the EC I saw the only path Trump had was through the Rust Belt. Still it was an almost impossible task.
I remember Axelrod saying, the democrats did not need the blue color white voters who were now voting Republican. The Republicans must have listened too. The rejection of the Axelrod theory was behind the recent challenge to Pelosi by Tim Ryan. Democrats need these voters, not just as an insurance to win. They may well win without them with a candidate who garnered more trust. But it is important to represent all sections of the nation.

The next candidate must not just understand this, but believe it in his or her heart.
This person will truly have the mandate to improve the lives of All Americans.
 
Red Dreams said:
I don't doubt what you were told. But it cannot have been the truth. Either that staffer honestly did not know or merely pushed what he/she was told to say.

In 2008 when she knew she was about to lose the nomination she and Obama met to cut the 'deal' which was that she would be made SoS in his administration so that she could have creds to run in 2016. Obama did this to unite the party, the machinary of which very much belonged to the Clintons. This was comendable. But perhaps he did not forsee how much she was distrusted. This distrust was hightened by emailgate.
In the end the most hated candidate in the history of the presidency trumped (excuse the pun) the most distrusted candidate of the presidency.

Obama and the DNC could have allowed the normal nomination process to go through. Whoever won then would have had the support of democratic voters. Importantly too any other candidate would have run a more positive campaign, about the vision they had for All Americans. She simply had too much baggage...NAFTA included which nosedived with what Trump was saying. Some months ago when I looked at the EC I saw the only path Trump had was through the Rust Belt. Still it was an almost impossible task.
I remember Axelrod saying, the democrats did not need the blue color white voters who were now voting Republican. The Republicans must have listened too. The rejection of the Axelrod theory was behind the recent challenge to Pelosi by Tim Ryan. Democrats need these voters, not just as an insurance to win. They may well win without them with a candidate who garnered more trust. But it is important to represent all sections of the nation.

The next candidate must not just understand this, but believe it in his or her heart.
This person will truly have the mandate to improve the lives of All Americans.
Click to expand...

Not particularly likely as I was dating her.
 
Red Dreams said:
quid pro quo.

It does not all have to spelt out.

Sorry. Hillary Clinton pushed??

nah.
Click to expand...

A quid pro quo for what ? Becoming SecState ? Do you actually know what point you are arguing for ?
 
Red Dreams said:
Someone who did not really want the presidency would not have stooped to using John Lweis to lie about Sanders.

You are judged by your deeds, not your words.
Click to expand...

You're still bitter aren't you. Let it go man, its obscuring your ability to think rationally.
 
Red Dreams said:
She needed experience creds to run for President.
Click to expand...

No she didn't. She was a U.S. Senator for 8 years at that point and was already more experienced than Obama before he became President.
 
Red Dreams said:
Wrong analysis...again.

Even after how she 'won' nomination I did not want Trump to win.

On election night I was not disappointed that she lost though.
Click to expand...

But you're obviously still jilted that Bernie lost. You disappeared from the President thread shortly thereafter.
 
Raoul said:
But you're obviously still jilted that Bernie lost. You disappeared from the President thread shortly thereafter.
Click to expand...

I left the thread because it had become a Hillary cheerleading thread.
I was never a Bernie follower. I agreed with most of what he said.
If I was his follower, I would have listened to him and voted for Hillary.

Many who voted for him, did not listen to him. That is why she lost.
 
Red Dreams said:
I left the thread because it had become a Hillary cheerleading thread.
I was never a Bernie follower. I agreed with most of what he said.
If I was his follower, I would have listened to him and voted for Hillary.

Many who voted for him, did not listen to him. That is why she lost.
Click to expand...

Who do you think should run in 20 ?
 
Raoul said:
Who do you think should run in 20 ?
Click to expand...

I would like to see perhaps a Newsom/Gabbard ticket.
But tbh I mention Newsom because he seems a fresh liberal face. Honestly I do not know a heck of a lot about him. But others have mentioned him.
Gabbard ticks a lot of the boxes. She is inclusive. Not afraid to say what she thinks. Some say she is islamophobic. But I have not seen anything highly negative there. Her religion has been mentioned. But I think that is not an issue. Sanders is an atheist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.