That's all well and good but the main reason is because enough dumb feckers couldn't be arsed to really read about the issues and candidates to make their decision and instead went for a shiny new toy who promised gold nuggets for all from his arsehole.
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.
That's all well and good but the main reason is because enough dumb feckers couldn't be arsed to really read about the issues and candidates to make their decision and instead went for a shiny new toy who promised gold nuggets for all from his arsehole.
I'm actually not disagreeing about her lack of vision (or at least a lack of presentation of her vision), I just think the election went against her for many things, and the most notable faults lie with her campaign manager and the shitty data they used.
It is clear that she hasn't got as many votes as Obama did in 2012, but that difference wouldn't have stopped her from getting to the white house if they had allocated her resources better.
Trump gave the ignored white blue color voter (by both Democrats and Republicans) a voice. Of course he was playing the blame game. But Hillary had a handicap too. NAFTA. She was never going to be able to get rid of that hanging round her neck. I remember Axelrod saying that the so called Reagen Democrats were no longer voters they were after. The shame about that is he is trying to Win instead of actually doing something for these people. And to just brand these people racists is pretty poor. They have fears like anyone. Trump used them.
As you know. How many people really bother to read about issues. They want to hear something that resonates with them.
This was always going to be a change election. Hillary was never about change. Bernie resonated with all groups. He simply would have had the positive message and would have won.
Its twice she had a poor strategy. In 2008 she went for the big states. Obama was piling up delegates from Red States he was never going to win in the GE. She woke up too late to this, was already behind.
And now as you say no resources were allocated to some of the states she lost so closely.
If you're going to say she lost because she didn't allocate resources and make campaign stops in Michigan and Wisconsin, you also have to answer why she still lost so badly in Ohio and saw such a big swing in Pennsylvania, where a lot of money and time was spent.
That's true, ultimately her campaign, her campaign manager, her fault. I think they tried to go for a massive win and left themselves open at the back, a little like going gung-ho attack and conceeding a goal on the counter.
Don't fecking make this an Arsenal thing.
I was thinking about Barca when I typed that.I would like to point out her absolutely pointless use of celebs for her cause, what a waste of time and energy, people don't give a feck about rich privileged celebs when the agenda for so many is economic insecurity, fear of the future and general xenophobia. She and her team should have spent a few hours trying to figure out how appeal to these voters in a civilized way to counter Trump.
She's probably finished and will retire.
She's probably finished and will retire.
Personally I think she lost because of the anti Trump campaign. Those who saw themselves as "good" guys ended up looking like the "bad" guys. The anti Trump campaign refused to recognize their own bigotry. Even now some fail to see the parallels between the way they tried to dehumanize Trump supporters or those considering voting for him and the way we've seen evil regimes operate in history. The irony being they used discrimination as a weapon with which to discriminate. Trump was compared to Hitler, his supporters were called "deplorables" (how far is that from cock roaches or rats as we've seen in the past?) The anti Trump campaign tried to stigmatize people with a different point of view, basically using a modern form of bullying to try and make them change their minds, rather than reasoned, rational political discourse. But you can't just bully people into voting how you want them to, as the voting booth doesn't judge or condemn you. The indiscriminate use of terms such as "racist", "bigot" and "xenophobe" etc was pretty disgusting. Sadly those who took that approach probably still don't recognize how reprehensible it was and how had that not done so, in my opinion at least, Donald Trump wouldn't be President Elect.
She used the wrong celebs. If she had used Bruce Springsteen more we'd have been alright. Tough to go up against Chachi though.
Its pretty sad that she is blaming Comey, as if he was responsible for running a pretty uninspiring campaign that allowed Trump to even get within 5 points of her.
Multiple things can be true simultaneously.
She should have anticipated the hostility towards another political dynasty figure running for president.
she really needs to come out of this with some dignity.
She made a good start with her Concession speech.
If she conducts herself in that manner, she can perhaps be relevent still in the party.
the way we are playing, we look to concede and do feck all up front.
Yes!
Yes. But it is pointless to be seen to be making excuses after the event if she is concerned about preserving her legacy.
I think you're right and it's probably time for her to retire. It's not like she's in her 40s or even her 50s.
While this is undoubtably true, the relevant point is that it's always true. The voting public in the west is horribly disengaged from any deep understanding of politics, which is why our politicians are such PR obsessed, dishonest wankers. It's how they get elected. For Clinton to have managed to completely forget this very basic Politics 101 rule, means that she is indeed a very bad politician.
Then again that's not really a surprise. People keep bleating on about her being the most experienced politician ever, but that is basically complete and total nonsense. Her entire elected career consisted of being parachuted into a very safe Democratic seat, and managing to hold it for one re-election cycle. The only other times she's run for office, she lost in a primary to a virtually unknown Senator and then scraped through a second primary against a virtually unknown socialist senator before getting beaten by a plastic KKK doll. Her record is absolutely appalling.
Obama proved that being a great campaigner trumps being an experienced politician.
I 100% agree with this. The media, especially CNN which has contributed millions to her campaign, kept bleating on about her experience. It was all bad experience though. She voted for the Iraq war, supported NAFTA, supported the Patriot Act and the Crime Bill, was extremely hawkish on foreign policy, had bad judgement, was never going to change healthcare for the better because of contributions from the pharmaceutical industry and health insurance companies, took donations from foreign governments and worked to serve them well as Secretary of State and so on. The media still tried to portray her as some sort of progressive. The media's come out of this election looking disgraceful. I'm never reading the NYT again.
good summation.
I heard that the numbers suggest some Dem voters actually turned up to vote, voted for other stuff like the legalisation of weed and other things on the ticket, but actually left the top bit about the president blank. It wasn't people couldn't be arsed to vote, people turned up but couldn't bring themselves to vote for her. That's a serious indictment.
(sorry if this has already been said)
(sorry if this has already been said)
She should have left Bill after the Lewinsky incident. That's why white women didn't vote for her.
She lost the white woman vote by being a democratic. Republicans usually win that demographic.
Yeah, they actually moved in her direction by 4 points. White men, by contrast, moved in Trump's favour by 5 points. But hey, who cares about context anyway.
In the campaign of false equivalencies when Trump's pussy grabbing comment and then the accusations of sexual assault came out against him of the course the Trumpettes all quickly pointed out how Bill had several women who accused him of sexual assault and that never seemed to bother anyone on the left, Hillary was looked up to for standing by him, etc etc etc blah blah blah. As if that somehow made Trump's comments and actions all okay.
Without trying to generalise too much, Americans in my limited experience have a bit of a thing about authority telling them what to do. The more they are told to do something the more they rebel against it. There was likely an element of this in play with the feeling that the rest of the world thought they would be idiots voting Trump, and the media constantly banging on about how they had to vote for her because Trump... (insert accusation). Maybe in comes down to a strong independent due to how the country came about, winning independence, and with the feeling of superiority, not wanting other counties telling them what to do.
In part they may be right. I mean, Germany and France really need to get their own house in order before lobbing barbs over the fence.
This is not the reason.
She was a very poor candidate, that's why she lost to Trump. She was carrying too much baggage, she had been around too long, she did very little for the american people while she became rich from politics. She is not liked by average Americans, she should have realized it long ago and quit politics in 2008.
Why do so many people in the US (and the UK for that matter) seem to think France and Germany are supposedly in turmoil? It's been the same for easily 10-15 years now, and yet to people who actually live in France and Germany it's all a bit confusing. The UK just voted to completely feck itself for no reason (a decision that could make entire future generations poorer), and the US just voted for a racist, misogynistic sexual predator who intends to deport millions of people, build a giant wall and take away the reproductive rights of tens of millions of women. What exactly do you think is happening in France or Germany that compares to any of that?
No reason? I voted to stay in the EU, but clearly there was a reason my side lost.
On France and Germany, I dont think they are in turmoil but they have pressures under the surface that could bubble up and become serious problems.
Germany: Syrian refugee crisis undermining Merkel's popularity and possibly fanning flames of resentment against immigration, and therefore desire to control own borders.
France: Super high racial tensions, number one target for terror attacks in Europe, higher than average unemployment, public debt close to being out of control (if Spain and/or Italy have a sovereign debt crisis, France will likely get dragged into it.)
Im no expert but I wouldnt be surprised if there is a fairly large constituency in both those countries who would like to see their countries follow in the footsteps of the UK and/or US, perhaps leaving the EU or putting a populist party in power.
Ok, I live in France and not only are they a considerably more racial mixed society than Britain, but you also see a lot less racism here than you do in England (I'd imagine those two things are connected). Number one terrorist target? Why exactly? They got hit a few times last year, but the UK has done more to piss off ISIS than France ever will.
Your last point about people wanting to follow the UK's footsteps is the same thing I hear from so many people in the UK. I haven't heard a single person, not one in France who after Brexit wanted to follow the UK. They were shocked, amused and confused in various measures, but not one said they wanted to join us. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who want to leave, but I'm damned if I know where they are.
OK well it may be that Im completely wrong. That is very possible. Or it may be that you, like me in the UK, move in circles where you have a limited understanding of what "the other side" are thinking. No doubt the middle class metropolitan elite in France is appalled at what the UK and US did. But guess what, the same group are appalled about it in the UK as well.
I agree the UK has "done more to piss off ISIS." And yet its France that keeps getting hit. I dont know if its because French security is weak, or France's dogma about secularism actually pisses ISIS off more than you realise, or what it is. But yeah, maybe that will change. It certainly seems strange to me.
I cant comment on France being a less racist society than the UK, my experience tells me that isnt right. We obviously have a different approach, the UK has a more "multicultural" approach whereas France seems to impose French values on its immigrants more and encourage integration. But in terms of racial harmony I have found, and I have read, France has a similar amount of racial tension to the UK. But I dont live there and I never have, so I am happy to admit I could be completely wrong.
That's certainly possible.
I think France has issues with integration of some of its immigrant population, especially in the major city suburbs, but I think labelling them as racial tensions is not really an accurate depiction of events, largely because there are so many people of so many different races here.
Agreed.
Ultimately she lost those 3 states by a tiny margin (without any campaigning in 2 of them) and won the popular vote, so is it so ridiculous to think she would have won if they devoted more resources in those 3?
That she would win them by about 5.
On the one hand it would only have taken 50,000 voters switching in all to change the result. Then again, they spent big in PA and campaigned there a lot, without much apparent success.