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

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
 
Kaos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not true
 
Kaos said:
She garnered more female votes than Trump, but 53% of white women voted for Trump. That's an awful battleground to lose.
Click to expand...
White women always vote Republican. She closed the gap.
 
Kaos said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kaos said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
sammsky1 said:
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
Click to expand...
James Comey choosing sides had nothing to do with competence.
 
sammsky1 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
sammsky1 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Adisa said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm still convinced any man of her qualification would have won easily against the PMOTUS.

*Prime moron
 
Kaos said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Adisa said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
adexkola said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
adexkola said:
People need to stop saying this. I know false equivalency is the in thing now but she wasn't terrible by any measure. Mediocre? Insipid? Sure.
Click to expand...


She had the most money, was endorsed by a respected president, was against Trump and lost - yeah she was just unlucky.....
 
Kaos said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
adexkola said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is it?

'the masses' voted for her.

She lost marginal states she didn't campaign in for months. She lost because she got complacent.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Is it?

'the masses' voted for her.

She lost marginal states she didn't campaign in for months. She lost because she got complacent.
Click to expand...
She campaigned plenty in Pennsylvania.
 
She lost because of an outdated and basically undemocratic election system.
 
berbatrick said:
In the Philly suburbs, not the light blue small towns. It was a tactical mistake.
Same with Michigan.
WI was a genuine shock.
Click to expand...
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.

Nikhil said:
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?

Click to expand...

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.
 
berbatrick said:
In the Philly suburbs, not the light blue small towns. It was a tactical mistake.
Same with Michigan.
WI was a genuine shock.
Click to expand...

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)
 
Ubik said:
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.
Click to expand...
IDB?
 
Ubik said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ohio was a pure shock in terms of magnitude.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
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)
Click to expand...

One of the wikileaks emails had her people arguing with Bill's about campaigning there (he wanted more, and to go himself)
 
berbatrick said:
One of the wikileaks emails had her people arguing with Bill's about campaigning there (he wanted more, and to go himself)
Click to expand...

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).
 
Ubik said:
Definitely, but if you need to treat Wisconsin and Michigan seriously, Ohio's a lost cause.
Click to expand...

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.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
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.
Click to expand...
Was after, I remember the sigh of relief I gave :(

EDIT - Actually looking at the field dates, the letter happened halfway through the sample.
 
Ubik said:
Was after, I remember the sigh of relief I gave :(

EDIT - Actually looking at the field dates, the letter happened halfway through the sample.
Click to expand...

It usually takes 2-3 days for any impact to price in the samples, no? Iirc it was 47-40 at the time.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
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).
Click to expand...

NC is interesting. Dems won a series of executive races (governor, attorney general, SoS) and another statewide race (state SC).
OTOH, Trump was confortable, the senate was a rout of a very good Dem candidate, and the GOP won veto-proof majorities in state house and senate, and all the non-dark blue seats for the House. But apparently as per some federal judge, state legislature elections need to be re-done with new districts.
BTW, the wonders of FPTP: 13 seats, winner with 10 seats had only 7% lead in votes (53-46)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.