6 point lead in the 4-way. Feingold was up 1 as well, though. Not quite as big an error as the President's race, but almost.
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
How can she make tactical mistakes?
I thought she had the best, most experienced campaign staff and analysts? Billions of dollars to spend campaigning? Unprecedented levels of help & participation from the standing president and first lady? A husband who won twice to help her out? A blank check from Saudi Arabia? Unwavering support from every newspaper, blogger, and tv news outlet, and even the redcafe?
For Hillary and her team, Trump seemed to be perfect candidate to go against and one they thought they would easily beat.
But in a way she was also the perfect candidate for Trump. On the back of Trump' s anti-establishment message, she was the very definition of establishment. And she tried to play the popularity card, when she was one of the most unpopular politicians in America herself.
So she ends her career with embarrassing defeats to Obama in 2007 and Trump in 2016. Both times she was favourite.
But in a way she was also the perfect candidate for Trump. On the back of Trump' s anti-establishment message, she was the very definition of establishment. And she tried to play the popularity card, when she was one of the most unpopular politicians in America herself.
So she ends her career with embarrassing defeats to Obama in 2007 and Trump in 2016. Both times she was favourite.
I did not make that video. I merely posted it. I now hear that they were planning on closing the Clinton Initiative before the election. So clearly, Secular Talk are wrong. I did not know that when I posted it.
She and her campaigns have a history of making mistakes. But I don't think you're looking for an actual answer, so, meh.
Just saw this posted in the comment's section of an article on Hillary
Why Do Democrats Feel Sorry for Hillary Clinton?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...for-hillary-clinton.html?mid=twitter-share-di
I’ve done what I could in this space to avoid the subject of Hillary Clinton. I don’t want to be the perennial turd in the punchbowl. I’d hoped we’d finally seen the last of that name in public life — it’s been a long quarter of a century — and that we could all move on. Alas, no. Her daughter (angels and ministers of grace defend us) seems to be positioning herself for a political career. And Clinton herself duly emerged last week for a fawning, rapturous reception at the Women in the World conference in New York City. It simply amazes me the hold this family still has on the Democratic Party — and on liberals in general. The most popular question that came from interviewer Nick Kristof’s social-media outreach, for example, was: “Are you doing okay?” Here’s Michelle Goldberg: “I find myself wondering at odd times of the day and night: How is Hillary? Is she going to be all right?” Seriously, can you imagine anyone wondering the same after Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis or John Kerry blew elections?
And everywhere you see not an excoriation of one of the worst campaigns in recent history, leading to the Trump nightmare, but an attempt to blame anyone or anything but Clinton herself for the epic fail. It wasn’t Clinton’s fault, we’re told. It never is. It was the voters’ — those ungrateful, deplorable know-nothings! Their sexism defeated her (despite a majority of white women voting for Trump). A wave of misogyny defeated her (ditto). James Comey is to blame. Bernie Sanders’s campaign — because it highlighted her enmeshment with Wall Street, her brain-dead interventionism and her rapacious money-grubbing since she left the State Department — was the problem. Millennial feminists were guilty as well, for not seeing what an amazing crusader for their cause this candidate was. And this, of course, is how Clinton sees it as well: She wasn’t responsible for her own campaign — her staffers were. As a new book on her campaign notes, after Clinton lost the Michigan primary to Sanders, “The blame belonged to her campaign team, she believed, for failing to hone her message, energize important constituencies, and take care of business in getting voters to the polls.” So by the time the general-election campaign came round, they’d fix that and win Michigan, right?
Let us review the facts: Clinton had the backing of the entire Democratic establishment, including the president (his biggest mistake in eight years by far), and was even married to the last, popular Democratic president. As in 2008, when she managed to lose to a neophyte whose middle name was Hussein, everything was stacked in her favor. In fact, the Clintons so intimidated other potential candidates and donors, she had the nomination all but wrapped up before she even started. And yet she was so bad a candidate, she still only managed to squeak through in the primaries against an elderly, stopped-clock socialist who wasn’t even in her party, and who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. She ran with a popular Democratic incumbent president in the White House in a growing economy. She had the extra allure of possibly breaking a glass ceiling that — with any other female candidate — would have been as inspiring as the election of the first black president. In the general election, she was running against a malevolent buffoon with no political experience, with a deeply divided party behind him, and whose negatives were stratospheric. She outspent him by almost two-to-one. Her convention was far more impressive than his. The demographics favored her. And yet she still managed to lose!
“But … but … but …” her deluded fans insist, “she won the popular vote!” But that’s precisely my point. Any candidate who can win the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and still manage to lose the Electoral College by 304 to 227 is so profoundly incompetent, so miserably useless as a politician, she should be drummed out of the party under a welter of derision. Compare her electoral college result with Al Gore’s, who also won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College: 271 to 266. For that matter, compare hers with John Kerry’s, who lost the popular vote by 1.5 percent — 286 to 241. She couldn’t even find a halfway-decent speechwriter for her convention speech. The week before the election, she was campaigning in Arizona, for Pete’s sake. And she took off chunks of the summer, fundraising (at one point, in the swing states of Fire Island and Provincetown). Whenever she gave a speech, you could hear the air sucking out of the room minutes after she started. In the middle of an election campaign, she dismissed half of the Republican voters as “deplorable.” She lost Wisconsin, which she didn’t visit once. I could go on.
And so I find myself wondering at odd times of the day and night: Why is Trump in the White House? And then I remember. Hillary Clinton put him there.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...for-hillary-clinton.html?mid=twitter-share-di
I’ve done what I could in this space to avoid the subject of Hillary Clinton. I don’t want to be the perennial turd in the punchbowl. I’d hoped we’d finally seen the last of that name in public life — it’s been a long quarter of a century — and that we could all move on. Alas, no. Her daughter (angels and ministers of grace defend us) seems to be positioning herself for a political career. And Clinton herself duly emerged last week for a fawning, rapturous reception at the Women in the World conference in New York City. It simply amazes me the hold this family still has on the Democratic Party — and on liberals in general. The most popular question that came from interviewer Nick Kristof’s social-media outreach, for example, was: “Are you doing okay?” Here’s Michelle Goldberg: “I find myself wondering at odd times of the day and night: How is Hillary? Is she going to be all right?” Seriously, can you imagine anyone wondering the same after Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis or John Kerry blew elections?
And everywhere you see not an excoriation of one of the worst campaigns in recent history, leading to the Trump nightmare, but an attempt to blame anyone or anything but Clinton herself for the epic fail. It wasn’t Clinton’s fault, we’re told. It never is. It was the voters’ — those ungrateful, deplorable know-nothings! Their sexism defeated her (despite a majority of white women voting for Trump). A wave of misogyny defeated her (ditto). James Comey is to blame. Bernie Sanders’s campaign — because it highlighted her enmeshment with Wall Street, her brain-dead interventionism and her rapacious money-grubbing since she left the State Department — was the problem. Millennial feminists were guilty as well, for not seeing what an amazing crusader for their cause this candidate was. And this, of course, is how Clinton sees it as well: She wasn’t responsible for her own campaign — her staffers were. As a new book on her campaign notes, after Clinton lost the Michigan primary to Sanders, “The blame belonged to her campaign team, she believed, for failing to hone her message, energize important constituencies, and take care of business in getting voters to the polls.” So by the time the general-election campaign came round, they’d fix that and win Michigan, right?
Let us review the facts: Clinton had the backing of the entire Democratic establishment, including the president (his biggest mistake in eight years by far), and was even married to the last, popular Democratic president. As in 2008, when she managed to lose to a neophyte whose middle name was Hussein, everything was stacked in her favor. In fact, the Clintons so intimidated other potential candidates and donors, she had the nomination all but wrapped up before she even started. And yet she was so bad a candidate, she still only managed to squeak through in the primaries against an elderly, stopped-clock socialist who wasn’t even in her party, and who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. She ran with a popular Democratic incumbent president in the White House in a growing economy. She had the extra allure of possibly breaking a glass ceiling that — with any other female candidate — would have been as inspiring as the election of the first black president. In the general election, she was running against a malevolent buffoon with no political experience, with a deeply divided party behind him, and whose negatives were stratospheric. She outspent him by almost two-to-one. Her convention was far more impressive than his. The demographics favored her. And yet she still managed to lose!
“But … but … but …” her deluded fans insist, “she won the popular vote!” But that’s precisely my point. Any candidate who can win the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and still manage to lose the Electoral College by 304 to 227 is so profoundly incompetent, so miserably useless as a politician, she should be drummed out of the party under a welter of derision. Compare her electoral college result with Al Gore’s, who also won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College: 271 to 266. For that matter, compare hers with John Kerry’s, who lost the popular vote by 1.5 percent — 286 to 241. She couldn’t even find a halfway-decent speechwriter for her convention speech. The week before the election, she was campaigning in Arizona, for Pete’s sake. And she took off chunks of the summer, fundraising (at one point, in the swing states of Fire Island and Provincetown). Whenever she gave a speech, you could hear the air sucking out of the room minutes after she started. In the middle of an election campaign, she dismissed half of the Republican voters as “deplorable.” She lost Wisconsin, which she didn’t visit once. I could go on.
And so I find myself wondering at odd times of the day and night: Why is Trump in the White House? And then I remember. Hillary Clinton put him there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-hillary-clinton-lost-podcast_us_58420694e4b017f37fe4c532
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-democrats_us_58e41e39e4b0d0b7e165d35e
as the DNC chair elections showed the Dems have yet to move away from their corporate masters.
But the voters are not where the party is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-democrats_us_58e41e39e4b0d0b7e165d35e
as the DNC chair elections showed the Dems have yet to move away from their corporate masters.
But the voters are not where the party is.
What she did wrong?
Overestimated Obama's popularity.
What next?
Retire.
Overestimated Obama's popularity.
What next?
Retire.
The biggest problem of the Clinton campaign is that they never offered a vision for what America would be like if Clinton won. Obama did, Trump did, Bush did (2000), Clinton did (both 92 and 96). I think every president has. Instead the feeling you got was that she'd just advance programs already started by Obama. In many ways, Clinton was seeking a third term on the basis of work carried out by someone else. But whereas Obama was a massively popular figure, Clinton was massively divisive.
Sanders would have been a better candidate.
Sanders would have been a better candidate.
Nah, Obama was massively popular. It was Clinton herself who was quite unpopular.
Seriously, just retire already. The last thing the Democratic party needs is her hanging around like a bad smell.
Her message was basically constructed for California and New York. Unsurprisingly she won those states overwhelmingly.
Perhaps she forgot that there are other states and these are often culturally different from those states?
Perhaps she forgot that there are other states and these are often culturally different from those states?
100 percent this. I live and work in NY so when you're subjected to living in that "bubble" you assume that all is well relatively speaking if you're middle class and Hillary will win. Then a week before the election, I traveled to a small rural town in western Pennsylvania that relied heavily on the coal industry and lost a majority of their jobs due to the shift to clean energy. Every single house lawn had a Make America Great Again sign and then it hit me, Trump is going to win. These people have more to gain considering their dire circumstances and those "blue collared" Americans who previously supported Obama went for Trump.
It wasn't so much constructed for those two forever safe Dem states, it was constructed for the increasingly diverse states that it's long been thought are the future of the Democrats.
States were she performed at about the level of the national swing or better (ignoring the very safe Dem ones):
Arizona
North Carolina
Florida
Colorado
Alaska (third party affected this)
Idaho (third party)
Georgia
Kansas
New Mexico
Texas
Virginia
Utah (third party)
The problem being that she only managed she only managed to win three of them, all of which had also been Obama wins, and two that had been Obama in 08 or 12 went Trump. It was basically an election where both sides of the usual Democrat equation went wrong. But if the top three on that list go blue, something that would take a 2% swing (i.e very doable), then you could afford to lose Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine-at-large and still win the electoral college. Whilst the Democrats definitely need to get on top of their big losses among the white working class, the GOP's problem with an increasingly diverse electorate hasn't gone away, the impact just hasn't hit yet.
States were she performed at about the level of the national swing or better (ignoring the very safe Dem ones):
Arizona
North Carolina
Florida
Colorado
Alaska (third party affected this)
Idaho (third party)
Georgia
Kansas
New Mexico
Texas
Virginia
Utah (third party)
The problem being that she only managed she only managed to win three of them, all of which had also been Obama wins, and two that had been Obama in 08 or 12 went Trump. It was basically an election where both sides of the usual Democrat equation went wrong. But if the top three on that list go blue, something that would take a 2% swing (i.e very doable), then you could afford to lose Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine-at-large and still win the electoral college. Whilst the Democrats definitely need to get on top of their big losses among the white working class, the GOP's problem with an increasingly diverse electorate hasn't gone away, the impact just hasn't hit yet.
She had been a high-profile Washington insider for 25 years and voters had lost faith in the system. She managed to overcome this loss of appeal to white working class voters in the primaries by shoring up the minority vote but it was not enough when she came up against another maverick in the presidential election.
As an aside, reading this book "Shattered", her husband comes across as a really nasty piece of work.
As an aside, reading this book "Shattered", her husband comes across as a really nasty piece of work.
Not to sure where to put this but I guess this might be the best place
The Clintons are just the worst.
The Clintons are just the worst.
Not to sure where to put this but I guess this might be the best place
The Clintons are just the worst.
Well, her mother said in the 90s that she was immensely proud to have worked for Goldwater's campaign, which AFAIK was the most explicitly racist one post-WW2.
Apple doesn't fall far etc.
God didn't know she said that in the 90's, I remember whole super predator stuff she said in the 90's, the Clintons really do have a horrible, well racist history with African Americans. It seems even when the Clintons where younger(The years where stereotypically people are at their most radical)they were still incredibly conservative.
*shakes head slowly, dazed*
Clinton claimed yesterday the DNC data operation was obsolete.
The data people are hitting back
The data people are hitting back
Seems she lacks any self-awareness.
Of course being the most robust the DNC ever had, does not mean it was not obsolete also.
Also worth noting that if Clinton was being truthful, then the data scientists would be the first to admit the data they had was not up to date.
They would be working hard to rectify the issue, so the data would be more up to date for the next election cycle.
Last edited:
"It's her turn" might as work with the way Trump is going come 2020.
As someone who is outsider and who didnt follow US election that much,must say, Trump acts like lunatic but Hillary looks like most shady person on the planet.
I think Democrats just care more that their candidate is shady. Everyone knew both were scum.
Yeah, I think people get that impression quickly and that's one of the biggest reasons, even without knowing much about her, that she isn't popular. People simply do not trust her.
Recently there was a furore about some awful stuff from Louisiana - how the governors mansion and legislature use literal slave labour from the prison system (it might have been posted here, if not: http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/what_state_prisoners_get_to_wo.html)
And here is, inevitably, a Clinton link to a similar thing. "Let me tell you this cute anecdote about my slave prisoners."
Ah, I was searching for the original, here it is:
Comment on reddit about the Clinton thing:
"Some of my best servants are black"
"Some of my best servants are black"
Not sure where to put this, but she was Clinton's confidante and Libya was an intervention closely identified with Clinton, so I think it belongs here.
I've never quite understood how the Clintons have such widespread support amongst African American voters.
I'm reading 'Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign' at present. Pretty decent read with a good insight into how the inner circle worked throughout the primaries and the General Election. Time after time, it becomes apparent that the Clintons are simply bullies in the strongest sense of the word and people who actively seek to crush anyone who dares stand in their way.
The disastrous #ImWithHer social media campaign slogan summed up their arrogance and self-obsession beautifully. This, coupled with the notion that it was 'her turn', will always be the lasting memory of the 2016 race, for me. Laughably bad and laughably out of touch.
The disastrous #ImWithHer social media campaign slogan summed up their arrogance and self-obsession beautifully. This, coupled with the notion that it was 'her turn', will always be the lasting memory of the 2016 race, for me. Laughably bad and laughably out of touch.
Her husband's mass incarceration bill of the mid-1990s tore apart families on a monumental scale, and many of those families were African American. Inconceivable that more wasn't made of this during the election run.