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

I had a run of visiting the US every January for a number of years to go on vacation there snowboarding for 2-3 weeks at a time. Also my work had me visiting the US for a bit as well. During that period which started in the mid 90's I ended up going to a fair number of places in the US and usually stayed with friends.
I have both Democrat and Republican friends in the US, all lovely intelligent people but I remember being pretty surprised at he level and intensity of dislike/hate for the Clintons. This was back in 1996. This period of visiting on a regular basis lasted about 10 years and each year that dislike of the Clintons by my Republican friends seemed to simply get stronger, at the same time I noticed a few of my Democrat friends had started to express a dislike.
When it came to this election I havent been surprised at the rejection of Hillary given the long history of dislike and distrust out there. I am pretty sure Bernie would be President if he had won the Democrat nomination because he wouldnt have been weighed down by 20 or so years of baggage Hillary was carrying around.
 
Stack said:
The mayor of LA visited NZ a few months back, I hadnt really heard of him before but he came across really well in interviews here. I still know very little about him but he was asked by various interviewers here if he was ever likely to run for President and he sidestepped those questions each time. Is he someone regarded as someone who could run or be a credible candidate? I only know of him via those interviews where he came across well but know nothing more of his track record or ability etc
Click to expand...

Eric Garcetti - Yeah he is a future star. Trouble is, he is still at the mayor level. He is going to have to work his way up a bit to a state level job before going national.
 
Raoul said:
Eric Garcetti - Yeah he is a future star. Trouble is, he is still at the mayor level. He is going to have to work his way up a bit to a state level job before going national.
Click to expand...
Cheers,
so how long does the process of working his way up take?
 
Stack said:
Cheers,
so how long does the process of working his way up take?
Click to expand...

Its not mandatory, but definitely recommended as it allows a candidate to gradually build their political brand at a national level. Gavin Newsom, the former mayor of San Francisco is imo one of the best candidates the Dems have. He is running for Governor in 2018 and is being touted as a potential Pres down the road. He is the sort of guy who could actually take a populist Bernie Sanders type message and win the Presidency - he's young, good looking, and is right on all the policies. He reminds me a bit of a Matthew McConaughey character that has come to live in the real world.

 
Stack said:
The mayor of LA visited NZ a few months back, I hadnt really heard of him before but he came across really well in interviews here. I still know very little about him but he was asked by various interviewers here if he was ever likely to run for President and he sidestepped those questions each time. Is he someone regarded as someone who could run or be a credible candidate? I only know of him via those interviews where he came across well but know nothing more of his track record or ability etc
Click to expand...

Don't know a lot about him. Not sure if anyone has gone from Mayor of a major city directly to being President (googled it, came up empty, but that might be user error), but Trump sort of throws off the whole historic model doesn't it. If he moves up to Governor or into the House or Senate he might make a national name for himself.

Side note we have had 4 US Presidents who had not held prior elected political office.

Zachary Taylor
Ulysses Grant
Herbert Hoover (Secretary of Commerce is not an elected office)
Dwight Eisenhower
 
Comey was definitely a factor but that only papers over the cracks. Hillary was not aspirational and inspiring enough to get people to vote for her. She ignored Wisconsin and Michigan and they went to Trump.
 
Kaos said:
The best thing the DNC can do is sack absolutely everyone and start out fresh.

And sticking Debbie Wasserman Schultz on one way rocket to the moon.
Click to expand...
I think they should run Zuckerberg with someone with military experience.

I'm actually being serious!
 
Raoul said:
Comey was definitely a factor but that only papers over the cracks. Hillary was not aspirational and inspiring enough to get people to vote for her. She ignored Wisconsin and Michigan and they went to Trump.
Click to expand...
I don't blame Comey for that, I blame Hillary for the Comey effect due to her unauthorised email habits.
 
Raoul said:
Comey was definitely a factor but that only papers over the cracks. Hillary was not aspirational and inspiring enough to get people to vote for her. She ignored Wisconsin and Michigan and they went to Trump.
Click to expand...
It's not difficult to imagine she'd have got the extra 1% or so she needed if it wasn't for Comey.
 
Did Comey have a choice? If he didn't make it public and it came out after the elections, he would have been blamed for that as well.

Classified email - private server is an issue already. Leaving those emails on your spouses (ex?) laptop is beyond stupid. Why can't the Clinton camp take some responsibility for fecking this up.
 
prateik said:
Did Comey have a choice? If he didn't make it public and it came out after the elections, he would have been blamed for that as well.

Classified email - private server is an issue already. Leaving those emails on your spouses (ex?) laptop is beyond stupid. Why can't the Clinton camp take some responsibility for fecking this up.
Click to expand...
Of course he had a choice, in fact he violated long standing protocols to do otherwise.
 
You're right. I didnt frame my question clearly enough. Of course he had a choice. But wouldnt he have been criticised either way.
From wiki
"We don't ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed." Law enforcement sources added that he feared he would be accused of concealing relevant information if he did not disclose it.
Click to expand...

Unless there is any evidence suggesting he/the FBI were sitting on this for months and decided to make it public a week before the elections, I really don't think there is any reason to blame the FBI
 
Raoul said:
Comey was definitely a factor but that only papers over the cracks. Hillary was not aspirational and inspiring enough to get people to vote for her. She ignored Wisconsin and Michigan and they went to Trump.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Pointing fingers at external factors and saying it was this and that and the third one is just wrong.

Trump had some serious road bumps on his campaign trail as well, much worse in Hillary in fact, but hes still managed to get people voting for him
 
Bobcat said:
Agreed. Pointing fingers at external factors and saying it was this and that and the third one is just wrong.

Trump had some serious road bumps on his campaign trail as well, much worse in Hillary in fact, but hes still managed to get people voting for him
Click to expand...
Let's remind ourselves again that Clinton will end up winning by about 2% and a few million votes.
 
Ubik said:
To be clear, my post there was laughing at the idea she's a racist :lol:
Click to expand...

Her campaign engaged in some absolutely vile racist dog whistles during the race against Obama. Ted Kennedy said that Bill Clinton was giving him abuse for supporting Obama in 2008 and said "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee". Hillary of course came out with the infamous 'super-predators' line back in '96, and her campaign was happy to leak the photo of Obama wearing tribal gear to push the false narrative about him being a Muslim. It lost her a lot of support from black communities in 08, and she worked damn hard to win them back over afterwards, something Obama appointing her SoS went a long way to achieving.

I'm not going to say she's racist because I don't know her, but she has certainly and provably been willing to use racial fear mongering as a campaign tool.
 
Kentonio said:
Her campaign engaged in some absolutely vile racist dog whistles during the race against Obama. Ted Kennedy said that Bill Clinton was giving him abuse for supporting Obama in 2008 and said "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee". Hillary of course came out with the infamous 'super-predators' line back in '96, and her campaign was happy to leak the photo of Obama wearing tribal gear to push the false narrative about him being a Muslim. It lost her a lot of support from black communities in 08, and she worked damn hard to win them back over afterwards, something Obama appointing her SoS went a long way to achieving.

I'm not going to say she's racist because I don't know her, but she has certainly and provably been willing to use racial fear mongering as a campaign tool.
Click to expand...
I can't be bothered to go into that line of argument again about Clinton, and my post was about Michelle Obama.
 
Kentonio said:
Her campaign engaged in some absolutely vile racist dog whistles during the race against Obama. Ted Kennedy said that Bill Clinton was giving him abuse for supporting Obama in 2008 and said "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee". Hillary of course came out with the infamous 'super-predators' line back in '96, and her campaign was happy to leak the photo of Obama wearing tribal gear to push the false narrative about him being a Muslim. It lost her a lot of support from black communities in 08, and she worked damn hard to win them back over afterwards, something Obama appointing her SoS went a long way to achieving.

I'm not going to say she's racist because I don't know her, but she has certainly and provably been willing to use racial fear mongering as a campaign tool.
Click to expand...

pretty much. the Clintons were willing to use anything.
 
James Comey is cashing in on his notoriety. I just got this email:

JAMES BRIEN COMEY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FBI
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FBI.WASHINGTON D.C
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SEEKING TO WIRETAP

The Federal bureau of investigation (FBI) Washington,D.C
in conjunction with some other relevant Investigations Agencies
have recently been informed through our Global intelligence
monitoring network that your over-due contract payment
which was fully endorsed in your favor accordingly by the
Central bank of Malaysia(Bank Negara Malaysia) has not been claimed.

It might interest you to know that we have taken out time
in screening through this project as stipulated on our
protocol of operation and have finally
confirmed that your contract payment is 100% genuine and
hitch free from all facet and of which you have the lawful
right to claim your fund without any further delay.
We further advise that you go ahead in dealing with the
Central Bank office accordingly as we will be monitoring all
their services with you as well as your correspondence at
all level.

We were also made to understand that a lady with name Mrs.
Joan C.Bailey from OHIO has already contacted them and also
presented to them all the necessary documentation evidencing your
claim purported to have been signed personally by you prior to
the release of your contract fund valued at about $25million us dollars
only
but the Central Bank office did the wise thing by insisting on
hearing from you personally before they go ahead on wiring
your fund to the Bank information which was forwarded to
them by the above named Lady so that the main reason why they
contacted us so as to assist them in making the investigation.

Contact immediately the office of the Central Bank of Malaysia
(Bank Negara Malaysia) via email with the below information accordingly:

NAME: Dr. Zeti Akhtar Aziz.
OFFICE ADDRESS: Bank Negara Malaysia,
Jalan Kuching, Kuala Lumpur,
Wilayah Persekutuan,Kuala Lumpur,
Selangor,Malaysia
Email: ziazt4o@gmail.com


Meanwhile, we will advise that you contact the office
of the Governor of the Central Bank immediately with
the above email address and request that they attend
to your payment file as directed,
so as to enable you receive your contract fund accordingly.

To this effect, you are required to reconfirm and
authenticate your given particulars below for certainty
and onward processing and release of you funds
as we may not be held liable for any wrong payment.

FULL NAMES: __________________________________
CITY: _________________________
STATE: __________________________________
ZIP: ______________
COUNTRY________________________________
SEX: _______________
AGE: __________________
TELEPHONE NUMBER: _____________________
FAX: __________________________

Ensure you follow all their procedure as may be required by
them as that will further help hasten up the whole procedure
as regard to the transfer of your fund to you as designated.
Also have in mind that the Central Bank of Malaysia
equally have their own protocol of operation as stipulated
on their banking terms, so delay could be very dangerous.

Thank you very much for your anticipated co-operation in
advance as we earnestly await your urgent response to this matter.

Best Regards,

James Brien Comey
Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW Washington, D.C.
 
Red Dreams said:
In 2008 people rejected Hillary. 8 years later he and the DNC push the same candidate. They reject her again.
Ellison will pick a progressive this time round hopefully.
Click to expand...
She won the popular vote on both occasions, interestingly.
 
Red Dreams said:
In 2008 people rejected Hillary. 8 years later he and the DNC push the same candidate. They reject her again.
Ellison will pick a progressive this time round hopefully.
Click to expand...
That narrative doesn't really correlate to the fact that she won the popular vote by over 2 million...
 
Red Dreams said:
In 2008 she did not have enough delegates.

In 2016 she did not win the EC.

Running up the votes in the populous states is not how our system is set up. And I agree with this.
Click to expand...
So basically Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure, a bit like Cristiano Ronaldo?
 
Red Dreams said:
In 2008 she did not have enough delegates.

In 2016 she did not win the EC.

Running up the votes in the populous states is not how our system is set up. And I agree with this.
Click to expand...
But you mentioned "people" rejecting her specifically. Certain people rejected her, certain people wanted her, the latter outnumbering the former.
 
5.5 million people voted for 3rd party candidates. A progressive like Bernie would have taken those votes and won handily.
 
Red Dreams said:
Hillary Clinton had no message. No vision. All she did was demonise Trump.

Why she lost. but you wont accept that.

And Yes. I know you hate the EC system.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of factors to her loss, to merely put it down to "she had no message" is far too simplistic.

A slightly better campaign strategy in putting all her effort into the supposed blue wall could well have been enough.
 
Grinner said:
Hillary failed because she was more against Trump than being for something that voters could be inspired by.
Click to expand...
Like I said in the post right above, that could well be true, but also could have worked very nicely if she had maybe ignore Florida and put everything into her "blue wall" in MI, WI & PA. She only lost those very slightly and basically put nothing into MI or WI.
 
Grinner said:
You can't ignore Florida.
Click to expand...
Conventional wisdom says it's the biggest swing state with favorable demographics and her campaign probably wanted to blow Trump out of the water with winning the Florida.

But it doesn't change the fact that getting those 100k votes or so in MI, WI & PA would won got her over the 270.
 
Cal? said:
There are plenty of factors to her loss, to merely put it down to "she had no message" is far too simplistic.

A slightly better campaign strategy in putting all her effort into the supposed blue wall could well have been enough.
Click to expand...

Her lack of message/vision was the Key reason she lost.
And to end this lame excuse about the EC having being against her. She knew our system. She simply did not do her job.
Now she is blaming Comey. Laughable.

The so called liberal media did not help her by saying Hillary had enough early votes to make certain that she would win Florida.
This always gives a good excuse to those who were not keen to vote for her in the first place to stay home.
 
Cal? said:
Conventional wisdom says it's the biggest swing state with favorable demographics and her campaign probably wanted to blow Trump out of the water with winning the Florida.

But it doesn't change the fact that getting those 100k votes or so in MI, WI & PA would won got her over the 270.
Click to expand...

She was always up against it WI and MI. Those states suffered with NAFTA. She did not even visit WI. But the true shocker was PA.
 
Red Dreams said:
Her lack of message/vision was the Key reason she lost.
And to end this lame excuse about the EC having being against her. She knew our system. She simply did not do her job.
Now she is blaming Comey. Laughable.

The so called liberal media did not help her by saying Hillary had enough early votes to make certain that she would win Florida.
This always gives a good excuse to those who were not keen to vote for her in the first place to stay home.
Click to expand...
The EC turned out against her, but that's not the argument here.

There are obviously numerous factors to why she lost, I just don't believe her so called lack of vision was the key.

A better campaign strategy to shore up her supposed wall would probably have got her over the line,
If Comey hadn't derailed her momentum, she probably would have got over the line,
as you mentioned, if the liberal media didn't make it sound like a foregone conclusion, that could have got her over the line.

She lost very narrowly in MI, PA & WI (actually FL too, but that's another story), there are plenty of things that could have happened to swing those 3 states back her way.

Red Dreams said:
She was always up against it WI and MI. Those states suffered with NAFTA. She did not even visit WI. But the true shocker was PA.
Click to expand...
She lost those 2 states by 27k & 12k votes respectively, and like you said, she hardly paid any attention to them. If that's not the fault of her campaign manager and their shitty internal data, I don't know what is.

Is it so absurd to think spending a bit of money and time on those states, or even just sending the Obamas there could have made all the difference?
 
Cal? said:
The EC turned out against her, but that's not the argument here.

There are obviously numerous factors to why she lost, I just don't believe her so called lack of vision was the key.

A better campaign strategy to shore up her supposed wall would probably have got her over the line,
If Comey hadn't derailed her momentum, she probably would have got over the line,
as you mentioned, if the liberal media didn't make it sound like a foregone conclusion, that could have got her over the line.

She lost very narrowly in MI, PA & WI (actually FL too, but that's another story), there are plenty of things that could have happened to swing those 3 states back her way.


She lost those 2 states by 27k & 12k votes respectively, and like you said, she hardly paid any attention to them. If that's not the fault of her campaign manager and their shitty internal data, I don't know what is.

Is it so absurd to think spending a bit of money and time on those states, or even just sending the Obamas there could have made all the difference?
Click to expand...

some valid points. Looking at some of the margins by which she lost some of the key swing states It could not have been closer. It looks almost like Trump fluked it. He did not spend anything like what she did.

We must disagree though about her lack of vision. People want to turn up to vote for a reason rather than just prevent the other guy from winning.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/president
 
Red Dreams said:
some valid points. Looking at some of the margins by which she lost some of the key swing states It could not have been closer. It looks almost like Trump fluked it. He did not spend anything like what she did.

We must disagree though about her lack of vision. People want to turn up to vote for a reason rather than just prevent the other guy from winning.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.