What could Hillary have done differently (other than "not run")?

[Fenris]

I was 100% convinced that Hillary would win with 300+ electoral votes. I wasn't happy about this, but until Florida flipped to red (about...oh...8:00 mountain time), I would have bet that Hillary was going to win easily.

Obviously I was totally wrong (along with everyone else) but....let's do the post-mortem. What could Hillary have done differently?

1) Be less consecendingly dishonest. Trump was just as bad or worse, but when caught in a lie he shrugged and moved on or said "oops, my bad". Hillary kept coming up with dumber and dumber excuses. Lie if you must, but if you must, don't assume that the people you're lying to are idiots: at least make the lies convincing

2) Try to remember that your opponents are human. My best friend is 100% convinced that the "Basket of deplorables" line where she insulted either 50% or 25% (depending on how carefully you parse he actual words) of the US as hopeless losers is the moment when she lost every undecided person in the middle.

3) Stop cheating. Don't work with the Dem machine to cheat to squelch Bernie. Don't cheat at debates that you're going to win anyway....and if you do cheat, do it cleverly enough not to get caught.

4) Stop hanging out with elitist snob celebrities who share your contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with you (Barbara Streisand).

5) Seriously, stop lying, especially about other lies. Trump's wall? It ain't gonna happen. We all know it. But when pressed, he didn't say (in essence) "Ok, those were my words, but you're so dumb you didn't understand what I meant" like Hillary did constantly (for one example, think about the "stop all coal mining" comment. She kept trying to explain it in the most condescending terms "You just don't get it...."). Just live with it or let it go and move on.

6) Ditto on condescending: I've got a Mexican born co-worker across from me who's voted Dem all his life...until (according to him) that "Ai-yi-yi seeniors and senoritazs. I am chust like your "abeula". Despite being a white chick from a middle-class background, you and I are one peeple an' I am chust like your grandma! Ay caramba!" I don't know how he actually voted but up until the Monday before the election he was saying that he'd rather not vote at all than vote for that "condescending racist bitch who thinks Spanish voters are children who need a rich old white bitch as their grandma to guide them. We're not fucking children".

Other things she could have done differently? Because this should have been a cakewalk. Bernie, doddering old Jewish Socialist fossil who's wrong on every issue could have mopped the floor with the Fat Orange Cheeto With The Tiny Hands.

[Zeener Diode]

1. Hillary had baggage going into this election. That could not be helped.

2. The challenge from Sanders divided the party. (This could have been helped, but it didn't.)

3. Hillary's extensive and necessary political experience should have assured voters of her ability to lead. Instead, voters focused on her relationship with Wall Street and Clinton Foundation donors. (Trump's connections with monied interests and bad business dealings never seemed to gain as much traction with voters.)

4. Hillary had TWO opportunities to achieve a political milestone in being the first woman to serve as POTUS. She failed both times. This says as much about her character as anything. (Even Nixon made it to the White House on his second try.)

5. She, like most of us, trusted the polls in predicting the outcome of this election. And she, like most of us, severely underestimated the power of outrage against the Establishment.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

3. Instead, voters focused on her relationship with Wall Street and Clinton Foundation donors. (Trump's connections with monied interests and bad business dealings never seemed to gain as much traction with voters.)

IMO, this goes back to the "lying" thing.

When Trump's connections were brought up, he said "Yeah, and so what?" and that pretty much ended it. He copped to it and said it was no big deal--there's not much of a news story there: "Mr. Trump, you said this." / "Yup. and....?" doesn't leave a lot of room for follow-up. Whereas Hillary kept lying and as each lie unraveled, it became another brand new story.

[AuntiePam]

Agree with the above (especially about owning her mistakes) and will add -- did she ever talk about poverty and homelessness, about senior citizens struggling to survive on Social Security? It was all about helping the middle class.

Poor people vote too.

[JackieLikesVariety]

she could have run (advertised) on the issues - her platform was excellent, Bernie helped write it.

instead all the commercials were about how frightening/horrible Rump is.

I listen/read Thom Hartmann a lot and he is on the mailing lists of everybody.

more than once he has talked about this: every e-mail he got asking for money talked about how he should donate to the Clinton's campaign because Rump is so scary. never ONE about what Hillary was FOR.

he had someone from her campaign on his show and when he told them he would DONATE MONEY every time they sent an e-mail asking for it and talked about the issues. they said, huh, interesting feedback - but nothing changed. all the e-mails continued - send money, Rump sucks.

like Thom said "give me something to vote FOR"

Because this should have been a cakewalk. Bernie, doddering old Jewish Socialist fossil who's wrong on every issue could have mopped the floor with the Fat Orange Cheeto With The Tiny Hands.

except Bernie is RIGHT on every issue. I literally can't think of one I disagree with him on.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by Fenris

1) Be less consecendingly dishonest. Trump was just as bad or worse, but when caught in a lie he shrugged and moved on or said "oops, my bad".

Wait, what. When did Trump ever once concede he'd misrepresented anything? He rarely even "shrugged and moved on," as I recollect; typically he repeated his lie, doubling down where possible.

[SmartAleq]

After the first colossal blunder of rigging the primaries, she doubled down on her assholery by telling Bernie supporters, in the most snotty possible manner, that she didn't NEED us to win. She did NOT accept his platform ideas and basically just kept repeating the same tired old platitudinous stump speech bullshit she'd already worn to a thread. I'm sorry, but when an alleged Democrat can't manage to open her mouth and SAY that every citizen deserves to be paid a living wage for their labor, that every citizen deserves shelter, that every child deserves a good education to fit them to be productive citizens as adults, that every person deserves healthcare as a right, that NO child should go hungry in a country as rich as this one, that it's unconscionable that POC are being killed by police in numbers far higher than their percentage of the population, that it's unconscionable that we have more people imprisoned--both per capita AND absolute numbers--than countries with populations many times higher than ours, if that candidate simply cannot even mouth the words for fear of undermining her relationship with her high dollar donors then I cannot take that person seriously at all and simply cannot vote for her. And from the looks of things, Bernie supporters took her at her word that she didn't need them so they went elsewhere--or stayed home, after he'd gotten landmark numbers of first time voters to come into the fold.

The fact that her own words, in the leaked transcripts of her Wall Street and other donor speeches, DID have all the passion and conviction and resolute intention that was so markedly missing from her words when she spoke to hoi polloi spoke volumes about her as a person. Her "private and public" positions were so drastically at odds, and she so plainly showed which of her positions are the ones she favors--and it's nothing that's going to benefit me or any other working class American.

Her Clinton Foundation mess is likewise unconscionable. To have accepted so MUCH money from foreign states as though there were no fucking problem about it is simply insupportable. Not to mention illegal, especially when you go further and find out that the CF money is just a big goddamned slush fund that pays for the Clinton family lifestyle--to the point of paying for Chelsea's elaborate wedding, FFS, and for her first decade of married life. That casual attitude toward blatant skirting, if not outright illegal use of non-profit funds is something that says volumes about her character. To add to that, she was urged to promise that the CF would not operate at all while she was in the White House, should she win, but she flatly refused to address the issue. Not that her promise means dick, of course, since she accepted all kinds of money while SoS that she had promised President Obama in writing that she would not. Just a lying cheating lying liar who lies. For money. No thanks.

I could go on, but that's a good start.

[Pencil]

Pere - Paraphrased
Hilly: He's probably not payed federal taxes in 20 years
Donny: That makes me smart


Hillary should've taken a cue from Michelle O, who was better at campaigning for HRC than she herself was.

And take it from someone who lives in a country that's been Democrat Socialist for all but 17 of the last 80 years, Bernie didn't get many things right.

[Half-Man/Half-French]

Originally Posted by Pencil

And take it from someone who lives in a country that's been Democrat Socialist for all but 17 of the last 80 years, .

It cant be both democratic and Socialist, there's something in the Socialist's heart that makes him abhor Freedom and Democracy. This is what makes him ungodly and repugnant.

[Solfy]

Originally Posted by Pere

Wait, what. When did Trump ever once concede he'd misrepresented anything? He rarely even "shrugged and moved on," as I recollect; typically he repeated his lie, doubling down where possible.

This. He shouted "WRONG" and/or continued spouting every lie I ever saw him called on, and no one seemed to have a problem with that. Why did everyone allow him to shrug and go on lying without characterizing him as a lying liar who lies?


I agree with point #6 of the OP - she was never convincing with anything that wasn't her own policy/platform. When she adopted Bernie's "free college for everyone!" it was always through clenched teeth / flat affect. She couldn't pander convincingly at all.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Solfy

This. He shouted "WRONG" and/or continued spouting every lie I ever saw him called on, and no one seemed to have a problem with that. Why did everyone allow him to shrug and go on lying without characterizing him as a lying liar who lies?

Any other candidate would have been eviscerated by both the mainstream and social media for this. Apparently it was passed off as "Donald is crazy, what else is new?" and we just sat back and waited for his inevitable implosion. IOW, we complicity accepted this bad behavior with the thought that no one, I mean NO ONE, would seriously consider voting for him.

[BJMoose]

The thing is, it is doubtful that she could have done anything different, given her sense of entitlement and hubris. She was herself (as Trump was himself). While she had several desirable qualities that Trump did not, there has always been something off-putting about Hillary Clinton. (Heck, we saw all of this in the 2008 primaries. The problem was the Democrats had no one better to run this time than the GOP did.)


(Sanders, bless 'im, was just a fossil from the New Deal that happened to wash up on our shore; fascinating as all get-out, but terribly archaic in the present political zeitgeist.)

[Solfy]

I think you're right, Zeener. I know I kept waiting for the implosion. By the time he made nominee, I accepted that it wasn't coming. We were firmly in bizarro-land.

Years ago I had a cranky conservative coworker in the lab next door at my last position, the one I worked at during both Obama elections. He liked to come over to my lab and poke my left-leaning labmate and me about politics. He insisted on a regular basis that the American populace was Mad as Hell. Mad! They are SO ANGRY! (I never did hear an explanation of what they were mad about, specifically; just that they were mad about the government.)
I just assumed he was projecting and listening to too much right wing talk radio. I didn't see much in the way of mad people.

Those mad people did exist, and they voted for Trump. I think many of them didn't vote anti-Hillary so much as anti-Establishment. There was no way Hillary could present herself as not being part of the establishment, so that's what Hillary did wrong - she was what she was. She could have been the most charming, witty, dynamic, genuine, down-to-earth woman that ever stood at a podium, and she still would have been tainted by her insider-ness.

I recognize that this goes against my assertion that people vote for the more likable candidate (even against their best interests), but if both were equally likable, the non-insider would have the edge.

[Katriona]

She should have picked someone else for her running mate. Not Bernie (we need him in the Senate), but Kaine was a giant flipping of the bird to the more liberal wing, who were kept marginalized throughout.

Making Wasserman-Schultz part of her campaign was a huge mistake, but my bet is that is was part of the deal to get DWS to leave the DNC quietly.

[Clothahump]

I think that Mike Rowe explained it about as well as can be done.

http://mikerowe.com/2016/11/otw-2016election/

[SmartAleq]

Originally Posted by Katriona

She should have picked someone else for her running mate. Not Bernie (we need him in the Senate), but Kaine was a giant flipping of the bird to the more liberal wing, who were kept marginalized throughout.

Making Wasserman-Schultz part of her campaign was a huge mistake, but my bet is that is was part of the deal to get DWS to leave the DNC quietly.

Not only that, but they lied about the VP pick too--swore up and down that Kaine only knew about the nod 48 hours before the announcement. However, the Podesta emails show that he was given the promise well in advance, as his reward for giving the DNC chair to DWS. You'd think they'd have figured out that having a book co-authored by Clinton and Kaine release just weeks after the convention would cause some eyebrows to raise about the timing--so, he got the nod and immediately ran in to write a book in a matter of a couple weeks? Riiiiiiight. And Hillary helped out in spite of her gruelling (*snicker*) campaign schedule. Lies lies lies lies lies over and over and not even trying to make them sound plausible. Well, the internet is tenacious and when you crowd source millions of people into figuring something out, it gets figured right quick.

[JackieLikesVariety]

He insisted on a regular basis that the American populace was Mad as Hell. Mad! They are SO ANGRY! (I never did hear an explanation of what they were mad about, specifically; just that they were mad about the government.)
I just assumed he was projecting and listening to too much right wing talk radio.

right wing radio, yes, and fox "news" - has been stoking hate and anger for years the fucking bastards.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

I think that Mike Rowe explained it about as well as can be done.

http://mikerowe.com/2016/11/otw-2016election/

That sounds reasonable; what parts of the Republican Platform or the Trump Presidency do you see helping those hardworking folks in the slightest?

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by BJMoose

The thing is, it is doubtful that she could have done anything different, given her sense of entitlement and hubris. She was herself (as Trump was himself). While she had several desirable qualities that Trump did not, there has always been something off-putting about Hillary Clinton. (Heck, we saw all of this in the 2008 primaries. The problem was the Democrats had no one better to run this time than the GOP did.)


(Sanders, bless 'im, was just a fossil from the New Deal that happened to wash up on our shore; fascinating as all get-out, but terribly archaic in the present political zeitgeist.)

Couldn't have said it better, on both counts. And so, of course, I will try to do so and probably fail, but here goes:

The Clintons cannot help being what they are. Yes, they are two brilliant people, and I sincerely hope they remain deeply involved in public service. But Hillary Clinton was a terrible political candidate. I didn't vote for her, I voted against Trump. Yes, I defended her and will continue to do so because I think she's been wrongly persecuted for simply making some bad judgement calls. But being the political animal that she is, she's unable to own those mistakes, she's unable to humble herself before the rest of us who are less intelligent and less educated and less wealthy than she is, which is what she'd have to do to apologize repent, and do better. In that way, she's a lot like Trump.

At the very center of her being I think she just wanted to be president. I really don't think she saw human beings out here who need health care, who need food and shelter and clothing, who need a fair shake from big business and from the government. She wanted so badly to be president, but I think she wanted it more for its own sake, for the historic significance of it, than because she really wanted to do something for us.

Fenris is exactly right, if Hillary Clinton had done all of the things he listed, she would have won. But then she wouldn't have been Hillary Clinton. She would have been Elizabeth Warren.

[BrickaBracka]

To answer the op very bluntly, Hillary needed to have everything against her instead of the preposterous and obvious bias for her. Not hard to embody the establishment when they're all singing your praises. Very hard to imply you'll change things though.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=XqEddipbpkw

[Mr. Plumbean]

It's already been pointed out to you that Hillary had more negative press than any other candidate. You are no better than a Trumpy for clinging to your myths and rejecting all facts.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

It's already been pointed out to you that Hillary had more negative press than any other candidate. You are no better than a Trumpy for clinging to your myths and rejecting all facts.

You'll note that I described the bias as preposterous.

Because it was bias, but in the face of the obvious scandals, it was preposterous.

But it was bias all the same.

Don't be so condescending, you'll hurt your neck stooping so low all the time. Really you should just stick to "your people", us down and dirties are beneath you.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Look at your own posting history (or even your own post) before you tell anyone not to be condescending.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

Look at your own posting history (or even your own post) before you tell anyone not to be condescending.

My neck is quite flexible enough to condescend to the likes of you. Hush up now little one. It's time for the adults to have quiet time. There's been quite enough railing and flailing and impotent whining going on.

(I've been practicing by reading Lounsbury's posts. Did I do well?)

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

My neck is quite flexible enough to condescend to the likes of you. Hush up now little one. It's time for the adults to have quiet time. There's been quite enough railing and flailing and impotent whining going on.

(I've been practicing by reading Lounsbury's posts. Did I do well?)

No. i'm not taking sides here, but comparing what you wrote to Lounsbury's, you have not succeeded in duplicating his panache. Also, he would've written "whinging" ( or however it's spelled ) not " whining "

I give your efforts a C+. More practice is necessary

[BJMoose]

Not that we really need another Lounslizard. . . .


Anyway. I think I've finally figured this out to my satisfaction (if no one else's). The explanation lies in what happened in the Rust Belt where the Democratic candidate is supposed to win, dammit.

Clinton, quite simply, was the candidate of the elite, moneyed class (Wall Street, Free Trade, etc.) Trump was the candidate of the hoi polloi, the working class. The archetypal roles of "Democratic candidate" and "Republican candidate" were reversed. If you were an Ohio factory worker scared to death that your job will be the next one sent overseas, you overlooked Trump's excesses, crossed your fingers, and voted for him.


As for the future: Trump may have shot himself in the foot by letting Pence into his tent. I'm beginning to think that the Republican organization will be able to co-opt the Trump administration.

[Fenris]

That's a good point about the Rust Belt.

From the blue-collar worker's POV, you have on one hand:

Hillary “We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” Clinton; gleefully cackling about destroying blue-collar jobs.

and on the other hand you have:

Donald "Who the fuck knows what he's going to do about coal...or any other issue?" Trump.

If I was a coal-miner, I'd certainly go for the crazy unknown guy rather than the evil loon who made destroying my job/family a campaign promise. And who then lies/condescends to me about it (she claimed A) she didn't really say that exact thing, B) she was taken out of context, C) it was a "misstatement" and I think there was a fourth lie.). Again, Hills, one lie. ONE. You can't keep changing your lies without looking worse than the original statement. All you do is seem like you're talking down to people.

[BJMoose]

And despite his wealth, Trump certainly acts like a typical working-class guy.

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by BJMoose

And despite his wealth, Trump certainly acts like a typical working-class guy.

Holy shit. He does, doesn't he? Why is that? It's not a new money vs. old money thing, because we've seen lots of people with new money who don't behave like our drunk uncles.

Is it because he's so ignorant?

[Pencil]

He doesn't read.
Is he dyslectic?

Back to the OP.
Would she have fared better if she had not tried to be Not-hillary? By that I mean that most people with insight seem to agree* that she's immensely qualified and has a lot of experience. But she's not very likable. Not a natural speaker**. Thatcher wasn't very likable either, but she ran on a no nonsense platform about getting things done.
If she'd channeled a "I'm the bitch that's gonna get the job done," would that've worked?



*Baring partisan bullshit. Depending on your political views, you may think she was a bad SoS or a good SoS. But she didn't get the job as a consolation prize, nor because she was a senator or Flotus. Maybe gender politics was in play.
** as in orator that can energize the audience.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Fenris

No. i'm not taking sides here, but comparing what you wrote to Lounsbury's, you have not succeeded in duplicating his panache. Also, he would've written "whinging" ( or however it's spelled ) not " whining "

I give your efforts a C+. More practice is necessary

Well we all need a hero to aspire to. More work is necessary indeed.

Regarding Hillary's political career at this point - I do wonder if she's a complete pariah, or just someone who is seen as an unfortunate victim of circumstance by those in her elitist league.

Would she now be laughed at behind her back by the people she at one point received donations from?

[Glazer]

Not quite yet. I'll give it till Christmas before the pity wears off.

[SmartAleq]

I'll wait until after the Electoral College certification to assume the stake is still in place and she won't be getting up any time soon.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Pencil

If she'd channeled a "I'm the bitch that's gonna get the job done," would that've worked?-

...y'know, you hit on something there and if you cut out the cutsie-poo "Oopsie! I told a lie! Golly! Here's another one instead" crap, yeah, I think she could have flipped a few states.

*Baring partisan bullshit. Depending on your political views, you may think she was a bad SoS or a good SoS. But she didn't get the job as a consolation prize, nor because she was a senator or Flotus. Maybe gender politics was in play.

I dunno about this though--When Hillary lost to Obama in '08 there was a big worry that she'd raise a stink/be a spoiler because by 2016 she might be seen as "too old" (she wasn't, but they didn't know that then) and her one weak spot was lack of any sort of foreign policy experience. I'd always heard that Obama offered her a pick of any cabinet position she wanted if she campaigned with/for him after the convention and she picked (wisely) SoS. So...yeah, consolation prize and insurance for Obama that she'd stay loyal.

And as an aside, I think she was a decent SoS who was crippled by Obama's terrible foreign policy ideas (the Russian Reset? The crossable/uncrossable red line? etc)

[Zeener Diode]

An unlikable candidate, a true political monster who sought the Presidency because she felt she was due, a solid background in foreign policy issues, manipulative with the press and accused of backroom shenanigans, soundly beaten by an upstart neophyte (on two occasions)... are we talking about Hillary or Tricky Dick?

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

An unlikable candidate, a true political monster who sought the Presidency because she felt she was due, a solid background in foreign policy issues, manipulative with the press and accused of backroom shenanigans, soundly beaten by an upstart neophyte (on two occasions)... are we talking about Hillary or Tricky Dick?

Plus the whole "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" thing. If she'd copped to the server on day 1, it would have deflated. Instead the ongoing stream of ever-escalating lies made it worse.

Just like a certain two-bit burglary at the Watergate hotel.

[wring]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Plus the whole "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" thing. If she'd copped to the server on day 1, it would have deflated. Instead the ongoing stream of ever-escalating lies made it worse.

Just like a certain two-bit burglary at the Watergate hotel.

Maybe- 'cept if you recall all the fucking bullshit like she murdered Vince Foster etc. Not to mention the Benghazi hearings for fucking ever. Why you'd think that the party would have given her a pass for jaywalking even is hard for me to agree with.

edited to add: I never wanted Hilary to run, thought she was irretrievably marked forever after Bill's reign, wasn't a fan of hers at all. However, Trump (still) scares the shit out of me.

[BJMoose]

The funny thing is, that cover-up started because Nixon was trying to protect other people, not himself.

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Plus the whole "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" thing. If she'd copped to the server on day 1, it would have deflated. Instead the ongoing stream of ever-escalating lies made it worse.

Just like a certain two-bit burglary at the Watergate hotel.

Wow, never thought of it until you said it just now. Like scales dropping from my eyes. Good call, Fenris!

[stormie]

I'm going to rush in here, pitch my 2 cents in about the OP, and run.

She could have been a man. Yep, I believe cringeworthy national sexism was the primary reason, and she would have gotten a 30 - 50 % more votes if she was Howard Clinton, the President's son. The second is that she could have had a better stage presence. Her's is second only to Ross Perot in stiff uninspiring professionalism. Third is that she is so focused on policy and effectiveness she doesn't see how things unimportant to her (ie, what phone/email thingie she uses) could be important to anyone else. In sum, she is a wonkess. Wonks and women don't win many elections.

[SmartAleq]

Tiny little problem about that sexism theory...

[stormie]

So that link says "American voters elected an unprecedented number of minority female lawmakers to the Senate, bringing the total of minority women in the upper chamber to four." Four is a record breaker. My point is made.

To date, a total of 313 individual women have served in Congress, ever. Of 2016's 535 members of Congress, a record 100 are women. Which would be fine if 1 out of 5 Americans was a woman. So, what was the tiny little problem again?

[ryevermouthbitters]

Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety

she could have run (advertised) on the issues - her platform was excellent, Bernie helped write it.

instead all the commercials were about how frightening/horrible Rump is.

I listen/read Thom Hartmann a lot and he is on the mailing lists of everybody.

more than once he has talked about this: every e-mail he got asking for money talked about how he should donate to the Clinton's campaign because Rump is so scary. never ONE about what Hillary was FOR.

he had someone from her campaign on his show and when he told them he would DONATE MONEY every time they sent an e-mail asking for it and talked about the issues. they said, huh, interesting feedback - but nothing changed. all the e-mails continued - send money, Rump sucks.

like Thom said "give me something to vote FOR"

No one will be surprised that I don't agree that a Bernie-influenced platform is a good thing but there's a lot of wisdom here.

When Hillary Clinton ran for Senate right after Bill's administration ended, she was the favorite but no shoe-in -- people were still mad at Bill, she was a newcomer to New York, etc. Well, Clinton went on her "listening tour." The big-shot press gave her grief about it at the time, but it worked. She went to every broken down town upstate that used to have a mill in it and she listened. She learned about milk subsidies and multi-employer pension schemes and all the other stuff folks up there cared about. Meanwhile, her opponent just sat on Long Island occasionally sending out press releases reminding people that he wasn't Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton was bad and he wasn't her. I don't even remember that dope's name, that's how well that went.

Trump wasn't listening to shit, but that's not the point. The point is that this time it seemed like most of Hillary's campaign was reminding people that she wasn't Donald Trump and Donald Trump was bad and she wasn't him.

We get it -- a serial liar says that Donald Trump lies, an enabler of a serial rapist says that Donald Trump abuses women, a person who has bombed more often than Carrottop says Donald Trump is a war monger. What are you gonna do?

[piepiepie]

Originally Posted by stormie

I'm going to rush in here, pitch my 2 cents in about the OP, and run.

She could have been a man. Yep, I believe cringeworthy national sexism was the primary reason, and she would have gotten a 30 - 50 % more votes if she was Howard Clinton, the President's son. The second is that she could have had a better stage presence. Her's is second only to Ross Perot in stiff uninspiring professionalism. Third is that she is so focused on policy and effectiveness she doesn't see how things unimportant to her (ie, what phone/email thingie she uses) could be important to anyone else. In sum, she is a wonkess. Wonks and women don't win many elections.

She could never get away with the ranting and raving that drew people to populist candidates like Bernie and Trump. It's not her style of course, and that would just make her seem as more "shrill" to those people, but it's so much easier to eat a politician's lies when they're charismatic.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Fenris

No. i'm not taking sides here, but comparing what you wrote to Lounsbury's, you have not succeeded in duplicating his panache. Also, he would've written "whinging" ( or however it's spelled ) not " whining "

I give your efforts a C+. More practice is necessary

Grading on a curve? That was a D as to style, but he's utterly devoid of even the slightest soupçon of panache - he's a Hillary in that department, stolidly unaware of his limits.

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

Well we all need a hero to aspire to. More work is necessary indeed.

No, don't, not your thing.

Regarding Hillary's political career at this point - I do wonder if she's a complete pariah, or just someone who is seen as an unfortunate victim of circumstance by those in her elitist league.

She should be a pariah, she's got utterly horrible political instincts, no particular charisma and is not particularly brilliant otherwise. Mediocre. Should have known better.

Originally Posted by ryevermouthbitters

No one will be surprised that I don't agree that a Bernie-influenced platform is a good thing but there's a lot of wisdom here.

When Hillary Clinton ran for Senate right after Bill's administration ended, she was the favorite but no shoe-in -- people were still mad at Bill, she was a newcomer to New York, etc. Well, Clinton went on her "listening tour." The big-shot press gave her grief about it at the time, but it worked. She went to every broken down town upstate that used to have a mill in it and she listened. She learned about milk subsidies and multi-employer pension schemes and all the other stuff folks up there cared about. Meanwhile, her opponent just sat on Long Island occasionally sending out press releases reminding people that he wasn't Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton was bad and he wasn't her. I don't even remember that dope's name, that's how well that went.

Trump wasn't listening to shit, but that's not the point. The point is that this time it seemed like most of Hillary's campaign was reminding people that she wasn't Donald Trump and Donald Trump was bad and she wasn't him.

We get it -- a serial liar says that Donald Trump lies, an enabler of a serial rapist says that Donald Trump abuses women, a person who has bombed more often than Carrottop says Donald Trump is a war monger. What are you gonna do?

Indeed, indeed.

ah well one can console oneself that by all signs Trump is likely to have an Administration paralyzed in incompetent infighting such that the opportunity for truly profound damage to your national reputation shall be self-limiting...

Although in some fashion this makes it a bit more embarrassing, you just elected a moderately incompetent version of Berlosconi (who was in a queer fashion fiendishly competent).

[stormie]

Originally Posted by piepiepie

She could never get away with the ranting and raving that drew people to populist candidates like Bernie and Trump. It's not her style of course, and that would just make her seem as more "shrill" to those people, but it's so much easier to eat a politician's lies when they're charismatic.

Ronald Clinton? Hillary Reagan? Might Hillary Reagan have one - "there you go again."

[Fenris]

May I congratulate everyone in this thread? If so, I do. Somehow we're approaching 50 posts without one poster screaming that even asking the question "What could Hillary have done differently?[/i] is "victim blaming" or "excusing Trump" or somesuch.

There've been several Durp threads on this topic* and every one devolved into a "Trump Sux!" vs "But Hilllary could have done X" followed by "SHE DID EVERYTHING RIGHT! Quit victim blaming!" within about 10 posts.

So thanks folks. It's nice to have people that I can have an online conversation with.



*If you want to discuss them in detail--naming names, for instance, please do it in the snark thread

[stormie]

oh no! We let you Fenris down again!

Let's get some balance here:

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by Fenris

May I congratulate everyone in this thread? If so, I do. Somehow we're approaching 50 posts without one poster screaming that even asking the question "What could Hillary have done differently?[/i] is "victim blaming" or "excusing Trump" or somesuch.

There've been several Durp threads on this topic* and every one devolved into a "Trump Sux!" vs "But Hilllary could have done X" followed by "SHE DID EVERYTHING RIGHT! Quit victim blaming!" within about 10 posts.

So thanks folks. It's nice to have people that I can have an online conversation with.



*If you want to discuss them in detail--naming names, for instance, please do it in the snark thread

I didn't say she did anything right. I resent that you even implied that I did. She's not a victim. She's a politician who fucked it up royally from the git-go, but she's also ruled by her very nature and her nature was to fuck this up from the git-go.

I resent being compared with the turgid shitbrains at SDMB as well, just so you know.

[lulz]

Hillary Clinton made it very clear that she actually hated huge swaths of the American populace...

Oh we gotta get those Bernie Bros in line! Anyone who doesn't vote for me, just might be a misogynist! Trump supporters are a basket of deplorables! We're gonna put those coal workers out of business!

With so many American people to openly hate, who's left to love? Wall Street Banks Of Course! Because when Americans remember that nearly 3k people died on American soil i the worst terrorist attack our nation has ever seen, the savvy thing to do is remind the American people that your priority #1 was to help the big banks and not those emergency workers. And They Love Her! She invoked 9-11 to justify taking Wall Street Money. She helped them and now they're helping her.

Hillary once tried to claim that she was doing what she could to assist the emergency workers but she's lying. Jon Stewart NEVER talks about Hillary Clinton when it comes to helping the emergency workers. He always talks about Kirsten Gillibrand.

Hillary Clinton thinks she's a revolutionary choice simply because she's a woman. I'm not exaggerating!

The only thing Hillary could conjour up as a reason to vote for her was because she's a woman. And also because Donald Trump is is the anti-Christ, apparently.

Of course, in this country we also frown upon cheaters. Yes, Eddie Guerrerro embraced "Cheat To Win" but wrestling is performance art...And Hillary Clinton was a hardcore cheater...