Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-09-2016, 08:35 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,212

I Pit Hillary Clinton


For the past few months, I have been excoriating the Republican party, because they chose the one candidate in the field that couldn't beat Clinton.

I was wrong. The Democrats picked the candidate who couldn't beat Donald Effing Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.
I'm not ready to start stockpiling ammunition and canned goods, but the GOP Congressman I heard interviewed on the radio this morning said "this is an extinction level event", and he was right. Not that the US is going to disappear, or that WWIII is going to break out. But neither party is going to be the same, and it won't be good, and it won't be pretty.

Hillary should have won by ten points. Instead, she lost to a New York real estate developer with a potty mouth and no political experience.

Hillary, you prissy, paranoid putz, with your private servers and your Hollywood friends and your millions in Saudi money and everyone in the media on your side and every poll - and you blew it.

Pit you.

Regards,
Shodan
  #2  
Old 11-09-2016, 08:41 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,244
I doubt I normally agree with the OP on many political issues--but I agree wholeheartedly with this thread.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #3  
Old 11-09-2016, 08:56 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
yes I think he is right. from over here it seemed strange that it should be retried when in 2008 she could not beat Obama with his skin color and with his funny name. I fear for the next few years with this Trump and his erraticism and he has the access to the nuclear weapons.

it is justly the fault of Mrs Clinton who indeed was too arrogant
  #4  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:01 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Hey asshole, before you go blaming Clinton, maybe some of the blame should go to:

- The republicans who built a 25-year-long industry out of throwing shit at her to see what stuck
- The media, who gave one such fake scandal three times the total airtime they gave all the issues
- Your stupid fucking republican friends who decided that voting for Trump was a good idea

One party ran an entirely reasonable, viable politician with a slew of viable, reasonable policy proposals to help people. That party lost. Don't go blaming us for that shit. Clinton was a fine candidate. The fact that she lost to Trump is not reason to blame her, it's reason to bemoan how fucking stacked against her the deck was to begin with.
  #5  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:04 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,723
So after being given the biggest F-U in modern history, does Hillary have a political future?
  #6  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:05 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,628
We have only ourselves to blame.
  #7  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:07 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Hey asshole, before you go blaming Clinton, maybe some of the blame should go to:

- The republicans who built a 25-year-long industry out of throwing shit at her to see what stuck
- The media, who gave one such fake scandal three times the total airtime they gave all the issues
- Your stupid fucking republican friends who decided that voting for Trump was a good idea
- Comey
  #8  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:09 AM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I'm not ready to start stockpiling ammunition and canned goods, but the GOP Congressman I heard interviewed on the radio this morning said "this is an extinction level event", and he was right. Not that the US is going to disappear, or that WWIII is going to break out. But neither party is going to be the same, and it won't be good, and it won't be pretty.
You may want to rethink things regarding ammunition. His statements to the rabble about ending crime on day one sounded a lot like marshal law, to me. As for this being an 'extinction level event', I agree. We are seeing the end of the Republican party looming.

Last edited by Chefguy; 11-09-2016 at 09:10 AM.
  #9  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:12 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,505
If you told me that I'd be agreeing with Shodan on a political thread the day after a presidential election, I would called you crazy, but here I am.

During the primaries, we were told we had to get behind Hillary because she was electable. Can we finally be done with the Clintons (and throw the Bushes on that ash heap of history while were at it)? If we're going to lose elections, can we at least run Democrats next time?
  #10  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:21 AM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
If you told me that I'd be agreeing with Shodan on a political thread the day after a presidential election, I would called you crazy, but here I am.
Room for one more fellow in this strange bed?

To think, all the wingnut pundits who wailed and screeched for years that the Clintons would destroy America may be proven right.
  #11  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:23 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
If you told me that I'd be agreeing with Shodan on a political thread the day after a presidential election, I would called you crazy, but here I am.

During the primaries, we were told we had to get behind Hillary because she was electable. Can we finally be done with the Clintons (and throw the Bushes on that ash heap of history while were at it)? If we're going to lose elections, can we at least run Democrats next time?
That's one of the things that is unsettling about this election. Trump is much more of a RINO than Hillary is a DINO - she is an establishment Democrat.

If by "running Democrats" you mean someone like Tim Kaine, I have no issue. But the main competitor was Bernie Sanders, a socialist. Who else is there - Jill Stein?

As I said, this is upsetting - Hillary, an establishment Democrat, isn't electable. Trump, a loose cannon, is. For the GOP, I don't think it could get any worse in terms of who they nominate. But is the lesson the Democrats learn going to be "we need to nominate a dangerous fruitcake in 2020"?

Regards,
Shodan
  #12  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:29 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,725
Well, really, what would have happened if we had some form of open primary system? Where everyone could select a top two for the general? Or my favorite, a three month election with continuous, revisable voting tallied five or six times, so that we could actually see how it was going? This two-party "system" may have worked decades ago, in its way, but today it seems like the problem.
  #13  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:30 AM
Memnon is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, UK
Posts: 943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
You may want to rethink things regarding ammunition. His statements to the rabble about ending crime on day one sounded a lot like marshal law, to me. As for this being an 'extinction level event', I agree. We are seeing the end of the Republican party looming.
I'm an outsider so apologies if this seems naive or ridiculous, but doesn't Trump's victory mean the Republicans basically have carte blanche to do pretty much whatever they want? I mean, Trump's just a fool on an ego trip. He'll sign whatever Paul Ryan puts in front of him. Since the Republicans still hold the house and the senate, is there any way Democrats can effectively oppose Ryan's agenda?
  #14  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:34 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
One party ran an entirely reasonable, viable politician
Clearly not; I think the biggest thing the Democrats did was underestimate the amount of baggage among Republicans/conservatives that Hillary inherited from Bill.

Not understanding that was a huge millstone around her neck from the beginning, even though she was palatable to the Democrat establishment.
  #15  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:34 AM
NAF1138 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North of Philly
Posts: 10,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
That's one of the things that is unsettling about this election. Trump is much more of a RINO than Hillary is a DINO - she is an establishment Democrat.

If by "running Democrats" you mean someone like Tim Kaine, I have no issue. But the main competitor was Bernie Sanders, a socialist. Who else is there - Jill Stein?

As I said, this is upsetting - Hillary, an establishment Democrat, isn't electable. Trump, a loose cannon, is. For the GOP, I don't think it could get any worse in terms of who they nominate. But is the lesson the Democrats learn going to be "we need to nominate a dangerous fruitcake in 2020"?

Regards,
Shodan
I don't know who is electable, but the Democrats need someone. My Conservative friends are talking about how this election was about throwing out the establishment. I don't know what to do with that. I really don't believe that the Presidency is an entry level position, but the people seem to want someone with no experience.
  #16  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:35 AM
Waymore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Hey asshole, before you go blaming Clinton, maybe some of the blame should go to:

- The republicans who built a 25-year-long industry out of throwing shit at her to see what stuck
- The media, who gave one such fake scandal three times the total airtime they gave all the issues
- Your stupid fucking republican friends who decided that voting for Trump was a good idea

One party ran an entirely reasonable, viable politician with a slew of viable, reasonable policy proposals to help people. That party lost. Don't go blaming us for that shit. Clinton was a fine candidate. The fact that she lost to Trump is not reason to blame her, it's reason to bemoan how fucking stacked against her the deck was to begin with.
Your side entered a contest against an almost universally derided competitor and lost big. Of course Clinton is to blame.
  #17  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:39 AM
KAndre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, TX y'all!
Posts: 146
looks up

I have to agree with Shodan's last statement (and that says how freaky this all is). And I really don't want to see Beyoncé running in 2020 (and I like Beyoncé). I don't want Will Smith, or who ever hosts "The Amazing Race" or even worse, someone who says, "You know all those people - they are nothing but Bundys and Dylan Roofs and bad cops and they hate us - let's hate them more and harder" (and it's worse because I can feel my reptilian brain whispering "but it's truuuuuuue" and I have to consciously fight it) running much less winning. But it worked. Dammit, it worked.
  #18  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:40 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Hey asshole, before you go blaming Clinton, maybe some of the blame should go to:

- The republicans who built a 25-year-long industry out of throwing shit at her to see what stuck
- The media, who gave one such fake scandal three times the total airtime they gave all the issues
- Your stupid fucking republican friends who decided that voting for Trump was a good idea

One party ran an entirely reasonable, viable politician with a slew of viable, reasonable policy proposals to help people. That party lost. Don't go blaming us for that shit. Clinton was a fine candidate. The fact that she lost to Trump is not reason to blame her, it's reason to bemoan how fucking stacked against her the deck was to begin with.
Why nominate someone with the deck stacked so heavily against her? because it was her turn? Didn't the Republicans used to do that and fail?

Clinton lost because she was unelectable despite her assurances that she was.

She lost because she ran a horrible campaign despite having more money, more experience, party support, more of everything but votes.
  #19  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:43 AM
Kinthalis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,079
I <3 Shodan....

What is happening?

Guys, can one of you please check my quantum signature. I think I may have slipped into another dimension overnight.

I'm half expecting to walk into my Boss's office and find a dinosaur in a suit.

"Sinclair! Where's your report?!"

Last edited by Kinthalis; 11-09-2016 at 09:43 AM.
  #20  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:43 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waymore View Post
Your side entered a contest against an almost universally derided competitor and lost big. Of course Clinton is to blame.
indeed, I kept reading here the boasting about a great "ground game" of the Mrs Clinton campaign and I even managed to learn this strange acronym GOTV (I thought first what does the TV have to do with the subject).

to read this morning of how she managed to collapse support from what the first black president of the USA got even on his re-election campaign says that it is she herself that was the problem. To engage in the denialism is not to learn a lesson.

and for the political studies and the forecasting, they now can know that indeed People do matter, the Person who is the Candidate does matter, and it is not just numerical mechanics.

for Mrs Clinton to not be able to beat this Trump person, it is a clear statement she herself was not a good candidate by her qualities as a Candidate (I do not have a strong opinion about her as the potential actual President)...

(and I think she should feel deep shame and she should permanently withdraw from the public life for inflicting this great catastrophe on the world.)

Last edited by Ramira; 11-09-2016 at 09:44 AM.
  #21  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:49 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,990
I completely disagree with all this. Clinton had a lot of baggage, but her campaign was well run.

It's unfair to just look at the results. Clinton ran the standard campaign that any professional political expert would have advised her to run. Huge fundraising advantage, emphasis on GOTV, play it safe on outrageous statements etc. There are always going to be decisions that you can quibble with, but no one felt she was completely going about it backwards. That was Trump, who violated every bit of conventional wisdom and who every expert (plus a lot of non-experts, like me) felt was sabotaging his own campaign. You can't fault someone for running a campaign that every expert would think was the way to go about it, just because an unprecedented event took place.
  #22  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:54 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
yes it is a valid observation, but it highlights the reality that a machinery in the modern politics can not overcome the lack of the public charisma, that the Person of the candidate does matter actually.
  #23  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:02 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,156
I don't think it was lack of charisma that killed Hillary -- it was the scandals (whether valid or not) and associated baggage. Too many people just absolutely hated her, whether for good reasons or for bad ones, and we (and she) didn't/couldn't see it.

But who the hell knows for sure. Turnout was high, I'm pretty sure, all around -- even for blacks and Hispanics. But lower income white turnout swamped them, and lower income whites voted (in an unprecedented fashion) like minorities -- utterly overwhelmingly for Trump. Maybe they would have done so even against Bernie or Biden. Maybe Trump had the magic touch with them that no one else could have had. Or maybe it was just a shitty candidate.
  #24  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:03 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Clearly not; I think the biggest thing the Democrats did was underestimate the amount of baggage among Republicans/conservatives that Hillary inherited from Bill.

Not understanding that was a huge millstone around her neck from the beginning, even though she was palatable to the Democrat establishment.
When I say "reasonable", I mean in a world where half the country isn't completely fucking insane.
  #25  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:04 AM
Memnon is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, UK
Posts: 943
In the end, I think it always comes down to charisma. It's different in multi-party systems, but in the typical American two horse head-to-head race, the most charismatic candidate always wins. Policy doesn't matter. History doesn't matter. Accomplishments don't matter. It's all about charisma. And when I say it's all about charisma, I really do mean that charisma is quite literally the only thing which really counts. Since the advent of televised debates in the 1960 election, I can't think of a single instance in which the less charismatic Presidential candidate has emerged victorious. Can you?

Hillary had the money, the backing, the experience, the history, the knowledge, the passion, the connections, and the means to bring about real change for the very people who ended up voting Republican...but on the stump, she had about as much charisma as an Excel spreadsheet. Trump was nothing more than a blustering, clown-shoes clusterfuck who embarrassed himself on a daily basis...but, although he's hardly charismatic himself, he's like Tony Robbins compared to Hillary, so he carried the day.
  #26  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:07 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I completely disagree with all this. Clinton had a lot of baggage, but her campaign was well run.
No, you don't disagree.

Because I agree with you - her campaign was well run. That's what is so unsettling about all this - she should have won.
Quote:
It's unfair to just look at the results.
Maybe it is unfair. Heck, not even "maybe" - it is unfair to just look at the results. But the results are that we have Donald Fucking Trump as President.

Most of us have had the experience of being on a major project that goes down in flames, and then there is a post-mortem to figure it out. A good project manager tries to find out what happened and fix it. A bad one just wants to assign blame.

I'm a bad manager. Because I don't have a fricking clue what went wrong. So all I can do is point fingers and blow off steam.

Regards,
Shodan
  #27  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:07 AM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
That's one of the things that is unsettling about this election. Trump is much more of a RINO than Hillary is a DINO - she is an establishment Democrat.

If by "running Democrats" you mean someone like Tim Kaine, I have no issue. But the main competitor was Bernie Sanders, a socialist. Who else is there - Jill Stein?

As I said, this is upsetting - Hillary, an establishment Democrat, isn't electable. Trump, a loose cannon, is. For the GOP, I don't think it could get any worse in terms of who they nominate. But is the lesson the Democrats learn going to be "we need to nominate a dangerous fruitcake in 2020"?...
Off the top of my head, IMHO candidates the DNC could have run vs Trump and won:
  • Mark Warner;
  • Jim Webb;
  • Martin O'Malley...
Definite Maybes:
  • Elizabeth Warren---though that one could have gotten a little bumpy;
  • Bernie Sanders ---Bernie voters could, and I think we'll see they did, get pissed at how he got screwed by the DNC, and go vote for someone like Stein, Johnson, or just not even show up. I don't think Hillary voters would've been as likely to defect as Bernie's people turned out to have done;
  • Cory Booker;
  • Julian Castro;

Get off the ledge people: your candidate lost because three Rust Belt states (PA, WI & MI) decided to go for Trump by a combined total of currently about 110,000 votes out of around 13 million. Hell, a recount may shrink even that. Plus Florida being lost by 130k or so out of 9 million plus votes cast. Do you have any idea how incredibly thin that margin is? And that it took one of the most unlikeable candidates in US political history, the most corrupt candidate since LBJ, plus the perceived jettisoning by the Dems of one of their signature constituencies---white union tradespeople---to lose by that razor thin margin? I don't think people were voting so much For Trump, as they were voting Against Hillary.

Chill out. This isn't a 'Reagan in '84' repudiation of everything you stand for; it's a black swan culmination of several factors that probably won't happen again. I also don't think that the Rust Belt workers that Trump has now are going to stay with him very long when he's not able to bring those factories and jobs back to the US. The odds are very good that the comps for Trump's Administration won't something like Huey Long writ large, but rather those of two other outsiders storming into executive positions: Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger. I think that, like those two guys, Trump's going to enter with big plans, butt heads with the bureaucracy and end up not getting a lot done. He's never had to really work with the Feds before, and the Federal empire is a whole lot bigger than, say, when Reagan canned the ATC workers that went on strike. If Trump does manage to drastically cut federal regulations, as promised, this might change, but I don't think he'll be able to. He's also going to have to deal with the long-promised, and I think finally-delivered after the 1st of the year, Fed Reserve rate hike.

Remember, the Democrats hate Trump, and the mainstream GOP doesn't like him all that much either. This doesn't look to me like a united GOP like the Contract with America Congress. Does "NeverTrump" or the threatened revolt at the GOP Convention ring any bells? I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how little Trump is able to get done. Merrick Garland's probably off the table for the time being, though.
  #28  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:08 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
It's unfair to just look at the results.
How is unfair? You don't get to declare a moral victory when you are upset by a massive underdog just because you did your best. Clinton failed.

Now, somewhat ironically, I am suddenly somewhat hopeful about the future. Shodan is rightly terrified about what four years of President Trump and control of both houses (and likely SCOTUS) means for the future of the country, because it virtually guarantees a Democratic blowout in 2020.

But Shodan and I agree - perhaps shockingly - that Clinton failed both of us. She failed him by not being the least worst option to the electorate, and she failed me for much the same reason. Yes, the GOP has spent 30 years throwing mud at her in preparation for this moment, but they also undid all the damage by giving her the most ridiculous opponent in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memnon View Post
I'm an outsider so apologies if this seems naive or ridiculous, but doesn't Trump's victory mean the Republicans basically have carte blanche to do pretty much whatever they want? I mean, Trump's just a fool on an ego trip. He'll sign whatever Paul Ryan puts in front of him. Since the Republicans still hold the house and the senate, is there any way Democrats can effectively oppose Ryan's agenda?
They likely won't have to. Trump doesn't seem like a man to let go of a grudge, and he and Ryan have been at loggerheads as much as he and Clinton. I think it will be more a case of Ryan deciding whether to oppose Trump's agenda.

For all his rhetoric, I see Trump as primarily focused on business-related issues once in power so in that regard he and Ryan might get along. Neither seems to give two shits about social issues except when it benefits their election chances.
  #29  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:10 AM
Memnon is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, UK
Posts: 943
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii
I don't think it was lack of charisma that killed Hillary -- it was the scandals (whether valid or not) and associated baggage. Too many people just absolutely hated her, whether for good reasons or for bad ones, and we (and she) didn't/couldn't see it.
Trouble is, I think her lack of charisma is one of the main reasons why those scandals stuck to her in the first place. It's just easier to believe the worst of people who have no charisma. From JFK to Trump, charismatic candidates have always been referred to as 'teflon', because the scandals just slide off them. Their charisma makes people want to disbelieve the allegations. Sadly, this is something that could never be said about Hillary Clinton.

Last edited by Memnon; 11-09-2016 at 10:12 AM.
  #30  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:12 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,244
OK, these are just Wikipedia links, and of course the totals from this year are still not at 100%:

2004
2008
2012
2016

So, John McCain got 59,948,323 votes. Mitt Romney got 60,933,504 votes. Fucking John Kerry got 59,028,444 votes. And, as of this moment--I guess there are still a handful of votes remaining to be counted--Donald Trump got 59,131,310 votes--fewer votes than McCain, fewer than Mitt Romney, and barely more than John Kerry. And, it appears Clinton will wind up with more votes than him. So, how the fuck did Trump win? Well, Barack Obama got 69,498,516 votes in 2008, and he still got 65,915,795 votes in 2012. As of right now, Hillary Clinton has 59,293,071 votes.

I'm sure she would have made a perfectly serviceable President, but she was a lousy candidate. She got beat by someone who was also a lousy candidate, because in the face of an absolute disaster of an opponent, she couldn't generate enough enthusiasm to get within 6 million votes of Obama's totals in 2012--when the new had worn off and we weren't electing America's First Black President in a Historic First and there was plenty of time for disappointment and frustration to set in. I certainly blame the idiots who voted for Trump, and the idiots who voted for Obama but couldn't be bothered to turn up and vote for Clinton (or even just vote against Trump).

But she was a lousy fucking candidate. And she got the nomination in no small part because she was supposedly "electable".
  #31  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:12 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't think it was lack of charisma that killed Hillary -- it was the scandals (whether valid or not) and associated baggage. Too many people just absolutely hated her, whether for good reasons or for bad ones, and we (and she) didn't/couldn't see it.
This is overrated.

Democratic politicians and voters didn't just go out and pick someone with the most baggage possible and make her their candidate. Clinton had a lot of baggage but also had a lot going for her. First female nominee, association with the popular Bill Clinton presidency, resume as a successful and competent Senator and SoS. Another candidate with less baggage might have not had her positive qualities, and it's hard to say what would have happened with another candidate.

Especially when you consider how much baggage Trump himself carries, which far far exceeds Clinton's, it's hard to see Clinton as a flawed candidate based on that alone.
  #32  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:15 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
This is overrated.

Democratic politicians and voters didn't just go out and pick someone with the most baggage possible and make her their candidate. Clinton had a lot of baggage but also had a lot going for her. First female nominee, association with the popular Bill Clinton presidency, resume as a successful and competent Senator and SoS. Another candidate with less baggage might have not had her positive qualities, and it's hard to say what would have happened with another candidate.

Especially when you consider how much baggage Trump himself carries, which far far exceeds Clinton's, it's hard to see Clinton as a flawed candidate based on that alone.
Do you think Trump had some magic touch, then, for blue collar white rust belt voters? Or is there another explanation?
  #33  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:16 AM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,570
How could I have forgotten Biden on my list above?

Try this thought experiment. Swap out Clinton for Biden. Is there any doubt that he'd have won with vote totals similar to the ones MEBuckner cited above?
  #34  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:17 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
How is unfair? You don't get to declare a moral victory when you are upset by a massive underdog just because you did your best. Clinton failed.
Of course you do. You play the odds. Sometimes the odds don't work out. That doesn't mean your decision was wrong.

Quote:
Now, somewhat ironically, I am suddenly somewhat hopeful about the future. Shodan is rightly terrified about what four years of President Trump and control of both houses (and likely SCOTUS) means for the future of the country, because it virtually guarantees a Democratic blowout in 2020.
You never know, but it's a big big mistake to assume anything about 2020.
  #35  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:18 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,445
Well, kind of. Biden's had nearly as many creepy guy moments over the past eight years as Trump did during the campaign.
  #36  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:19 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Do you think Trump had some magic touch, then, for blue collar white rust belt voters? Or is there another explanation?
I think his TV experience helped him, but for the most part he just lucked out.

What he was selling happened to be what was in style at this exact time.
  #37  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:22 AM
wolfman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
resume as a successful and competent Senator and SoS.
That is one of the primary points that the people who dislike Clinton disagree with.
  #38  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:22 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
indeed how can some one think that the "baggage" was the problem when it is clear the opponent had very much baggage even sometimes worse.

but he clearly has the media charisma that Mrs Clinton never had and the idea that having the mechanical campaign as like doing some of the excel sheet planning overcomes the personal flaw of no real public charisma... it is extraordinary in the face of the comparison.
  #39  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:25 AM
silenus's Avatar
silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 51,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post

They likely won't have to. Trump doesn't seem like a man to let go of a grudge, and he and Ryan have been at loggerheads as much as he and Clinton. I think it will be more a case of Ryan deciding whether to oppose Trump's agenda.
Ryan is toast. He'll be gone as Speaker within 24 hours of the new Congress getting sworn in, if not sooner. There are too many Republicans with too many agendas for them to deadlock with Trump on anything. He'll give them support for anything they want passed, and they'll roll over and play dead for him.
  #40  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:31 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Do you think Trump had some magic touch, then, for blue collar white rust belt voters? Or is there another explanation?
it is clear he has a certain mediatic charisma that has a real appeal or at least in comparison to Mrs Clinton who I think all agree has no real media charisma.

The numbers that MEBuckner speak.
  #41  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:36 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,244
Well, my numbers may be complete bullshit. If so, I apologize--I haven't had any goddamned sleep.

Supposedly, turnout was up, which doesn't seem to add up. Maybe there are more outstanding votes (for either or both candidates) than I'm thinking?

The basic point of this thread--that Hilary Clinton is a lousy candidate who couldn't even beat Donald fucking Trump--still stands.
  #42  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:44 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright
Now, somewhat ironically, I am suddenly somewhat hopeful about the future. Shodan is rightly terrified about what four years of President Trump and control of both houses (and likely SCOTUS) means for the future of the country, because it virtually guarantees a Democratic blowout in 2020.
Control of SCOTUS is a feature, not a bug, and one of the few bright spots I can see from here. If Trump nominates a conservative to the Court (a big IF) then that shifts the balance back to 5-4. If Ginsberg dies or moves to Guam like she said, a 6-3 balance isn't going to shift in 2020. Supreme Court Justices serve for life.

Of course, Trump's election means that the liberals will only leave the Court feet-first, but Ginsberg's 83. Thomas is 68 - maybe he will retire, and hopefully Trump will nominate a conservative black to replace him.

And slap me hard for mentioning it, but the next set of elections is 2018, and the Democrats have a lot more of their Senate seats up for election than the Republicans do. The GOP didn't lose much ground yesterday, and they are likely to gain it in the mid-terms.

Unless I maintain my near-perfect streak of political predictions.

Regards,
Shodan
  #43  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:45 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,244
Just saw something on the television--just a flash of a "chyron"--that 92% of the popular vote is in. So, doing the math, both candidates' total popular vote totals could be up significantly from those numbers above.

[Emily Litella]Never mind.[/Emily Litella] (On that specific point, anyway.)
  #44  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:52 AM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
...Supposedly, turnout was up, which doesn't seem to add up. Maybe there are more outstanding votes (for either or both candidates) than I'm thinking?

The basic point of this thread--that Hilary Clinton is a lousy candidate who couldn't even beat Donald fucking Trump--still stands.
From this auto-updating AP map of election results, Clinton has 59.344 million, Trump has 59.179 million.

What we're not seeing in that map, and what's different this race than the others you mentioned, are the large number of 3rd party votes. Annoyingly, I haven't found a good aggregated result for those votes.

I did look at some results in 13 swing states. SWAG-ing from those---which ranged from 2.76 percent in NC, and 3.14 in FL; to between 6-7 for NV, MN, and ME; to NM's 11.7---I'd guess that about 5 percent of the votes went 3rd party. If we therefore assume that .95 of the pool equals 118.5 million votes, you get a third party total of around 6 and a quarter million.

I am guessing again that more than half of those would have broken for Clinton, given Jill Stein's presence, Bill Weld practically endorsing Clinton, etc... Let's call it .6 of the 3rd party pool. Then Clinton would've had about another 3.75 million votes, or about 63 million. Which isn't Obama-like, but still should've given her the win.
  #45  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:56 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
So this says to us that you americans on the Left learned not one lesson from your 2000 election?
  #46  
Old 11-09-2016, 11:00 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
But now I realize also that the Democratic hard Left electors from that western state, it was the Oregon yes? They are spared the horror of having to vote for an impure person.
  #47  
Old 11-09-2016, 11:01 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
If Ginsberg dies or moves to Guam like she said
I think her brain is already there.

Look on the bright side: our enemies will now tremble. Trump will go through 'em like you-know-what through a canebrake!

And it'll be interesting to see how he can improve on Bush's greeting of Angela Merkel.
  #48  
Old 11-09-2016, 11:02 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memnon View Post
I'm an outsider so apologies if this seems naive or ridiculous, but doesn't Trump's victory mean the Republicans basically have carte blanche to do pretty much whatever they want?
Aye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memnon View Post
I mean, Trump's just a fool on an ego trip. He'll sign whatever Paul Ryan puts in front of him.
Prolly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memnon View Post
Since the Republicans still hold the house and the senate, is there any way Democrats can effectively oppose Ryan's agenda?
Nope.
  #49  
Old 11-09-2016, 11:06 AM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memnon View Post
In the end, I think it always comes down to charisma. It's different in multi-party systems, but in the typical American two horse head-to-head race, the most charismatic candidate always wins.
I don't know. I try to imagine a Clinton who had more charisma, or one who blustered about her way through the election like Trump.

What if she said "Who cares about my emails? Its not against the law and you don't deserve to see them! I'll bomb ISIS to smithereens and you want to talk about emails?" Or, on Bernie, she called him a loser socialist who isn't even a real Democrat, and said his supporters were dumbass college kids who didn't know a thing about real life? Or on her ties to foreign countries, she claimed that she was building bridges through donations and ties? Or called Trump an orange goblin know-nothing who's going to destroy America. Would that have won her more votes? I doubt it.
  #50  
Old 11-09-2016, 11:13 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSothoth View Post
I don't know. I try to imagine a Clinton who had more charisma, or one who blustered about her way through the election like Trump.

What if she said "Who cares about my emails? Its not against the law and you don't deserve to see them! I'll bomb ISIS to smithereens and you want to talk about emails?" Or, on Bernie, she called him a loser socialist who isn't even a real Democrat, and said his supporters were dumbass college kids who didn't know a thing about real life? Or on her ties to foreign countries, she claimed that she was building bridges through donations and ties? Or called Trump an orange goblin know-nothing who's going to destroy America. Would that have won her more votes? I doubt it.
Apparently, couldn't have hurt either.

And this is the problem that we are seeing. That it's not the most qualified candidate that gets elected. It's not the candidate with the best policies. It's not the candidate that has worked their entire life for the betterment of others.

It is the candidate who wins the insult contest.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017