Of course she can, those awe-inspiring speeches she gave at $200,000 a pop straight to her bank account roused the banksters and corporates to a fiery frenzy of revolutionary fervour, with a sublime vision of a world where banksters could be in charge and corporate rights were guaranteed.
And not one of those givers feels the faintest regret for that lost, lost money.
This must be the definite epitaph on her career.
So is it comparable to how Dewey lost to Truman?
If I had to pick one reason why Clinton lost I would ask why did she win the popular vote by a healthy margin yet lost the electoral college needing 38 more EVs and from everything I heard she campaigned in the wrong states. Specifically not campaigning enough (according to Democrats even before the election) in Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida.
MI 10,705 votes = 16 EV
WI 22,178 votes = 10 EV
FL 112,911 votes = 29 EV
If she didn’t blow off just those 3 states she wins with 287 EV
Any comment on Obama blaming Fox News?
You’d have to be more specific about which blame you’re referring to.
Obama blaming Fox News for something they actually did? That would seem fine and appropriate to me.
Obama blaming Fox News for something they did not do? That would be bad, to the extent it happened. There could be shades of grey here if he over- or under-stated the facts or if reasonable people could disagree on said facts.
A series of headlines misconstruing an Obama quote that was far more nuanced, to falsely claim that what he really was talking about was blaming every election loss on Fox News? I think those sort of pseudo-news lies are morally reprehensible.
Just like in Family Feud, the number one reason was:
Number two reason Hillary lost: Huma Abedin an American political staffer, who serves as vice chairwoman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, married the wrong person that just happened to be in the middle of an investigation of his sexual preferences and his laptop was under review that may or may not have contained classified material that was deemed necessary to the case of an unauthorized email server.
I think it was on their biased coverage of the campaign but all it heard was the radio talk about the blame and a soundbite from Obama that seemed to joke about their coverage of him. Hence my question but I guess it was nothing.
Nope. Out of 58 Electoral College results, 45 of them had bigger margins than this. Try again!
And, from our current President–
Sorry I just noticed this (somewhat old now) comment:
Really? Such as what?
And note that the members of an organization supporting X, and the organization supporting X, are not the same thing.
Nope. The Heller decision struck down certain limitations that were in place in DC.
But opposition to that decision doesn’t imply “complete ban on use of firearms for self-defense” since those restrictions didn’t prevent anyone owning a firearm or using it for self defense. It was a restriction on certain types of firearm and on storing them loaded with the safety off.
Actually it does: one of the multitude of ways in which Clinton was a terrible candidate is that she sucked the state Democrats dry to finance her own campaign. Had the state Democrats had access to more than half a percent of the money raised by the so-called joint fundraising campaign instead of it all being wasted on a doomed Presidential candidate, they might have had a fighting chance.
One under-discussed reason for the loss: the deep technological incompetence of Hillary and her inner circle. This comes through in the way they set up their e-mail server at State but also the way they allowed their emails to be hacked by a simple phishing email.
At a broader level I struggle to understand how powerful and supposedly competent people both in government and corporations put embarrassing stuff in their e-mails. How many career-destroying episodes does it take for it to penetrate their thick skulls that e-mails are not secure and can be hacked or subpoenaed ?
One? Agreed but…
For me it was: Giving a job to Wasserman. “Got caught did ya? Man…welp come hide under my umbrella.”
Then the debate questions fiasco.
Deplorables.
“Call it Obama’s third term! Business as usual!”…“Really?” Says all those white people without jobs who read daily how they have privilege and are inherently racist.
Every. Single. Smug. Celebrity who sneered down on people. “You’re being ridiculous.”
The Sanders stuff coming out through wikileaks.
This was the “Ted Kennedy senate seat fiasco” times 10000 and on a national scale.
Finally, I’m more than certain were the election reheld today the Dems would lose by a greater margin. They’ve done nothing but shame themselves in the last few weeks, and at this point, I literally cannot tell them apart from Republicans. The death threats to electors, calling them traitors. Saying anyone who voted for Trump is a Putin stooge. Screaming ‘treason’!!
One task facing liberals ahead may be how to tell people that they’re wrong, while not alienating them or losing their vote.
(That assumes that the people they address are “wrong” to begin with, but the second issue is how to tell someone that they are racist/xenophobic, etc., without coming across as antagonistic.)
That’s the same issue. The only reason they can be wrong is racism, homophobia, misogyny, or selfishness.
Regards,
Shodan
That ‘remedy’ illustrates two real problems, though as you phrase it not necessarily your problems
people who disagree with you on politics are ‘wrong’. Obviously to some degree this is inherent in people who elevate politics to a high position in their lives, even as private citizens let alone professionally. It’s certainly not limited to one side of the spectrum of US politics. But IMO it’s become more of a practical political problem for the left, and harder to logically justify*.
It’s impossible, having first built ist/phobe accusations into an effective cudgel, which has been in large part accomplished** (it would hardly demolish somebody ca. 1946 to claim their political opinions were ‘racist’, compared to now), to then imagine you can somehow use the cudgel in a non-divisive, non-polarizing way. There is some overall political optimum in demonizing opposing political opinions as ist/phobe, accepting the resulting divisiveness and polarization as the price. The question is whether the left/Democrats are past that optimum point. I think so, but they may mostly still think not.
*conservatives are in many cases religious, though not all (eg. George Will is an open atheist, and not unique on the US right), but in general by definition they revere Western tradition and Western tradition tends toward an absolute view of morality. The left isn’t necessarily dismissive of either religion or Western tradition but it’s fair to say IMO it tends to hold both in lower regard. So it’s odd in that respect if the left is the side more likely to say “your tax policies are immoral, ist/phobic or simply lacking ‘compassion’, and you are personally immoral for presenting them”, which I think has now become more common on the left than right (it’s constant on this forum as one microcosm) or ‘your views on marriage, the same ones our party had 20 yrs ago, are immoral’. There’s less of a contradiction on say abortion, where the left in more in character saying ‘there is no fixed morality, so don’t impose yours on me’, where the right is basically saying ‘no, this is morality and it should be reflected in law’.
**whether Trump shows that doesn’t work at all anymore is still to be determined.
Yeah, Conservatives aren’t “wrong” on global warming, they’re… umm… Jesus Jesus blobbity bloo?
And they’re not “wrong” on Trickle-Down Economics, they’re… hmmm… damn.
And their insistence that we ignore the separation of church and state. … I got nothing.
My problem with conservatives is not our difference of opinion, but our difference of facts. Global warming is real, and it’s man-made. Trickle-down economics does not work and has never worked. And the United States is a secular nation by Constitutional mandate.
Maybe to put it another way - when one side says, “My way or the highway,” people - especially swing voters - will often choose the highway.
So “let’s fix global warming or our grandchildren will all drown” is, in your mind, equivalent to an ultimatum? I do not agree.
Regress,
DD