This, pretty much. As the 2016 election campaign was on, I noted that any Democrat other than Hillary would have had an enormous lead over Trump, and that any Republican other than Trump would have had a huge lead over Hillary.
Barack Obama did it, twice in a row. Hell, even W. managed to get to 50.7% in 2004. In both of Bill Clinton’s elections, there was an unusually strong third party candidate in the race. And winning the popular vote 48.6% to 46.1% is hardly “[winning] the popular vote by a huge margin”.
With all due respect, a lot of us did know how bad he was going to be. The Trump Presidency has frequently been disgusting and horrifying, and maybe even in some sense “shocking”, but it very rarely has been surprising. (Beyond the mere fact of its existence, I mean.) President Trump has been exactly what we should have expected from Candidate Trump. (Even the fact that he’s turned out to be too fundamentally incompetent to turn American into a Sci-Fi Fascist Dystopia is not really that surprising, given how inept and disorganized his campaign so frequently was.)
That lead wouldn’t have lasted. The Kremlin/Rove hate machine would have whittled it down.
I voted no. Seems like the surest way to assure a second Trump term.
She should’ve known it was all over when she fell out of favor with a dispassionate, apolitical middle-of-the-roader like Mark Steyn, who previously had nothing but praise for the Clintons.
The point is that discussing what *should *be changed, and how, is the first step in *making *those changes. We *do *all understand what the system is, and trying to explain it to us is what is truly “meaningless jacking off”.
And yet over sixty million people did vote for him, with their eyes more or less open. Was Clinton the problem, or were they?
I said “no”, partly for electability reasons, but mostly for the same reasons I disliked her before (despite voting for her in 2016). There are parts of her legislative record that really bother me, including at least one piece that rarely gets brought up, but which I consider emblematic of her flaws.
No, I don’t want to hear “but…but…but…her emails!” all over again. Nor do I want to hear about Uranium One, which wasn’t even her fucking deal- State was just one department that could weigh in on it. Not to mention no uranium left the country as the company has no export license. Nor do I think that just one more investigation will show us that she personally killed four people in Benghazi. She had her chance, she blew it. Had she put Bernie on the ticket, we’d be talking about her re-election and Donald wouldn’t be about to be indicted.
The same Mark Steyn who is a fixture on Fox and regularly guest-hosts Limbaugh’s and Carlson’s shows? The one whose writings wallow in anti-Islamic hatred and climate-change denial? You must mean another Mark Steyn.
I like her very much, and voted for her, but I feel that she us divisive. There are a lot of people who dislike her for some undefinable reason.
I voted Yes.
“Please, PLEASE, Brer Fox - don’t throw me into that briar patch!” 
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know if this is shorthand for something. But if meant literally, I don’t see why that would matter. I don’t know how many times Hillary came to my state, nor do I care. She endorsed policies that would have helped people in Wisconsin. Actually being in Madison when she spoke about them seems irrelevant.
Oh, it’s definable, just not articulatable except in private (the word *uppity *should be a reminder). The hate has been cultivated over the course of literally decades, by the propaganda operation of a party whose true sponsors have interests threatened by her policy positions, with a faction of the electorate that is receptive to that message.
But that’s true of *any *Democratic nominee, isn’t it? Whoever it is will be a dangerous radical socialist, the “most liberal member of Congress” or something similar, and will let the brown-skinned, the Muslims, and the wimmen think they’re as good as us and make us treat them that way, they’ll kill babies and grab guns, and so forth. Any one who presents a danger to them will get it. Lead time is shorter for other options, but there’s no reason to doubt that they can get the machine working sufficiently well. But you can’t let the opposition have veto power over your candidates, can you?
I told some liberal friends basically this same thing: in 2016 it seemed that both major parties nominated the only candidate that could lose to the other.
As did I, and for similar reasons.
No.
And Bernie can fuck off as well.
I voted no. Mostly because it’s time for a generational transfer. It’s time to put the boomers to bed and move on.
If she should happen to win the primaries, I will gladly vote and campaign for her in the general election in 2020. #StillWithHer, in that respect.
But, God, I pray she doesn’t run. And I won’t support her in the primaries.
While that is true, some progressives–myself included–dislike her for perfectly definable reasons. I can cite specific legislation, if you like, but I don’t think it’s particularly germane at this point.
I don’t think she would be successful, but if she wants to run, f— it. Let her run. Let her and the pundits see what happens. If she’s so awful then surely she’ll be drubbed in the first few months of the campaign, right?
I think Hillary’s problem - one of many - was that she was too damn cautious. Maybe this time around she really runs her own campaign.
But the chances of a run are probably slim to none.