No, that’s what @Pleonast said:
Rehash? Yep.
The Clinton’s are gone folks.
Water under the bridge.
Many reasons she missed her chance.
There is Chelsea, tho’.
Best.
Haiku.
EVER.
(I don’t really care if it followed the classical forms or not.)
Wasn’t Aaron Rodgers going to be RFK jr’s running mate?
Shudder
To be clear, I have no problem with those who simply dislike her. The president isn’t there to be liked. I cast aspersions at those who say she was a bad candidate. Especially those who say it with little prompting.
There’s just so much implicit misogyny baked into American culture that it’s better to assume those who complain about Hillary’s candidacy are manifesting it.
Good grief, how is calling Hilary Clinton a terrible candidate in 2024 still this controversial? That’s all I did. Period. I said nothing of her as a person, senator, SoS, first lady or potential POTUS. Or that I personally wouldn’t vote for her. You can be a great person and a terrible candidate, just like you can be human garbage and a winning candidate. My response to hajario in that thread has nothing to do with whether or not I’d personally vote for her or stay at home. @Tamerlane was right on that account. She was a bad candidate who was unable to get people to vote for her where she needed to.
I say all this as someone who was on her campaign payroll in 2016 and then transitioned to the Michigan AFL-CIO to run the gotv for union households in West Michigan. She was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign. I’m not going to rehash 2016. I voted for her, donated to her and as a long time poster who has never been anything but pro-Hilary and anti-trump would’ve appreciated getting the benefit of the doubt before getting pitted with this unnecessary pissiness and snark over this misunderstanding.
And perhaps I was a bit harsh in my response to the op. She has a history of being unnecessarily nasty and/or pissy over the smallest things, I’m sick of it, and I snapped. This is the pit ffs
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m out of town this weekend watching my daughter play soccer in a tournament, and this is harshing my happy. If I need to come back, it won’t be till Sunday or Monday, but I’m likely done here.
She was a bad candidate, and you can go fuck yourself.
Why thanks.
She was absolutely a terrible candidate and I had no problem staying home on Election Day in 2016. Every time she appears on some show or publication insulting progressives and continuing to blame us for her loss like she has been doing, she just confirms that I made the right decision.
This is subjective. I didn’t dig her at all, but I’m (at least) a little to the left of most Dems in power. I understand @Pleonast started the generalizing, but… idk. Here we are.
Well, sure. I don’t have a problem with anyone who thought she was a great candidate, even though I disagree. I do have a problem with people who think the only reason I could disagree with that is because I don’t like women.
Yes! I didn’t mean to be a dick, I just want to be clear about these things, despite it being prone to volatility.
Some context:
In the Stormy trial thread people were wondering how anyone could vote for Trump now that he’s been convicted. There were comments that lots of people would vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name and few would stay home over this and vote for neither over this.
I’d vote for pretty much anyone with a (D) by their name these days in particular if a MAGA was the alternative and so would a significant number of people. My question was, how bad would a Democrat have to for you to stay home if Trump is the alternative?
The only answer given before the hijack was correctly ended was “Hillary”. (Who was an awful candidate but I had no problem voting for her)
Because the term “terrible candidate” means A PERSON WHO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THE JOB WELL!
That’s why it’s controversial. People who don’t get that can barely be credited with being able to feed themselves, much less be trusted to participate in deciding who’s going to be in charge.
ETA: (I will concede that she was a subpar campaigner. I will not concede that “candidate” and “campaigner” are interchangeable terms.)
Like I said. The Clinton’s are gone.
You know, old soldiers never die, but politicians buy a place in the country and disappear. If they have any sense at all.
The last time I’ve seen them on TV was an event at the Clinton library a couple months ago.
I don’t recall Hillary even being there.
Maybe the elder Bush’s funerals.
It’s silly to get all worked up about Herself.
Gone, baby, gone.
I’d sure love to hear her thoughts about Trump and his conviction, if I had my druthers.
No. A good candidate is one who can win the job.
Then stay the fuck out of this thread which is about Hillary. And in general please stop ruining threads with your lame hijacks. There are already several threads about Trump’s conviction(s).
Could that just be tactical?
I’m biased — I didn’t stay home on Election Day; I voted for her, and haven’t regretted it — but I can’t help but wonder if part of the reason she’d blame a group for her loss, for not getting out there to vote against Trump then, is in hopes of getting them to come out and vote against Trump now: pointedly reminding people that, hey, if you don’t, then another one of those The Dem Candidate Loses To Trump scenarios may well ensue, y’know, again.
What the heck?
That was about Hillary in a perfectly cromulent way.
Having bad day?
I don’t ruin threads. Telling everyone who dares to have thought to fuck off is ruining this board.
That’s what the boards for. To have a thought and post it.
Take a chill pill dude.
No, a terrible candidate is someone who can’t win the election. It has relatively little bearing on how well they’d actually do the job.
We disagree on terminology. Please see the ETA on my post.
How descriptivist of you! (I meant for that to sting, by the way.)