Yes she did. The DNC was also in the tank for her over Sanders. How many links do you want and it the NY Times okay for a source indicating this happened?
You miss the point of the thread. It’s not that a Missouri voter has more influence than a New York voter…its that New York didn’t pay attention to what was fomenting out in Missouri. If the media had set up shop there, it would have been more obvious to them.
None of those links say anything about Clinton receiving any information about questions in the general election debates. You made yet another incorrect assertion, probably because you’re relying on media outlets that support Trump and routinely disregard the facts.
Good grief…
You used Snopes for your cite so I will assume Snopes is ok with you for this one too.
I’m sure you know the difference between the primary debates and the general election debates.
And, quite frankly, except for one or two ‘gotcha!’ or silly questions, every candidate should already know the range of questions to expect in any debate.
And you apparently ignored the final part:
Donna Brazile’s firing from CNN caused some confusion due to a previous fabricated news story asserting Clinton had been supplied questions one week in advance of the first presidential debate between the former Secretary of State and Donald Trump on 26 September 2016.
Although Brazile was implicated in supplying the campaign with information ahead of Clinton’s appearances, that issue pertained only to March 2016 (during the Democratic primary, not the general election campaign) and involved CNN (not NBC), a campaign against Bernie Sanders (not Donald Trump), and a debate held on 6 March 2016 (not 26 September 2016).
I have taken the liberty of bolding the part that makes iiandyiiii correct in his statement. And I also note that he and dalej42 are different posters.
Your post did not specify general or primary debate questions. Your cite was about the general, mine about the primary.
I did not ignore anything.
If iiandyiiii wants to be very specific to gloss over Clinton receiving questions during the primary then fine. But I would submit it makes it a heck of a lot easier for people to buy the fake news about receiving questions during the general when we know she did receive questions during the primary and overall helps cement people’s distrust of her.
Read my post again – I specified the general election. I didn’t gloss over anything, since this thread is about why Hillary Clinton lost the general election, not why she won the primary.
I conflated your and dalej42’s posts so sorry about that.
And I explained that I think her receiving questions in the primary makes it much easier for people to believe she did it again in the general. It’s not like people forgot the campaign or reset their opinions when the primaries ended and the general began. What she did in the primaries matters in the general too.
The reason Clinton lost is due to a quirk in the US election system. One might even call it a flaw.
It was dumb of the DNC to pretty much openly favor Clinton’s campaign. It was even dumber of them to do it so incompetently, and entirely fail to hide this fact. If it hadn’t been for the DNC’s incompetence, Clinton might have (IMO) won the primary by a larger margin, and without the ire of Sanders’ supporters.
I think Hillary lost because of a few big things and a few apparently little things, which doomed her long before 2016:
[ul]
[li]She was seen as corrupt. Whitewater really was hinky, back in the day. She had adopted a new constituency in New York State in the Bloomberg billionaire era, and in the primary campaign, it sounded like it was to get Wall Street money for her ambitions.[/li][li]She was seen as untrustworthy. She had flipped away from progressive positions for reasons that might be “pragmatic” but looked like she was following the money, more than once.[/li][li]She not only voted to allow the 2003 invasion of Iraq; she was very, very cosy with terrorists and warmongers like Dubya and Kissinger.[/li][li]She was, incidentally, still married to the oaf. Bubba may not be grabbing women so much now, but he probably still would have been an embarrassment waiting to happen.[/li][li]She and the oaf had had their bite of the apple, and were not so awesome the first time around that they could convince us that they deserved twice as much time in the White House as is the norm.[/li][li]And most of us didn’t even vote for them the first time! We weren’t dying to finally vote for a Clinton, either.[/li][/ul]
There are other factors. Some people probably did believe conspiracy theories about Huma, or hate voting for a woman as commander-in-chief. And certainly there was a lot of nasty anti-Clinton propaganda.
Like the OP, I wish the DNC had actually come out to the central USA. I wish they had found out just how unpopular she was, and how unlikely it was that HRC could effectively lead the party. A Hillary victory, if somehow she’d pulled it out, would have been followed by GOP victories in many, many offices. She was well-demonized by 2016, and simply being in “her” party would hurt Democratic candidates.
(In hindsight, one good thing about that last point is that if the Democratic brand became complete poison, that might have accelerated the rise of left-independents and moderate Republicans across the country.)
Electorates are not vending machines in which you can put million-dollar ad buys and get back enthusiastic majorities.
God, not this shit again.
Another Bernie v. Hillary redux.
I wish all the people who whine about Citizens United were aware of this fact.
I didn’t say that propaganda has no effect. But one’s own campaign does not exist in a vacuum.
I was pretty sure (incorrectly, alas) that Clinton was going to win, too. But I still turned out to vote. Because her winning wouldn’t have been enough. We needed for her to absolutely destroy Trump.
Silver Lining said:
“She was also giving the debate questions in advance by CNN, yet she lost.”
Several cites were provided about this statement. After reading those and a few other sources, Silver Lining is just plain wrong.
Clinton got at least one question from the interim DNC chair, who was working for CNN part-time on the Democratic debate, that was asked at a Democratic primary debate. Clinton, as everyone knows, won the Democratic primary. Silver Lining referred to debate questions that were part of the general election, the election “she lost”. That accusation was clearly shown to be false in the Snopes article-which explicitly differentiated the accusation from the Democratic debate. Silver Lining is talking about one debate while making an accusation based on another debate.
To finish the quoting of that Snopes article:
“Although Brazile was implicated in supplying the campaign with information ahead of Clinton’s appearances, that issue pertained only to March 2016 (during the Democratic primary, not the general election campaign) and involved CNN (not NBC), a campaign against Bernie Sanders (not Donald Trump), and a debate held on 6 March 2016 (not 26 September 2016).”
No one should claim that Clinton received any general election debate questions in advance. That Brazile was involved in disreputable actions in support of Clinton is beyond dispute but those actions were only related to the primary debates, not the general election.