Will Hillary Clinton Run for President Again?

Politics & Elections
161

You did not refute it. Trump’s campaign had less money that Hillary’s campaign, it’s a well-documented matter of public record that you can’t actually refute.

TV airtime is not the same thing as money, and counting all press coverage, including negative coverage, as ‘free money’ is simply absurd. Further, being able to convince the press to cover you is an actually useful skill for someone seeking election, and it’s one that (by your own claims) Donald Trump excelled at.

I don’t provide cites for very obvious things, like the sky being blue. If you believe the “Honest Hillary” meme, nothing I cite is going to convince you, I’ve seen the kool-aid in action before.

The Democratic party supported Hillary consistently and from the outset, while the Republican party opposed Trump at first and then only reluctantly supported him. Hillary had no problem getting endorsements from other Democrats, while Republicans were loath to support Trump even after he won the primary. Your voter statistics don’t have anything to do with that, I’m not sure why you posted them or acted so triumphant about posting them.

The irony of someone calling me a “Trumpist” while claiming that I made “ad hominemn” attacks when I didn’t is pretty breathtaking. If you think that anyone who looks at the election objectively is a Trump supporter, that’s really an issue you have, not something that can be sensibly argued.

The fact that she won the popular vote is evidence of how bad she was at campaigning. She made the horrible decision to waste significant time and effort winning an unimportant side statistic at the expense of losing the actual election. Lots of rallies in NY and CA (where were blue no matter what) while completely ignoring (and losing) WI was not the work of a ‘master swordsman’.

I’m not sure what you mean by a ‘talking point’, I wasn’t aware that discussions on this board required people to pick one narrow thing and only talk about that. What is your talking point, and do all of your posts in this thread fit actually that single talking point?

162

Trump focused on energizing his base. Hillary took her base for granted. She could get away with that in CA and NY, but not in Wisconsin and the rest of flyover country.

Regards,
Shodan

163

You haven’t bothered answering any of the historical evidence raised in that article. How do you know it’s a “myth” or even a “minority view”?

Trump won 7 of the 10 most populous states.

So you are a strict constructionist? And my point was more that we should stop obsessing over preserving silly, archaic institutions such as the Electoral College and the Senate.

That’s the point of the article-since the number of Congressmen was affected by the 3/5th compromise, it advantaged the slave states to select the President by Electoral College rather than popular vote.

164

As someone who dearly wants the Democrats to win the WH, it pains me to see folks who claim to be helping them win say things like “oh, it was just luck that Trump won”. Even if it were true (and it’s not), that’s a dangerous way to go into the next election, and will do nothing but increase the odds of losing again. It’s especially concerning when dissenting voices are shoved aside and labeled “Trumpist”, as if we were in Salem, Mass. about 300 years ago. At least update things a bit and call such people “deplorable”. :wink:

165

Let me fix that for you. Trump’s campaign had less cash than Hillary’s campaign did. That is a well-documented matter of public record. In fact, counting free advertising plus cash, Trump outstripped her campaign by just under two billion dollars. Once again, backed up by evidence, as opposed to your total lack of same.

http://www.ibtimes.com/did-media-help-donald-trump-win-5-billion-free-advertising-given-president-elect-2444115

Your argument ignores that Trump’s campaign had FAR MORE value than Hillary’s. Adding it up, being charitable to Trump (now there’s a non sequitur):

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Trump = $5B (free media) + $0.6468B (cash) = $5.6468B
Hillary = $2.5B (free media) + $1.191B (cash) = $3.691B

Trump - Hillary = $5.6468B - $3.691B = $1.9558B

There is no logical contortion that allows you to discount free media from the equation. Sure, getting free media is a useful skill, but claiming he shouldn’t be credited with value he actually would’ve had to pay for otherwise is just plain ludicrous, exactly as it would be for Hillary. Sorry, you’re flat-out wrong.

Ah, the faith-over-facts view. I notice the lack of evidence. Does anyone else see a regularity here?

Let the hairsplitting continue. Because you can’t counter my evidence, you claim that support before the vote is relevant whereas support via the actual vote is irrelevant. Right, buddy. That hole just keeps on getting deeper.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for misspelling ad hominem, but not for not knowing what it is.

Your WWII analogy was just that, an ad hominem attack. It’s not my response that’s breathtaking, trust me.

(The rest of a pointless and incorrect argument snipped.)

I’m done, debating with you is a waste of time. You have ZERO evidence and no points which aren’t fallacious.

166

To be fair we shouldn’t give Trump too much credit, either. Though he was smart enough to write off CA, he was not quite so bright when it came to NY. He spent a lot less than Clinton, but still more than in any other single state for a whole lot of nothing*. I’ll give Clinton “credit” for running a crap campaign, but I’m not quite so sure I’m willing to grant that Trump ran a great one. Mediocre just happens to be better than crap. No one who lurched from scandal to scandal like he did and had his roller-coaster run of popularity swings can be credited for being a genuinely good campaigner.

  • One could make the argument that he was trying to force Clinton to spend more by contesting it. But just based on tales emerging from his campaign it really does look like he thought he had a Bloomberg-like shot at flipping the state. It was probably an unwise investment any way you look at it.
167

Heh there is no world in which $2.5B more free media coverage is trivial, let alone irrelevant. Or are you claiming that that had no impact on the campaign?

168

You want it, you got it. (Too long to quote here, but it gives a very complete refutation of your thesis.)

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2017/01/03/no-the-electoral-college-was-not-about-slavery/

Of course it did, as it did for any other small state which didn’t depend on slavery for its economy, for other reasons. But claiming that the EC was created for the purpose of pandering to slavery is utterly false. The entirety of ‘evidence’ (i.e., actual record of the FF’s relating the two concepts) boils down to a single comment made by James Madison. And this Yale law professor thought he’d make his reputation on it.

169

Yes the 3/5th compromise was obviously a sop to the slave states. That doesn’t make the electoral college one any more than the House of Representatives. It was part of the general compromise to give smaller states power not proportionate to their voting population. So if the Electoral College was an appeasement to the slave states, then so was the HoR. Is that what you think? Should everyone abandon loyalty to that archaic institution as well?

170

Trump was born to money. I think he markets himself for fame, prestige, and a kind of social access.

I think I agree, but whence that expression? Grape?

171

Oh, that was just me picking an innocuous object at random; no deeper meaning.

172

Well, that’s because he’s a marketing guy.

How much is not “very much”? According to Forbes and Bloomberg, his net worth is somewhere between $3B and $4.5B. If that is “not very much”, then I wish I had “not very much” money. But also keep in mind that Marketing is primarily concerned with getting the name out there and building up the brand. To say that Trump hasn’t done a good job in that area is to not understand what marketing is about. And, for good or ill, much of politics is about name recognition. How do you think we ended up with Hillary and Trump at all, if not for name recognition?

173

We can all agree Trump made every mistake and stupidity possible and was universally recognised as vile by the voters, whilst Hillary against tremendous hatred and lies ran a superb campaign and never put a foot wrong.
Which is why she is in the White House today and he is not.

174

Yes, Trump’s campaign had less money that Hillary’s campaign did, like I said and you whined that I didn’t provide cites for. Counting something that’s not money as money doesn’t make any sense. Saying that I have a lack of evidence for a position that you just called a well-documented matter of public record is pretty interesting. Your concept of evidence is pretty weird; apparently I have to heavily footnote casual message board posts (including things like the definition of ‘money’) or things that are well-documented public record don’t count as having evidence supporting them.

It’s not a contortion to say that TV news coverage is not money, it’s part of the basic definition of words. The idea that money means, well, money is controversial was a surprise here, but I think the fact that you’re arguing so aggressively over a statement that is completely factually true by trying to make a thing that’s not money count as money says a lot.

I don’t bother posting cites for obvious stuff, like the fact that the Trump campaign had less money than the Clinton campaign. Especially in a case when I’m dealing with someone like you who actively ignores facts and makes up their own, like the weird ‘media coverage value correction’ thing. Clinton’s horrible handling of the email issue has been discussed over and over, and I’m not interested in rehashing it again. If you think she handled the issue in a remotely competent manner, no link I post will convince you otherwise, and I’m not interested in rehashing one of those debates.

It’s not hairsplitting for me to point out that I was talking about one thing and you’re talking about something completely different.

No, it simply wasn’t in any way shape or form. It compared your position to the position of a hypothetical observer of WW2, it didn’t attempt to make an argument based on personal characteristics of you, it was entirely directed at your argument.

This from the guy who insists that being covered by the news counts as money? And who tried to create a rule that I’m only allowed one ‘talking point’ and am not allowed to discuss anything else, then didn’t even respond when I called him out on the rule?

175

Whatever you want to believe, faither. Still not a single piece of evidence, just a bunch of unsupported statements.

Hey, I like that. Faither.

176

If anything, ‘faither’ is a more appropriate term for people who believe that Saint Hillary made no errors in her campaign and that Trump did not have an electoral strategy but instead won by pure luck, who insist there is nothing to learn from the abject failure of the Clinton campaign or the unexpected success of the Trump campaign. I’m not sure what term is appropriate for people who believe that TV news coverage literally is money, but I doubt it’s allowed outside of the pit.

177

Not sure who you’re talking about, but it’s not me. That abject failure of an insult always seems to be the last bastion with your ilk, though.

178

…he’s your dad?

Oh, “faither.”

Needs some work, I think.

179

Yeah, I thought about that when I originally wrote it. But it just works so well otherwise. It combines the unshakable belief of birthers and anti-vaxers with the absolute denial of facts of, say, birthers and anti-vaxers.

180

AFAICT the “free media” that Trump supposedly unfairly received is press coverage when he said something outrageous. Is the idea “if he says something stupid, don’t cover it”?

That seems problematic, or at least a built-in excuse when Hillary loses. If the press covers Trump’s foolishness, that’s no fair because it gives him publicity. If the press doesn’t cover it, that’s no fair because it doesn’t highlight his foolishness.

Maybe Hillary made a mistake apologizing for her “deplorables” statement, and she should have doubled down. More publicity.

Regards,
Shodan