let's take HC out of this for a minute. yes, she was a terrible candidate. but, does anyone else not think these were major factors as well:
-Obama, first black president. people want a white male back in -democrats hold the WH for two consecutive terms. is it not normal for the pendulum to swing back to the red party just because, no matter who the candidate is?
The second point, yes. Two terms of Reagan followed by one term of George H.W. Bush is the only time in my lifetime one party has controlled the White House three straight terms.
The first point though I think is a reach. I have a hard time believing many people who voted for Obama twice decided that now they wanted a white male named Donald Trump. Maybe, but I don't see it. Many just didn't want Hillary and many more believed she was inevitable.
when I say "they" wanted a white man back in, I wasn't referring to your average voter. More the racist/misogynist fucks that came out in droves to vote Trump in.
Well them, sure. There definitely were a lot of those. But if the Democrats had a stronger nominee they wouldn't have been enough to swing the election.
let's take HC out of this for a minute. yes, she was a terrible candidate. but, does anyone else not think these were major factors as well:
-Obama, first black president. people want a white male back in -democrats hold the WH for two consecutive terms. is it not normal for the pendulum to swing back to the red party just because, no matter who the candidate is?
Your first is a no. If anything, it favored a woman winning to break that barrier.
Your second is spot on thus confirming Reagan's greatness. Bush the Elder's term is very unusual. You'd have to go back to the Coolidge-Hoover to find a newly elected 3rd term from a different person, same party. Interestingly, Taft did it following TDR and in both those cases, TDR and Coolidge ascended from VP b/c of assassination, thus not serving 2 full terms themselves.
There are other instances of a different person winning another term making it 3 consecutive (or more - see Truman) in the same party, but those initially ascended via assassination and then won another term themselves.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
let's take HC out of this for a minute. yes, she was a terrible candidate. but, does anyone else not think these were major factors as well:
-Obama, first black president. people want a white male back in -democrats hold the WH for two consecutive terms. is it not normal for the pendulum to swing back to the red party just because, no matter who the candidate is?
The second point, yes. Two terms of Reagan followed by one term of George H.W. Bush is the only time in my lifetime one party has controlled the White House three straight terms.
The first point though I think is a reach. I have a hard time believing many people who voted for Obama twice decided that now they wanted a white male named Donald Trump. Maybe, but I don't see it. Many just didn't want Hillary and many more believed she was inevitable.
More the racist/misogynist fucks that came out in droves to vote Trump in.
let's take HC out of this for a minute. yes, she was a terrible candidate. but, does anyone else not think these were major factors as well:
-Obama, first black president. people want a white male back in -democrats hold the WH for two consecutive terms. is it not normal for the pendulum to swing back to the red party just because, no matter who the candidate is?
The second point, yes. Two terms of Reagan followed by one term of George H.W. Bush is the only time in my lifetime one party has controlled the White House three straight terms.
The first point though I think is a reach. I have a hard time believing many people who voted for Obama twice decided that now they wanted a white male named Donald Trump. Maybe, but I don't see it. Many just didn't want Hillary and many more believed she was inevitable.
More the racist/misogynist fucks that came out in droves to vote Trump in.
is this your belief or a fact?
neither. I was asking a question.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
What I find interesting is the number of votes by state the last 3 elections. Did the racist states come out in droves for Trump compared to Romney or McCain? I think the answer is on the other side, compare the blue states, Hillary vs Obama, specifically in Mich and Wisc
Mich-O 2.8 then 2.5 Hill 2.2 Wisc-O1.6 then 1.6 Hill 1.3
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
brainwashed is a new one
Probably group think is a better way to descibe it. Blind Clinton hate started in the late 90's and was maintained. This carries over into irrational Hillary hate, where somehow corrupt Hillary was more corrupt than trump (not to mention all his other vile traits). When asked to compare the two, there was a lot of parroted maximizing Clinton's negatives and minimizing trump's. Now when I'm critical of trump, I'm "butthurt" about her losing, because there's no real way to actually defend the guy.
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
brainwashed is a new one
Probably group think is a better way to descibe it. Blind Clinton hate started in the late 90's and was maintained. This carries over into irrational Hillary hate, where somehow corrupt Hillary was more corrupt than trump (not to mention all his other vile traits). When asked to compare the two, there was a lot of parroted maximizing Clinton's negatives and minimizing trump's. Now when I'm critical of trump, I'm "butthurt" about her losing, because there's no real way to actually defend the guy.
They can't explain why they hate her so much. I have asked many and they can never articulate it.
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same... One is talk. The other is action. Interesting. Oh, I know - old news.
Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The Cooperative Congressional Election Study found that 12 percent of voters who voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primaries voted for Donald Trump in the General election
Hillary Clinton’s favor is that in 2008, 25 percent of Democratic Primary voters who voted for Clinton went on to vote for John McCain in the general election and 30 percent of Clinton voters in the primary didn’t vote for Obama in general. A March 2008 Gallup poll found that 28 percent of Clinton voters would support McCain against Obama. This context was omitted or buried on the bottom of several reports on the new 2016 election data because it destroys the narrative that Bernie Sanders Supporters are at fault for Hillary Clinton’s own loss. The DNC and Clinton Campaign even developed a “pied-piper” strategy to elevate Trump’s candidacy as Clinton polled better against him than any of the Moderate establishment Republican Presidential Candidates like John Kasich and Marco Rubio. Clinton lost to a widely unpopular Republican Presidential Candidate, while severely under performing in several states compared to Obama in 2012. The Clinton Campaign did nothing to generate excitement and enthusiasm to boost voter turnout besides relying on anti-Trump rhetoric, even avoiding appearances in many states to try to perpetuate the narrative that Clinton won the election before any voted.
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same... One is talk. The other is action. Interesting. Oh, I know - old news.
Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.
You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same... One is talk. The other is action. Interesting. Oh, I know - old news.
Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.
where does an entire group consisting of millions and millions of people "consistently tell us they are" smarter than everyone else? what a ridiculous and ignorant statement.
she bashed "her husband's victims" because it was a political tool where Trump was exploiting the situation. the timing was just a tad more than suspect.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same... One is talk. The other is action. Interesting. Oh, I know - old news.
Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.
You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.
I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make.
Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same... One is talk. The other is action. Interesting. Oh, I know - old news.
Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.
where does an entire group consisting of millions and millions of people "consistently tell us they are" smarter than everyone else? what a ridiculous and ignorant statement.
she bashed "her husband's victims" because it was a political tool where Trump was exploiting the situation. the timing was just a tad more than suspect.
I'm not sure what the 2nd part alludes to as I came to the exchange late, so there may be a point there separate from the one I was trying to make.
To your first point - watch Bill Maher or Keith Olberman for 15 seconds, and you'll understand.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same... One is talk. The other is action. Interesting. Oh, I know - old news.
Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.
where does an entire group consisting of millions and millions of people "consistently tell us they are" smarter than everyone else? what a ridiculous and ignorant statement.
she bashed "her husband's victims" because it was a political tool where Trump was exploiting the situation. the timing was just a tad more than suspect.
I'm not sure what the 2nd part alludes to as I came to the exchange late, so there may be a point there separate from the one I was trying to make.
To your first point - watch Bill Maher or Keith Olberman for 15 seconds, and you'll understand.
pfft. those two blowhards are what you call representatives of the left? gimme a break.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same... One is talk. The other is action. Interesting. Oh, I know - old news.
Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.
You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.
I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make.
Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.
You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same... One is talk. The other is action. Interesting. Oh, I know - old news.
Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.
where does an entire group consisting of millions and millions of people "consistently tell us they are" smarter than everyone else? what a ridiculous and ignorant statement.
she bashed "her husband's victims" because it was a political tool where Trump was exploiting the situation. the timing was just a tad more than suspect.
I'm not sure what the 2nd part alludes to as I came to the exchange late, so there may be a point there separate from the one I was trying to make.
To your first point - watch Bill Maher or Keith Olberman for 15 seconds, and you'll understand.
pfft. those two blowhards are what you call representatives of the left? gimme a break.
Agree. I was sort of joking about that. And, yes, you're correct making blanket statements in general are always wrong (though I think I just made one that may be correct). However, the left does tend to tell people how to think and that they know better even than the people they are contending to help. Just look at this thread. It kind of is a microcosm of the thought pattern.
Think of basic pattern on the economy. Who likes to tell people what to do, and who likes to let the free market work? (again, blanket statement that is meant to be MOSTLY right and not the gospel).
My favorite saying for most Democratic leaders is - The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.
The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn. A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything. Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated. It's probably not much more complicated than that.
The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion? Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same... One is talk. The other is action. Interesting. Oh, I know - old news.
Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.
where does an entire group consisting of millions and millions of people "consistently tell us they are" smarter than everyone else? what a ridiculous and ignorant statement.
she bashed "her husband's victims" because it was a political tool where Trump was exploiting the situation. the timing was just a tad more than suspect.
I'm not sure what the 2nd part alludes to as I came to the exchange late, so there may be a point there separate from the one I was trying to make.
To your first point - watch Bill Maher or Keith Olberman for 15 seconds, and you'll understand.
pfft. those two blowhards are what you call representatives of the left? gimme a break.
Agree. I was sort of joking about that. And, yes, you're correct making blanket statements in general are always wrong (though I think I just made one that may be correct). However, the left does tend to tell people how to think and that they know better even than the people they are contending to help. Just look at this thread. It kind of is a microcosm of the thought pattern.
Think of basic pattern on the economy. Who likes to tell people what to do, and who likes to let the free market work? (again, blanket statement that is meant to be MOSTLY right and not the gospel).
My favorite saying for most Democratic leaders is - The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
well you can cherry pick any topic and relate it to the right as well: telling people how to live and who to love, for example.
however, in your example, the way I see it, the left likes restrictions to protect the people, the right likes to ease restrictions to help the wealthy get wealthier. and don't tell me they do it to help small business-they simply do not do that.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:
How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president?
Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.
I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed. But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much. They don't trust her very much. Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen. The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore. Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe. So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans. I can't believe there needs to be a book about it. Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego.
This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do.
I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same... One is talk. The other is action. Interesting. Oh, I know - old news.
Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.
where does an entire group consisting of millions and millions of people "consistently tell us they are" smarter than everyone else? what a ridiculous and ignorant statement.
she bashed "her husband's victims" because it was a political tool where Trump was exploiting the situation. the timing was just a tad more than suspect.
I'm not sure what the 2nd part alludes to as I came to the exchange late, so there may be a point there separate from the one I was trying to make.
To your first point - watch Bill Maher or Keith Olberman for 15 seconds, and you'll understand.
pfft. those two blowhards are what you call representatives of the left? gimme a break.
Agree. I was sort of joking about that. And, yes, you're correct making blanket statements in general are always wrong (though I think I just made one that may be correct). However, the left does tend to tell people how to think and that they know better even than the people they are contending to help. Just look at this thread. It kind of is a microcosm of the thought pattern.
Think of basic pattern on the economy. Who likes to tell people what to do, and who likes to let the free market work? (again, blanket statement that is meant to be MOSTLY right and not the gospel).
My favorite saying for most Democratic leaders is - The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The overall theme of your posts is adhering strongly to the status quo, so pretty much anyone with an opinion on change will be viewed as telling people what to do. I can also say that someone telling me to let the free market do it's thing is also telling me what to do, which is do nothing to influence change of the system. Being told to do nothing is also being told what to do.
BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.
The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn. A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything. Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated. It's probably not much more complicated than that.
The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion? Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.
to the people who think the bernie could have won, I disagree. he was WAY too progressively left for people to embrace him. americans are more worried about their own personal finances than they are the environment or the rights of the oppressed.
trump ran on fear, and that often wins. it is simply not human nature to believe the person who is saying "everything will be alright" instead of the person saying "we are in danger! I will protect you!". especially in times like these of media sensationalization of absolutely everything.
trump WAS more democrat than republican. he is now embracing his right wing role as he thinks that's his best chance at keeping the WH.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.
The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn. A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything. Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated. It's probably not much more complicated than that.
The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion? Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.
to the people who think the bernie could have won, I disagree. he was WAY too progressively left for people to embrace him. americans are more worried about their own personal finances than they are the environment or the rights of the oppressed.
trump ran on fear, and that often wins. it is simply not human nature to believe the person who is saying "everything will be alright" instead of the person saying "we are in danger! I will protect you!". especially in times like these of media sensationalization of absolutely everything.
trump WAS more democrat than republican. he is now embracing his right wing role as he thinks that's his best chance at keeping the WH.
Sanders would've won. His lead on trump was consistently 10-12 points.
Comments
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Your first is a no. If anything, it favored a woman winning to break that barrier.
Your second is spot on thus confirming Reagan's greatness. Bush the Elder's term is very unusual. You'd have to go back to the Coolidge-Hoover to find a newly elected 3rd term from a different person, same party. Interestingly, Taft did it following TDR and in both those cases, TDR and Coolidge ascended from VP b/c of assassination, thus not serving 2 full terms themselves.
There are other instances of a different person winning another term making it 3 consecutive (or more - see Truman) in the same party, but those initially ascended via assassination and then won another term themselves.
-EV 8/14/93
Mich-O 2.8 then 2.5 Hill 2.2
Wisc-O1.6 then 1.6 Hill 1.3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
Most. And the others? What say you about them?
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same... One is talk. The other is action. Interesting. Oh, I know - old news.
Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.
The Cooperative Congressional Election Study found that 12 percent of voters who voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primaries voted for Donald Trump in the General election
Hillary Clinton’s favor is that in 2008, 25 percent of Democratic Primary voters who voted for Clinton went on to vote for John McCain in the general election and 30 percent of Clinton voters in the primary didn’t vote for Obama in general. A March 2008 Gallup poll found that 28 percent of Clinton voters would support McCain against Obama. This context was omitted or buried on the bottom of several reports on the new 2016 election data because it destroys the narrative that Bernie Sanders Supporters are at fault for Hillary Clinton’s own loss.
The DNC and Clinton Campaign even developed a “pied-piper” strategy to elevate Trump’s candidacy as Clinton polled better against him than any of the Moderate establishment Republican Presidential Candidates like John Kasich and Marco Rubio.
Clinton lost to a widely unpopular Republican Presidential Candidate, while severely under performing in several states compared to Obama in 2012. The Clinton Campaign did nothing to generate excitement and enthusiasm to boost voter turnout besides relying on anti-Trump rhetoric, even avoiding appearances in many states to try to perpetuate the narrative that Clinton won the election before any voted.
she bashed "her husband's victims" because it was a political tool where Trump was exploiting the situation. the timing was just a tad more than suspect.
-EV 8/14/93
I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make.
Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.
I'm not sure what the 2nd part alludes to as I came to the exchange late, so there may be a point there separate from the one I was trying to make.
To your first point - watch Bill Maher or Keith Olberman for 15 seconds, and you'll understand.
-EV 8/14/93
Agree. I was sort of joking about that. And, yes, you're correct making blanket statements in general are always wrong (though I think I just made one that may be correct). However, the left does tend to tell people how to think and that they know better even than the people they are contending to help. Just look at this thread. It kind of is a microcosm of the thought pattern.
Think of basic pattern on the economy. Who likes to tell people what to do, and who likes to let the free market work? (again, blanket statement that is meant to be MOSTLY right and not the gospel).
My favorite saying for most Democratic leaders is - The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.
The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn. A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything. Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated. It's probably not much more complicated than that.
The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion? Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.
however, in your example, the way I see it, the left likes restrictions to protect the people, the right likes to ease restrictions to help the wealthy get wealthier. and don't tell me they do it to help small business-they simply do not do that.
-EV 8/14/93
trump ran on fear, and that often wins. it is simply not human nature to believe the person who is saying "everything will be alright" instead of the person saying "we are in danger! I will protect you!". especially in times like these of media sensationalization of absolutely everything.
trump WAS more democrat than republican. he is now embracing his right wing role as he thinks that's his best chance at keeping the WH.
-EV 8/14/93