Her mistake was in underestimating

[AU9377 5,922]

8 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

If Hillary had 10% of Bill's political savvy, she *probably* wins in 2016. The basket of deplorables comment was incredibly ill-advised, even more so when she was fighting a perception of not being very likable or relatable. 

Hers was a campaign of hubris (assuming that you've got a state like Wisconsin in the bag, for instance. She didn't set foot there after April 2016), treating winning the Presidency as a fait accompli, and it bit her in the ass.

Trump didn't win Wisconsin in 2016 because of greater Republican support...he won it because 200,000+ Obama voters stayed home. 

In a battle of unlikeable candidates, she somehow managed to outdo Trump in that regard.

To be fair, she won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.  That isn't winning the election, but it is a substantial number when discussing "failed" campaigns.  I don't really believe that this particular comment about deplorables cost her any votes or made anyone not go to the polls.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

45 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

To be fair, she won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.  That isn't winning the election, but it is a substantial number when discussing "failed" campaigns.  I don't really believe that this particular comment about deplorables cost her any votes or made anyone not go to the polls.

The deciding margin was so tiny many small factors could have made the difference.

[AU9377 5,922]

17 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

How so?

She has been accused of everything from having friends murdered due to the Whitewater investigation in the 90s to heading a fake foundation and taking money from world leaders in exchange for influence to being responsible for the deaths of Americans in Benghazi as Sec of State.  None of it was real, but it was all real to those that simply needed a reason to believe that she was some great threat to democracy.  The woman is far far from perfect, but the reality is that she has always been too close to the center for the far left in areas like the use of military force and too left for the right on domestic issues.

She is far more intelligent and connected around the globe than our current VP, but is also saddled with much more baggage due to her lifetime in politics.

The great irony is that Donald Trump was once one of her most vocal supporters.  The only thing that changed was Trump's realization that he had stumbled into the opportunity to get the Republican nomination.  At that point, he quickly changed every relevant view he had and was willing to do and say whatever the far right wanted to sit in the oval office.

Edited May 12, 2023 by AU9377

[TexasTiger 14,070]

15 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

She has been accused of everything from having friends murdered due to the Whitewater investigation in the 90s to heading a fake foundation and taking money from world leaders in exchange for influence to being responsible for the deaths of Americans in Benghazi as Sec of State.  None of it was real, but it was all real to those that simply needed a reason to believe that she was some great threat to democracy.  The woman is far far from perfect, but the reality is that she has always been too close to the center for the far left in areas like the use of military force and too left for the right on domestic issues.

She is far more intelligent and connected around the globe than our current VP, but is also saddled with much more baggage due to her lifetime in politics.

The great irony is that Donald Trump was once one of her most vocal supporters.  The only thing that changed was Trump's realization that he had stumbled into the opportunity to get the Republican nomination.  At that point, he quickly changed every relevant view he had and was willing to do and say whatever the far right wanted to sit in the oval office.

But the Clintons can’t prove they never killed anyone, can they? Ha! I didn’t think so! 😉

[aubiefifty 18,113]

i was never a big fan tho i admired her standing by her husband. and they made her answer her questions and blamed her on benghazi when repubs cut spending for security and were mad because she did not send troops to benghazi because she never had that authority. she was toast because of the deplorable thing but i believe her now. they say emails but cheney and many repubs destroyed emails just like she did but not one repuke said they should pay. only the dems. if i could do it again i would vote for her. look what ignoring her did to us. treason. trying to steal elections. an alarming jump in racism because trump said he wanted the votes but he has been called a racist by most that know him. i am sure a few are afraid to speak out. i was part of that and i am not sure i will ever get over not voting for her.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Bernie Sanders would have swamped Trump. That would have been interesting.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

She has been accused of everything from having friends murdered due to the Whitewater investigation in the 90s to heading a fake foundation and taking money from world leaders in exchange for influence to being responsible for the deaths of Americans in Benghazi as Sec of State.  None of it was real, but it was all real to those that simply needed a reason to believe that she was some great threat to democracy.  The woman is far far from perfect, but the reality is that she has always been too close to the center for the far left in areas like the use of military force and too left for the right on domestic issues.

She is far more intelligent and connected around the globe than our current VP, but is also saddled with much more baggage due to her lifetime in politics.

The great irony is that Donald Trump was once one of her most vocal supporters.  The only thing that changed was Trump's realization that he had stumbled into the opportunity to get the Republican nomination.  At that point, he quickly changed every relevant view he had and was willing to do and say whatever the far right wanted to sit in the oval office.

Then she should have limited her comment to right wing politicians and the right wing media. 

She essentially made the Romney mistake.  You cannot be so arrogant that you are willing to write off so much of the electorate.

For the right wing, there may be some value in rallying the base.  I don't believe the left wing base shares the same attraction for defiance and confrontation, at least not nearly to the same degree.  Her perceived arrogance has always been a problem and, I don't blame anyone but her for that.  The democratic party has been damaged by that same perceived arrogance.

[Didba 5,437]

All HRC had to do was come out supporting marijuana legalization legislation at the federal level and similar policies that appeal to the 20-30 crowd and she easily wins imo.

[aubiefifty 18,113]

44 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Bernie Sanders would have swamped Trump. That would have been interesting.

i love some bernie. he is one of th few honest pols left.

[Didba 5,437]

58 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Bernie Sanders would have swamped Trump. That would have been interesting.

Please. Stop. You are hurting me. 

[AU9377 5,922]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

But the Clintons can’t prove they never killed anyone, can they? Ha! I didn’t think so! 😉

Precisely... and neither can you or I.  LOL

[TexasTiger 14,070]

9 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Precisely... and neither can you or I.  LOL

It’s an admittedly high bar. 😉

[DKW 86 7,866]

19 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I don't really believe that this particular comment about deplorables cost her any votes or made anyone not go to the polls.

[DKW 86 7,866]

7 hours ago, Didba said:

All HRC had to do was come out supporting marijuana legalization legislation at the federal level and similar policies that appeal to the 20-30 crowd and she easily wins imo.

6 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i love some bernie. he is one of th few honest pols left.

[Leftfield 3,309]

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

But the Clintons can’t prove they never killed anyone, can they? Ha! I didn’t think so! 😉

I have zero proof that I slept with Emily Ratajkowski, but nobody believes me. WTF?

 

[AU9377 5,922]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

They weren't voting for her anyway...is my point.

[DKW 86 7,866]

13 hours ago, AU9377 said:

They weren't voting for her anyway...is my point.

In reality, it cost her some votes if it did nothing more than sit some middle-class working people Dems at home that didn't vote for her. There is no way that that comment, possibly the biggest unforced error of 2016 did not cost her any votes.

I personally blame the media for trying to convince the Dem Voters it was such a slam dunk that no one even really needed to go vote just prior to the election. See Maddow.

 

[homersapien 12,172]

On 5/11/2023 at 2:25 PM, icanthearyou said:

People were/are angry.  They know there is a problem in our country.  Trump identified and lied to these people.  Clinton only insulted, ignored them.

I do not see any reason for giving her any credit.

What do you think about the white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, who have increased by over 50% thanks to Trump?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/white-nationalist-hate-groups-southern-poverty-law-center

Do they have legitimate complaints about "problems" in our country?  Should we be worried about "insulting" them?

Clinton was spot on. And she would have made a good POTUS. 

(Even my Republican nephew who is chief of staff for a Republican representative allowed that was true.) 

Edited May 14, 2023 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,468]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

What do you think about the white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, who have increased by over 50% thanks to Trump?

I think they are troubled individuals with hate in their hearts.

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

Do they have legitimate complaints about "problems" in our country?  Should we be worried about "insulting" them?

We all have legitimate complaints because, we have a government that is no longer truly legitimate.  I am not but,,, they aren't the totality of Republican voters.  There are also plenty of tacit racists and, those who aren't racist at all.

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

Clinton was spot on. And she would have made a good POTUS.

Disagree.  She is a servant of capital.  However, she does have some concern for the balancing power, just not nearly enough.

 

My point is this:  You cannot simply dismiss a significant portion of the electorate.  You have to at the very least make an appeal to them, show them some concern.  Otherwise, you are just as arrogant and unwilling to practice democracy as anyone.  Hillary was always a "favored" candidate.  She was never a popular candidate.  She could not beat Obama in a primary.  She would not have beaten Sanders without help.

Democrats need to understand and accept the progressive, populist message within the party.