Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[BBDi]

How can you tell people that their vote is important - that every single vote matters - when thanks to the EC every vote does NOT count?

It just teaches people in some states that their vote is meaningless, whether it's because your side won't win the electors' votes, or your side is ahead and will get your state's electors' votes with you or without you. 

It certainly doesn't encourage every butt to get out of the chair and go vote. It contributes to a non-voting mindset. 

Maybe if we didn't have the EC, candidates on both/all sides would campaign seriously and bolster GOTV efforts across the country. 

[LisainCali]

2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Turns out the warrant issued for the emails on Huma's computer was complete garbage. They had no probable cause.

Is James Comey happy with himself? Did he really want this to happen? What a despicable man.

Absolutely not true.  Probable cause is not an issue in this because it was Willie Winkies computer they were searching, because he kept texting his Willy to underage teenagers.  Somehow Hillarys perfectly secure email server hadn't protected Humas computer from sharing info on her pervert hubby's computer.  Not on purpose.

I'm just asking the question......do you really believe that Russia hacked the DNCs emails a month before the election?  And has never been able to do it before?  Her computer system as Secretary of State was only 4-8 years ago.  I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, countries are pretty sophisticated about getting around firewalls in a residential neighborhood  a lonnngggg time ago.

It astounds me that the media keeps making this into a giant horror movie, as if it is something new.  We spy on them, they spy on us.  We can fly unmanned drones over enemy territory without being detected, but are shocked!  Shocked! That other countries have access to all of our computers.  At will.  And we do theirs.  

Heres a tip.  Don't EVER put anything in an email that you wouldn't be proud to share with the rest of the world.  Or a text, or a phone message.  If I know your name, and just your state, I can probably find your home address within the hour.  And I'm a computer idiot.  

I don't know if the Hillary hack 4 years ago is fake news or true.  But I can't imagine that it ISNT true on some level, because how could it not be?  

[BBDi]

10 minutes ago, LisainCali said:

 

I'm just asking the question......do you really believe that Russia hacked the DNCs emails a month before the election?  And has never been able to do it before?  Her computer system as Secretary of State was only 4-8 years ago.  I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, countries are pretty sophisticated about getting around firewalls in a residential neighborhood  a lonnngggg time ago.

It astounds me that the media keeps making this into a giant horror movie, as if it is something new.  We spy on them, they spy on us.  We can fly unmanned drones over enemy territory without being detected, but are shocked!  Shocked! That other countries have access to all of our computers.  At will.  And we do theirs.  

Heres a tip.  Don't EVER put anything in an email that you wouldn't be proud to share with the rest of the world.  Or a text, or a phone message.  If I know your name, and just your state, I can probably find your home address within the hour.  And I'm a computer idiot.  

I don't know if the Hillary hack 4 years ago is fake news or true.  But I can't imagine that it ISNT true on some level, because how could it not be?  

You should probably be asking the FBI and the CIA instead. They're the ones who say the Dems were hacked and that there's evidence it was with the intention of swaying the election. 

[Duke Silver]

The whole anti-get rid of the EC argument makes me laugh.  It starts with specious arguments about disenfranchising "flyover states" & ignores the fact that red voters in blue states would then also get their vote to count.  So basically, it amounts to acknowledgement by the GOP that they cannot win a popular national vote even with all the dirty, underhanded voter suppression they have employed.  I'll excuse myself from the EC discussion.  It's just too ridiculous.

[Padma]

37 minutes ago, LisainCali said:

Absolutely not true.  Probable cause is not an issue in this because it was Willie Winkies computer they were searching, because he kept texting his Willy to underage teenagers.  Somehow Hillarys perfectly secure email server hadn't protected Humas computer from sharing info on her pervert hubby's computer.  Not on purpose.

I'm just asking the question......do you really believe that Russia hacked the DNCs emails a month before the election?  And has never been able to do it before?  Her computer system as Secretary of State was only 4-8 years ago.  I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, countries are pretty sophisticated about getting around firewalls in a residential neighborhood  a lonnngggg time ago.

It astounds me that the media keeps making this into a giant horror movie, as if it is something new.  We spy on them, they spy on us.  We can fly unmanned drones over enemy territory without being detected, but are shocked!  Shocked! That other countries have access to all of our computers.  At will.  And we do theirs.  

Heres a tip.  Don't EVER put anything in an email that you wouldn't be proud to share with the rest of the world.  Or a text, or a phone message.  If I know your name, and just your state, I can probably find your home address within the hour.  And I'm a computer idiot.  

I don't know if the Hillary hack 4 years ago is fake news or true.  But I can't imagine that it ISNT true on some level, because how could it not be?  

Wikileaks dropped the first DNC emails hacked by Russia in July, not October.  It was the weekend before the convention so that they could cause embarrassment for Debby Wasserman Schultz and disrupt the convention. (Actually the timing backfired as they worked quickly and handled it pretty well, having a pretty strong unity convention anyway.)

Yes, I don't have any problem accepting that they hacked into the DNC and Podesta's email this year.

[LisainCali]

1 hour ago, BBDi said:

You should probably be asking the FBI and the CIA instead. They're the ones who say the Dems were hacked and that there's evidence it was with the intention of swaying the election. 

They aren't going to share with you and me!  I don't need to ask them. And by the way, they should NOT share with you and me.  I want them to hack Russia's computers, and China's and for the love of God, North Korea's computers.  And I want them to NOT tell the loudmouths like us.  And I have no idea why they would be afraid of Hillary Clinton.  Actually, I just heard a report from Terry Moran in Russia, saying that most people in Russia are wary of Trump because he is an unknown.  At least they know Hillary.  

You have to KNOW someone before you know whether they are an enemy or an ally.  Per Terry Moran, Obama was seen as a pie in the sky dreamer.  And not realistic.  

BTW, Why the heck is Terry Moran in Russia?  I miss him on Nightline.  Any news people here?  Speculation from non news-biz people doesn't count.....

1 hour ago, Padma said:

Wikileaks dropped the first DNC emails hacked by Russia in July, not October.  It was the weekend before the convention so that they could cause embarrassment for Debby Wasserman Schultz and disrupt the convention. (Actually the timing backfired as they worked quickly and handled it pretty well, having a pretty strong unity convention anyway.)

Yes, I don't have any problem accepting that they hacked into the DNC and Podesta's email this year.

Because Debbie Wasserman Schultz is SO important?  Please stop!  

Oh, my goodness. I'm not sure how anyone believes that Hillarys email server was NOT a problem.  And NOT hacked!  In my mind, it is melt impossible that it HASNT been compromised.  So, since they dropped them in July, they must have gotten the no earlier than say, June?  Nah....that's just when the emails got snarky.  BTW, Podesta should have been fired!  As should you and I if we send emails that are so insulting.  Gee!  Even I am smarter than that!  

Look, I was baffled at the fact that Obama, who was a State Senator from Illinois that I'd never heard of, actually toppled the Clinton machine.  Question: How many state Senators are there in Illinois?  No cheating, answer at the bottom.   I actually WORKED for a former state Senator from Utah for a few years, and didn't know the answer.  

Read "Game Change", by Mark Halprin.  To me, one of the most compelling books about the Hillary/Obama race for the Democratic nominee for President.  Demo vs. Demo.  No Republican in sight.  Politics is a tough business 

I'm not a history fan in general.  I should be, wish I was, but I do care about my country TODAY...military, the homeless, ABUSED CHILDREN, motel kids....the idea that Hillary raised a billion dollars for her campaign, yet didnt use free media available to get her message out to ME, in Cali, because she had it in the bag....just BUGS me.  

I never saw her on news shows except the glamour ones, like 60 Minutes, or 20/20, where they edit.  No live morning shows, or evening shows.  Donna Brazille  fed her the questions before the debate??  What does it take for people to be outraged?  If anyone does NOT need to be fed (stupid) questions, it's Hillary!  Shit!  How long has she DONE this? 

Trump was freaking EVERYWHERE!  Talking to George S., Anderson Cooper, Joe Scarborough, Matt Lauer, and (hysterical, screaming) Chris Cuomo.  On GMA, someone chastised them for giving Trump "free air time" every day.  The anchor announced afterward that they invite every candidate, every day to come on their show and that Trump is the only one who Actually said, yes.  Every day.  He saved a boatload of money, which I also like.  Saying he is on speed because he doesn't need much sleep is a slap in the face to Obama, Winston Churchill, Elon musk, etc.  I personally go to bed at around 7:30 or 8:00 each night, and wake up at 3-4 am.....because I'm just like them ?. Not

I have hopes for him.  Which makes me an idealist, or a fool.  Or pragmatic, maybe.

Answer is 40.  Don't prod you didn't cheat....

Edited December 21, 2016 by LisainCali
Sorry for the typos. I proof-read too late.

[DollEyes]

On 12/20/2016 at 2:41 PM, KIMBERLYANN11 said:

I suspect there are a number being held for blackmail purposes.

ITA. I think that the RNC emails are where the real dirt is and Putin will use them, the Republicans and Trump to his advantage. Something tells me that whatever mistakes Hillary/the Democrats made in the past will positively pale compared to the Category 5 shitstorm that's coming. 

Quote

I have hopes for [Trump]. Which makes me an idealist, or a fool. Pragmatic, maybe.

  IMO chances are Trump will not only disappoint you way sooner than later, he will take the country, if not the world, down with him. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by DollEyes

[choclatechip45]

14 hours ago, LisainCali said:

They aren't going to share with you and me!  I don't need to ask them. And by the way, they should NOT share with you and me.  I want them to hack Russia's computers, and China's and for the love of God, North Korea's computers.  And I want them to NOT tell the loudmouths like us.  And I have no idea why they would be afraid of Hillary Clinton.  Actually, I just heard a report from Terry Moran in Russia, saying that most people in Russia are wary of Trump because he is an unknown.  At least they know Hillary.  

You have to KNOW someone before you know whether they are an enemy or an ally.  Per Terry Moran, Obama was seen as a pie in the sky dreamer.  And not realistic.  

BTW, Why the heck is Terry Moran in Russia?  I miss him on Nightline.  Any news people here?  Speculation from non news-biz people doesn't count.....

Because Debbie Wasserman Schultz is SO important?  Please stop!  

Oh, my goodness. I'm not sure how anyone believes that Hillarys email server was NOT a problem.  And NOT hacked!  In my mind, it is melt impossible that it HASNT been compromised.  So, since they dropped them in July, they must have gotten the no earlier than say, June?  Nah....that's just when the emails got snarky.  BTW, Podesta should have been fired!  As should you and I if we send emails that are so insulting.  Gee!  Even I am smarter than that!  

Look, I was baffled at the fact that Obama, who was a State Senator from Illinois that I'd never heard of, actually toppled the Clinton machine.  Question: How many state Senators are there in Illinois?  No cheating, answer at the bottom.   I actually WORKED for a former state Senator from Utah for a few years, and didn't know the answer.  

Read "Game Change", by Mark Halprin.  To me, one of the most compelling books about the Hillary/Obama race for the Democratic nominee for President.  Demo vs. Demo.  No Republican in sight.  Politics is a tough business 

I'm not a history fan in general.  I should be, wish I was, but I do care about my country TODAY...military, the homeless, ABUSED CHILDREN, motel kids....the idea that Hillary raised a billion dollars for her campaign, yet didnt use free media available to get her message out to ME, in Cali, because she had it in the bag....just BUGS me.  

I never saw her on news shows except the glamour ones, like 60 Minutes, or 20/20, where they edit.  No live morning shows, or evening shows.  Donna Brazille  fed her the questions before the debate??  What does it take for people to be outraged?  If anyone does NOT need to be fed (stupid) questions, it's Hillary!  Shit!  How long has she DONE this? 

Trump was freaking EVERYWHERE!  Talking to George S., Anderson Cooper, Joe Scarborough, Matt Lauer, and (hysterical, screaming) Chris Cuomo.  On GMA, someone chastised them for giving Trump "free air time" every day.  The anchor announced afterward that they invite every candidate, every day to come on their show and that Trump is the only one who Actually said, yes.  Every day.  He saved a boatload of money, which I also like.  Saying he is on speed because he doesn't need much sleep is a slap in the face to Obama, Winston Churchill, Elon musk, etc.  I personally go to bed at around 7:30 or 8:00 each night, and wake up at 3-4 am.....because I'm just like them ?. Not

I have hopes for him.  Which makes me an idealist, or a fool.  Or pragmatic, maybe.

Answer is 40.  Don't prod you didn't cheat....

Obama was a senator from Illinois when he beat Clinton in '08. He was also the keynote speaker at the '04 convention. I remember everyone speculating that he was the future of the Democratic Party. People thought the earliest he could run was 2012.

I live in CT and it does not bother me that Hillary didn't visit us because I thought she should concentrate on other states.  Trump came to Fairfield CT in July and it annoyed me that all of his followers thought he had a shot in CT. If he wanted to visit and hold a rally he should have gone to Litchfied County. The fact he visited Fairfield showed me even though he lived in CT years ago his team had no understanding of the state. My assumption was correct since he lost Greenwich, Darien, New Canaan and a bunch of other towns in Fairfield County that usually go to Republicans while he did very well in rural CT.

Edited December 21, 2016 by choclatechip45

[Broderbits]

16 hours ago, LisainCali said:

I have hopes for him.  Which makes me an idealist, or a fool.  Or pragmatic, maybe.

I would be interested in hearing what you think he's going to do to help the country, but that belongs over in his thread. Would you mind posting  over there? I sincerely want to understand your views.

[Padma]

16 hours ago, LisainCali said:

[snip] Donna Brazille  fed her the questions before the debate??  What does it take for people to be outraged?  If anyone does NOT need to be fed (stupid) questions, it's Hillary!  Shit!  How long has she DONE this? 

[snip]

Brazile called a top HRC aide and gave a question that would be asked by a woman in Flint, "If you're president, what will you do about our water?"  The Sanders v. Clinton townhall was in Flint.  Anyone who wasn't ALREADY prepared for that question wouldn't have been running for president. I think Donna just wanted to appear helpful and "in the know", even though she wasn't helping with that question AT ALL.

Then Trump used it to LIE BiG, per usual. "She got all the questions in the debate!" "She got the questions AND the answers!!!" (lol)

I still want to know if Bill O'Reilly is the unnamed journalist Megyn Kelly writes about in her book who would give Trump the questions in advance "including one or two difficult ones 'to preserve my reputation as a journalist'". Sure fits him. I wish someone had asked if HE ever got questions in advance--or even GAVE questions to people like Hannity. Sure seemed like it.  

Quote

I have hopes for him.  

Like someone else asked, what are you hoping for? (I guess in his thread) Do you think the transition is going well so far?

[stormy]

Asawin Suebsaeng of The Daily Beast, was on The Bill Press Show this morning to talk about his current article.

It's a story about the Bernie Sanders team reaching out to the Clinton campaign to offer their help in key states that they thought they were ignoring, particularly Michigan which Bernie had won in the primaries.

Bottom line, the Clinton team ignored them.  Excellent reporting although I haven't read the story just heard the interview.

Also, I really hope Hillary stops talking to her donors because obviously they turned on her this past week.

[PatsyandEddie]

I must have missed something. Who turned on HRC? 

[Duke Silver]

2 minutes ago, PatsyandEddie said:

I must have missed something. Who turned on HRC? 

See my post above w/ the tweet from the Daily Beast article.  I think that's the reference.

[PatsyandEddie]

Thanks Duke. Figures it the one I didn't read.

[SmithW6079]

On 12/19/2016 at 10:50 AM, fishcakes said:

Hillary has been the victim of smear campaigns for more than 25 years, nothing has ever been substantiated, and the more that she gets investigated with no findings of wrongdoing, the more obvious it becomes that the accusations are nothing but lies and dirty politics. However, the existence of this long history of accusations did give people an excuse to vote against her, and had Hillary lost to an ordinary GOP candidate, I suspect her detractors would have put away their pitchforks just as they always do when she or Bill aren't running for something. 

And the inconvenient truth is with that kind of history, Hillary Clinton should not have run for president. I'm not talking about her qualifications. With experience as first lady, US senator, and secretary of state, I think she was one of the most qualified people to run for president, similar to George HW Bush's experience as congressman, ambassador to the UN, envoy to China, director of the CIA, and vice president. 

But the fact that the Republicans had demonized her for decades, claiming she was corrupt and scheming to ruin the country, made her a non-viable candidate on the national level. I think her hubris and, perhaps, her sense of "it's mine turn now!" clouded her judgment and the judgment of her advisers. If we accuse Republicans of "party first, country second," then the same accusation goes for Clinton. "Country first" should have made her realize that she'd be fighting an uphill battle to overcome Republican hatred of her (almost as much as they hate Obama) and that maybe another candidate would have been the better choice. And it doesn't help that more and more is coming out about how her campaign treated Sanders's people.

Yes, she won the popular vote, but it wasn't enough, or it was the wrong strategy to win the electoral college, and now we're in for a repeat of the "gilded" age of robber barons and massive corruption -- Newt Gingrich is already asking for preemptive pardons for the crimes that will be committed by the Trumpistas -- with Trump's cabinet cronies looting the government, Lyin' Paul Ryan gutting Medicare and Social Security, and Pence the Putrid working to install a Christian theocracy. The American public is about to get screwed big time.

Trump fought dirty, and unfortunately, Clinton had too much baggage to overcome it.

22 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

the Hillary is yucky and the happy dance that she lost is still going on inside my head

That's because she has the girl cooties, as promoted by the leader of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club. There's a vaccine for it, but Don the Con is an anti-vaxxer. 

Edited December 21, 2016 by SmithW6079

[partofme]

It's really not fair to blame Hillary for Republican villanization of her.  She's the President that I want and the majority of Americans agree with me.  And I will never be convinced that Trump won the electoral college fairly, that it wasn't rigged and that there shouldn't be a 50 state recount.

[Padma]

Even McConnell admitted yesterday that he was convinced Trump had lost--and convinced Republicans would lose the Senate, too.

I wish there had been a recount, at least in those three states. Frustrating, too, that before the count began they admitted "Oops! Not the 107,000 lead we claimed he had here, only 77,000".  Why the 30,000 vote difference? Also, why all the ballot boxes (at least 20) with broken seals in Detroit, which is so serious that its supposed to invalidate the results?  TWENTY.  Yet.... our Dem leaders defend the election as honest and fair. 

I wasn't a big Jill Stein fan, but at least she tried.

[stormy]

What I was referring to was Hillary's recent meeting with her donor's as a thank you.  They were told no phones for pictures or recording.  Only someone did record and it's the sound bite that came out earlier this week with Hillary talking about Putin having "a beef" with me.  (is what Hillary says).

[millennium]

On 12/20/2016 at 3:12 PM, Duke Silver said:

I'm being a masochist by continuing to read accounts like this, but I can't help myself.  Ugh...such a disconnect.

Perhaps Hillary should be locked up -- for negligence.  She took the trust and future of more than half the nation and drove it into a wall.

Her whole campaign was about catering to special interest groups -- Women, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, LGBT, illegal aliens, and Trump haters -- in the hopes of capturing their votes and thereby overwhelming Trump's white male demographic.   

What was her message on jobs?  On the economy (which is decrepit despite what Washington says)?   On defense?  Her own husband won the presidency using the strategy It's the economy, stupid but Hillary seemed oblivious to just how vital an issue it was.

You don't have to be a political analyst to understand many Americans are very worried about the future.  Europe is coming apart, ISIS seems unstoppable, the migrant/refugee crisis is overwhelming, the only new jobs at home seem to be minimum wage service jobs at fast food places and the mall, our border security is laughable, and worst of all, we seem powerless to change any of it.

But I don't recall Hillary saying anything memorable about these behemoths.   Instead it was all social issues.   What America wanted to hear was a triage approach to the BIG problems facing ALL Americans, not just those in groups at risk.   Instead Hillary catered to the latter to lock up those votes (which as we know now was an epic fail).   And on the one big issue where her party really had something to crow about -- the success of Obamacare and how it is helping many, many Americans -- she caved and let the Republicans villify it to death.   

I'm sorry, but she fucked up royally.  Her house of cards was so poorly structured that no wonder Comey and Putin were able to knock it down so easily.

Not to mention she surrounded herself with liabilities.   John Podesta fell for the most basic and obvious phishing scam in the book, one that even kids can recognize for what it is.   Then there was Huma Abedin, who should have been let go the INSTANT her husband's perversions were discovered.   INSTANTLY.   But no, Hillary kept her there right to the end.   That's not loyalty.  That's stupidity.   And even though I voted for her, the decision to keep Abedin gave me great concerns about Hillary's political acumen and personal judgment.

It all adds up to negligence in my book.   

[SmithW6079]

2 hours ago, partofme said:

It's really not fair to blame Hillary for Republican villanization of her.  She's the President that I want and the majority of Americans agree with me.  And I will never be convinced that Trump won the electoral college fairly, that it wasn't rigged and that there shouldn't be a 50 state recount.

I'm not blaming her for how Republicans portrayed her, I'm saying that she should have been pragmatic and recognized that she carried too much baggage for most people to get over. There were Democrats who voted for Trump; there were plenty of women who voted for Trump because of Hillary's baggage. As intelligent as she may be, Hillary did not connect enough with people who were on the fence.

Voters are stupid. They go for idiot sound bites. Trump had "Crooked Hillary" and "Build the wall" and "Lock her up!" She had nothing to counter. Bill Clinton's oft-repeated phrase in the 1992 election was "It's the economy, stupid." That's something that people understood. 

***

What a surprise that the Observer has a hit piece on the Democratic Party, accusing Democratic billionaires of "buying" the rights to run for offices they want. I'm not surprised they don't (refuse to) see the irony in the Trump regime loading itself with pay-to-play billionaires and lobbyists, since the Observer is the Trump regime's family house organ. 

Wealthy Donor Redefines Pay-to-Play, Buys Himself Top Dem Position

[stillshimpy]

Quote

Then there was Huma Abedin, who should have been let go the INSTANT her husband's perversions were discovered.   INSTANTLY.   But no, Hillary kept her there right to the end.   That's not loyalty.  That's stupidity.   And even though I voted for her, the decision to keep Abedin gave me great concerns about Hillary's political acumen and personal judgment.

 

 

 

 

 

I cannot think of anything less appropriate than firing a woman based on the actions of her husband for a political figure to do about scandals. It would have been grossly unfair for starters and pure suicide for any female politician to undertake.  My god, would they have sharpened their knives and eviscerated her if she'd done something that ill-advised.   I do not understand Huma's decision to stay with Anthony Wiener but I'd have been fucking appalled if Hillary Clinton had fired a loyal aid based on what that employee's husband was doing with his penis. 

Also, it didn't actually cost Hillary the election because Comey and his cronies would have done the exact same fucking thing with or without Anthony Wiener's love of his wiener.  They'd have hinted, or boasted, or did the very thing Comey was doing when he said that investigation was being reopened, using smoke and mirrors.   He knew there was nothing there when he made that fucking announcement and they'd have just made up something different because the boys club was in session when it came to Hillary's campaign.  

Edited December 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[millennium]

43 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

I cannot think of anything less appropriate than firing a woman based on the actions of her husband for a political figure to do about scandals. It would have been grossly unfair for starters and pure suicide for any female politician to undertake.  My god, would they have sharpened their knives and eviscerated her if she'd done something that ill-advised.   I do not understand Huma's decision to stay with Anthony Wiener but I'd have been fucking appalled if Hillary Clinton had fired a loyal aid based on what that employee's husband was doing with his penis. 

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that Huma was a woman or that she herself had done nothing inappropriate.   It has do with appearances.   Appearances is everything in politics -- especially the appearance of inappropriateness.    Weiner was solely responsible for making a grotesque spectacle of himself, but by being married to that, Huma was smeared with that.  The result would be the same even if it had been Huma's brother or her son or her mother who had transgressed.   The taint can't be escaped.   It made her a liability.   She had to go.   Not fair, but that's politics.   In fact, if Huma truly respected and loved Hillary (they're supposed to be best friends), she should have resigned immediately.   That would have been the right thing to do for her candidate, and her friend, because it would have allowed Hillary to move on from the incident and any  criticism that would have attended the firing of Abedin.   Instead, she stayed, and every time we heard her name, or saw her standing by Hillary, it was accompanied by the memory of that ugly slimeball she's married to, Carlos Danger, sitting there naked in front of his computer.   

Who would have been offended if Hillary had fired Abedin?  Women?   So what?   Women screwed Hillary in the end, regardless.   The majority of women voted for Trump.

And who knows, maybe if Abedin had resigned early on, the second Comey investigation two weeks before the election never would have happened.

Edited December 22, 2016 by millennium

[stillshimpy]

Dude, that's not just unfair, it's grounds for a wrongful termination suit.  It would have been utter fucking madness. 

In fact, if Huma truly respected and loved Hillary (they're supposed to be best friends), she should have resigned immediately.

Yeah, I will never get that part, I admit.  It was the very last thing Hillary needed to be associated with her and I'll never get why Huma stayed with him or why she continued to work for Hillary, but it was not grounds for her termination and given Hillary's past, it would have been hypocritical in the extreme. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Padma]

I thought more of Hillary, not less, for sticking by Huma.  It wasn't her fault that her husband was a complete disgusting sleaze.  She'd apparently already been long separated from him when the latest revelations surfaced.

But even if she hadn't, I applaud Hillary for not "playing politics" with friendship.  Huma hadn't done anything wrong and Hillary was a loyal friend in times of trouble (and when it probably -would- have benefitted her politically to "accept her resignation").  I'm impressed that she didn't. (So much for "Opportunist Hillary"!)

[millennium]

Just now, Padma said:

I thought more of Hillary, not less, for sticking by Huma.  It wasn't her fault that her husband was a complete disgusting sleaze.  She'd apparently already been long separated from him when the latest revelations surfaced.

But even if she hadn't, I applaud Hillary for not "playing politics" with friendship.  Huma hadn't done anything wrong and Hillary was a loyal friend in times of trouble (and when it probably -would- have benefitted her politically to "accept her resignation").  I'm impressed that she didn't. (So much for "Opportunist Hillary"!)

So Hillary gets a golf clap while the rest of the world burns.  

[stillshimpy]

Quote

But even if she hadn't, I applaud Hillary for not "playing politics" with friendship.  Huma hadn't done anything wrong and Hillary was a loyal friend in times of trouble (and when it probably -would- have benefitted her politically to "accept her resignation").  I'm impressed that she didn't. (So much for "Opportunist Hillary"!)

 

 

 

If I had to guess, Huma tried to resign and Hillary refused to accept it based on the reason.  Poor Huma, I don't get why she stayed with him the FIRST time that scandal broke but she did, for whatever reason. I'm assuming because she had the misfortune of actually loving him which is pity, since he's clearly a deeply broken person.  

The thing is, if Huma had resigned and Hillary accepted it, it would have added up to the same thing:  a woman sacrificing her career to the misdeeds of her husband.  

You can say that the gender doesn't matter, but it would have and even allowing Huma to resign and slink off would have given the appearance of that same thing.  Her gender does matter.  When you're the first seriously viable female presidential candidate, the very last thing Hillary could have afforded to do was make it look like she put a sister on the fucking chopping block to serve her political ambitions.  

Quote

So Hillary gets a golf clap while the rest of the world burns.  

She didn't lose the election because of her loyalty to Huma Abedin.   That's just blame throwing for the sake of it.   People were willing to believe that ridiculous email scandal had teeth long before Wiener, once again, thought that his penis needed to go digital. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[millennium]

4 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

If I had to guess, Huma tried to resign and Hillary refused to accept it based on the reason.  Poor Huma, I don't get why she stayed with him the FIRST time that scandal broke but she did, for whatever reason. I'm assuming because she had the misfortune of actually loving him which is pity, since he's clearly a deeply broken person.  

The thing is, if Huma had resigned and Hillary accepted it, it would have added up to the same thing:  a woman sacrificing her career to the misdeeds of her husband.  

You can say that the gender doesn't matter, but it would have and even allowing Huma to resign and slink off would have given the appearance of that same thing.  Her gender does matter.  When you're the first seriously viable female presidential candidate, the very last thing Hillary could have afforded to do was make it look like she put a sister on the fucking chopping block to serve her political ambitions.  

I have to disagree with your last sentence.   It would have shown that she had the strong leadership necessary to make tough choices.    I admire her as a woman for sticking by her friend, but in terms of leadership I think it was a huge error.

And really, who knows the full story of what happened with Weiner?   What if there's more? What if some of it reflects poorly on Abedin personally?    If Hillary had won and gone to the White House, she probably would have placed Abedin in a position of great responsibility.   Maybe Abedin's Weiner connection could have made her vulnerable to blackmail or other forms of coercion.    I just think she was too much of a political liability, even with the stuff we know about.

Edited December 22, 2016 by millennium

[FilmTVGeek80]

16 minutes ago, millennium said:

It has nothing to do with the fact that Huma was a woman or that she herself had done nothing inappropriate.   It has do with appearances.   Appearances is everything in politics -- especially the appearance of inappropriateness. 

 

Really? Then why is Trump president? People connected to Trump have far worse controversies connected to them than Huma's grievous sin of being married to a creep. Hell, for most of Trump's run he was facing a court case for rape, but appearances matter?

The country is not fucked because of Huma Abedin. And yes, I think loyalty matters, even when you're a politician.

[stillshimpy]

There were a lot of errors in Hillary's campaign.  Refusing to cut ties to a longtime friend over her husband's sexual misdeeds rates very low among the reasons she lost.   I personally don't think it rates at all and if anything, made a lot of people think well of her.  

The ONLY reason it ended up mattering at all to the campaign was that Comey pulled that bullshit, "reopening the investigation" move and if he hadn't done it for that reason, he'd have invented another one, just as they did all along with keeping that scandal alive.   

Quote

Really? Then why is Trump president? People connected to Trump have far worse controversies connected to them than Huma's grievous sin of being married to a creep. Hell, for most of Trump's run he was facing a court case for rape, but appearances matter?

 

 

Rape of a thirteen-year-old, no less.  Yeah, Huma's stuff didn't do a damned thing.  Plus, have you seen the pictures of Trump's wife wearing essentially NOTHING because they were everywhere, while she was being accused of having worked as an escort and violating her visa.  Appearances only matter if you're Hillary, apparently. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[backgroundnoise]

Regarding the point about HRC not talking about jobs, she did.  She just didn't tell people what they wanted to hear.  In other words, lie to them.  I remember in one debate she talked about retraining needed to replace jobs lost in coal mining with alternative fuels.

Yes, she talked about the other issues, Muslims, gays, etc., largely because Trump kept attacking them and HRC was trying to reassure those groups that they, too, would have a place in her America.

[millennium]

2 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

Really? Then why is Trump president? People connected to Trump have far worse controversies connected to them than Huma's grievous sin of being married to a creep. Hell, for most of Trump's run he was facing a court case for rape, but appearances matter?

 

Because we live in a culture of double standards.    Not saying it's right, just that it's the reality.

[stillshimpy]

Quote

Because we live in a culture of double standards.    Not saying it's right, just that it's the reality.

Except it demonstrably didn't in this campaign.  The guy who won was recorded talking about women in a way that was horrifying and sickening....and that just got explained away.   

The winner of this election fucking mocked a disabled man on camera, during the election.   Nothing, absolutely nothing Hillary could have done would have made a difference in appearances because no one cared about them, unless they were attached to the female candidate.  

Also, I'd rather the poor woman lost than lean into double-standards aimed solely at women.  That would have been the height of hypocrisy.  No one who would reject Hillary -- who was, if nothing else, at least fucking qualified -- could be persuaded too if she'd jettisoned anyone.  They'd have just focused on whatever other thing that would justify their misogyny.  There's no winning that game and I'm glad she didn't attempt to play it.  It wouldn't have helped a fucking thing. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Padma]

14 minutes ago, backgroundnoise said:

Regarding the point about HRC not talking about jobs, she did.  She just didn't tell people what they wanted to hear.  In other words, lie to them.  I remember in one debate she talked about retraining needed to replace jobs lost in coal mining with alternative fuels.

Yes, she talked about the other issues, Muslims, gays, etc., largely because Trump kept attacking them and HRC was trying to reassure those groups that they, too, would have a place in her America.

She gave some good speeches about jobs, and her thoughts about coal country (though poorly expressed in that one often-shown excerpt) were correct in full--the economy has and is changing and we have to help people retrain for new jobs. I like the environmentalists who are talking about how fighting global warming with new technologies actually is creating many new jobs. Obviously, it won't happen at once, but she had the right idea about planning for it.

Now with Trump, it's back to coal and fossil fuel and "warm the planet, who cares when there's still money to be made in this stuff?"

Which is especially ironic since coal mining is a HORRIBLE job--hazardous and often unsafe as work and deadly to health.  Hillary could have spoken more to that, but Trump caught their imagination for some reason. (I really thought the time he put on the hard hat and mimed shoveling coal on stage, looking like the missing member of the Village People would be his "Dukakis in the tank" moment--but alas! Nothing hurt him permanently, ever).

She also gave an excellent speech on abortion rights--best I've heard from a politician--and another about fighting poverty, and --of course-- the very gutsy one about the alt-right. 

Too bad the media found her so boring and Trump and his nonsense speeches so endlessly entertaining.

[millennium]

18 minutes ago, Padma said:

Too bad the media found her so boring and Trump and his nonsense speeches so endlessly entertaining.

It was the spectacle.    The "what's he going to say in the debate this time?" anticipation.  Or the political Houdini: "How's he going to wriggle out of this mess?"  The fever-pitch rallies.   The endless coverage of the Trump jet landing and taking off (like it's the Batmobile or something).    Hillary essentially ran against P.T. Barnum (who, by the way, also held political office). 

I take you at your word that Hillary spoke on those topics, but I followed the campaign pretty closely and if asked I would be hard-pressed to tell you what her position on jobs, economy, defense, etc. was.   If it didn't get through to me, how much could have registered on the everyday person who wasn't very focused on the election.

[Sheenieb]

Quote

I thought more of Hillary, not less, for sticking by Huma.  It wasn't her fault that her husband was a complete disgusting sleaze.  She'd apparently already been long separated from him when the latest revelations surfaced.

But even if she hadn't, I applaud Hillary for not "playing politics" with friendship.  Huma hadn't done anything wrong and Hillary was a loyal friend in times of trouble (and when it probably -would- have benefitted her politically to "accept her resignation").  I'm impressed that she didn't. (So much for "Opportunist Hillary"!)

Plus she would've been a huge hypocrite for punishing Huma for her husband's actions. Hilary wasn't looked at favorably either for staying with Bill and his roving penis.

This isn't on Huma. There's a lot of reasons why she lost, but the main one is racist, common sense allergic assholes voted for a carnival barker. All in an effort to preserve white supremacy.

[Pixel]

31 minutes ago, Padma said:

She gave some good speeches about jobs, and her thoughts about coal country (though poorly expressed in that one often-shown excerpt) were correct in full--the economy has and is changing and we have to help people retrain for new jobs. I like the environmentalists who are talking about how fighting global warming with new technologies actually is creating many new jobs. Obviously, it won't happen at once, but she had the right idea about planning for it.

Now with Trump, it's back to coal and fossil fuel and "warm the planet, who cares when there's still money to be made in this stuff?"

Which is especially ironic since coal mining is a HORRIBLE job--hazardous and often unsafe as work and deadly to health.  Hillary could have spoken more to that, but Trump caught their imagination for some reason. (I really thought the time he put on the hard hat and mimed shoveling coal on stage, looking like the missing member of the Village People would be his "Dukakis in the tank" moment--but alas! Nothing hurt him permanently, ever).

She also gave an excellent speech on abortion rights--best I've heard from a politician--and another about fighting poverty, and --of course-- the very gutsy one about the alt-right. 

Too bad the media found her so boring and Trump and his nonsense speeches so endlessly entertaining.

Hillary spoke as if people listening were on a higher level intellectually than they were. It's off-putting to the less educated. Trump speaks the language of the uneducated. It's something we learn in the medical field. Explain everything at the second grade level, no matter what the education level of the patient you are speaking to. 

I don't have numbers at my fingers, but I'd be willing to guess at least half of the US population does not have an elevated education level, and even many of those who do don't like to feel that someone is speaking above them. And I'm not saying people are stupid if they are uneducated, I'm just saying you have to speak to them on a level that they can be comfortable with, otherwise you are perceived as thinking you're above them.  

Trump was right to love the poorly educated, as he claimed. He spoke their language, and I'd bet the poorly educated are the biggest group in the country. 

[BookWoman56]

I do believe that HRC deserved the nomination. And while I recognize that there was a lot of baggage there because of the Republican witch hunts over the years, she was by far the most qualified candidate in the field of both Democratic and Republican possibilities. I cannot condone the idea of her being that qualified and deciding not to run simply out of fear that the Republicans would smear her. That smacks entirely too much of the trend over years of expecting women to set aside their own aspirations for the sake of others.

But even if she had decided not to run, who exactly would have been a good candidate for the Dems? Sanders would have been vilified for being a socialist and an atheist, and ridiculed for the idea of free college tuition. Biden could possibly have put together a decent campaign, but he’s closely associated with Obama, who is hated with intensity by a significant portion of the population.

With HRC, I admired her and respected her credentials. On top of that, I was thrilled at the idea of having a female POTUS. It is more than time for the glass ceiling to be broken for the office of POTUS. One reason I could not work up any enthusiasm over the prospect of Sanders or Biden running is this: I am sick and tired of the default choice for a presidential candidate being an older white male. Yes, I will vote for an older white male if the choice is between one whose positions I respect and a younger female POC whose political positions clash with mine. That said, I am ready to see more female politicians in important roles up to and including POTUS.

One aspect of this past election has reinforced ideas I encountered back when I was doing a gender studies class. We discussed the idea that there had been discrimination against women and people of color for so long, while white males took their own positions for granted, that it would be interesting to see how long white men could deal with it if they were treated the same way women and ethnic minorities had been.  And the answer is: apparently five minutes, even when they’re not actually being discriminated against but instead no longer automatically being given privilege in every situation. Those voters with “economic anxiety” seemed particularly bitter and angry that they’re not always getting the best jobs, etc., while sometimes women and people of color do get good jobs.  A large part of why Trump’s campaign succeeded was the implicit promise that he cared way more about white males than any other group. And so I’m really tired of hearing this refrain that HRC lost the EC because she didn’t focus on that particular demographic. She appealed to a much wider demographic, including college-educated white males. Trump appealed to a specific demographic and a lot of what fueled his support was anger from white males who want the sensibilities of the 1950s back. Not to mention that I am firmly convinced that in addition to winning the popular vote, HRC would have won the EC had it not been for Russian hacking, interference from the FBI, and so forth, up to and including the hacking of voter databases of roughly 20 states earlier in the campaign cycle. I refuse to believe that someone went to the effort of hacking that much voter info and then did nothing with it. With the voter info, it would have been extremely easy to obtain and submit fraudulent absentee voter ballots in targeted states.

All of this to say:  I saw in HRC the opportunity for an extremely well-qualified woman to be POTUS. And while in 2020 I will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of gender or ethnicity (unless we get some horrible scenario where the Dem nominee is a clone of Trump), I refuse to believe that Dems need to retreat back to the safety position of having another old white male be the nominee. We need someone who represents social and economic progress, and I’d much rather see a candidate who also reflects the very real diversity of this country. Women make up slightly over 50% of the U.S. population, and yes, I do think it’s time for a woman to have a turn as POTUS.  I'd obviously rather have one who was as qualified as HRC, but FFS on the male side we've had GWB and now DT all within the last two decades. How hard can it be to find a woman who's better qualified than either of those two?

[Macbeth]

I read an article on Salon about how the  Clinton staffers treated the advice from Bernie's people - who did have a good read on the general public's mood - so maybe they should have really listened - but of course they didn't.

The quote, from Hillary's National Political Director, on her calls with Sanders crew that rose my blood pressure through the stratosphere:

“And in the calls I had with them every other week, we inserted college affordability and climate change at their pushing.”

          Really global warming and college-loans debt  were not already priority items that had to be addressed.  She had to be pushed to put it in her campaign.  No wonder she lost.  The Russians are really far down on the list of why you really lost Hillary.  It's a good read - the link is below.  I have no hope that the Democrats will ever learn.

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/20/they-mocked-us-they-made-fun-of-us-bernie-sanders-surrogates-recall-meeting-with-smug-hillary-clinton-staffers/

I am going off to do some serious swearing.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Macbeth

[Chicken Wing]

Quote

Hillary spoke as if people listening were on a higher level intellectually than they were. It's off-putting to the less educated. Trump speaks the language of the uneducated.

This is exactly it, full stop. This is why she didn't reach people the way she should have even though she did in fact touch on all the important issues, had all the good answers: Her answers were too "smart" for people to connect to. She overestimated the collective intellect of a significant portion of the electorate. And some other candidates underestimated the people's intellect. Trump, on the other hand, knows exactly how stupid people are, knows exactly how to speak down to them. His was a lowest common denominator approach, and it paid off. It didn't matter that 90% of everything he said was either stupid in and of itself or a categorical lie. People liked it because they "got" it. And getting it, connecting to it, registered more than the facts or truth of any of it.

[Padma]

ITA, but actually I have a more positive comment re; Trump. Yes, a lot of what he said was appalling. And much was stupid and aimed at people who didn't want to analyze or criticize him.

BUT.... when you read transcripts of Hillary's speeches as she closed, it wasn't just that she was focusing a lot on the risk of nuclear war with Trump in charge, or on his lack of character.  Just like his opponents in the primary, she never focused on a succinct, clear message on offense or on defense--something pithy that she REPEATED OFTEN AT EVERY RALLY and bore into the public's consciousness as being What She Stood For.

Bill was the one who said, "Keep It Simple Stupid" when he campaigned. The whole thing didn't have to be "simple" but the core ideas needed to be easy to remember and repeated over and over and over. 

Trump was outstanding at doing that. He understood "the brand" from the beginning "Make America Great Again" and on offense branded his opponents just as succinctly, "Crooked Hillary"--then developed everything on the attack around her. He was nothing if not repetitive.

Does it "dumb it down"? Yep, but it wouldn't have hurt to devote 10 minutes to a core message--her "brand" and how she saw Trump--and repeated it over and over.

[millennium]

2 hours ago, Padma said:

ITA, but actually I have a more positive comment re; Trump. Yes, a lot of what he said was appalling. And much was stupid and aimed at people who didn't want to analyze or criticize him.

BUT.... when you read transcripts of Hillary's speeches as she closed, it wasn't just that she was focusing a lot on the risk of nuclear war with Trump in charge, or on his lack of character.  Just like his opponents in the primary, she never focused on a succinct, clear message on offense or on defense--something pithy that she REPEATED OFTEN AT EVERY RALLY and bore into the public's consciousness as being What She Stood For.

 

She did:  They accuse of me playing the woman card.  Well I say, DEAL. ME.  IN.

It was clever the first time.   After that, with the audience chanting along, it just seemed really cheesy and lame.   It was a sore reminder that she didn't have much else to offer, or if she did it was lost in the background noise.

Oh, and LOVE TRUMPS HATE.   And When they go low, WE. GO. HIGH.  Sure, Hill.   Let's all sing "Kumbaya" next.  That'll win over the Rust Belt.

To be fair, Trump had even less to say.   But he understood the importance of packaging.

Edited December 22, 2016 by millennium

[stormy]

^^^  I saw Rep Debbie Dingell (D MI) on CNN New Day this morning.

The topic, trump's 5% tariff on imports to the US and the affect on business and consumers.  (hmmm, how will that effect Ivanka's fancy schmancy shoe and jewelry company?)

Dingell said, the workers in MI will like this.  When he talked about it during the campaign, they loved it.  She knew he could win because he understood the working folks.

I agree he understood the importance of packaging, it's just what's really in that package? 

Edited December 22, 2016 by stormy

[Chicken Wing]

4 hours ago, millennium said:

She did:  They accuse of me playing the woman card.  Well I say, DEAL. ME.  IN.

It was clever the first time.   After that, with the audience chanting along, it just seemed really cheesy and lame.   It was a sore reminder that she didn't have much else to offer, or if she did it was lost in the background noise.

Oh, and LOVE TRUMPS HATE.   And When they go low, WE. GO. HIGH.  Sure, Hill.   Let's all sing "Kumbaya" next.  That'll win over the Rust Belt.

To be fair, Trump had even less to say.   But he understood the importance of packaging.

Clinton had plenty to offer. She probably had more to offer than most other presidential candidates, ever. The problem was she didn't convey her plans and intentions and solutions in a way that the average voter could latch onto and absorb in a simple, "I have no attention span, give it to me in three seconds" kind of way. Trump had, and has, nothing to say and nothing to offer, but he is a master of the art of dressing up nothing and making it seem like something. He told them what they wanted to hear. He sold them what they wanted to hear. It didn't matter that his promises were empty and meaningless, his plans untenable and unrealistic. It all just sounded good. He is a salesman, and he sold them a sales pitch. And they fell for it. It's only a matter of time before they realize, like all people who get taken by a con artist, that they were tricked into buying a defective product and have been had.

[Pixel]

1 hour ago, Chicken Wing said:

Clinton had plenty to offer. She probably had more to offer than most other presidential candidates, ever. The problem was she didn't convey her plans and intentions and solutions in a way that the average voter could latch onto and absorb in a simple, "I have no attention span, give it to me in three seconds" kind of way. Trump had, and has, nothing to say and nothing to offer, but he is a master of the art of dressing up nothing and making it seem like something. He told them what they wanted to hear. He sold them what they wanted to hear. It didn't matter that his promises were empty and meaningless, his plans untenable and unrealistic. It all just sounded good. He is a salesman, and he sold them a sales pitch. And they fell for it. It's only a matter of time before they realize, like all people who get taken by a con artist, that they were tricked into buying a defective product and have been had.

Absolutely. Throughout the election, I said he was PT Barnum, inviting the suckers into the freak show. His sales pitch was so appealing that the marks don't even care that the bearded lady glues her beard on for showtime, or that the two headed baby in a jar has obvious stitching where the second head "grows" or that the prehistoric monster from the deep is just an alligator with some fake stuff glued on it.  All they know is they saw some amazing things and the show was awesome!  And once you've paid your money, nobody wants to admit they got suckered, so they keep up the charade.  There was never a moment when I did not see him as a con artist - someone you'd see on an unlicensed used car lot. That was what was so frustrating for me, to watch so many people get so very bamboozled.

I often wished Hillary would dumb it down and be more down to earth to widen her appeal.  Even I, who was never going to vote for a republican unless the democratic candidate was someone like Trump, didn't particularly like her.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Pixel

[NutMeg]

The sad thing is that election campaigns are covered as if they were shows design to entertain rather than inform. It's unfortunate, because the qualities needed to get elected are increasingly diverging from those needed in a good president/prime minister. Giving good soundbites is not very important in the day to day work of the leader of a country, but that is what gets media attention. Some of the best presidents in history would not necessarily have been elected if being TV/media savvy had been the main criteria for being elected.   

[Chicken Wing]

1 hour ago, Pixel said:

Absolutely. Throughout the election, I said he was PT Barnum, inviting the suckers into the freak show. His sales pitch was so appealing that the marks don't even care that the bearded lady glues her beard on for showtime, or that the two headed baby in a jar has obvious stitching where the second head "grows" or that the prehistoric monster from the deep is just an alligator with some fake stuff glued on it.  All they know is they saw some amazing things and the show was awesome!  And once you've paid your money, nobody wants to admit they got suckered, so they keep up the charade.  There was never a moment when I did not see him as a con artist - someone you'd see on an unlicensed used car lot. That was what was so frustrating for me, to watch so many people get so very bamboozled.

I often wished Hillary would dumb it down and be more down to earth to widen her appeal.  Even I, who was never going to vote for a republican unless the democratic candidate was someone like Trump, didn't particularly like her.

I'm with you. I also can't honestly say that I really like Hillary Clinton, but I voted for her, and would still vote for her all the live long day, primarily because, likable or not, Trump or no Trump, she was competent and qualified for the job. And I also wished that she was a bit more personable and did more to appeal to people on that level, because I was not unaware that large swaths of voters honestly do not pay attention to a candidate's qualifications or intelligence or the feasibility of their plans or promises. I knew that to reach voters and get people "on board" connecting with them on a personal level and being interesting and unique was, sadly, just as important as actually having a message and good sense, and she just could never really pull that off and it annoyed me at times to see her campaign or hear her talk because I obviously wanted her to win this thing and I could tell she wasn't playing the game right. It is a game. For a lot of people, it's a likability contest if not an outright popularity contest, and I'll happily admit that Hillary Clinton is not all that likable. That didn't matter to me in my vote. I'm not voting for someone to have afternoon tea with; I'm voting for someone who knows what they're doing in running the country, and that to me was her. But I know a lot of people don't look at things that way and I knew it would be a problem. I knew a lot of people would miss, or dismiss, the fact that she was the better person for the job because they just didn't like her, either because of all the bad press around her, fair and unfair, or because she just wasn't all that personable. And worse, her messages -- which were logical and truthful -- didn't resonate mainly because she just wasn't interesting to listen to.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Chicken Wing

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Pixel said:

I often wished Hillary would dumb it down and be more down to earth to widen her appeal.  Even I, who was never going to vote for a republican unless the democratic candidate was someone like Trump, didn't particularly like her

Yeah, Hillary was particularly unsuited for modern politics which rely on turning yourself into a character that makes people feel like they get you and know you in such a way that it transfers to what you'll do for the country.

Not only is Hillary basically a nerdy grind who's really into the nuts and bolts policy stuff (exactly what people are not looking for) she was hopeless at pretending to she was something she wasn't while also seeming to be unable to really channel who she was. What I mean is, she seems to have had to adjust and hide herself so many times for the good of other people (don't come across like such a feminist seeming to be a big part of it) that she couldn't even present herself as that. It always seemed like she was ready to listen to her pollsters or advisers without a coherent reason for doing so. Like of course Obama also had advisers, but the advice he took or discarded still seemed to add up to a coherent personality. With Hillary it read as, "Will people like me more if I do this?"

Trump's "blue collar billionaire" thing worked in large part because he was taking who he actually was--resentful, jealous, white, rich, dissatisfied, arrogant--and packaging it well. The people who molded his persona--the producers of The Apprentice and Tony Schwab, for instance, were doing it in the service of Trump himself. The whole point was to give him this image. The people who adjusted Hillary were mostly, over the years, trying to fix her to prop up someone or something else. 

She had no ready-made personality designed to appeal to "ordinary folks." Not because she wasn't ordinary herself, but just because she didn't particularly have any superficial things to glom onto that made her a character. She was a grandmother, but she wasn't Red-Riding Hood's grandmother. She was a mom, but she wasn't a soccer mom. She was a wife but she was neither the good little wife nor the independent woman thanks to Bill's shenanigans and image. 

Basically she was running as a set of policy ideas that were, by definition, complicated. In the end, she was the candidate that people liked the more they saw the real her and Trump was the one people hated the more they saw the real him. But people weren't interested in the reality underneath.

[Padma]

Hillary had some very good, substantive positions on important issues and spoke about them often. She had a website that she often directed people to so they could learn about them more in depth and, unlike Trump, she actually outlined feasible ways to pay for them.

She talked as if she thought people would go follow up on her ideas by reading the detailed plans on her website. Trump thought tweeting was the best way to communicate in writing with the public AND MEDIA. Who was right? (The media--reprehensible in its coverage of substance--didn't give a damn about her policy speeches or the detailed plans on her website.  Trump would type in 140 provocative characters on the attack and ...bam!...He controls the news cycle for the day!)

But I fault Team Clinton for not learning from what Trump was doing. They did FAR better than his 16 opponents against him, but still left a lot on the table.  And they should NOT have largely ignored his attacks on her ethics and character. (Didn't we learn in 2004?) The best defense of her that I heard actually came from the libertarian VP candidate Bill Weld. That shouldn't have been the case.
 

Quote

 

^^^  I saw Rep Debbie Dingell (D MI) on CNN New Day this morning.

The topic, trump's 5% tariff on imports to the US and the affect on business and consumers.  (hmmm, how will that effect Ivanka's fancy schmancy shoe and jewelry company?)

 

Dingell may have said "5% tariff", but Trump said "35% tariff".  She thinks consumers will like that? Really? She -does- realize that will make many imports (like popular Apple products) prohibitively expensive for most Americans, right?

Among many disappointments I had with the media during the campaign was that no one asked why Trump didn't bring his OWN businesses back to the U.S. from 22 other countries, including Mexico and China. Will these tariffs apply to Trump shirts and ties and vases, etc. and to Ivanka shoes and clothing and jewelry?

(Never)

[sistermagpie]

3 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

(left vs alt left vs moderate left vs LINO's

Still no such thing as the alt left.

[Chicken Wing]

Quote

 

Hillary had some very good, substantive positions on important issues and spoke about them often. She had a website that she often directed people to so they could learn about them more in depth and, unlike Trump, she actually outlined feasible ways to pay for them.

She talked as if she thought people would go follow up on her ideas by reading the detailed plans on her website. Trump thought tweeting was the best way to communicate in writing with the public AND MEDIA. Who was right? (The media--reprehensible in its coverage of substance--didn't give a damn about her policy speeches or the detailed plans on her website.  Trump would type in 140 provocative characters on the attack and ...bam!...He controls the news cycle for the day!)

 

This. This is part of that "overestimating people's intelligence" thing. It seemed like a huge miss to me whenever she would advise people to check out her website for details on her plans for X and Y. As if people are actually going to do that. Look, we don't need to hear the whole dissertation of how this policy is going to work or why you think it's going to help, but at least give the elevator pitch version while we're all sitting here listening. And make the pitch interesting and easy to understand and remember. Hillary Clinton actually did explain, very often, how she was going to help the economy, what she wanted to do for the workers in manufacturing jobs being lost to automation, how to help coal miners in a world becoming increasingly reliant on clean energy solutions. Not one person remembers her saying any of this.