Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[stillshimpy]

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.

 

 

I'll never understand this about people.   It speaks to a flaw in our society and our culture when obvious intelligence is a mark against a political candidate.   I'm a fairly bright person but I'm not afraid of, putt-off by, or in any other way disinclined to like or vote for someone because I sense that they are smarter than I am.   In a presidential candidate, I'm enough of a space oddity that I greatly prefer it.  

Appear smart and capable, but not in a way that will make anyone feel like you're smarter.   Explain your plans in bumper stickers even though these are delicate and complex issues, so if you do that, you're consigned to lying because it's never that simple. 

You all are likely right, to win that is probably what Hillary had to do but it is something that would have marked her as a phony.  Remember that "I have hot sauce in my purse" thing? If she tried to relate to people, she was accused of pandering.  If she tried to be herself, she was  deemed a snobbish intellectual, making people feel as if they were inferior.  If she spoke out against Trump and his message too strongly, then she was distancing herself from the Trump voters she needed to woo.  She kept Huma around and now that's being held against her but I guarantee that if she'd gotten rid of a longtime friend and loyal aid, that would have been held against her as a mark of no loyalty, evidence of how grasping and uncaring she was. 

There's just nothing Hillary could have done any differently that would have had her winning because everything she tried was deemed the wrong thing.  Maybe it is because she had such a long career in politics and in the public eye.   Or it's just as likely that these people, who she couldn't woo to her side simply by not being a slavering madman (which ought to be enough) just weren't ever going to be able to bring themselves to vote a woman into office.   I hate drawing that conclusion but a grossly unqualified man just won and he wasn't just unqualified, he's actively repulsive.  

There were Trump core-voters that she just wasn't ever going to be able to reach.  Like the ones wandering around the country, at present, terrorizing people because they think they are suddenly above the law, or decency or whatever runs through their minds when they act like complete thugs.  

But it was white women who were largely responsible for Trump's win in the final analysis.  Women were willing to vote for a man who said things that I, quite literally, would have kicked someone out of my house for saying.  There's no amount of "speak in smaller words" that Hillary could have engaged in that would have changed the reason at the root of that.  These are women who think they prize "traditional" values while voting for a woman-degrading-troll.   

Maybe a different woman could have won if she'd played every, "Oh sure, that's ludicrous but it is the game you will have to play to win" game.  Hillary would have had a very difficult time playing that game without it being spotted as a game.   Middle-American women don't like her because everything about her upsets the apple cart of how women are told we must act.  

I only lived in St. Louis for four years and I made some good friends but one of them made what I thought was a really interesting observation, she was a recruiter for a company that sells forklifts and she's genuinely one of the kindest people I've ever met.  Anyway, she had reason to do a bunch of  placements on the East Coast and was talking about how it took some adjustments.  "Everyone has so much personality!  It's been fun getting to know the different ones because everyone here has essentially the same personality."   

Clearly, not everyone in the Midwest has the same personality, but they are encouraged to act a very particular way, particularly as women.  A super nice, mild way.  A very traditional way.  

There are just parts of the country that still have very gendered notions about everything.  Taking as given that there are completely reasonable, smart people, who made their peace with the wackadoodle stuff that is the Twitler, part of what seemingly doomed Hillary with those voters is that the way she acts, speaks, everything hits some "I read that as Other and it distances me".   

Or to put it another way, those women, largely produced from "traditional" mindsets, couldn't bring themselves to vote for a woman who acted in a way their own mothers had told them they must never act.  That will never be Hillary's fault.   

It almost physically pains me to say this but part of what happened is that the DNC decided, "The time has come, it will be a woman.  It is absolutely ridiculous that women are still barred from the presidency" and they tried to deal with that by discouraging any other candidates.  That compounded the problem for people who were on the fence about Hillary, they felt like they weren't even being given the choice of deciding who their democratic candidate would be.   I think one of the few ways that Hillary -- who I gladly voted for -- could have won was if she'd actually won the nomination from a a regular field of candidates.  

We'll likely be Monday-morning-quarterbacking this one for many years to come but a lot went into it and then other aspects just didn't help.  Including that there was a sense of the issue "we're forcing this one because we've tried everything else in the bloody world" because the democratic candidate was pretty much always going to be a foregone conclusion for this election cycle.  

Bernie Sanders had interesting ideas but even the fact that he gained so much traction speaks to that.   I can't even imagine another election cycle where someone who looked like a mad scientist with bedhead, had a personal past that set every traditional notion on its head anyway, and a speaking style best described as "Irate Grandpa Winding Down on a Rant" could have been such a contender.  

I do know Hillary won the popular vote by a substantial margin but she wasn't able to gain any ground in the states that are so often described as fly-over and just prize the hell out of traditional everything.   

Edited December 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[backformore]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 8:27 PM, LisainCali said:

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.  

Obama was one of 59 (not 40) members of the Illinois Senate, yes, from 1997 to 2004.   AND THEN, from 2005 - 2008 he was a United States Senator, representing Illinois.  How many United states Senators are there?   100 -    2 from each state.  SO he was not 1 of 40 senators, he was 1 of 2 total US senators from Illinois.   You might have never heard of him, but many of us from Illinois were very proud of his career and accomplishments. 

THe Republicans liked to refer to him as a "community organizer", to give the impression that he had never accomplished anything before running for president.  That impression is a lie.   He was the first Black president of the Harvard Law Review, graduated Harvard Law school.  He was a US Senator. 

[MulletorHater]

16 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

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. 

Exactly.  Not only did his disgusting mysogyny get explained away by his supporters, but some of the more rabid of his female supporters grinned and wore tee shirts stating that he could assault them also.

And, guess what happened when some of the GOP politicians who supported ("but didn't endorse") Drumpf actually grew a pair?  The base turned on them quick, fast and in a hurry.  Those politicians, almost to a man, came crawling back because they had their own sorry hides to worry about.

Given the way Drumpf treated his own nephew, I can now fully appreciate how it was so easy for him to mock a disabled man on camera.  Even more disturbing?  There were people in the crowd laughing.  

And, I'm also glad that Hillary didn't get rid of Huma.  Huma has been unfairly targeted and smeared as a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer and worse by the likes of Michelle Bachmann and others.  Ten guesses as to why.  I'm sure that if she had a generic name like "Jane Smith" or an Eastern European name like "Sveltlana" and posed for lesbian soft porn pictures, I'm sure no one would have been questioning her loyalty to this country.

[Moose135]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

They did FAR better than his 16 opponents against him, but still left a lot on the table.

Considering Hillary received significantly more votes than Trump, I'd say she did better than his primary opponents.

 

7 minutes ago, backformore said:

You might have never heard of him, but many of us from Illinois were very proud of his career and accomplishments.

Anyone who saw the 2004 Democratic Convention (or watched any news coverage of it) certainly heard of him.  Listening to his speech that night, I said "He's going to be President some day."  I never expected it to be just 4 years later.

[Pixel]

1 hour ago, stillshimpy said:

I'll never understand this about people.   It speaks to a flaw in our society and our culture when obvious intelligence is a mark against a political candidate.   I'm a fairly bright person but I'm not afraid of, putt-off by, or in any other way disinclined to like or vote for someone because I sense that they are smarter than I am.   In a presidential candidate, I'm enough of a space oddity that I greatly prefer it.  

Appear smart and capable, but not in a way that will make anyone feel like you're smarter.   Explain your plans in bumper stickers even though these are delicate and complex issues, so if you do that, you're consigned to lying because it's never that simple. 

You all are likely right, to win that is probably what Hillary had to do but it is something that would have marked her as a phony.  Remember that "I have hot sauce in my purse" thing? If she tried to relate to people, she was accused of pandering.  If she tried to be herself, she was  deemed a snobbish intellectual, making people feel as if they were inferior.  If she spoke out against Trump and his message too strongly, then she was distancing herself from the Trump voters she needed to woo.  She kept Huma around and now that's being held against her but I guarantee that if she'd gotten rid of a longtime friend and loyal aid, that would have been held against her as a mark of no loyalty, evidence of how grasping and uncaring she was. 

There's just nothing Hillary could have done any differently that would have had her winning because everything she tried was deemed the wrong thing.  Maybe it is because she had such a long career in politics and in the public eye.   Or it's just as likely that these people, who she couldn't woo to her side simply by not being a slavering madman (which ought to be enough) just weren't ever going to be able to bring themselves to vote a woman into office.   I hate drawing that conclusion but a grossly unqualified man just won and he wasn't just unqualified, he's actively repulsive.  

There were Trump core-voters that she just wasn't ever going to be able to reach.  Like the ones wandering around the country, at present, terrorizing people because they think they are suddenly above the law, or decency or whatever runs through their minds when they act like complete thugs.  

But it was white women who were largely responsible for Trump's win in the final analysis.  Women were willing to vote for a man who said things that I, quite literally, would have kicked someone out of my house for saying.  There's no amount of "speak in smaller words" that Hillary could have engaged in that would have changed the reason at the root of that.  These are women who think they prize "traditional" values while voting for a woman-degrading-troll.   

Maybe a different woman could have won if she'd played every, "Oh sure, that's ludicrous but it is the game you will have to play to win" game.  Hillary would have had a very difficult time playing that game without it being spotted as a game.   Middle-American women don't like her because everything about her upsets the apple cart of how women are told we must act.  

I only lived in St. Louis for four years and I made some good friends but one of them made what I thought was a really interesting observation, she was a recruiter for a company that sells forklifts and she's genuinely one of the kindest people I've ever met.  Anyway, she had reason to do a bunch of  placements on the East Coast and was talking about how it took some adjustments.  "Everyone has so much personality!  It's been fun getting to know the different ones because everyone here has essentially the same personality."   

Clearly, not everyone in the Midwest has the same personality, but they are encouraged to act a very particular way, particularly as women.  A super nice, mild way.  A very traditional way.  

There are just parts of the country that still have very gendered notions about everything.  Taking as given that there are completely reasonable, smart people, who made their peace with the wackadoodle stuff that is the Twitler, part of what seemingly doomed Hillary with those voters is that the way she acts, speaks, everything hits some "I read that as Other and it distances me".   

Or to put it another way, those women, largely produced from "traditional" mindsets, couldn't bring themselves to vote for a woman who acted in a way their own mothers had told them they must never act.  That will never be Hillary's fault.   

It almost physically pains me to say this but part of what happened is that the DNC decided, "The time has come, it will be a woman.  It is absolutely ridiculous that women are still barred from the presidency" and they tried to deal with that by discouraging any other candidates.  That compounded the problem for people who were on the fence about Hillary, they felt like they weren't even being given the choice of deciding who their democratic candidate would be.   I think one of the few ways that Hillary -- who I gladly voted for -- could have won was if she'd actually won the nomination from a a regular field of candidates.  

We'll likely be Monday-morning-quarterbacking this one for many years to come but a lot went into it and then other aspects just didn't help.  Including that there was a sense of the issue "we're forcing this one because we've tried everything else in the bloody world" because the democratic candidate was pretty much always going to be a foregone conclusion for this election cycle.  

Bernie Sanders had interesting ideas but even the fact that he gained so much traction speaks to that.   I can't even imagine another election cycle where someone who looked like a mad scientist with bedhead, had a personal past that set every traditional notion on its head anyway, and a speaking style best described as "Irate Grandpa Winding Down on a Rant" could have been such a contender.  

I do know Hillary won the popular vote by a substantial margin but she wasn't able to gain any ground in the states that are so often described as fly-over and just prize the hell out of traditional everything.   

I completely agree that it's a flaw in society that you have to dumb it down to not be considered "elite" or "uppity" or "too big for your britches", but it is a reality.  Hillary wasn't too high-falutin' for me, but for a lot of people she was.  I may be an asshole for saying this, but I think the majority of the population isn't really all that smart or sporting a great deal of common sense.  As a nurse, I've seen so many people come into the hospital who can barely function that I wonder how in the hell they made it to adulthood without killing themselves accidentally and how they get their bills paid.  So yeah, you have to dumb it down. You have to assume people are lazy as hell and aren't going to do the legwork to figure things out. Hell, I know that just from having to direct half of my FB friends to snopes.com every time they share something.

Those midwest women you refer to who adhere to a behavior code must be from the country. Here in Chicago and the surrounding suburbs we are some abrasive, independent, loud-mouthed bitches.

[BBDi]

I'm having trouble replying with quotes from my phone. 

The Dems have a lot to think on and work through, so they can come out stronger and more focused so we can shut this shit down at the first opportunity. 

I think liberals tend to be less prone to black and white thinking, and it was easy for me to cheerfully and hopefully vote for Hillary while still acknowledging some reservations. 

It is so sadly ironic to this day that there are still people flogging the "Hillary is so corrupt" theme, without being able to provide any real specifics, when the president-elect is so grossly, ostentatiously corrupt. 

There is a lot to sort through, but in the long run I think the Dems are less divided within ideologically than then GOP and will be able to find a unifying platform. Finding the right people to communicate it will be essential. 

Meanwhile, the unifying theme in the GOP appears to be "ignorance is bliss", on many levels. 

[film noire]

2 minutes ago, Pixel said:

 

Those midwest women you refer to who adhere to a behavior code must be from the country. Here in Chicago and the surrounding suburbs we are some abrasive, independent, loud-mouthed bitches.

Long live nasty women everywhere ; )

[stillshimpy]

Quote

Those midwest women you refer to who adhere to a behavior code must be from the country.

No, actually, I'm not referring to people from the country, although I met a lot of people from the rural areas of Missouri, I'm talking about the women I met in St. Louis.  Every last one of them had a college degree and there was a certain time of year where you were to set mums out on your doorstep.  I don't know why.  Never did it, but got comments about it, had mums dropped off on my doorstep by people who assumed I didn't know.   Most cities are populated with people from other places, so there is very little geographical identity.   Not St. Louis though, that was a womb-to-tomb place (born there, die there). 

It was bizarre.   It wasn't just a case of "we participate in these traditions" they were so weirded out that I didn't.  Also, I have naturally very dark brown hair, that I don't dye, combined with very fair skin and good lord, did I ever get comments on my coloring.  Anything different is regarded askance.  

I'm no stranger to the fact that people are somewhat alarmed by obviously intelligent women and I know that you're right, that it was probably necessary to pander.  It just wasn't going to work for Hillary.  She tried and was accused of being insincere.   This will never be her fault.  

ETA: and my core sense of loyalty to decency makes me hasten to point out, they were incredibly kind to me, even if they viewed me as some kind of non-meat-eating exotic pet.  I won't even go into how oddly my husband was treated for not eating meat, but I swear to you, it bordered on farcical.   

Edited December 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[backformore]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 6:59 PM, millennium said:

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.

NOT true.  according to the NY times, 53% of WHITE women voters voted for Trump.   But  94 percent of black women who voted and 68 percent of Hispanic or Latino female voters chose Hillary.   I think Trump got somewhere around 40% of Women voters -  NOT a majority.

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 0:34 PM, Pixel said:

Those midwest women you refer to who adhere to a behavior code must be from the country. Here in Chicago and the surrounding suburbs we are some abrasive, independent, loud-mouthed bitches.

No we're not!   Well, Ok maybe I am a little. 

Edited December 24, 2016 by backformore

[Pixel]

12 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

No, actually, I'm not referring to people from the country, although I met a lot of people from the rural areas of Missouri, I'm talking about the women I met in St. Louis.  Every last one of them had a college degree and there was a certain time of year where you were to set mums out on your doorstep.  I don't know why.  Never did it, but got comments about it, had mums dropped off on my doorstep by people who assumed I didn't know.   Most cities are populated with people from other places, so there is very geographical identity.   Not St. Louis though, that was a womb-to-tomb place (born there, die there). 

It was bizarre.   It wasn't just a case of "we participate in these traditions" they were so weirded out that I didn't.  Also, I have naturally very dark brown hair, that I don't dye, combined with very fair skin and good lord, did I ever get comments on my coloring.  Anything different is regarded askance.  

I'm no stranger to the fact that people are somewhat alarmed by obviously intelligent women and I know that you're right, that it was probably necessary to pander.  It just wasn't going to work for Hillary.  She tried and was accused of being insincere.   This will never be her fault.  

ETA: and my core sense of loyalty to decency makes me hasten to point out, they were incredibly kind to me, even if they viewed me as some kind of non-meat-eating exotic pet.  I won't even go into how oddly my husband was treated for not eating meat, but I swear to you, it bordered on farcical.   

Well, St. Louis is pretty far removed from Chicago. I'll give you that. I've never put mums out on my doorstep.  Every year I do think about it, though, so maybe it's a midwestern genetic thing.

[Padma]

This discussion about the intelligence (or lack of it) of American voters reminds me of a story about intellectual liberal Democrat Adlai Stevenson, who was called an "egghead" when he ran for president in 52 and 56.

A woman who supported him was very enthusiastic when she saw him. "Governor," she said, "you're such a refreshing candidate. All the smartest people are supporting you."

"Yes," he said, "but unfortunately I need a majority."

[backformore]

19 hours ago, millennium said:

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.

NO, I'm sorry, this is wrong.   Hillary Clinton held her head up and was able to maintain her own integrity despite her husband's sex scandal.   The fact that she supported a friend and colleague who was going through her own husband's sex scandal, made me respect Hillary even more.   We do not dismiss women from being a political force just because they married men who can't control their sexual urges.

Edited December 22, 2016 by backformore

[stillshimpy]

1 hour ago, Pixel said:

Well, St. Louis is pretty far removed from Chicago. I'll give you that. I've never put mums out on my doorstep.  Every year I do think about it, though, so maybe it's a midwestern genetic thing.

 

 

 

Yes, and Illinois actually went to Clinton.  Missouri did not.   My old stomping grounds of Colorado went to Clinton, although I lived there for 26 years and knew it would be close because that's also the seat of the Evangelical movement, Focus on the Family (an organization I have tremendous antipathy for) and the puketastic Promise Keepers, it's also a state where almost everyone is from somewhere else.   Minnesota always went blue which made me glad for them too.  

That's it in the fly-over midwestern states.  

Traditionalism in the midwest played a giant role in this election.  White women from those states ended up making the difference.    It's great that Chicago, an actually metropolitan city has so many outspoken women, but you know, it's not as if being an outspoken woman is some new concept to me.  I've never been accused of being a peacemaker, or someone who makes nice for the sake of it either and in this election, it wasn't actually in question as to whether or not Illinois was part of the reason Hillary lost because she won Illinois.  

I've been accused of a lot of things in my life, but being meek, mild, unopinionated or stupid has really never been among them.   None of that alters the fact that white women made the winning difference for Trump.  It's horrifying and it is also true.  I'm talking about why that is, not the temperament of the average Chicagoan.  Go forth, make noise, god knows I do.  But why did women elsewhere, who should have said, "Finally, it's about fucking time....." and pulled that lever for Hillary vote for the Orange Misogyny Stain?   

Feistiness of the good women of Chicago taken as a given, it is due in great part to the fact that white midwestern women largely rejected her.   As did the people of Pennsylvania, another place I used to live and that didn't shock me even a tiny bit, sadly enough. That state is a sexist's paradise.   There were states that went blue in the last election that switched to red.   That normally wouldn't matter, as some of those states flip-flop back and forth all the time.   

It's just when the candidate for the GOP is every form of appalling thing and is wildly unqualified vs. the most qualified person in the United States to ever run for president, something uncomfortable is afoot in the decision-making process.   

Edited December 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[film noire]

21 hours ago, millennium said:

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.   

Unless someone believes white men are the default and the rest of us are not the norm, white men are just another special interest group. So they both played to their bases. She had several,  Trump had one: racist, sexist pigs (of both genders).

Quote

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.

HRC had economic plans addressing the needs of people living in the suburbs, cities, (non coal) rural communities (like upstate NY)  and coal country. She talked about her plans constantly on the trail,  but the media never covered that. Too many emails to "report" on with chyrons reading "Breaking News" (broken news, more like) during the media scandal known as Jackoffgate. 

Quote

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.”

I don't agree with that at all, and think it's factually incorrect, but even conceding that point: Trump screwed up much more, and won. Bill Clinton screwed up several times in '92...and won. Dubya screwed up so many times we can't even list them all  -- and won. Reagan lied about being present during the release of Jewish prisoners at a concentration camp (he was on a movie set in Hollywood) and fucked up a whole debate by not remembering the simplest things and still...won won won. Poppy Bush was knee deep in Iran Contra...and won.  Even Obama screwed up in 2012 at the first debate, and won. Almost like being a man is some kind of super power or sumpin'.

I think HRC lost because this country is full of sick fucks.  Sick racist sexist fucks. Forty percent (4 in ten, 4 in fucking ten) Trump voters believe Hillary Clinton is a demon. Not a metaphorical demon, an actual demon. With horns and a tail. Those are not people with brains answering a poll, those are people with fecal matter slopping around in their head. Shit for brains, as the saying goes.

Perhaps if HRC had undergone a public exorcism ("Tonight, a very special episode of "Fox and Friends") she might have swayed 12 percent of that elusive White People Demon Vote. But HRC didn't prove she was not a demon (what a crappy campaign move) and now we have to deal with what's before us: the old Klan has been born into the new alt right, and monsters walk the land. Monsters who like to vote for bigger monsters.

Add in witless fauxgressives who voted for Stein ( who went to Russia and kissed Putin's ass so hard, Russian Green Partiers wrote Stein a letter) and Johnson (anti-minimum wage) as the only moral choice when faced with HRC -- because pseudo libs also saw HRC as a demon, praise Jesus! -- and the way forward, imo, is grasping the truth that millions of voters are fucking witless. And fucking toxic with self righteousness or religious righteousness, busily seeing demons everywhere but in their own hand voting to put a madman in the White House. Because if genuine progressives don’t do that - if they try to blame the woman (so tired of that old republihack game) - then the monsters will keep winning, even though they're now hiding in plain sight.

Edited December 22, 2016 by film noire

[millennium]

7 minutes ago, film noire said:

Unless someone believes white men are the default and the rest of us are not the norm, white men are just another special interest group. So they both played to their bases. She had several,  Trump had one: racist, sexist pigs (of both genders).

HRC had economic plans addressing the needs of people living in the suburbs, cities, (non coal) rural communities (like upstate NY)  and coal country. She talked about her plans constantly on the trail,  but the media never covered that. Too many emails to "report" on with chyrons reading "Breaking News" (broken news, more like) during the media scandal known as Jackoffgate. 

I don't agree with that at all, and think it's factually incorrect, but even conceding that point: Trump screwed up much more, and won. Obama screwed up in 2012 at the first debate, and won. Bill Clinton screwed up several times in '92...and won. Dubya screwed up so many times we can't even list them all  -- and won. Reagan lied about being at the release of Jewish prisoners at a concentration camp (he was on a movie set in Hollywood) and fucked up a whole debate by not remembering the simplest things and still...won won won. Poppy Bush was knee deep in Iran Contra...and won.  Almost like being a man is some kind of super power or sumpin'.

I think HRC lost because this country is full of sick fucks.  Sick racist sexist fucks. Forty percent (4 in ten, 4 in fucking ten) Trump voters believe Hillary Clinton is a demon. Not a metaphorical demon, an actual demon. With horns and a tail. Those are not people with brains answering a poll, those are people with fecal matter slopping around in their head. Shit for brains, as the saying goes.

Perhaps if HRC had undergone a public exorcism ("Tonight, a very special episode of "Fox and Friends") she might have swayed 12 percent of that elusive White People Demon Vote. But HRC didn't prove she was not a demon (what a crappy campaign move) and now we have to deal with what's before us: the old Klan has been born into the new alt right, and monsters walk the land. Monsters who like to vote for bigger monsters.

Add in witless fauxgressives who voted for Stein ( who went to Russia and kissed Putin's ass so hard, Russian Green Partiers wrote Stein a letter) and Johnson (anti-minimum wage) as the only moral choice when faced with HRC -- because pseudo libs also saw HRC as a demon, praise Jesus! -- and the way forward, imo, is grasping the truth that millions of voters are fucking witless. And fucking toxic with self righteousness or religious righteousness, busily seeing demons everywhere but in their own hand voting to put a madman in the White House. Because if genuine progressives don’t do that - if they try to blame the woman (so tired of that old republihack game) - then the monsters will keep winning, over and over, even though they're now hiding in plain sight.

I get your rage, but I can't buy into the idea that Hillary is blameless in all of this.   She and her group wildly miscalculated almost every aspect of this election, from the mechanics of the electoral college to the underhandedness of the opposition .   Hillary, a former Secretary of State, a renowned lawyer, the wife of a President, and one of the most qualified Presidential candidates ever, ran against the most offensive candidate in the history of the United States -- and lost.    

That didn't happen because she did everything right.

[film noire]

28 minutes ago, millennium said:

I get your rage, but I can't buy into the idea that Hillary is blameless in all of this.

This is not rage -- which is a blind emotion -- this is owning the data from this election. There is nothing HRC could have done to win over Trump's voters. Thinking there is is making the same mistake appeasers in the party have made for 25 years, while fighting lesser monsters.  It's comforting to pretend they could've been swayed, but it's a false comfort, and a foolhardy chase to think we can ever reach any of those people, imo. The way forward is not where we've been (wondering how we can appeal to minds as sick as these -- which ignores the sickness to begin with) or blaming the candidate who didn't talk about raping mexicans, building walls and grabbing pussies.  

And just tactically and politically, pretending she's the problem here is playing right into their hands.

Edited December 22, 2016 by film noire

[Broderbits]

9 minutes ago, millennium said:

Hillary, a former Secretary of State, a renowned lawyer, the wife of a President, and one of the most qualified Presidential candidates ever, ran against the most offensive candidate in the history of the United States -- and lost.    

She got more votes and still lost. Feel my rage.

[fireice13]

I think a lot of factors went into Hillary losing and her campaign was one of them. I don't believe it was the factor in her loss and I think a lot more factors combined had more to do with it. Arizona, Georgia, and Texas were closer than they've ever been and I've seen people run numbers based on this election's turn out and voting patterns and apply them with 2020's projected demographic and she wins with nothing else changing. Hillary had a winning coalition just not in the right states at the right time. There's a very good chance the map will switch and the  rust belt will be red and the southwest and some of the southeast will be blue. I've seen lots of people saying that she lost because she appealed only to minorities, LGBT, women etc which probably is true to some extent. The white voting bloc proved it hasn't died out yet. However, the biggest mistake Democrats could make is to turn on that coalition and try and court these white working class voters. It might result in short term gains, but long term that strategy is untenable. The white working class is dying out and if Democrats have to be in the wilderness for awhile, it's better than selling out, better to stay on the right side of history. Don't pursue the white working class at the expense of everyone else (which, in my opinion, is really what the white working class wants). 

[backformore]

25 minutes ago, millennium said:

I get your rage, but I can't buy into the idea that Hillary is blameless in all of this.   She and her group wildly miscalculated almost every aspect of this election, from the mechanics of the electoral college to the underhandedness of the opposition .   Hillary, a former Secretary of State, a renowned lawyer, the wife of a President, and one of the most qualified Presidential candidates ever, ran against the most offensive candidate in the history of the United States -- and lost.    

That didn't happen because she did everything right.

But the truth is, she would have had to do EVERYTHING right in order to win.  And that is not right.  Every candidate has flaws.  What I saw was that a woman who was more qualified than anyone else who ran, lost to a MAN who had no qualifications whatsoever.   Blaming her for having flaws, when Trump had a thousand times more, makes no sense.

Hillary stomped all over Trump in the debates.  she was clearly smarter, more knowledgeable, more articulate.  Yet people disregarded that. I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that she should be blamed for the campaign she ran. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by backformore

[stillshimpy]

16 minutes ago, film noire said:

This is not rage -- which is a blind emotion -- this is owning the data from this election. There is nothing HRC could have done to win over Trump's voters. Thinking there is is making the same mistake appeasers in the party have made for 25 years, while fighting lesser monsters.  It's comforting to pretend they could've been swayed, but it's a false comfort, and a foolhardy chase to think we can ever reach any of those people, imo. The way forward is not where we've been (wondering how we can appeal to minds as sick as these -- which ignores the sickness to begin with) or blaming the candidate who didn't talk about raping mexicans, building walls and grabbing pussies.  

And just tactically and politically, pretending she's the problem here is playing right into their hands.

 

 

 

Quoted for truth and because it can't be said enough.  

Quote

But the truth is, she would have had to do EVERYTHING right in order to win.  And that is not right.  Every candidate has flaws.  What I saw was that a woman who was more qualified than anyone else who ran, lost to a MAN who had no qualifications whatsoever.   Blaming her for having flaws, when Trump had a thousand times more, makes no sense.

 

 

Again, entirely true.  Trying to criticize Hillary for not being able to meet whatever constantly fluid, absolutely absurd "wonder what it will be today?" standard people wanted her to be held to is ignoring the much, much, MUCH larger and definitive problem that the other candidate wasn't being held to any standards at all.  

There's no strategy that can compete with that because it's fucking insane.   There is no voter outreach that can combat that complete abandonment of anything resembling logic.   He's a racist.  He's a misogynist.  He campaigned on a platform that is against absolutely everything this country was actually founded on by promising religious persecution and a hatred of immigrants.  About stripping women of their rights and this list just goes on.  If all of that didn't disqualify him in the eyes of voters, that's not on Hillary.  That's on them because it is the embodiment of societal ills, not anything to do with Hillary Clinton. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Ohwell]

5 hours ago, Chicken Wing said:

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.

I quoted this entire post because I remembered in 2008 there was also a question of her likability, and candidate Obama taking flak in one of the debates for saying she was "likable enough."  So, fair or not, she's had this problem for a long time and she didn't get any better at it during this campaign season.   She's Tracy Flick all grown up.  

[stillshimpy]

Quote

She's Tracy Flick all grown up.  

Okay, but Donald Trump displayed every repugnant, disgusting, vulgar and bullying tendency in the world.  On camera.  Repeatedly.  

This was not an election that was won based on being likable.  He's a vile human being and was praised for it.  That's the gobsmacker.  "He's just telling it like it is, he's not afraid to speak the truth!"  Fuckadoodledoo.  

Imagine, just for a moment if Hillary had attempted to employ his winning strategies.  The actual winning strategies from this campaign. 

The answer is not that she wasn't likable enough, judging by that Thing that won, the very opposite, be as repulsive as a human being can be.  The road victory had nothing to do with being likable.  

Edited December 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[sistermagpie]

43 minutes ago, backformore said:

Hillary stomped all over Trump in the debates.  she was clearly smarter, more knowledgeable, more articulate.  Yet people disregarded that. I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that she should be blamed for the campaign she ran. 

Maybe not only disregarded it but resented her for it. Smarty pants.

It actually reminded me of some clip I saw back when Biden was debating Palin. She was just babbling nonsense throughout while he was actually answering questions. There was a clip of Republican voters watching. Then at one moment he was making a point and tripped over his words, like just literally stuttered on a word. And the whole room erupted in scornful laughter. As if he'd just done something stupid. And it just amazed me how spontaneous and real it was because all he'd done was trip over a word while giving a coherent answer while she'd said nothing of substance throughout. But at that moment he was the stupid head and she was winning.

With Trump it was even more pronounced--any obvious gaff was just explained away as really being smart while Hillary was just a know it all.

[millennium]

1 hour ago, backformore said:

 

Hillary stomped all over Trump in the debates.  she was clearly smarter, more knowledgeable, more articulate.  

I agree 100%.   Unfortunately, the commanding presence Hillary established at the debates was not the one I saw on the campaign trail.   She brought it at the debates, but it was too little too late, IMHO.

[MulletorHater]

3 hours ago, backformore said:

NO, I'm sorry, this is wrong.   Hillary Clinton held her head up and was able to maintain her own integrity despite her husband's sex scandal.   The fact that she supported a friend and colleague who was going through her own husband's sex scandal, made me respect Hillary even more.   We do not dismiss women from being a political force just because they married men who can't control their sexual urges.

Right.  It's also ironic that Huma should have been handed her walking papers the very moment it was discovered that her husband couldn't stop exposing himself online.  Meanwhile, look at the lower life forms that Drumpf has, and continues to, associate with.  All in defiance of any sense of decency or any norms.  And, guess what?  He "won."

Openly courted white supremacists.  Check.  Proudly endorsed by the KKK, which held a victory rally for him in North Carolina.  Check.  Partied hard with Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire pedophile, and allegedly raped a 13-year-old at one of the parties.  Check.  Refused to disavow hateful acts committed by his supporters during the campaign.  Not only did he refuse to disavow them, but he often encouraged them and vowed to pay their legal bills.  Check.

Drumpf even defied calls to get rid of Steve Bannon.  Not only that, he defended Bannon's little hurt "feelings" and the cretin isn't going anywhere.  

[millennium]

1 hour ago, backformore said:

But the truth is, she would have had to do EVERYTHING right in order to win.  And that is not right.  Every candidate has flaws.  What I saw was that a woman who was more qualified than anyone else who ran, lost to a MAN who had no qualifications whatsoever.   Blaming her for having flaws, when Trump had a thousand times more, makes no sense.

I agree here too, but that was the nature of the conflict.   She knew going in that as a woman she was at an extreme disadvantage.  She accepted the challenge.   To say it wasn't right or fair is pointless.   What war is ever fair?  The side that wins is the one that correctly assesses the opposition, discerns their weakness and exploits it.    Whether it's fair makes no difference.  In the end all that counts is winning.

Early on in the American Revolution the British Army appeared on the field in practiced formations, all lined up very properly according to the rules of war at the time.   The Americans, who by that time had been fighting Indians for more than 100 years and had learned a thing or two about skirmishing, came at them quite differently.    The British were appalled by it.   I'm sure they thought it wasn't right.

Hillary did everything by the book, and if this had been an election where her opponent agreed to play by the book she probably would have won.  Instead she and her people lined up according to the rules, and the Republicans picked them off.

I hate that our national election has become this degraded but digging our heels in and saying "it's not right" isn't going to get the people into office who should be there.   Hillary's campaign was caught completely off guard.    I only hope our country's around long enough for the Democrats to learn from this.

Edited December 22, 2016 by millennium

[film noire]

34 minutes ago, millennium said:

 Whether it's fair makes no difference.  In the end all that counts is winning.

I disagree. In the end what counts is not doing what Trump did -- trade in racial and sexist epithets to appease and entice the sickest voters among us -- if you have to become the enemy to win their vote, that's a win for them, not for progressive ideals.  (And I think the logic of that line of thought is a bit off base; it means every despot elected is the fault of the opposition candidate, not the voters who stood up and cheered the despot on, and then voted the madman in.) 

eta:

Quote

  To say it wasn't right or fair is pointless. 

I don't think that's what is happening here. People have been sifting through data and polls and info to grok the Trump voter, and having done that, people are realizing it's a waste of time to pretend they could've been won over by HRC.  And again -- tactically and politically -- this strikes me as playing right into the hands of the alt right, Trump and his voting base.  Chasing our tails trying to please people who should be ashamed of how they voted is not the way forward for Dems, imo.

Edited December 22, 2016 by film noire

[stillshimpy]

Quote

I agree here too, but that was the nature of the conflict.   She knew going in that as a woman she was at an extreme disadvantage.  She accepted the challenge.   To say it wasn't right or fair is pointless.   What war is ever fair?

 

 

 

 

So, you're blaming the victim of sexism and internalized misogyny for not figuring out how to cater to those societal ills sufficiently?  

For real? That is logic interchangeable with blaming an African-American for being called a racial slur because they didn't shuck and jive enough.  

Edited December 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[millennium]

Just now, film noire said:

I disagree. In the end what counts is not doing what Trump did -- trade in racial and sexist epithets to appease and entice the sickest voters among us -- if you have to become the enemy to win their vote, that's a win for them, not for progressive ideals.

That's a facile argument, suggesting that everyone who voted for Trump revels in racial and sexist epithets.   I'm fairly certain members of my own family voted for him (despite knowing that a Trump victory would likely pose a tremendous burden on my way of life).  My family is far from perfect, but they don't belong in the "sick fucks" category to which you seem to have consigned all Trump voters, nor do many other Americans who voted for him.   Many people voted for Trump out of sheer self-interest and greed.  Many did it for religious reasons (my own Catholic church advocates against Obamacare from the pulpit).   Many were dazzled by his fame.   Others bought into the blue-collar billionaire storyline.   Others just plain hated Hillary.   It wasn't just "sick fucks."

[stillshimpy]

Quote

That's a facile argument, suggesting that everyone who voted for Trump revels in racial and sexist epithets.

No, that's not accurate either.  It does suggest, however, that they don't find those things disqualifying events which means whether they find them distasteful or not, they think those things are okay in the president.  In 2016.  Acceptance doesn't equal approval but it also suggests a lack of disapproval.

As stated elsewhere, there will have been lifelong Republicans who voted for Trump because they are Republicans and nothing about Hillary Clinton is interchangeable with the Republican viewpoint when it comes to the role of the federal government.  A goodly percentage of Trump's voters are going to follow under that category and they probably told themselves, "Who the hell knows what most presidents have said in private?"  and that was all.   By the same token, there's literally nothing that Hillary could have done to woo them over to her side because that's a core belief difference.  

However, the loyal base isn't enough to have gotten Trump elected by itself, so then we are left with the people who don't find racism and sexism to be bad enough things to disqualify a presidential candidate.   

I'm going to go ahead and step away from this one now, as I'm just making the same point at this juncture:  Hillary Clinton is not to blame for the internalized misogyny of an individual voter.  That is their issue and they need to heal themselves, nothing she could have done or said would have done it.  

Edited December 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[film noire]

25 minutes ago, millennium said:

That's a facile argument, suggesting that everyone who voted for Trump revels in racial and sexist epithets. 

 You don't have to revel in an immoral act to be complicit in that act; and complicity makes you part of the sickness, imo. 

Quote

My family is far from perfect, but they don't belong in the "sick fucks" category to which you seem to have consigned all Trump voters, nor do many other Americans who voted for him.  

To you, they don't. Others may feel differently. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by film noire

[millennium]

1 minute ago, film noire said:

 

To you, they don't. Others may feel differently. 

Nice.   I think I'm done now.

[BBDi]

Like every candidate, she has her shortcomings and makes her share of mistakes. 

She's not a sound-bite person and no doubt isn't the easy, natural communicator that Bill is.  

She also came into the campaign with decades worth of largely undeserved criticism and distrust aimed at her. Including absorbing blame for Bill's misdeeds.  I have heard people talk absolute shit about her for >3 decades now - much of it stemming from her taking a more forward role in Bill's presidency.  

She had to overcome that baked-in resentment that some people have toward smart women.  I volunteered for Elizabeth Warren's campaign, and by God, I have heard enough of that stupid "schoolmarm" to last me till I die  

And because she's not the charismatic type or facile communicator, it would always have been an uphill battle to overcome those perceptions people had. All of the tired sexist tropes came out in full force - not likable enough (hey baby, smile), too serious, not fuckable, etc.  Not to mention the low value society places on women when they can no longer breed.  

Sometimes I think it will take a miracle for us to get a woman president.  

It's unfortunate because the Clintons' bunker mentality and penchant for staying in their bubble meant her campaign misread some signals and wasn't as agile as it should have been.  

Of course there's also the fact that Putin and the FBI did their best to sabotage her.  

And her opponent turned out to be the most unpredictable candidate in modern history.  

So many particular things went into this mix. It wasn't any one thing. 

Another candidate might have had a better chance against Trump. Unfortunately we will never know - or maybe we'll find out in 2020. 

It's just fucking depressing.  For those of you who are angry at her for running or making mistakes - I can only imagine how horrible she feels and the weight that must be on her shoulders knowing that because she messed up here and there or just wasn't likable enough, we are stuck with a monster.  She's an intelligent woman and most likely a caring one, and I'm sure she feels awful.  

[Broderbits]

I think this election will be recorded in history as The Perfect Shitstorm. That is, if anyone is left alive to record it and there are future generations to read it.

[Ohwell]

1 hour ago, millennium said:

1 hour ago, film noire said:

 

To you, they don't. Others may feel differently. 

Nice.   I think I'm done now.

I agree, that was totally unnecessary.

[stillshimpy]

Well, this has taken a turn into Awkward Thanksgiving Dinner.  

1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

 

I think this election will be recorded in history as The Perfect Shitstorm. That is, if anyone is left alive to record it and there are future generations to read it.

 

 

Whatever mutant offspring of George Clooney survives the coming end times will play the lead in the inevitable biopic.   Gender really won't matter by then, so we could be talking about either candidate.  

Best attempt at a "How 'bout them Bears?"  segue.   

[Pixel]

1 hour ago, BBDi said:

Like every candidate, she has her shortcomings and makes her share of mistakes. 

She's not a sound-bite person and no doubt isn't the easy, natural communicator that Bill is.  

She also came into the campaign with decades worth of largely undeserved criticism and distrust aimed at her. Including absorbing blame for Bill's misdeeds.  I have heard people talk absolute shit about her for >3 decades now - much of it stemming from her taking a more forward role in Bill's presidency.  

She had to overcome that baked-in resentment that some people have toward smart women.  I volunteered for Elizabeth Warren's campaign, and by God, I have heard enough of that stupid "schoolmarm" to last me till I die  

And because she's not the charismatic type or facile communicator, it would always have been an uphill battle to overcome those perceptions people had. All of the tired sexist tropes came out in full force - not likable enough (hey baby, smile), too serious, not fuckable, etc.  Not to mention the low value society places on women when they can no longer breed.  

Sometimes I think it will take a miracle for us to get a woman president.  

It's unfortunate because the Clintons' bunker mentality and penchant for staying in their bubble meant her campaign misread some signals and wasn't as agile as it should have been.  

Of course there's also the fact that Putin and the FBI did their best to sabotage her.  

And her opponent turned out to be the most unpredictable candidate in modern history.  

So many particular things went into this mix. It wasn't any one thing. 

Another candidate might have had a better chance against Trump. Unfortunately we will never know - or maybe we'll find out in 2020. 

It's just fucking depressing.  For those of you who are angry at her for running or making mistakes - I can only imagine how horrible she feels and the weight that must be on her shoulders knowing that because she messed up here and there or just wasn't likable enough, we are stuck with a monster.  She's an intelligent woman and most likely a caring one, and I'm sure she feels awful.  

I'm not angry. She's human, and humans make mistakes. She was surrounded by people who should have helped her steer better, who did not help. I read the article about the Sanders team members who tried to help and were ignored or laughed at. There was plenty of arrogance on the Clinton team, but again-humans. 

What des make me angry is seeing the democrats seeming to now not understand the need to regroup and figure out where the entire party needs to change. 

[film noire]

17 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

 Hillary Clinton is not to blame for the internalized misogyny of an individual voter. 

Well said.

This result from a PRRI poll back in the fall addresses that (creepily);  "About seven in ten likely voters supporting Donald Trump (72%) say American society and way of life has changed for the worse since the 1950s, while seven in ten likely voters supporting Hillary Clinton (70%) say things have changed for the better." White minds yearning for the oppressive, segregationist and profoundly sexist 1950s were not going to be reached by a woman -- her very being was a repudiation of their longing to return to a time when women had babies, changed diapers and kept their nasty women mouths shut (and voted as their husbands told them to).  

Quote

That is their issue and they need to heal themselves, nothing she could have done or said would have done it.  

I agree.  Also, with over a dozen Republican candidates failing to win over Trump's  voters, I'm lost as to how HRC was going to somehow achieve what Kasich, Rubio, Christie, Bush, Perry, Santorum, Fiorina, etc could not bring  to pass during the primaries.

Edited December 23, 2016 by film noire

[LisainCali]

To answer a question that was asked of me above, why do I have hope?  Read the book Game Change and you'll see the nastiness that goes on in politics in general. Nobody comes out of this book unscathed.  Hillary Clinton was lobbying hard to get the support of the Democratic Party in 2008 because she wanted to run.  They didnt want her to be the Dem candidate because they didn't like her, but didn't have the guts to tell her No.  Obama was approached by the DNC and ASKED to run because he had no dirty laundry and an appealing temperament.  He ran  VERY different campaign, utilizing social media to generate most of his campaign funds.  No one had done that before.  There was plenty of scandal then, too, especially with John Edwards cheating on his wife who was dying of breast cancer, and fathering a child with her WHILE he was running a strong campaign for President, and lobbying to be VP when he thought it was unlikely he would win.   

Im not a political wonk by a long stretch of the imagination.  My hope comes from a businessman and outsider in office.  I never thought Trump would win. No one did.  I really hoped Bloomberg would run.  I like the thought that the country will be run as a business and that the President is very successful in business, because POTUS doesnt get paid very much in salary.  When Reagan was President, I was shocked to find out that I was making more money than he was!  I know, I know, they get lots of perks.  But don't forget the Clintons were broke when they left office.  

The way we have ignored Syria is shameful. I know there are those who think it is the right thing to do because it's none of our business, or that if they kill each other, we won't have to worry about Isis, etc.  I don't agree.  I also believe that if we do decide to enter a war, that we just get in and get out.  

New blood is scary, but good.  If Trump does a bad job, he will be out in 4 years.  If you're young (or old), and unemcumbered and "scared", maybe this is a perfect time to travel and see the world.  That was a very trendy thing to do in the very turbulent 70's.  I have a lot of friends who backpacked through Europe and Costa Rica, stayed in youth hostels, got jobs as waiters, or ticket takers to make some money and then moved on.  Or are still there.  

You can always come back....or you might like it and never come back.  When you say, "I'm really frightened.  I'm scared to live here....",  I get it.  Been there, seen that and it was a wonderful experience for everyone that I know who traveled.  

Edited December 23, 2016 by LisainCali
Punctuation, misspelling

[sistermagpie]

36 minutes ago, LisainCali said:

 I like the thought that the country will be run as a business and that the President is very successful in business, because POTUS doesnt get paid very much in salary.

Gotta say, I don't understand wanting the country to be run like a business at all. That seems to translate into putting money and short term profit above everything else. Sure one could probably use the metaphor to say things like "If you invest in people in the longterm it's good for the company in the longterm" but currently "running the country like a business" means privatizing everything for short terms profits for the few and making money off things that should not be making money, like prisons and healthcare. That's not good for the country.

39 minutes ago, LisainCali said:

New blood is scary, but good.  

Not necessarily. I mean, it's not like he's some newcomer politician with new ideas. He's the same conman who's been around for decades now using the presidency the same way he's used other things. His cabinet seems to be a combination of new blood (people considered too bigoted and detached from reality to be in government until recently and people with priorities other than governing people well) and old blood (the lobbyists and bankers he claimed he was getting rid of). And the damage they all do in 4 years can last a lot longer than those four years.

43 minutes ago, LisainCali said:

If you're young (or old), and unemcumbered and "scared", maybe this is a perfect time to travel and see the world.

But how many people can or want to do that? A lot of the people with the most reason to be scared don't have that option.

[roughing it]

Quote

Others just plain hated Hillary.

Quote

White minds yearning for the oppressive, segregationist and profoundly sexist 1950s were not going to be reached by a woman -- her very being was a repudiation of their longing to return to a time when women had babies, changed diapers and kept their nasty women mouths shut (and voted as their husbands told them to).

This describes my in-laws to a tee.  They are in their late 70s-early 80s, and watch Faux News 24/7, where they have been properly taught to HATE anything democrat, O-Bummer, Obamacare that has been "shoved down their throats" (even though they are not the targeted recipients).  The Hillary hate has been going on for decades.  They hate Hillary so much, they went to the movie theater to see "13 Hours", even though they had not seen a movie in an actual theater in years.  They would have voted for Mickey Mouse had he been running for president.  Anyone but Hillary.  So there's that demographic.

Had Bernie Sanders run, I don't think he would have been successful either.  Too old, people would say.  But he may have been more successful than Hillary.

I think that the media definitely had an affect on the race - they couldn't wait to be the first to report what wacky thing Donald would say or do next.  It was all on him, the circus clown.  His lie after lie in his campaign speeches that no one bothered to take the time to debunk (except for MSNBC and CNN, which most people don't watch anyway).  The average American doesn't do much, if any research on their own, don't follow Politifact or Fact Check.  They don't go further than their local news outlet.  The regular local news only went as deep as showing clips, never saying "well, yes, Donald said this, but it's not accurate".  The media was so enamored of what outrageous thing Trump was saying, that they pretty much ignored anything Hillary was saying or doing.  She wasn't interesting enough.  There is that old saying that is something like, even bad publicity is good publicity.

[BBDi]

53 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Gotta say, I don't understand wanting the country to be run like a business at all. That seems to translate into putting money and short term profit above everything else. Sure one could probably use the metaphor to say things like "If you invest in people in the longterm it's good for the company in the longterm" but currently "running the country like a business" means privatizing everything for short terms profits for the few and making money off things that should not be making money, like prisons and healthcare. That's not good for the country.

Not necessarily. I mean, it's not like he's some newcomer politician with new ideas. He's the same conman who's been around for decades now using the presidency the same way he's used other things. His cabinet seems to be a combination of new blood (people considered too bigoted and detached from reality to be in government until recently and people with priorities other than governing people well) and old blood (the lobbyists and bankers he claimed he was getting rid of). And the damage they all do in 4 years can last a lot longer than those four years.

But how many people can or want to do that? A lot of the people with the most reason to be scared don't have that option.

I do kind of see the appeal of bringing some business acumen and a different POV to the office. 

For example, the idea of doing things more effectively and wasting less time and money is appealing, along with the idea of greater accountability. The assumption is that in a business, if you find out something doesn't work, you stop doing it. Sounds good, right?

But an ethical business should also weigh whether there is a human or environmental cost to doing things the most "efficient" or profitable way.

So...cabinet members from Exxon, Goldman-Sachs? Uh, no. A head of labor from the fast food industry? Negatory. These folks aren't visionaries - they are just good at making money the old-fashioned way - off the backs of others. 

So anyway, I do see the appeal of  business experience and fresh blood, but that's not what we're getting, unfortunately.

. Lisaincali, I appreciate your willingness to keep engaging when you are clearly outnumbered. Does it bother or disappoint you that together Trumps cabinet has a net worth equal to combined worth of the bottom 1/3 of the US population? 

[NinjaPenguins]

Running government like a business is a truly terrible idea. Government at its best exists to provide for the common welfare and safety of the citizens; business exists to turn a profit, period. A lot of businesses fail; if the government of the United States fails, it will be catastrophic. I personally feel it is unethical to attach a profit motive to matters of life and death. Imagine another Katrina level hurricane and getting a bill for being plucked off your roof as the flood waters rise. You can get the fire consuming your house put out - if you paid up beforehand. Rescuing pets requires premium coverage. Equipment costs money you know. 

Running government like a business can only end in tears.

[Padma]

woops, not about Hillary.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Padma

[Chicken Wing]

21 minutes ago, NinjaPenguins said:

Running government like a business is a truly terrible idea. Government at its best exists to provide for the common welfare and safety of the citizens; business exists to turn a profit, period. A lot of businesses fail; if the government of the United States fails, it will be catastrophic. I personally feel it is unethical to attach a profit motive to matters of life and death. Imagine another Katrina level hurricane and getting a bill for being plucked off your roof as the flood waters rise. You can get the fire consuming your house put out - if you paid up beforehand. Rescuing pets requires premium coverage. Equipment costs money you know. 

Running government like a business can only end in tears.

I have to concur. I never got the "run the country like a business" thing either, and it makes me wonder if people don't know how business works or how a country works. The main reason why I disagree with this mentality as a positive: A business exists for one reason only. To make money. Which is fine if you are in fact a business, but a country is not merely an instrument to generate profits for its members. A country, our country, is not just an economic tool. (Note to self: Find a way to use "economic tool" against someone as an insult.) It's about the community of the people, it's about welfare, it's about safety, it's about traditions, it's about respecting and upholding the sanctity of our foundations, it's about fighting for the good and the rights of the people -- not about the almighty dollar. I don't understand how that responsibility can be trusted and respected by someone who sees everything, absolutely everything, as a bargaining chip and negotiation tactic, for whom the ends universally justify the means and short-term gains outweigh long-term consequences. Donald Trump is a shrewd dealmaker, but not everything is about "deals" and I feel that is a very shortsighted and, frankly, dangerous approach to leadership.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Chicken Wing

[BBDi]

34 minutes ago, Chicken Wing said:

I have to concur. I never got the "run the country like a business" thing either, and it makes me wonder if people don't know how business works or how a country works. The main reason why I disagree with this mentality as a positive: A business exists for one reason only. To make money. Which is fine if you are in fact a business, but a country is not merely an instrument to generate profits for its members. A country, our country, is not just an economic tool. (Note to self: Find a way to use "economic tool" against someone as an insult.) It's about the community of the people, it's about welfare, it's about safety, it's about traditions, it's about respecting and upholding the sanctity of our foundations, it's about fighting for the good and the rights of the people -- not about the almighty dollar. I don't understand how that responsibility can be trusted and respected by someone who sees everything, absolutely everything, as a bargaining chip and negotiation tactic, for whom the ends universally justify the means and short-term gains outweigh long-term consequences. Donald Trump is a shrewd dealmaker, but not everything is about "deals" and I feel that is a very shortsighted and, frankly, dangerous approach to leadership.

Very well said. Everything is not a deal. It just isn't. 

[NewDigs]

Private industry does not know how to run things better.

They just know how to make money doing it.

imho

While I understand that Hillary did not connect what bothers me a lot more is that a bigoted, misogynist was able to do so instantly. 

[Broderbits]

3 hours ago, LisainCali said:

My hope comes from a businessman and outsider in office.  I never thought Trump would win. No one did.  I really hoped Bloomberg would run.  I like the thought that the country will be run as a business and that the President is very successful in business, because POTUS doesnt get paid very much in salary.

It's not very comforting to think that trump will run the country like he runs his businesses as bankruptcy on a national scale does not appeal to me. I still would like to hear more specifics about how & what you think he's going to do. Also, again I'd like to suggest this topic belongs in the trump thread.

[LisainCali]

"Lisaincali, I appreciate your willingness to keep engaging when you are clearly outnumbered. Does it bother or disappoint you that together Trumps cabinet has a net worth equal to combined worth of the bottom 1/3 of the US population?"

No, it doesn't.  Sorry.  going to the Trump thread.....I'll finish there.

[Padma]

3 hours ago, LisainCali said:

.... I never thought Trump would win. No one did. .....

Putin did. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/putin-democrats-are-sore-losers_us_585d275ae4b0eb586486009c

Edited December 23, 2016 by Padma