Can we put it to rest that Hillary was a "bad candidate"

[edhopper]

Don't we have enough info now that between Russian interference, Comey, the Medias obsession with her emails story, VOTER SUPPRESSION in key States and an obsolete election system, that meant winning by 3 million votes is not enough that Hillary did not let us down.
The system let her down. She should be President by any fair equation.

Enough. Donald Trump is not the legitimate President of the United States, That is the story. Not the political capabilies of Hillary Clinton.

[Iliyah]

1. K & R

[Mister Ed]

2. Aye. Best-qualified candidate to come along in a generation. n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. No doubt in my mind.

[lunamagica]

7. Yes she was

[Loki Liesmith]

180. "Best qualified" does not mean "good politician"

That’s an area that needed work.

[dawg day]

211. Well, it took interference by the Russians to "Beat" her

She would have won if not for that. So she was a perfectly good candidate facing a problem no one could have dealt with.

The danger here is that people might start thinking that "a woman can't win."

A woman did win. It had to be stolen from her.

[Cha]

289. And, yet Hillary Still Beats BS in this 2020 Presidential Poll

And, she isn't Even Running!

Biden leads 2020 Dem field in new poll

Almost one-third of registered Democratic voters back former Vice President Joe Biden for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, making him the front-runner in a new poll provided exclusively to The Hill.

Biden is the clear leader in Harvard CAPS/Harris’s June poll with support from 32 percent of Democrats polled. Hillary Clinton, the party’s 2016 nominee, finished second with 18 percent of the vote, while her 2016 primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), sits in third with 16 percent.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/394388-biden-leads-2020-dem-field-in-new-poll

[karynnj]

207. I would argue that - on their records - either Al Gore or John Kerry were at least equal

Gore had 8 years as VP and a signigificant Senate and House career. John Kerry was both a lt Governor, where he led MA's effort on acid rain and a long term Senator. Both had more significant Senate careers than Hillary Clinton, who was never senior enough to chair a committee. (Kerry was far more immediately successful as Secretary because he actually had far more foreign policy experience. (Depending on when you start "your generation) - LBJ and Mondale had strong accomplishments as well.

Yes, I KNOW Obama said so - when HRC was running for President. If you listened to former leaders in other campaigns - that type of hyperbole is the norm. In addition, the norm is to give excessive credit for anything that the nominee was involved with -- and most accomplishments are team efforts.

The important thing was that Clinton had a record of accomplishments and was very very qualified ... and Trump was morally unfit - in addition to having absolutely no experience.

[Ninga]

4. Yes! There isn't a person I know who could have had the courage she did to

withstand 30 years of blistering, hammering, lies!

[maddiemom]

137. Witness the calm and wits with which she handled the marathon congressional grilling.

I will NEVER forget that example of GUTS, or per Hemingway: "Grace Under Pressure."

[onit2day]

146. More like she won by 19million based on new information of uncounted votes.

Still to have to carry all that undeserved baggage around which Russians turned into mountains of lies and against the most vile and petty scumbag to run for president is a tragedy. Now we have to deal with this unqualified PINO who is the opposite of Clinton. Her statement of this basket of deplorables was the most accurate of the campaign and here we are.

[karynnj]

208. John Kerry - since 1971 has been a right wing target

That is longer and includes when he was a vulnerable young man just back from a horrific war.

[StevieM]

293. Kerry was never in a position to be attacked as regularly as HRC was.

He didn't have the same national profile for as long as she did.

That said, I disagree with the argument that she was damaged by a 30 year smear. I think her problems were very new. In the past, she wasn't held up as a model of corruption. And she was extremely popular just a few years earlier.

I suppose you could argue that she was more vulnerable to the recent attacks due to the long-term attacks.

[karynnj]

314. You must be younger than I am

Kerry was extremely well known in 1971. All three networks covered his entire statement to the SFRC. On the Nixon tapes, various Nixon people were clear that he was the only antiwar activist who concerned them. He was on Nixon's enemies list and was followed by the FBI.

The local Lowell Sun had several daily stories attacking him every day for the last few months the first time he ran. All totally made up. It created so much hate, that his wife spoke of a brick being thrown through a window landing in the crib of his baby daughter.

Obviously, you saw the swiftboating - a word that now means the despicable lies . That was closer to what Clinton faced. Politically motivated lies and the seeing of everything through the most negative lens possible. Like Clinton, he then was the nominee and a person with status and power.

That was not so in 1971. Then he was a young vet, traumatized by war, attacked by the President and his people. After that, the courage to fight Reagan on the Contras and to continue the BCCI investigation when all the powers in government were against him continuing, showed incredible courage and strength of character. He knew what he would face doing that. It was not just that these things would make it harder for him to gain the presidency, but his life itself was threatened.

[betsuni]

318. "How can you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be

the last man to die for a mistake?" Very impressive.

[StevieM]

320. I realize he has a long history in public life. I just don't think it was quite as public as

a first lady of the United States.

As I said, though, I don't think long-term attacks were the primary reason she lost--I think it was new attacks, especially the role of James Comey and the FBI.

I agree that Kerry deserves a lot of credit for speaking out about Reagan and the Contras. And on a related topic, I think the fact that nobody got punished for Iran-Contra is a big part of why we are in the mess that we are in.

[karynnj]

358. Obviously Hillary was more prominent

However, that is exactly my point. She had the respect and plenty of mainstream media which defined her as First Lady. That included puff piece biographies in all women's magazines. The WH is an incredible platform from which to counter lies.

My point was Kerry's activism made him a target and he did not have any position or power to defend himself other than his friends. Obviously, this changed as he became Senator, the nominee and Secretary of State.

[IdealsAndReal42]

380. Good recap.

Also my take is that the unofficial goals of SBVT back in 2004 was also a character assassination attempting in the way they wanted him to talk publicly about what he saw during combat, talking about it on a personal level, which would have been extremely hard.
He wrote his feelings and his story in those famous notes he lend to Brinkley to write "Tour of Duty" but nevert discussed very much orally over it.
Reading Brinkley's book made his reluctance fairly understandable.

[lunamagica]

5. Hear hear! #trumpillegitimatePresident. #HillaryWon #TheElectionWasStolen

[brooklynite]

6. The two are not mutually exclusive...

By making strategic errors, she brought down the vote totals she was able to attract, which made the Russian attempt to turn out votes for Trump more effective.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Correct. She would have beaten a much weaker candidate (Trump) were it not for Russia

That doesn't prove though that she was a strong candidate. However she was always a better leader than a candidate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I was one of her most stalwart supporters on this board.

There is a difference between being the most qualified person for a job and the best candidate for a job. Sometimes getting the job has a lot more to it than just resume.

[edhopper]

22. True

but she did win, by 3 million votes, the American people picked her.
3 States, voter suppression and Russian interference was the cause of her defeat, not her candidacy.
Her Husband didn't even get a majority the first time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Life is unfair

Since Republicans are such awful people their candidates can do awful things with impunity. Since we're the good guys we're held to a higher standard.

[edhopper]

28. unfortunately true

wish the American people would wake up to that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. She did indeed win the popular vote, by a wide margin

I don't think Hillary was a "bad candidate, she just wasn't what I would call a "good candidate". However she was more than good enough a candidate to win a fair election, and she would have been excellent as president.

[LisaM]

186. I don't see what other voters see, I guess.

Everything about Reagan oozed slime to me. I couldn't stand his voice, his oiled hair, his obvious insincerity, and the fact that he was clearly reading off a script. I still get creeped out when I hear his voice.

Yet, by some measure that some people use, he was - and still is - considered a good candidate!

[edhopper]

188. I agree

amazing what people will fall for.

[calimary]

197. So do I. I feel the same about Reagan.

And NO ONE will EVER convince me that she was a bad candidate. I thought she was a superb candidate! Experienced, qualified, brilliant, and compassionate. With a quick wit and a great laugh.

Unfortunately, too many people have bought into whatever lies have been repeated relentlessly about her for more than 25 years!

I wish she could sue for libel, slander, and defamation.

[politicaljunkie41910]

166. What Presidential candidate can you recall in the past 3 decades who had any charisma and brains

besides Obama? or Bill Clinton?
Romney? No
Palin? Hell No.
McCain? No one thought he'd live out a presidency.
GWB? Everyone thought he was an idiot.
GHWB? Read my lips, no new taxes?
Reagan? Okay he had some charisma, but no one thought this retired actor was very bright?
Jimmy Carter?
Ford?

Stop looking for a president with "Charisma", and start worrying about whether He/She is qualified to perform the job. That f'ing server was a manufactured problem which had it been a Repugnant Sec of State, not named Clinton, it would have gone NO WHERE.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

168. You can be the most qualified person in the world for a job but you have to get the job to do it.

That's an empirical observation and not a normative one.

[bettyellen]

183. 2016 was weird in its celebration of the angry white man- he was coddled and worshipped and got high

on all the self righteous anger that was actually pretty bizarre to watch, as an outsider. A lot of men couldn’t explain why very well- they were just flailing around about how everything sucks. As a person who values reason and pragmatism, the angry emotionalism and thoughtlessness of much of it freaked me out. I don’t know how HRC pulled as many votes as she did in that toxic stew.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

184. Our candidates are held to higher standards.

Using a private e-mail server wasn't a great idea but compared to Trump's manifest unfitness for the office it was trivial. However that didn't stop Hillary from getting absolutely clobbered for it.

[leftofcool]

209. Or the speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs

What a crock of dodo that was.

[stevenleser]

284. They were triggered by the combo of the black President potentially being succeeded by a female

President.

That was too much consecutive time for someone that looked like them to not be in charge.

[Sherman A1]

246. Agreed

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[edhopper]

11. So if she wasn't Barak Obama

she was a bad candidate. Her husband , a good politician, only won because of the Perot vote and didn't get 50% of the vote.

She won by a much bigger margin than Gore.

What imagined great politician was she suppose to be?

[EffieBlack]

43. My personal favorite: "Yes, but she was a FLAWED candidate."

Seeing as how all previous candidates were flawless, aka, without flaw, i.e., perfect ...

I wonder which, if any, of our previous candidates could have managed to pull out a majority of votes (by more than 3 million) had THEY had to grapple with an astoundingly biased media, a shameless, no-holds-barred opponent, rampant and targeted voter suppression in the first election in 50 years without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act, an all-out attack on our voting systems by a hostile foreign government, and the other obstacles that Hillary faced and almost overcame.

I call bullshit.

[spooky3]

122. +1

[edhopper]

125. But running against the most FLAWED man

to ever run for President doesn't resonate with those same folk who say this.

[MadDAsHell]

148. If the job was to beat Donald Trump, then she was a bad candidate.

It doesn’t matter how good of a person she is. It doesn’t matter that she won the popular vote by 3m votes.

She was campaigning for what, a single electoral vote in a small section of Nebraska while The Orange Turd was campaigning in Wisconsin.

None of these was the job.

The job was to beat Drumpf in the states that would swing the election. She failed at that job. Period.

We either want to win or we don’t. This obsession with defending losing candidates seems like it’s setting us up to pick another.

[EffieBlack]

155. SHE didn't fail

There wasn't a damned thing more she could have done to stop the election from being stolen from her.

There IS plenty that WE - as in Democratic voters - could have done, but too many of us failed her, our fellow Democrats and the country - and still try to put all the blame on Hillary.

Bullshit.

[MadDAsHell]

173. Yet you've admitted that nearly 66,000,000 of us put her over the top by 3m+ votes.

Sure as hell sounds as if we did our part.

[calimary]

201. Totally with you on that, Effie.

I could say a lot more. But that battle has become tiresome.

[Cha]

238. Those who have an Agenda insist it's all Hillary's

fault. It's as transparent as fucking GLASS.

[edhopper]

178. He job apparantly

was to beat Trump, AND the Russians, AND the Media, And the GOP Voter Suppression And the fact she is a woman....

[Cha]

237. The Election was Stolen from us, genius.

Hillary couldn't control the fucking Russians.. although she was the one who Warned us about them.

[StevieM]

360. She ran a good enough campaign to win a decisive victory had it not been for Comey's intervention.

She campaigned in Nebraska's 2nd district, along with many other states. And I believe NE-2 was +2 for Trump, while the national map was +2 for Clinton. So it was worth pursuing. She did better there than in North Carolina, certainly a battleground state, and also a place where she was consistently ahead until Comey torpedoed her.

Also, her efforts in the Omaha area were part of an effort in Iowa, part of which is in the Omaha media market.

As for Wisconsin, she spent more money there and had a larger organization than Barack Obama in 2012. She didn't schedule campaign stops because she was way up in the polls. At the end of the race, when Comey's actions made Trump think he could win, the first thing he did was CANCEL an appearance in Wisconsin.

In any event, winning Wisconsin would not have gotten her a victory in the national election. And there were never any circumstances under which she was going to lose Wisconsin while winning Pennsylvania or Florida and the loss in WI would prevent her from reaching 270. Her support collapsed at the very end to the point where she even lost WI and almost lost MN. That kind of collapse was always going to cost her PA, FL, NC and AZ.

I am worried that we will pick a candidate who feels the need to validate the talking points about 2016 and decides to ignore battle ground states like North Carolina and Arizona. And, yes, the 2nd District of Nebraska.

[Cha]

227. They WILL NEVER LET GO

of that "flawed candidate" Bullshit.

I wonder who was intent on making her "a flawed candidate"? Someone with a fucking agenda?

[Cosmocat]

24. Completely disagree

Her campaign was INFINITELY better than her opponents.

EVERY campaign makes mistakes, heck, BHO made mistakes, her husband made mistakes.

She had a professionally run campaign, had very few REAL gaffes and she worked at it hard enough to win.

THE problem is the DEFCON 1 level stupid in this country.

[exboyfil]

58. Never went to Wisconsin

I have to think that was a major blunder.

[bettyellen]

98. Her appearance there was cancelled- do you know why? No one talks about that...

Or the polls. Wisconsin became the new “likability “ buzzword that was spoon fed to people.

[edhopper]

100. And the vote still would have been suppressed

she held a massive rally in PA the night before the election, If personal appearances mattered, why didn't she win PA?

[StevieM]

135. And the first thing Trump did after Comey reopened the investigation was CANCEL an appearance

in Wisconsin. Once he thought he had a slight chance of winning, he immediately put Wisconsin aside, since she was way up in the polls.

HRC had a larger ground operation in Wisconsin than Barack Obama had in 2012. And she spent more money in advertisements in WI than Obama in 2012. Those are much more important than campaign stops.

[TheRealNorth]

145. She took the Midwest for granted

I wouldn't call her a bad candidate, but she made some big mistakes. Largely ignoring the Upper Midwest was #1 In my mind. It reinforced Trump's narrative. Furthermore, statewide wins by Republicans in MI and WI should have keyed her in that those states were not "In the bag", especially considering the Voter ID and other restrictions that make it harder to vote that went into effect after 2012.

I was worried when she put her focus on flipping Republican-leaning woman. A lot of them are married to Republican men and are going to vote lockstep if for no other reason to not have to hear their men bitch about Hillary for the next 4 years.

[elleng]

177. Yes

[Cha]

257. And, Hillary stills Beats BS in this 2020 Presidential Poll And

she isn't even Running!

Biden leads 2020 Dem field in new poll

Almost one-third of registered Democratic voters back former Vice President Joe Biden for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, making him the front-runner in a new poll provided exclusively to The Hill.

Biden is the clear leader in Harvard CAPS/Harris’s June poll with support from 32 percent of Democrats polled. Hillary Clinton, the party’s 2016 nominee, finished second with 18 percent of the vote, while her 2016 primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), sits in third with 16 percent.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/394388-biden-leads-2020-dem-field-in-new-poll

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

203. I think that's a fair way to look at it.

[StevieM]

295. She spent more money in advertising, and had larger ground operations, in WI and MI than Obama did

in 2012. And she did make campaign stops in Michigan.

When Comey intervened at the end, and Trump finally thought he could win, the first thing he did was cancel a scheduled appearance in Wisconsin.

Besides, winning WI and MI would not have gotten her the election. And there were no circumstances under which she was going to lose those states while winning FL or PA.

She lost because Comey turned that race upside down in the final 11 days. If you take out the Comey intervention she would have won decisively. On the other hand, making more campaign stops in WI and MI would have done nothing to change the outcome.

[betsuni]

300. +1

[edhopper]

301. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

306. Hillary admitted as much... woulda, coulda, shoulda.

[BlueMTexpat]

124. +1! eom

[MadDAsHell]

147. Well if you're not running to win the votes of voters, why are you running?

If you’re saying voters were too stupid to vote for her, then I’d ask whose votes exactly was she campaigning to get? The voters are the voters, whether the candidate likes them or not.

[unblock]

35. the argument seems to be any candidate that lost is by definition a bad candidate.

and the proof seems to be if they weren't a bad candidate they would have won.

that makes the concept of a "bad candidate" pretty useless. just say she lost, you're not being more descriptive or informative than that.

for *any* candidate that loses, it's always possible, by definition, to point to this or that thing that could have been done differently.


hillary was the most qualified candidate possibly ever, she was ahead in the polls everyday of the entire campaign (except a few right-leaning polls a few days of the campaign) she got boosts in the polls after the debates and a boost in the polls after the convention. she made relatively few gaffes and they were objectively minor.

none of this looks remotely like a "bad candidate".

fine, armchair quarterback and say she should have done x, y, or z differently. we can ignore that the other side was cheating and quite likely would have adjusted and cheated differently had hillary done anything different, but whatever, no one's saying she was a perfect candidate, it's always possible to find a flaw, so whatever, her campaign could have been improved.


this in no way makes her a bad candidate. she was a good candidate who ran against a wild card opponent who committed campaign crimes and worked with others to commit more campaign crimes and for whom the media did everything they could to help and she got burned by a last-minute smear job.

i would argue that with all those obstacles thrown at her, she must have been a great candidate to have done as well as she did. most candidates wouldn't even have had a chance if the media was giving 80% of the coverage to their opponent, and 80% of the rest was about fabricated scandals.

[lunamagica]

47. Great post! I ompletely agree

[The_Counsel]

97. #this

.

[thucythucy]

107. Thank you--

absolutely what needs to be said and said again.

[uponit7771]

109. Do you have to reply with all those facts? /Sarcasm

[unblock]

111. sometimes i take a break from just posting snark

[EffieBlack]

156. Thank you.

[Wellstone ruled]

160. As someone who worked the Phones and Door Knocked in the Last month,

here is my on the ground take. First,when phone calling into the Mid West,the feed back seemed to be super positive up two weeks before Election day. It went totally to hell the day Comey dropped that f--n letter. While calling into Ohio that late afternoon,things filliped 180 degrees,same for Wisconsin the next day and even locally,we were seeing a hate filled shift with the feedback from our door knockers.

That is my assessment of how the Manure hit the fan,and Comey has said he screwed up in order to save his ego.

[NastyRiffraff]

174. ++++++++

Great post. I agree on all counts.

EVERY candidate, especially those who lose, hold a post-election post-mortem. Every single one finds things he/she could have/should have done differently. NO campaign is perfect; too many things can go wrong. In addition:

In 2016, a U.S. election was stolen by Russians, using numerous methods: social media influence, dark money, even outright election machine hacking. It wasn't the only factor, but it was a MAJOR one. Even people who insist Hillary was a "bad candidate" admit this; at least the sane ones do. In addition to Russia, we had the Comey clusterfuck, and of course, rank stupidity by some so-called progressives who withheld their votes because their fee-fees were hurt.

Yeah, I'm still angry.

[Cha]

231. WELL DONE, unblock! A BLAST of REALITY for

what's his name.. and all the others who are insisting Hillary "was a bad candidate".

[LanternWaste]

41. Quite the allegation.

"By making strategic errors, she..."

Then support the duality of the two in tandem with objective evidence supporting your premise rather than simplistic allegation and guess-work.

[brooklynite]

112. The strategic errors were presented to me by two State Party Chairs...

Clinton's campaign team assumed that an Obama voter would vote for her. They didn't do early canvassing to confirm that; instead they focused a lot of attention on voter registration, which has a very low return rate for staff and volunteer time.

They also made major TV ad buys with non-localized messages about Trump. A lot of people agreed that Trump was bad, and voted for him anyway. There wasn't a comprehensive campaign to promote a positive Clinton message.

Reality sucks.

[Agschmid]

57. Yup.

[uponit7771]

106. What ... FACTUAL...strategic errors?

[brooklynite]

255. ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10927155

[Cha]

228. Oh and Bullshit. brooklynite.. there were other

fucking issues that you're Not taking into account..

Voter Suppression, comey, Cambridge Analytica, the FUCKING M$$$$$M..

Hillary was a great candidate. She won the Popular Vote genius.. I Reject your analysis.

[brooklynite]

254. Agreed, BUT...

In the same way that Bush v. Gore would have had no impact IF Gore had won any of the ten State Clinton won and he lost, the Russian interference would have had no impact if Clinton had worked harder for the OH/MI/WI/PA votes, rather than assume they were safe because Obama won them.

[edhopper]

261. Hillary had a massive rally in PA

the night before the election. She was in Ohio 17 times and Florida around 30.
She did not go to WI, But Bernie, Kaine and Chelsea were.
What she didn't do is somehow stop Russian interference and voter suppression. (though How she should have done this, I don't know)

[brooklynite]

267. Rallies are inconsequential except for revving up voters you already have

Bottom line: most voters DON'T go to rallies, or go to see candidates at all. They have to be approached one-on-one by campaign volunteers.

I was working in Cleveland the week before the election, and the voter lists I was given -- which were supposed to be down to only committed voters -- were the messiest things I've ever come across, and the campaign office seemed clueless to the problem.

Forget about Trump's turnout: Clinton got 25,000 fewer votes in Pennsylvania than Barack Obama did, and 100,000 fewer votes than Josh Shapiro, the newly elected Democratic Attorney General.

[edhopper]

268. But I constantly hear

she lost WI because she didn't go there.

[EffieBlack]

270. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, right? nt

[edhopper]

272. Hell yes

"Why couldn't she overcome the Russians, Comey, the Media and Voter Suppression and do everything exactly right?"

"She should have known 3 million votes were not enough!!"

[MadDAsHell]

362. Getting a smaller % of the female vote than President Obama's didn't help...

certainly didn’t help.

When I realized the first female nominee ever was actually going to get a smaller percentage of female’s votes than the 44th consecutive male President did, I knew we were fucked.

[Cha]

363. And, yet this Female is Beating BS in a 2020 Presidential Poll

NOW in 2018 and she is NOT Even Running.

Biden leads 2020 Dem field in new poll

Almost one-third of registered Democratic voters back former Vice President Joe Biden for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, making him the front-runner in a new poll provided exclusively to The Hill.

Biden is the clear leader in Harvard CAPS/Harris’s June poll with support from 32 percent of Democrats polled. Hillary Clinton, the party’s 2016 nominee, finished second with 18 percent of the vote, while her 2016 primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), sits in third with 16 percent.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/394388-biden-leads-2020-dem-field-in-new-poll

Black Women are Smarter.. As are Black Men


Black women, be proud. We did our part and we did it well

Polling Results Estimate 94 Percent Of Black Women Voters Chose Hillary Clinton

https://www.essence.com/news/politics/most-black-women-voted-for-hillary-clinton

They knew/know what's at stake.. There's no accounting for the stupidity of trump voters who were ok with a pervert and a racist.

[edhopper]

365. You blame her for white woman being idiots

for not seeing they are about to lose their rights?

They decided to vote for a sexual preditor instead of her. That is on them.

She did everything to tell them what they were facing.

[EffieBlack]

366. When certain candidates lose, it's everyone else's fault but theirs

His opponent, the voters, the DNC, the media, John Lewis, etc. were all to blame. But when Hillary loses, it's ALL her fault.

Got it?

[edhopper]

369. Thanks for clearing that up

[MadDAsHell]

373. I'm not suggesting that at all. But am suggesting that a 1%er doesn't need us peons defending her.

The fact that so many DUers spend their days handwringing over Hillary Clinton’s reputation is ridiculous.

She’s worth something like $50m. She has personal security, a myriad of personal consultants, and literally can make a many-millions-a-year living just showing up to stuff. She doesn’t need us peasants fretting over her. In fact, it’d probably amuse her that we are.

[edhopper]

374. It's more like setting the record straight on why

she is not President.
To not blame her "bad candidacy", or credit Trump.

[Pacifist Patriot]

8. Like nails on a blackboard to me.

Too many people seem to ignore the fact that anyone running against Trump would be subject to both typical mud-slinging, ratf*cking, and Russian interference. That she won the popular vote indicates she was indeed an excellent candidate. Her record hands down indicates she would have been an incredible president.

[bitterross]

10. So, stop bringing it up.

You are going to get responses on why she was a bad candidate every time you bring it up. Then that gives the Russian bots/trolls and GOP trolls another post to which they can link on a Democratic site. Where they can say "See, even the libtards say she was a bad candidate."

On Edit: It also does very little good at this point to even discuss that subject. "I told you so" is never a good mantra.

[edhopper]

14. The more info that comes up

Last edited Thu Jul 26, 2018, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)

that the election was stolen. The more we should shout she was the legitimate winner.

I will not stop bringing it up.

Fuck the Russian bots and GOP Trolls.

[lunamagica]

52. Exactly. Let's keep bringing it up. Don't let anyone silence you

Last edited Thu Jul 26, 2018, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

[lunamagica]

50. The truth must be screamed from the rooftops.

Oh, and I hope Russian bots/trolls and GOP trolls are lining to this great thread.

[Cha]

233. Can you Believe that

merde, Luna?!

We're suppose to be quiet about REALITY.. 'cause.. wait for it..

Russian BOTS! FUCK U Russian BOTS

[lunamagica]

280. It is baffling, Cha. But we will NOT be silenced!

[Cha]

288. they just can't handle that

Hillary actually Won.. some are in deep denial.. doesn't fit their agenda.

Too bad.. we knew it!

[Cha]

232. So sez you, bitterross.. We'll Bloody Well Discuss whatever

the hell we want and NOT care about the Fucking Russian BOTS.. or anyone who tells us What to Do.

[bitterross]

260. Fine. Dwell in the past.

It's so productive.

[Cha]

263. JHC.. NO one is "dwelling".. we're having

a fucking conversation about the Reality of the 2016 Russian Rigging in of Donald fucking trump.

[bitterross]

265. Discuss the Russian ATTACK on us all you wish. It should be shouted from the hills.

I just believe that bringing up the "Hillary was a bad candidate" meme as part of the discussion is unproductive.

She was the most qualified, most ready to handle the job candidate. However, bringing it up opens the door for people who will say that regardless of the Russian attack she was "bad candidate" because so many people hate her for being her. They have a decent argument there.

[Cha]

266. Millions of People LOVE Hillary! She's in 2nd Place in this 2020 Presidential POll

and, she's Not even Running.

Biden leads 2020 Dem field in new poll

Almost one-third of registered Democratic voters back former Vice President Joe Biden for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, making him the front-runner in a new poll provided exclusively to The Hill.

Biden is the clear leader in Harvard CAPS/Harris’s June poll with support from 32 percent of Democrats polled. Hillary Clinton, the party’s 2016 nominee, finished second with 18 percent of the vote, while her 2016 primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), sits in third with 16 percent.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/394388-biden-leads-2020-dem-field-in-new-poll

[Wounded Bear]

12. I put it to rest two years ago, and generally ignore those who say otherwise...nt

[BootinUp]

13. Obviously, you can not. lol. nt

[edhopper]

16. I can't put to rest that people ignore what happen

and continue to say this.

[DrDan]

17. thanks for deciding that for us . . .

winning by 3 million votes is not enough . . . winning a majority of electorals is

[edhopper]

20. And winning by 3 million votes,

losing in 3 States with heavy voter suppression and Russian interference by 40,000 votes doesn't bother you?

Got it.

[DrDan]

36. don't put words in my mouth, please

[edhopper]

44. Then I don't know

what you meant.

[aikoaiko]

131. I don't bring this topic up, but she...

.. she did have known electability issues (whatever their origins).

Here’s the thing, DU was already talking about bots and crazy influence schemes long before Russia, but we expected them from the Kochs or Mercers of the country.

That it was Russia makes this an international attack and escalates the matter. Russia needs to be punished

[Chemisse]

18. I've always thought she did a very good job running for president.

Her biggest weakness was not of her own making, a decades-long dislike of her - and Bill - that was thoroughly exploited by the GOP.

That said, she still would have won, if not for outside factors (Comey's actions and the Russian interference).

[Cosmocat]

26. Agreed

with all points ...

[StevieM]

129. If you eliminate Comey and the FBI from the election she would have won in a landslide. (eom)

[pandr32]

142. Cultivated and then exploited

The Clintons have been victims of a right-wing agenda. They are genuinely committed to doing the best they can and are qualified and prepared to do so. The right-wing can't have that.

[Orsino]

19. Great candidate unfortunately dragging thirty years of wingnut mythology behind her.

The second-biggest vote-getter of all time should not be termed a "bad candidate." That's bullshit.

[NurseJackie]

21. There is only one type of person who continues to make that claim.

Can we put it to rest that Hillary was a "bad candidate"

There is only one type of person who continues to make that claim. And when they do, they lose ALL credibility (and respect) in my book. It's the Sarandons of the world (and her apologists and defenders) as well as the JPR types who left (and who trickle back) and a few other stealthy types who use coded language, or who tell lies about the Democratic party.

All I'm saying is, those people do great harm to the party and to our country with their lies and excuses, and the lies should be called out whenever we hear them.

[brush]

71. YES. YES. YES.

[thucythucy]

113. Well, a very dear friend of mine

and progressive to the core gave me the "Hillary was a bad candidate" line just this past weekend.

We had an argument about it, but she went away unconvinced. It breaks my heart when I think about it.

I'm putting together an e-mail to see if I can't change her mind, but I'm not optimistic.

The anti-Hillary bias has permeated every facet of our political culture.

It's a crying shame.

[edhopper]

120. This is why

I can't "let it go", as some here want.

[thucythucy]

218. I hear you.

And I was a Bernie supporter during the primary. But there's not a doubt in my mind that Hillary was cheated big time, and she would have made an excellent, maybe even a great president.

This country is too fast to "let it go" on a whole variety of issues. This is definitely one of them.

[SusanaMontana41]

243. Sanders volunteer and Clinton voter.

I’d do it again in a heartbeat.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

309. Me too!!

[pecosbob]

23. As long as we can put it to rest that it was the "radical left" that cause the loss

More than a million voters were purged from voter rolls in swing states. Candidates mentioning those scary words "single-payer" or "living wage" did not cause hordes of americans to vote for Gump.

[PDittie]

176. +1

[Whiskeytide]

27. She was not a bad candidate ...

... for democrats. She’s a great democrat.

But I think there is some truth to the argument that she did galvanize the opposition. She is so despised by republican politicians and voters - and that is precisely BECAUSE of her history as an effective and outspoken democrat.

It pisses me off. Still. Their base came out in lockstep. Ours was fractured to an extent. Add the internal, foreign and MSM disinformation campaign - that worked on the independent middle - and the result is Trump.

[edhopper]

29. She would never get the GOP voters

but the nonthinking independent voters were a problem.

[Whiskeytide]

55. That's true...

... she could never get those voters. But they also came out against her in greater numbers than anyone predicted. I saw news reports about new voter registration in Alabama in the run up to the election. It was way up. But if you looked carefully at the counties where it was highest, there is no way those were people registering to vote FOR HRC, or for any Democrat. It was Shelby, Baldwin, Autauga - the deep, DEEP red strongholds.

I don't really know what was happening elsewhere in the country down to the county registration levels - and no one was really paying attention to Alabama since it was never considered anything but a Trump win. But it was scary lopsided.

I do think a lot of that uptick was previously a-political, racist assholes getting on the Trump train, but it was also pushed by a strong anti Hillary sentiment. Christ, they HATE her. It's irrational and visceral, but it's real in these parts.

[Paladin]

30. She was such a great candidate, we failed to work hard enough for her.

So many of us (me included) made the fatal assumption that the presidency was Hillary's for the asking, and that this country would never dream of letting a fuckhead like trump win. And look what happened.

Hillary didn't fail us---we failed Hillary.

[Hoyt]

127. Lot of truth in that, as painful as it is. It was a political "Perfect Storm."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

31. I don't even remember anything that she particularly did wrong

in terms of the debates, her public comments, policy positions, etc. I don't remember any memorable "gaffes". I remember that her "deplorables" comments were somewhat criticized but it seemed like most people understood whom she was really talking about and some criticism of her campaign strategy (not spending more time in the midwest) but, in general, I thought that she ran a safe campaign.

[EffieBlack]

32. Please!

And thank you!

[gollygee]

33. She was better than most candidates we've had

IMO as soon as it's a woman candidate, we shift to a false dichotomy - the candidate is either perfect or horrible.

[qazplm135]

40. she was neither

she was solid, but made some poor choices that were used against her.

Fewer poor choices, she wins.
Extraordinary charisma/campaigning, she wins.
No Russian interference, she wins.

Unfortunately, it was the perfect storm of 1 and 3 and a lack of 2.

[MrsCoffee]

67. Why perpetuate myths?

We should not be perpetuating myths that she made poor choices or didn't run an outstanding campaign. It's not true and it just plays into all the ridiculous propaganda created by right wing hate machines.

She was exemplary. The election was stolen. Every investigation has said so. No man has ever had the bar raised so high. Hell, people still claim Bernie was a winner while talking Hillary down. It's insulting to say the least.

[qazplm135]

85. Because they aren't myths??

She made poor choices and she ran a good but not great campaign.

And the Russians interfered to help Trump in key states.

Both can be true.

And I never liked Bernie, don't think he would have won in 16 and don't think he could beat Trump in 20 either. I was always Team Hillary from the start of the campaign for 16. I was Team Obama in 08.

[uponit7771]

117. People are continuing to make conclusions without facts the back on

Few people are also listening to the notion that Clinton made enough mistakes to lose against Trump relative to what she was against

[R B Garr]

133. In light of the facts that have come out, it is indeed a myth to blame

Hillary for the willful actions of others. No campaign is perfect, but there is always a winner. That isn't the point, but it's obvious you are invested in denying reality about the current news. She could have also been more aggressive in defending herself against both of her male opponents, both of whom were helped by the Russians. Seriously, it is a losing battle to keep blaming Hillary for the willful harm caused by others.

[qazplm135]

149. I didn't "blame" anyone for anything

I laid out some truths, some due to her actions, some due to others, but I ultimately did nothing to "blame" her. I am not angry at her, I am not looking for penance from her.

[R B Garr]

172. Its a very recognizable pattern--disregard what is

right in front of you to favor a highly promoted but now completely disproven attack on her that she was not a good candidate. That’s what the OP is all about. That attack has been proven wrong, she was a winning candidate.

[qazplm135]

202. she was a decent candidate

who would have made a phenomenal President, whose mistakes directly filled in the worst prejudices about her.

Yes or no, Obama blows Trump away...even with Russia helping him?

The clear answer is, yes.

[edhopper]

205. You are comparing her

to the best politician in a generation. Isn't that a mighty high bar?

She is either Obama or a bad candidate?

[R B Garr]

206. Obama is in a class of his own. Gore would have been

a great President. He also got treated to this same hyper-criticism that really needs to be called out now. This endless denial of the facts before us is just not going to be tolerated anymore.

Look at the lies told by Nader, the lies told by Jill Stein, the continual absolute refusal to accept that the facts coming out completely refute the fantasies of those who cannot accept that she was just fine. A popular vote winner second to Obama. I notice you gloss over that fact.

[maddiemom]

140. I worked hard for Hillary, after I voted for Bernie in the primary (PA, btw).

I can only shudder to imagine the artillery the Repugs would have rolled out against Bernie had he been the nominee.

[uponit7771]

115. She didn't make enough for choices to lose, that's not factual

[StevieM]

134. I disagree. The race was not winnable. James Comey made sure of that.

No amount of campaigning in different states was going to change the outcome of the election. If she couldn't win FL and PA then she couldn't win the electoral college.

Had it not been for Comey she would have won in a historic landslide.

[qazplm135]

151. If not Comey

she would have won roughly by about as much as Trump one in the EC. Not a landslide but a solid win.

Comey made enough of an impact to turn things no doubt, but it wouldn't have been a "historic landslide."

[StevieM]

154. I don't agree at all. If you take out Comey from the race, from start to finish, then you eliminate

the entire bogus FBI investigation. And the July press conference. And the October intervention.

Without those things she wins in a historic landslide.

If you simply eliminate the October Surprise then she wins by at least 6 points, with 333 electoral votes. That includes wins in FL, NC, AZ, PA, WI and MI. It is possible that Trump does something stupid in the final week--he was really restraining himself after the Comey intervention--and the margin becomes wider.

[qazplm135]

164. no you don't

the investigation into her use of a private server still happens, you probably don't have the grandstanding press conference by Comey or the re-opening later...I say probably, because Comey re-opened based on fears that FBI agents were going to leak it anyways.

So, instead of a re-opening being publicly announced, you have leaks and rumors instead. Maybe better, I don't know.

But you still have Benghazi, racism, sexism, Russian interference, and a small group of far left folks plus a generational obsession with Hillary by a certain group of folks. That would have kept it from being a historic win IMO.

[mcar]

138. What poor choices?

And feh on the charisma nonsense. That is media/Republican driven. I worked several Hillary rallies. She was warm and charming.

[qazplm135]

150. it's not nonsense

and ALL campaigns are "media driven." That's the challenge she faced.

And what poor choices? Seriously? Come on.

[mcar]

159. Seriously

Come on. You made the claim.

[qazplm135]

162. wow

so voting for the Iraq war, private server, making speeches to corporations in an anti-corporation environment?

Those were all great choices to you?

Got it.

[kcr]

281. The Iraq war is the only one you've got

All the rest is bullshit made up and flung at her repeatedly by either the right wing media or seriously what anti-corporation environment? Please, tell me where this fantasy land exists because I want to go there. Is that the one where Bernie constantly supported and shilled for gun manufacturers? Or the one where he protected them by attacking immigration?

[betsuni]

296. Anti-corporation environment?

I thought the economy is the most important thing. Don't people need jobs? The more Democrats elected, the more business and finance are regulated and worker rights protected.

Hillary has explained her Iraq vote, that she had had conversations with Bush about things before and he had been honest with her. She had to decide if she could trust him again. It was the hardest vote she even made, she said. This situation is not difficult to understand. I'm sure the Senators, like Bernie Sanders, who voted for the 1994 Crime Bill have regrets because of how things turned out. You have to make these difficult decisions. That's what politics is about.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

308. Fair summary... still infinitely better than the Traitor-in-Chief.

[NewJeffCT]

34. if Bernie had won the primaries

The Russians would have come up with a ton of BS about Sanders, and with Trump's ability to drive the news cycle, Bernie would have been in the same situation as Clinton. Coupled with his inability to turn out minority voters, it likely would have left him worse off for the General Election. Maybe he wins more rural votes in PA, WI and MI, but at the cost of losing even more in Philly, Milwaukee and Detroit.
Not to mention Minneapolis, where Minnesota was a narrow Clinton win.

[EffieBlack]

271. Exactly!

People seem to think that if Hillary had changed one thing in her race or one other thing in the race had changed, everything else would have stayed exactly the same and changing that one thing would have brought us the votes we needed to beat Trump. They totally ignore the fact that campaigns are dynamic creatures and if one thing changes on one side, other things change and adjust on the other. If Bernie had won the primaries, this would have been a different campaign and the Republicans would have run against him very differently than they ran against Hillary.

And the GOP would have eaten Bernie's lunch and then sent him home. He would have been pretty much done for by August. And if he was still standing in November, his inability to energize anyone beyond his very narrow base, his propensity for gaffes, his unwillingness to learn from his mistakes and his lack of depth on many issues would have turned the results into a bloodbath.

[edhopper]

273. Bernie also

could not stop voter suppression, which was enough for Trump to take WI and MI.

[uponit7771]

283. +1

[qazplm135]

37. I was Team Hillary all the way

but she makes bad choices from a political perspective because she seems to be just a step behind the public.

1. Votes for Iraq War because she think it will make her look tough, gets beaten effectively over that vote by Obama. Think about it, if she simply votes no, she wins the 2008 nomination and the election, and we are probably looking at Obama as President right now after 8 years of Hillary (which sounds like heaven).

2. Gets a private server because she fears that her government emails will be be poured over...which comes back to bite her.

3. I'd argue she never should have accepted the SOS job. Any negative foreign policy occurrence was going to be tossed at her feet, which is exactly what happened.

4. Gave all those corporate speeches. She again didn't read the room on how unpopular they would be. She didn't do anything wrong here either, but the perception killed her.

She is a competent candidate, but not a great one (she'd have been a great President)...but the own goals dragged her down and fed into the worse caricatures of her on the left and right.

As someone else said, it can be both. She can have made some poor choices AND have been screwed over.

[FakeNoose]

61. Good analysis but you left one out

5. Bill was her albatross. It's unfortunate and unfair, but we all know the reasons why. I loved Bill Clinton as President ... until Monica Lewinsky happened and it all went away. As much as he tried to help Hillary campaigning and raising money, a lot of the negative votes were votes against him. As in "I never want to see Bill Clinton in the White House again!" votes.

It's unfair to Hillary, but that's what people were saying. Not so much for-Trump as against-Clinton. My disclaimer is that I have always loved Hillary as a candidate and I joined the Democratic Party in 2008, just so I could vote for her in the primary. It breaks my heart what happened to her in 2016.

I agree with your last line: It can be both. She did make poor choices and she was screwed over.

[BeyondGeography]

163. +1

There was a certain insularity to her decision making that failed her repeatedly.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

357. #2 sunk us. Unforced error.

[edhopper]

364. Compared to baggage of other candidates

the Email thing was small potatoes. Kept alive by a currupt GOP and a willing Media that needed a "both sides" every time another Trump scandal errupted.

She did the same thing here two predecessors did.

If Comey had kept his mouth shut, itwould not have been an issue at the end.

Where is th scandal that Trump uses an unencripted cell phone?

To criticize her for not being perfect is too high a standard for anyone.

[EffieBlack]

367. If it weren't the server, they'd have found something else to blow out of proportion

[edhopper]

370. exactly

look at the crap they made out of Benghazi.

[honest.abe]

38. Yes, agree she was a great candidate however she had some campaign issues and she would admit it.

-- She wasnt especially charismatic like BO or her husband. That affected some voters.
-- She didnt fight back hard enough or smart enough on the email non-sense.
-- She took for granted, somewhat, some key states that are traditionally blue.

However, the key issues that ultimately decided the race were out of her control:

-- Bitter Bernie or bust progressives refusing to vote or voting third party
-- Comey's last minute announcement about reopening the email case against Hillary
-- Russian interference in the election

I think if any one of those items above did not happen she would have won.

[exboyfil]

64. She could have controlled the email controversy

by not having a single account for her personal and non-classified government emails. There is no rational justification for this given the Records Retention Act (and a host of other problems that it would spawn).

[edhopper]

69. Her predecessers did the same

Trump uses an unencrypted phone.

It was always a double standard for her.

The emails was a non-story, perpetuated by the RW, like Benghazi.

[rzemanfl]

73. Bookmarking. n/t

[honest.abe]

83. Hindsight, clearly it was a poor decision but I think I understand why she did it.

I think it was all about convenience, efficiency and control. I might have done the same.

[unblock]

101. the fact that it's not a real scandal should is a clue to why this wouldn't have worked.

they would have just found another reason to have 9 investigations.

no one can dot every 'i' and cross every 't'. there's always something they could find where she didn't follow the exact protocol. especially easy when you use today's protocol to evaluate yesterday's actions.

look at benghazi, another fake scandal. they've been running fake scandals against hillary for a quarter-century.

she could have not had anyone in the white house travel office fired, then there would have been no travelgate. except they would have then just made a scandal out of the next person she had fired or hired or promoted.


you can critique how to manage the fake scandals, but not how to avoid them entirely. realistically, that's was never an option for hillary, and isn't an option for most democrats in general.

[edhopper]

116. It's like the Clinton Foundation

they met with wealthy people and heads of States to fund good works and help millions.

But the GOP with the Media's help turn that into a scandal, while the GOP candidate is in thrall to the Russian Mob.

[unblock]

136. exactly.

even her overtly good works they twist into a scandal.

meanwhile donnie and family blatantly use their "charities" as tax-evasion personal slush funds and this gets mentioned in the media but, ok, meh, whatever. that kind of flagrant career-ending criminality that would get a democrat impeached and incarcerated quickly. but with donnie it's just another thing to admire and wow at how he gets away with it. what a powerful smart man he must be, golly gee.

[uponit7771]

123. Thank you

[EffieBlack]

371. Beautifully said

[uponit7771]

118. This statement isn't even close to reality, there are GOP Senators with private email accounts

... as we speak that was a red herring and government money spent to lower her approval ratings by the a GOP

[edhopper]

121. Where are the Congressional investigations

into Trump using an unencrypted sell phone?

[Autumn]

356. All Democrats are held to a higher standard than Republicans.

Republicans will protect their politicians for doing wrong. Democrats won't. Jim Jordan will be Speaker of the House. A few Democrats took out Al Franken.

Michelle was attacked for her bare arms. Melanies nude photos are art.

[EffieBlack]

372. Funny how her server was the ONLY one not hacked

The only reason we know what was in her emails is because she turned them over.

[uponit7771]

375. +1

[mcar]

39. Yes we can

She was a good candidate and a highly qualified nominee.

Even with Russia, the media, Comey, and the Republican machine against her, she won the popular vote and came very close to winning it all.

[ananda]

42. Absolutely! In a free and fair election ..

.. Clinton would have won handily.

[KPN]

45. What's the purpose of this OP other than to rile things up?

[edhopper]

48. The purpose

is to put the rest that Hillary lost a fair election and that she didn't do this or that to win.
The purpose is to realize the story is Trump is not a legitimate President.

[KPN]

53. Does anyone disagree with that here? I don't know that I've seen any argument to the contrary.

[edhopper]

63. some on this thread do

and I run into it constantly on other forums.

[Dream Girl]

223. How does this post put anything to rest?

[edhopper]

250. It obviously doesn't

but it was a rhetorical question, meant to counter the "bad candidate" meme she has been tagged with.

[Justice]

46. Yes. Never thought it was correct.

[PatrickforO]

49. I agree.

Clinton should definitely be in the WH.

The only, and I mean the ONLY good thing about the illegal election of Trump is that many, many of the independent voters that leaned Republican for one reason or another - suburban people mainly, are horrified by Trump and his treasonous, incompetent and utterly corrupt administration. More importantly to us, who admittedly are wonky about issues, all the Republican policy stances we've been warning about for years are now in place, right out there for everyone to see.

My point here is that we've been pointing out for years how immoral and economically disastrous many of these things are - things like repealing the ACA, cuts to Social Security, failing to expand Medicaid, rolling back environmental and financial regulations - all the crap the Republicans talk about endlessly. Now, people who laughed all that off and voted red and not blue are seeing the fruits of that and rethinking things.

I posted the other day about my brother-in-law, a die hard Republican who owns a small wholesale firm in one of the southern states. Last time I spoke to him on the phone, he said he is horrified by Trump. He liked some of his policies, he told me, and voted for him, but because he is so 'in your face' with his corruption and racism and hate, and we're beginning to see the detrimental effects of rolling back all those regulations, leaving the Paris and Iran agreements, the trade war - he's just disgusted. He said, "I'm going to vote straight Democratic in November.

I suppose Trump is a bellwether. Many people have applauded and aided with their vote (or with their apathy) these Republican tendencies to more authoritarian and nationalist policies - the social engineering that is the precursor to fascism. Now that they see it happening, they are backing off, horrified.

Sure, the kluxers and the nazis love Trump. The third of our voting population that crawled from under their slimy rocks in response to Trump's call and now make up the stinking basket of deplorables - wearing their filthy swastikas and marching in our streets with their faces contorted with hatred. Everybody else, not so much.

The Trump 'presidency' shows everything evil about the Republican party - right up front and in your face. Bernie said the biggest threat is global warming, but that isn't really true. The biggest threat to the world IS the Republican party.

Check your registration every month to make sure you don't get purged and VOTE in November. They have lots of money. We have lots of votes, if we can get them out.

[mythology]

51. The Comey announcement and the media focus on her emails

Was entirely in her control. She decided to have an email server that the State Department Inspector General said she wouldn't have gotten permission for. That wasn't the system letting her down. That was her making a bad decision. And given her distinct drop in the polls after the announcement, that decision cost her the election.

[Afromania]

54. She was a troubled candidate, but only because the right waged a 25 year smear campaign against her.

[exboyfil]

60. She did make herself vulnerable though

The most insane thing was not having separate accounts for personal and government non-classified emails. Given the need to preserve government records, it is simply an insane thing to do. It opened the floodgate for a lot of problems and distractions.

[Afromania]

75. its funny how that only sticks to her tho.

how many others have we found out are using unsecured devices , servers, public email accounts for government business since then? Quite a few and not a peep about any of those.

None of them should be doing this stuff because it leads to all sorts of data loss. However, I honestly never want to hear anything else about Hillary and what she did. She paid her price, it's now time for everybody to go ahead and prosecute everybody else that has, or is doing the exact same thing.

[exboyfil]

79. That should be one of the first things the House does

if the Dems regain control. Email security was such an important issue in the 2016 election, we need to have a full examination of administration practices to ensure that the Records act is being followed and document security is taken seriously.

[Initech]

56. Can we just stop fighting about the 2016 election and move onto the next one?

PLEASE???? We don't want Russia getting control of the House and Senate too or it really will be game over.

[edhopper]

66. Those who forget History...

no I do not want to "move on" I want to remember the truth and plan for the next time.
I want the Trump election to be remembered as illegitimate.

[Initech]

93. I was referring to the Hillary Vs Bernie fighting.

That's what we have to put behind us. We have to focus on future elections and making not only sure that we get out the vote hard, but that we have a clear party message that everyone can get behind. We also have to focus on future elections and strengthen our electoral system and IT infrastructure to prevent what happened in 2016 from happening again.

[edhopper]

96. Copy that

thanks for clarifying

[byronius]

59. I have always loved and respected Hillary. Never understood the meanness toward her.

She would have been Great. She is great.

[TryLogic]

62. The reoccurring debates about Hillary sure do get old.

We need to focus on Trump, the Russians, and the complicit Republicans who currently occupy congress.

Trump is mentally, emotionally, psychologically, and morally dysfunctional. He is most likely a criminal and possibly a traitor. We have very serious current issues to focus on.

[HopeAgain]

65. Can we put to rest the 2016 election?

Puleeeease?

[edhopper]

68. No

we should not move on.
We should not move on from a stolen election.
Just as we should not have moved on from the 2000 election.
Or war crimes.
or Financial corruption and crimes.
Or stolen Supreme Court seats.
And after 2020, we should not move on from the crimes of Trump and the GOP.

[HopeAgain]

77. Man do you just want a fight?

Context dude, the discussion of Hillary as a candidate should be let go...

[edhopper]

82. No

because the scenerio remains that she was a"bad candidate", instead of a stolen election.

I want this said every time I hear how Trump was able to win because he out campaigned Hillary.

[HopeAgain]

89. Sorry

Not sending love to a poorly run campaign by the wrong person at the wrong time. There is no remedy for a stolen election anyway, There are remedies for the election interference, gerrymandering and voter suppression. I'm going to look forward, you stare at the past fights all you want.

[edhopper]

92. And that is why I wrote this OP

because people want to perpetuate the "bad candidate" story.
So next time we will say we need a near perfect candidate that can win by 5 million votes.
I prefr to look at what nreally happened and stop blaming Hillary.

[iluvtennis]

70. It was always a convenient go to line for some in M$M who didn't want to acknowledge what a

shitshow Trump was/is. Instead they focused on superficial stuff like emails and Hillary not connecting with "ppl in the red states who felt unrepresented". All BS.

[cate94]

72. She was an excellent candidate.

She won. The GOP can’t win unless they are cheating. They cheated their asses off this time. They knew of Russian involvement and did not care. Party over country is their new motto.

[DownriverDem]

74. For Sure

Hillary would have made an excellent president. We have a two party system and as long as Bernie isn't a member of the Dem Party, I wish folks would stop talking about him as if he is. He should never have been allowed to run as a Dem. I know folks like his views (I do), but I think he and his supporters also played a part in turning folks off to Hillary. Unite folks. And that means the Democratic Party.

[Kentonio]

76. Nope

She's a super policy expert, and would probably have made a fine president, but she was a very poor candidate, as exhibited by how difficult all her national level campaigns were. From the loss to Obama to the near run thing against Sanders to the loss against Trump, she never had an easy ride at the national level because she doesn't have that TV communicable charismatic spark it takes. To be impressed by Hillary you usually have to spend the time to listen to Hillary, she is never likely to just grab your attention in seconds and make you go 'wow' in the way that Barack or Bill could. In the modern age that's a fatal flaw, no matter how much we might wish it wasn't.

[DownriverDem]

169. Yes

I disagree. We have a moron who knows nothing about policy. Hillary is what we needed to move the country progressively forward.

[Kentonio]

224. Compared to Trump?

Yes of course, 100%.

[progree]

81. The "third term" jinx -- it's very rare that the same party wins 3 presidential terms in a row

It seems that after 2 terms of anybody, people are antsy for change, including a change of presidential party. Anyway, Hillary would have been the 3rd Democratic presidential term in a row.

Exceptions -- when someone from the same party won a "3rd term":

1. Truman won the 1948 election after a number of terms of FDR
2. Bush I won a term after 2 terms of Reagan (think Willie Horton ad, Dukakis in the tank)
---on edit --
3. Per a news consortium counting all Florida votes, Gore won the electoral college in 2000 (as well as the popular vote by 500,000),

Presidents since 1932:
FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, BushI, Clinton, BushII, Obama, Putin

[edhopper]

86. But we know Gore won

[progree]

88. Yup, I'll edit my post n/t

[wryter2000]

84. Hell yes

[hurple]

87. YES!

[berni_mccoy]

90. As an ardent Bernie supporter here...

She was a good candidate. She was truly despised by Putin but there is no doubt that Putin still would have interfered to elect Trump regardless who the Democratic nominee was. This is evident from the timeline and the fact that Russia hacked the DNC systems as well as Hillary’s. I wonder what they had on Bernie should he had been the nominee given the connection between Tad Devine and Manafort.

[blue-wave]

91. This is still an issue for some?

OK attack away at me, but damn, we have midterms to win. It's time to get over it my friends. Instead of attacking the campaign of one of the greatest Democrats that ever lived, go out and work a precinct or a phone bank. Attend a rally or register some voters and donate if you can. DO SOMETHING POSITIVE!!!! What is all the sniping for? If you do nothing but attack Hillary and her people, we'll have at least 2 more years of tang head destroying our country.

[edhopper]

95. I don't think leaving the 2000 election behind helped us

I don't think blaming Hillary and looking for a near perfect cnaiate next time will help us.
I don't think seeing 2016 as anything but a stolen election will help us.
Continuing to look at elections as fair, and not addressing the rigging the GOP is doing will end in more defeat for us.

[marlakay]

94. I know Hillary can't just get it back if we can

Prove the truth but can she sue Trump or the republican party or the people who did this to her?

Its not about the money but the principle so people will think twice about stealing a election again.

[luvtheGWN]

99. She told the truth (especially about Trump being Putin's puppet)

and too damn many people refused to believe it.

Her emails were exploited by, not only the GOP, but also by the media.

Remember when she fainted at the 9/11 memorial service, and the GOP and the media all claimed she was probably seriously ill?

But most of all, she told the TRUTH.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

108. And, she was right about the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY, and we let them drown her out.

History will show the Clintons as one of Americas finest families. Akin to the Kennedys. The gop wants a Kennedy Family so bad, they'd cheat and lie about their resume and lives, to get one. Old St Ronnie was a blip.

[Gothmog]

102. Hillary Clinton was not a bad candidate

[drray23]

103. ah! but if she had gotten 90% of the votes they could not have swayed the election..

I am exaggerating a little but thats what some people have been arguing around here..
and yes, I do not believe it.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

105. She IS my president bc "I'M WITH HER".

This man is corroding us from within. As if corporate America needed more of an advantage, that they needed to cheat in a man who would continue to pile on the perks for them. Christ Almighty. We are a nation of people and laws, not corporate rights.

[randr]

110. We could agree that Hillary was

portrayed as a bad candidate by every fake news organization.
If she would have made a bad president is not in dispute.

[McCamy Taylor]

114. Putin is a BAD MAN. He hates Clinton for objecting to ethnic cleansing in Serbia

and Bosnia in the 1990s. The 2008 campaign to make her work in that region seem trivial probably originated in Russia.

Objecting to ethnic cleansing does not make Clinton bad. It makes the ethnic cleaners bad. Dems are not obligated to pick candidates that will not annoy genocidal tyrants.

[ancianita]

119. It was never a question for me. I never entertained the possibility that she was.

[RedSpartan]

126. Hillary would have been an outstanding President.

Of that I have no doubt. But she is, and was, a terrible campaigner. I stand by that. Even so, she won the popular vote and would have won the Electoral College without Trump/Russian collusion. Trump is illegitimate and Hillary is my President.

[StevieM]

130. The terrible campaigner won all three debates.

And that comeback in New Hamopshire in 2008 is to this day the most impressive thing I have seen in politics.

[RedSpartan]

139. Formal debates and policy discussion is one thing.

Boots on the ground, get the people behind you campaigning is another. Look, she is brilliant, deeply cares about us and would have been a spectacular President. But on the trail she just doesn't have "it." Many of the right's criticisms stick because they appear true (even if they are not). She's stiff, she comes across far too often as not genuine and canned and, sorry, but to this day she is almost completely lacking in self-awareness. Her husband has once-in-a generation political skills for connecting with people (ok, Obama too, so maybe twice-in-a-generation). She is the polar opposite. I really don't like saying these things, but I consider it tough love. To be clear, I voted for her and would do so 100 times out of 100. But we need to stop making like she was a spectacular candidate and only lost due to Russian interference. If she was that great, she would have blown Trump--easily the worst presidential candidate of all time--out of the water regardless of what he and Putin did.

[StevieM]

143. I actually don't like to focus too much on Putin and Russia, or the popular vote win.

It deflects attention from the real issue, which is the FBI taking control of that election, from start to finish.

If you eliminate the bogus FBI investigation from the 2016 campaign then HRC wins in a landslide. If you keep Comey and the FBI in the race, doing all the things that they did, then she probably still loses.

HRC sure seemed to have "it" when she was Secretary of State and had sky high job approval and favorability numbers for many years.

[RedSpartan]

153. You're totally correct and even she said this at one point.

Something like, people love her in office, but not when she's running for office. She has "it" in the job, no question, which is why I think she would have been a fabulous President. She just doesn't have "it" when running for the job. Two very different things.

[StevieM]

158. I think it is hard to have "it" when confronted with the things she is faced with.

It was hard to have "it" in 2008 when a junior staffer in Iowa asked someone in the audience to pose a question to her, and the media treated it like a mega-scandal. It was hard to have "it" when people were convinced that she had engaged in epic levels of corruption just because she owned her own email server.

When Hillary goes down it is because there is a narrative of scandal surrounding her. And it is a very easy narrative to create, no matter what she did or didn't do wrong.

She came across in those debates as someone who had "it" more than Donald Trump. And the best evidence is that she was the candidate who people trusted to manage the economy. And, again, she sure seemed to have "it" back in New Hampshire in 2008.

I don't think Hillary is a candidate who never had "it"--I think she is a candidate who people love to find ways to DQ and then turn around say: she doesn't have "it."

[Moral Compass]

128. Trump has usurped the office of the Presidency

Trump cheated. The Republican have been cheating for decades. Our current government is illegitimate. All 3 branches have been captured by a corrupt minority which is anti-American, anti-democratic, and fundamentally corrupt.

[maddiemom]

132. YES! Long past time.

[dajoki]

141. I agree n/t

[Quixote1818]

144. I voted for her a month early & she would have been a solid President but she hasn't been popular

the past few years. A lot of other Dem candidates would have creamed Trump. Don't think much of it was her fault but her popularity should have been taken into account.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-poll-analysis/index.html

[wonkwest]

152. Things aren't mutually exclusive

We nominated a candidate with massive negatives. It’s not fair - life generally isn’t - but she wasn’t exactly the most loved politician in America. Why deny this? Again, I’m not saying her negatives were fair. But they existed. The Right spent 25 years sliming her. And we nominated her. I still feel that was stupid of us.

She got 3 million more votes. But she was disdained just enough to swing it.

I like Hillary as a person. Everything she’s said since the election is god damned delightful. I wish that Hillary had run. But that version of her didn’t. So here we are.

[Quixote1818]

157. I agree with your assessment 100%

She would have been a billion times better than Trump but that ship has sailed. Time to move on.

[Cha]

226. Just because you two didn't like Hillary the Candidate Doesn't

mean she wasn't Loved by Millions. She Won.

We can acknowledge that and multi-task with whatever else we needs to be done.

You move on.

[Cha]

225. Millions Love Hillary.. just because you didn't doesn't

mean anything. We Got The BEST Candidate to run against trump.. She WON.. She Won the Popular Vote, Too!

Hillary Won! She was an Excellent Candidate!

[wonkwest]

274. Oh, is she the President?

No? Then she didn’t win.

[lunamagica]

278. It. WAS. STOLEN. FROM. HER

[Cha]

287. That Poster Is In

Deep Denial!

Hillary's Still Popular! She Beats BS in this 2020 Poll and she is NOT Even Running!

Biden leads 2020 Dem field in new poll

Almost one-third of registered Democratic voters back former Vice President Joe Biden for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, making him the front-runner in a new poll provided exclusively to The Hill.

Biden is the clear leader in Harvard CAPS/Harris’s June poll with support from 32 percent of Democrats polled. Hillary Clinton, the party’s 2016 nominee, finished second with 18 percent of the vote, while her 2016 primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), sits in third with 16 percent.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/394388-biden-leads-2020-dem-field-in-new-poll

Luna

[edhopper]

282. Are you completely unaware

of everthing we have learned about this election?

Do you still think Trump won legitimately?

[wonkwest]

290. No

But I also do reality. Within our system, she lost.

[edhopper]

298. reality is

The election was stolen.
If the election is illegitimate, it's not "within the system".

[Cha]

286. Hillary's BEATS BS in this 2020 Presidential Poll and she

isn't Even RUNNING! Hillary's Still Popular! j

Biden leads 2020 Dem field in new poll

Almost one-third of registered Democratic voters back former Vice President Joe Biden for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, making him the front-runner in a new poll provided exclusively to The Hill.

Biden is the clear leader in Harvard CAPS/Harris’s June poll with support from 32 percent of Democrats polled. Hillary Clinton, the party’s 2016 nominee, finished second with 18 percent of the vote, while her 2016 primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), sits in third with 16 percent.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/394388-biden-leads-2020-dem-field-in-new-poll

[wonkwest]

291. Uhm, I don't even want Sanders to run

So, I’m not sure who you’re shouting all this to.

If tied down at this present moment, I’m a Kamela Harris person.

The primaries are over. Just let go, man.

[Cha]

292. You're the only one talking about the damn "primaries".

Hillary Beat BS in this 2020 poll.. And she isn't even Running.

[Quixote1818]

322. Just to be clear, the post you are responding to was extremely positive toward Hillary

You might want to read it again.

[Cha]

323. Uh, NO.. you need to read again.. carefully.

[Quixote1818]

324. Just read it again. Still think it was mostly supportive

Supportive but with some concerns for discussion. Certainly not hostile toward Hillary by any means. I think pretty much every candidate who has ever run would have things people would feel they could have done better even if people voted for them enthusiastically.

[Cha]

328. And, it was Wrong.

[betsuni]

329. Wrong and a bit passive-aggressive, in my opinion.

[Cha]

331. Oh yeah, I got it.. of course the

poster who told me it was "extremely positive" wouldn't.

[betsuni]

332. "Extremely positive"

[Cha]

334. I knew that was coming!

See what I/We have to deal with?!!!!

[betsuni]

335. It never ends.

[Quixote1818]

337. It's pretty well known polls showed she was not that popular (posters main point)

Her negatives were polling very high. See links:

Poll is at the bottom of the page: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-election-2016-shapes-up-as-a-contest-of-negatives/2016/05/21/8d4ccfd6-1ed3-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html

From what I have read, her biggest problem was that she didn't do enough to promote herself as a regular person. No one knew what she liked to do for fun. Obama was brilliant at that, he was very relatable. She had all these people around here that LOVED her but were never given a voice to help show her human side. There are a lot of women candidates who are much more natural in this respect. Hell, even idiot Sarah Palin is good at showing what she does for fun and that she has an adventurous life outside of politics and saying, "awe shucks". As I said above, I voted for Hillary a month early but I thought she was very weak in conveying herself as a regular person.

I am just scratching my head because I don't remember posts like this two years after Kerry or Gore lost and if there had been I would have been wondering why those supporters were still fighting a lost battle. Gore was screwed over just as bad as Hillary was too. Speaking of Gore, I was a bigtime supporter and still am but I admit he made some big mistakes like not shooting down the BS about him inventing the internet. He left that unchallenged and I was pulling my hair out waiting for Gore to set the record straight on that. If there had been Gore supporters on DU saying he was perfect and an awesome candidate I would have pointed out the mistakes he made too. After all, isn't admitting mistakes the key to learning and hopefully doing better the next time? Why is that so taboo with a few here? A lot of us who VOTED and WORKED HARD for Hillary just don't see why these type of threads keep popping up. Especially if we can't learn from things we could have done better.

Out of curiosity, is there anything you think she could have done better or do you just think she did everything perfect because it feels like there is a zero tolerance for any Hillary introspection here from a handful of you. I for one was cringing when Trump was going after NAFTA in the rustbelt. I knew that was doing a lot of damage and it was never effectively countered. I don't see why one can't acknowledge that Hillary is brilliant, was highly qualified and would have made a wonderful President but that she like ALL candidates made mistakes and that because combating her very high negatives was never addressed, her campaign put her in a position that made her vulnerable to someone who was absolutely the worst candidate in the history of the US.

[betsuni]

340. Again, Hillary did not decide to run in 2016.

"do you just think she did everything perfect because it feels like there is a zero tolerance for any Hillary introspection here from a handful of you." Correcting misinformation about Hillary does not equal thinking she is perfect. Straw man argument.

[Cha]

344. ".. zero tolerance for any Hillary introspection

here from a handful of you".

Hey Check out the Attempt to Marginalize Hillary supporters because we don't put up with their tiny lens of viewing her. From the poster who said it was ".. extremely positive.. " lol Like he gets any cred for observation.

Nope. Not with that agenda he doesn't.

[betsuni]

345. I think Soros and David Brock should pay us overtime.

We're working hard tonight!

[Cha]

346. LOL.. Oh yes the imaginary

cash! Just like every other accusation

[betsuni]

347. Obviously, extremely positive posts about Democrats on a site for Democrats

means the handful of us are paid shills and trolls. Otherwise we would know that Democrats are the one percent who ignore the working class and that Hillary was a bad candidate and Russia had nothing to do with anything.

[Cha]

348. Yeah we get gaslighted every which way.. who do we believe..

them or our own eyes?

Personally I'm a fan of Stephanie Jones and MrWeeks' school of thought.

[Cha]

350. P.S. I've seen that

".. handful of you/them.. " before. It's one of their ways to marginalize opinions. It's not working.

Oh yeah, that ".. thinking Hillary is perfect.." allegation.. is a good example of "strawman".

[betsuni]

351. Black or white literal thinking.

Let's have at least some gun control = Teh government is taking away all our guns! Immigrant families shouldn't be separated at the border = OPEN BORDERS! There are some conservative Democrats = All Democrats are corporatist shill one percenters same as Republicans! Hillary Clinton is not Satan = WHY DO YOU THINK SHE IS PERFECT? Bernie Sanders said something incorrect = You are haters obsessed with revenge, it has nothing to do with what he actually said; besides, he didn't really mean it, let me explain.

[Cha]

359. We're Deluged with IT!

Excellent hyperbolic examples!

ETA~ actually some are Not Hyperbolic!

[Cha]

343. You were NOT paying attention.. enough with the

not a "regular person" Bull. Hillary is beating BS in a 2020 Presidential Poll in 2018.. and she's NOT even running. In Spite of All the Bullshite Thrown at her.

Your opinion has zero cred.

Maybe because she's out there helping people now like any of us would if we had her resources.

Hillary Clinton Raised $1.5 Million to Help Kids Torn From Their Families at the Border

https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a21748901/hillary-clinton-fundraises-border-crisis-children/

You need to look in the mirror before you accuse anyone of having zero tolerance for critiquing anyone..

[betsuni]

325. There weren't "massive negatives."

Her favorability rating was high while a Senator, 65% in 2009 when SoS, 58% in August, 2014. That's pretty high. She had no way of knowing the extent and success of Russian interference. All of it lies. She was never convicted of any crime, so not crooked. No evidence of any corruption of any kind. People were told she was unlikeable and mindlessly repeated it. Nobody, I'm sure, thought so many Americans would be that gullible. Russians are, after all, propaganda professionals. Republicans can try, but they mostly affect fellow Republicans who listen to talk radio and Fox. The Russian stuff went out to the general population. A whole new ball game. And the MSM were worse than they've ever been. She took a reasonable gamble. There were no "massive negatives."

[Cha]

330. Exactly, betsuni.. Thank You! And, Hillary is still Beating BS

in a 2020 Presidential Poll and she's Not Even Running.. how's that for massive negatives?(Bullshit).. after the 2016 "Election" she's behind Joe Biden and ahead of BS, the guy who's been running since November 14, 2016.. right after the 2016 Election with this..

Bernie Sanders 'deeply humiliated' Democrats lost white working-class voters

Washington (CNN) — Sen. Bernie Sanders expressed his disappointment Monday with Hillary Clinton's failure to secure the support of white working-class voters in last week's presidential election.

Donald Trump "very effectively" tapped into "the anger and angst and pain that many working class people are feeling," the Vermont independent senator who challenged Clinton in the Democratic primary said on "CBS This Morning."

"I think that there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic Party does business," Sanders said. "It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to where I came from."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/bernie-sanders-humiliated-democrats-loss-working-class-voters/index.html

BS with his damn Buzz words again.. and Hillary is still ahead of him in 2018 in a 2020 poll..

And, again.. Hillary is Not Running.

Oh and BS tweeted this out on November 5, 2016

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

333. How embarrassing that liberal elites are doing so well in the 2020 Presidential Poll!

[Cha]

336. Oh yes.. the ol "liberal elites" beating

BS. And he tries sooo hard to marginalize

[Quixote1818]

338. Her favorability was at 31%

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll.html

[betsuni]

339. In 2016, after the propaganda attacks.

That was my point. Hillary did not decide to run in 2016.

[Quixote1818]

341. Obama has had just as many attacks but fairs much better

I think all of us agree that this isn't fair to Hillary but for some reason even though her and Obama are similar she doesn't poll well now.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-americans-like-obama-so-much-better-than-trump/

From what I read a while back, the internals suggested that she has a relatability problem. Some of it may be sexism and some of it might be that she didn't do enough to make herself seem like a regular person who has a life outside of politics. As I mentioned in another sub-thread, even Sarah Palin who is an idiot excels at giving people a different side of herself. The adventurous outdoors women with a kind of aw shucks persona. I have heard it pointed out that people very close to Hillary absolutely adore her but we never saw that part of Hillary. She tended to seem always down to business. I personally thought she was fine but she didn't poll well in this respect. They should have worked on it.

I as a person would be TERRIBLE in front of the camera even though I am really funny and kind in person with people who know me.

I think this Michelle Wolf video says it best:

You shouldn't have to like Hillary, that has NOTHING to do with being a good President.

[betsuni]

342. From now on Hillary's popularity will increase, she'll poll better and better.

Same with Obama. I remember saying here in 2015 that there was no way anyone could be more disrespected than President Obama. How wrong I was. Wasn't even close.

Meghan McCain said on The View today that she hates Hillary. Hates. She'd never say that about Obama. With Hillary it was vicious hatred for no reason, completely personal, not about policy (not that it was about policy with Obama, but at least they pretended it was). Many Trump voters said they didn't particularly like him, but voted for him anyway. What do you do to your opponents? Attack their strengths. Hillary is the sort of person that if you want something done, you go to her. Reliable. Dependable. Listens. Does the work. Al Gore has a similar vibe. The likability thing was pure bullshit. People believed it because they were told to believe it. This is obvious because nobody could give an answer for why they disliked her. Just 'cause isn't a reason. Sarah Palin was obviously never an adventurous outdoors woman any more than G.W. Bush was a rancher. Liberals see through the bullshit.

[betsuni]

326. Her favorability rate in August 2014 was 58%.

She knew that people liked her when she had a job, high favorables when she was a Senator and SoS. Regular Republican smears only really affected Fox and talk radio audiences. Russian propaganda flooded the Internet and went out to the general population. That had never happened before and impossible to predict the extent of its success. The MSM was the worst it has every been as well.

[Spider Jerusalem]

161. She had high and consistent polling negatives

she would've lost the popular vote if the Republicans had run someone like McCain or Romney. She was a much better candidate than Trump, but that doesn't mean she wasn't a bad candidate.

[bluestarone]

165. After reading thru this whole thread i say here and now

IF SHE CHOOSES TO RUN 2020, I WILL BE THE FIRST TO SUPPORT HER!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[barbtries]

167. that's what i'm saying.

nobody's perfect but she did not make a lot of mistakes. we did, the country did, corporate media did. and russia stole it.

she should be president as we speak and the damage done is incalculable. i don't know if our democracy will survive.

[suston96]

170. The problem with elections is....

....a poorly framed federal electoral procedure in the constitution.

Hillary Clinton won enough votes to win an election in any nation on earth.

The federal election process is still broken and needs work .......NOW!

[Ferrets are Cool]

171. I can't put something to rest

that I never believed in the first place.
The election was stolen. How does that make her a bad candidate?

[demigoddess]

175. She was sane and businesslike. trumpy was a circus show act.

There is no comparison, but people compared them.

[edhopper]

179. I could also add

that she, being a she, was held against her as well.

[Awsi Dooger]

181. Favorite Democratic nominee of my lifetime

Hillary is a powerhouse. She should have been nominated in 2008. Any Democrat would have cruised in that cycle and we would have benefited considerably more by establishing a woman in that office.

By 2016 she was an even more impressive debater but the upside was very low. Very difficult situational cycle following 8 years of Democratic presidency and white working class voters with high degree of unease.

I'll never get over that defeat.

All of the Russia stuff and Comey stuff was disgraceful but bottom line the campaign and candidate were disgracefully ignorant regarding the unrest in those working class midwestern states. The white working class problem should have been front and center #1 priority above all, given the findings from the 2014 midterm with all the blaring headlines. Somehow the party was content to look away and pretend that the old map with so many guaranteed states was still in play. I just read "Shattered" and wanted to scream page after page, as every trivial matter was discussed but the most vital one not on the plate at all.

[marble falls]

185. Can we put this issue to bed either way until we get the 2018 election over with? Please?

[edhopper]

187. This issue

directly effects the 2018 election.
AND if enough people get pissed that their election was stolen and those in power rigged the last one,
maybe more will come out and try to change things.

[marble falls]

190. I disagree strongly. This election is not about Trump/Clinton/Sanders/Stein. This election is ...

Last edited Thu Jul 26, 2018, 10:27 PM - Edit history (1)

about getting a working Congress. No matter who else might have won the election we didn't have a good Congress for either a President Clinton or a President Sanders.

I am not going to discuss this any further with you for two reasons: it is against the ToS here to refight the 2016 Primaries, and most important of all: the 2018 elections are not about 2016. Its about getting a real working Democratic Congress. Period.

I am also sick and tired about about the constant hair pulling about Clinton/Sanders. The problem right this very fucking second is cheetolini. Its a distraction and I bet there are going to be Russian trolls pushing the fight over Sanders/Clinton to divide us from the goal of getting real working Democratic local and state legislators and a real working Democratic national Congress.

[edhopper]

193. The election

is all about Trump.

[marble falls]

217. Thats stupid. Do you think getting rid of Trump will whip Mike Pence and the GOP into line...

Congress and the state legislatures are what 2016 are about. Without a working Democratic Congress neither a President Sanders or a President Clinton would be entirely effective.

We provide the Congress and Robert Mueller will take care of Richard Milhouse Trump.

We're done. Have a nice day.

[Cha]

234. This "issue", marble falls is REALITY that the Election

was stolen from us and Hillary.

I don't know why some on here don't want this discussed.. it's Fucking Huge.

Hillary WON.

[liberalnarb]

189. How about we stop arguing about 2016?

Yes, tRump is illegitimate. Yes Hillary Clinton got screwed by the media email obsession but we need to look forward to prevent it from happening again. We HAVE to focus on the midterms. If Dems dont landslide this November our Democracy is FINISHED

[marble falls]

191. Right on the point!!!!!! +100000%

[edhopper]

194. The way we ignored what Bush and the GOP had done

in 2010. How did only looking forward work for us then>

[liberalnarb]

221. Our problem in 2010 was that we DIDNT focus on the midterms.

[Cha]

236. Do you mean what bush and the gop did in 2000?

Including SCOTUS? the bush coup?

Exactly! We aren't going to shut down this discussion that Hillary WON.. no mater how much they ****** about it.

[edhopper]

249. I mean we ignored

everything they did for the entire Bush Presidency, including collapse the economy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

204. THIS!!

[Cha]

235. Hillary WON.. And we WILL Discuss it..

No Matter how Much you DON'T want us, too.

In Fact it makes me want to Discuss it MOAR when I see the sprinkling of those who want this discussion Shut DOWN..

[onetexan]

192. Hillary was the BEST candidate

The most qualified -EVER! As Obama said.

[PDittie]

195. I may be going out on a limb here

But I don't know that whether Hillary Clinton was a good candidate or not is the right question.

Russia meddled ... but a bunch of Facebook ads and Twitter bots do not account for the collapse of Dems’ blue wall in economically battered Midwestern states, ravaged by international trade deals and Wall Street deregulation policies that were long touted by the Democratic establishment.

It's possible her loss had less to do with Russia, misogyny, and even voter suppression than with a long-standing perception that she was a status quo candidate in a change cycle. Remember that most of the Republican establishment tried very hard -- and failed -- to stop Trump themselves. And remember that those early MAGAts' rallying cry was that he would "shake up Washington".



JMHO

[EffieBlack]

210. "a status quo candidate in a change cycle"

When people are voting against the "status quo" in a "change cycle," it's unlikely they will vote for ANYONE in the same party as the current administration, regardless who they are. Any Democrat would be seen as "status quo" so, if this really was a change cycle where people were looking for something different than what we had, there was absolutely nothing that Hillary or any other Democrat (or anyone running as a Democrat) could have done to pull this out.

[MGKrebs]

196. Whoo boy. We used to call that flame-bait.

[edhopper]

198. Then why is it

the most Rec'ed post on the Forum?

More like something that needed to be said.

[Indepatriot]

199. HELLO WISCONSIN!!!!!!

[edhopper]

200. Hello Voter Supression

and hacked election rolls.

[Cha]

245. Hello Russ Feingold!

[lordsummerisle]

212. k&r n/t

[samir.g]

213. Best, most qualified candidate since FDR

[kwassa]

214. The Clintons played on the ethical edges.

We supported her in 2008. We made maximum contributions of $2300.00 apiece. I have a picture of Hillary holding my infant daughter in a mansion in Kalorama, DC, at a major fundraiser.

That said, she should not have been our candidate in 2016. We need a whole new fresh generation of leaders who are truly inspirational and ethical. She isn't it. Bill has some of thoe qualities, most politicians have none. Despite their foundation, they have played on the edge of ethical behavior their entire career.

Unless we can find a really good younger leader, we are fucked.

[SunSeeker]

215. K & R

[sharedvalues]

216. One comment: rephrase...

This headline causes people to associate "Hillary" and "bad" in their heads. We do it involuntarily - it's a human thing.

Next time try

"Hillary was a great, qualified candidate -- can we finally stop bringing her down?"

[The Wizard]

219. The minority Party

controls all three branches of government, and the media is in the tank for the minority Party . If this circumstance isn't remedied to reflect the majority, the whole thing could come crashing down. We are on the precipice of a long nightmare. There's a cloud looming over the government. The people doubt minority rule.

[Sparko55]

220. Actually NO

Supported Hillary in the general election, and would vote for her again. Remember her from back in the 1992 campaign when I worked on the Clinton campaign in Ohio, and Hillary did an appearance (sans Bill) at a Light up the Night on Public Square in Cleveland. In what was a largely unscripted speech she knocked it out of the ball park, and remember writing a friend in Minnesota and saying - "I think we have the wrong Clinton at the top of the ticket". She was unleashed, unscripted, and spoke from the heart and it was memorable.

Come forward to 2016, and living in Wisconsin and after the May primary which she lost 56% to 43% and 136,000 votes - Hillary was never seen or heard from again in Wisconsin. DT was all over the state many times - 6 to be exact. I don't know what Robbie Mook was thinking - Wisconsin was in the bag, because apart from Obama the state was closely contest with Gore winning in 2000 by a scant 5708 votes over GWB and Kerry winning in 2004 by 11,384. People in Wisconsin like their retail politics. It's why Tammy Baldwin won in 2012 when she beat 4 times former governor Tommy Thompson - she got to more counties and knew the terrain.

So, NO, you can't put to rest that Hillary was a "bad candidate". There were so many missteps in the campaign it's hard to tally them all. And picking Tim Kaine was the first huge misstep. You saw it coming in 2015 when at the Wisconsin Democratic State Convention in Milwaukee, all the speakers from Tammy Baldwin to Russ Feingold and Congressmen and Congresswoman, spoke against the TPP, and who shows up as the tin-ear of the convention Tim Kaine pro TPP advocate. If the party ever had been out of step with the electorate this was a warning. That and Bernie who's campaign was nascent garnered 42% support in the straw poll - the rank and file were sending a message that Chris Cillizza panned, but turned out to presage the prairie fire

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/08/hillary-clinton-only-beat-bernie-sanders-by-8-points-in-a-straw-poll-so/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39686363dad2

So, when Hillary lost the next May losing 71 of 72 counties in perhaps the biggest ballot box route of the primary season - it was like, I'll never go back to Wisconsin - and she didn't - and she lost.

Where has the Democratic Party been shoring up the voting suppression effects of the GOP, helping people get registered, helping people get ID's as may be required. Actually, in many states they've been MIA.

Hillary should have had a 50 state strategy - she didn't. She had a 270 vote strategy and little fallback. DT took a shot gun approach and won - yes with far less votes - but with what mattered - electoral votes. Fair? I don't think so, but it's the system we are consigned to unless we change it. Disproportionate - for sure - given that California with more population than 22 states gets 2 Senators and the other 22 have 44 - so much to equality of votes. But, to say that the HRC campaign was top notch belies the gaps in spending time carelessly, and always pandering for more money in California while the fort was burning in Wisconsin.

[Cha]

240. Hillary was a Great Candidate! Oh and btw.. why did

Russ Feingold lose in Wisconsin?

America Chose Hillary and the Fucking Russians wanted trump.. so they got him.

[populistdriven]

222. During September & October I kept hoping I would see hard attacks

against Don's strengths. Calling him a creepy stalker on stage would have been a nice start. Specifically his supposed strengths as being likable to the average Joe and his bullying in negotiation.

Attacking deplorables was a mistake.

Having the Jay-Z with Chance the Rapper and Big Sean concert election eve was a HUGE mistake.

This battle could have been fought harder and better.

20-20

I thought her platform was very polished and never thought she was a weak candidate compared to Don.

[EffieBlack]

247. Hindsight is so easy

Last edited Fri Jul 27, 2018, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Nothing that armchair experts who weren't involved in the campaign and don'y know a fraction of what Hillary and her team knew are saying she should have done instead is guaranteed to have brought her one single additional bottom line vote more than she actually got - and if she had done any of those things and still didn't win, we'd be hearing all about how it was a strategic mistake to do THOSE things and if only she hadn't done them, the outcome would definitely have been different.

For example, I can only imagine the reaction if she had called him a creepy stalker onstage. She would have been attacked for letting him rattle her, for not focusing on the issues but pulling focus on to personalities. "She should have just IGNORED him! If she had just stayed focused on her message and what she was trying to say, she would have made him look stupid and he would have stopped. This was a MISTAKE."

The second-guessing is ridiculous.

[populistdriven]

264. Yes, and now we know that Don did something Hillary couldn't

Swing State Vote Suppression using opponents GOTV data

[regnaD kciN]

229. No, we cannot...

How many of those oft-quoted three million were votes against Trump, rather than pro-Clinton?

Bottom line: Hillary Clinton entered not one but TWO presidential campaigns as the prohibitive favorite. She couldn’t even win the nomination the first time around; the second time, running against what should have been an easily-beatable set of primary opponents, she struggled to win the nomination, then lost (by the only metric that matters) against the most-disliked Republican nominee in history.

Rationalize it any way you want, that spells weak candidate. Period.

[Cha]

239. You "rationalize" it any way you want, regnaD..

Too bad you can't stand that Hillary WON and she was a Great Candidate.. MILLIONS LOVED HER.

[MrsCoffee]

269. She wasn't the one that was weak. The idiots believing all the propaganda, the misogynists,

and the whining purists were weak. Period.

They should have sucked it up, done their homework and voted responsibly.

[EffieBlack]

275. If Bernie had been the nominee, the Russians would have stood down, Trump would have behaved,

the GOP would not have suppressed the vote, the media would have bent over backwards to be fair to him, no one would have dug up and dirt or said anything mean about him, and Bernie would have won in a walk.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

299. Bingo

[quakerboy]

230. She was a candidate that the right had 30 years to smear

And they did. A lot. They demonized her extremely effectively.

Sure, Russia tipped the balance, and without it we would have enough of an edge to take the EC, and no Trump in the white house. Misogyny also tipped the balance, and without it we would have had enough of an edge to take the EC, and no Trump in the white house.

But if we hadn't forwarded the specific candidate that half the nation had been brainwashed to see as an inhuman monster over the course of 3 decades, there would have been no balance to tilt. Trump was blatantly unqualified. Preposterously so. And he would have been seen as such against anyone other than a very solidly established boogeyman.

In reality it has virtually nothing to to with the actual real person Hillary Clinton. Qualifications or Charisma or Capabilities had nothing to do with anything. Can you think of anyone they've specifically spent more time brainwashing the culture to hate, aside from perhaps George Soros?

[DeminPennswoods]

241. Regardless of what kind of candidate she was

a lot of people just did not like her. Personally, I attribute that to 40 years of non-stop Clinton-bashing going back 40 years to their days in Arkansas.

[SusanaMontana41]

242. I volunteered for Sanders. Voted for President Hillary Clinton.

And I refuse to fight with fellow travelers. Russia baited everybody. Count me among the bamboozled; though I can’t prove it happened, in my heart I KNOW it did.

I will never again be baited into ugly fights with people moving the same direction.

My $.02.

[lapucelle]

248. Joe Scarborough was an early and vocal proponent of the "bad candidate" narrative.

There is a whole cadre of people who point that finger in the hope of exonerating themselves of their own part in putting Trump in the White House. Moreover, the demonization of Hillary version 2.0 was very effective with new voters across the political spectrum. History will not absolve the bad actors.

The fact remains that HRC received over 17,000,000 votes against Barack Obama in 2008 (losing to him by 42,000 to 152,000 votes depending on the tabulation), won the 2016 nomination by 3,700,000 votes, and won the presidential popular vote by 2,800,000 votes, yet she is somehow a "terrible candidate".

When historians look at those numbers and the confluence of events during the 2016 campaign, I wonder what their assessment will be regarding "responsibility" and "blame". I wonder what their commentary will be concerning the sanctimonious outcry for "apologies" from the first woman candidate for president from a major party.

Historians will point fingers and they will not be kind.

[StevieM]

294. 2016 was Comey's election, from start to finish. (eom)

[Kaleva]

251. It's never going to be put to rest as long as OPs like this keep showing up.

[edhopper]

252. Good!

[the_sly_pig]

258. Exactly.

[lunamagica]

279. It should never be put to rest

[edhopper]

253. I have changed my signature line.

Last edited Fri Jul 27, 2018, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

I think we should never stop saying this. I think we, at the very least, need History to remember this as a stolen election.

[Cha]

259. ..

[edhopper]

262. :)

[ehrnst]

256. k&r

[Act_of_Reparation]

276. To be fair, we don't have the whole picture yet. And we won't for a long while.

Did Russia try to influence our election? Definitely.
Did their efforts have a significant effect on the election? Not as easily answered.

And no, I'm not saying Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate. I'm saying we don't have enough information to determine what the chief cause of the loss was.

[edhopper]

277. I think it is far to say

Comey, the Russians and voter suppression was enough to stop her.

[uponit7771]

285. +1

[StevieM]

297. In that order. Comey was by far the most important factor IMO. He repeatedly damaged her with

his illegitimate actions.

[jalan48]

302. Have there been any "bad" Democratic Presidential candidates in the past 50 years?

[edhopper]

303. Dukakis wasn't very good

Good man, not that great a candidate.

[jalan48]

305. I have to agree about Dukakis. I think it's easier to be more objective after

a period of time passes. I have a feeling the 2016 election is going to generate a lot of study over the next few decades and Hillary's candidacy will be viewed in more objective ways as time passes.

[betsuni]

310. I was frustrated with John Kerry.

He ran as a war hero and then seemed wishy-washy, not nearly as aggressive about Republican smears as he should've been. He always seemed to be on the defense. Which of course Republicans are masters at. These days with Twitter the lies can be instantly debunked and mocked, good for future candidates in avoiding this. Also, he had far less charisma than Hillary, in my opinion. I don't know why, but when he stepped up to the mike at the DNC convention and said, "I'm John Kerry, reporting for duty," I knew he was going to lose.

[jalan48]

313. I really liked Kerry and thought he was the right person for the times. It was hard to see him

being mocked as a war hero while Bush was given a pass on his sketchy service duty. Exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio on election night as I remember but somehow he lost when the electronic votes were counted.

[betsuni]

315. I remember the extremely long lines at polls even after dark and thinking, "Uh oh."

I wonder if anyone approached John McCain with the suggestion that things could be arranged. He'd refuse, though. That would've been too obvious, although the 2016 election was pretty obvious as well.

[edhopper]

316. Remember Karl Rove

refusing to accept Romney didn't get Ohio? Like he knew something?

[betsuni]

317. Dead giveaway!

No way anyone would do that unless they thought the fix was in.

[jalan48]

319. Funny how there was a shortage of polling places in predominantly Democratic districts.

Vote suppression has been happening for awhile now.

[betsuni]

304. Talking point of Hillary as flawed/bad candidate is pathetic.

Thank you to everyone who corrects the disinformation. Saying this also implies that Trump ran a great campaign and that's why he won.

[edhopper]

307. That scenario about Trump

infuriates me.

[betsuni]

311. It's absurd.

Also wish the lie that the working class voted for Trump would stop already.

[democratisphere]

312. HRC won the damn election!

HRC had the Presidency stolen from her by drumpf, his family, the russians, fakebook, twitter-shitter, the asinine electoral college and apathetic voters.

[EffieBlack]

321. Saying Hillary was a bad candidate

Link to tweet

?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Calling Hillary a bad candidate = telling a marathoner who had a good lead but had someone come up on her right and trip her but she kept runnng, then someone came up on her left and threw dirt in her eyes but she kept running, then someone jumped in front of her and dropped a bag of baseball bats on the ground in front of her that she tripped on but kept running and broke the tape but the guy who crossed the finish line a full 3 seconds after she did was declared the winner because he was clocked going faster than she did between miles 14 and 15 that she ran a bad race and she would have won if only she had run faster between miles 14 and 15.

[betsuni]

327. Excellent!

[Cha]

349. Mahalo, Effie.. and Thank You, Stephanie Jones and

MrWeeks!

[MichMan]

352. People have a tendency to want to focus on just one thing as the cause of something

It was a close election and one could look back at many things that could have changed the outcome. Similar to a football game where a team loses by a point with a last minute field goal. Human nature wants to blame the referees spot of the ball on one play, but looking back, one would have to admit maybe, just maybe, one more foot gained to get a first down, or a dropped pass that wasn't, or making a missed tackle would have changed the entire outcome. A good coach recognizes that an entire game isn't won or lost on just one play.


Hillary was a very good candidate, but of course, no campaign is perfect and there are always things that could have been done better. Without even getting into Russia or the primary, I think if any of the following had not occurred it would have turned out completely different.


1) One party does not generally win 3 election cycles in a row. It has only happened once in my lifetime (in 1988). 2016 was also a year in which being part of the established status quo was not what many voters were looking for. While widely popular with progressives, she also had high negatives among independents and galvanized the opposition. Fair or not, that was the case.

In 2008, Hillary wins easily; in 2016 not so much.

2) Being Secretary of State might have hurt more than it helped. Without it, she would not have been tied so closely to the Obama administration and could perhaps better play the outsider card. While Obama was very popular, that also perpetuated the 3 administrations in a row that usually doesn't win elections. Also there would have been no email or Benghazi issues to fight back against.

3) The African American turnout was very unlikely to be as strong for Hillary as it was for Obama. Maybe that was offset with more support by women, maybe not?

4) I believe since she started out as such a big favorite, that the campaign played it way too safe and thought they could sit on their lead. Very similar to what you see in sporting events when the team with the lead plays to not lose by running out the clock instead of playing to win.

5) Finally, whether she was held to a different standard than others is arguable, but setting up the email system like she did can't be seen as anything but a major blunder. Without it, Comey doesn't even come into play.

This is one issue that I think the campaign handled very, very poorly. Instead of tackling the issue head on and trying to put it behind them, they kept issuing these nuanced statements that only dared the press to keep digging into it causing a drip...drip...drip keeping it on the front page for weeeks and weeks at the worst time.

First it started out that "It was approved by the State Dept.", then "No government business was ever conducted on the server, it was all yoga and Chelsea's wedding", then it changed to "No classified information was ever sent", then it was changed once again to "Nothing that was marked classified was ever sent." Each time, it only dared the media to keep digging. Her off the cuff comment about wiping the server with a cloth, while intended to be a joke, came off badly, IMO.

The fact that she was "most qualified" really has nothing to do with it. McCain would have been considered more qualified than Obama, but it didn't matter. Obama was much more electable at that point in time.

[EffieBlack]

368. The email system wasn't a "blunder."

If she'd never even had a server, they would have found something else she was doing that was perfectly legal to blow completely out of proportion and turn into something nefarious - and then blame her (with a huge assist from far too many Democrats) for aking a huge "blunder" by not avoiding doing something that was not my legal, but had precedent.

This isn't about Hillary making a mistake - since anything she did could, in the right hands, be distorted into a mistake.

And white women bear a tremendous responsibility for all of this. Black people came out in record numbers for Barack Obama. If we didn't and he lost, I doubt he would have been blamed for failing to get enough women votes - black people would have been blamed for not coming out in larger numbers for one of our own when it really mattered. Hell, we got blamed for not coming out in larger numbers for Hillary.

But, for some reason, white women are getting a pass for failing to come out for Hillary. Instead, Hillary is being blamed for white women choosing to vote for a mysogynist, racist, incompetent pig - after Hillary did everything but set her hair on fire warning them not to vote for a mysogynist, racist, incompetent pig.

I don't buy it.

[rainy]

353. The only thing I think could have

been done better would have been to have more public events. I never saw her drawing large crowds whipping up enthusiasm. I never saw her giving amazing public speeches. Was it because media didn’t cover her?

[edhopper]

354. Yes, the media didn't cover it.

To busy with the "crazy Trump rallies"

[empedocles]

355. Hillary was a very well qualified candidate

who was cheated out of her victory - she wasn't especially strong, and too 'corporate'

imo

[Scurrilous]

361. Boink.

[vi5]

376. She did as well as anyone could have against Trump and in this situation...

...that being said if the candidate was anyone other than Trump I firmly believe she would have gotten destroyed in terms of the EC and the popular vote.

The number of normally Republican voters who stayed home, or voted Gary Johnson because of Trump was I think a lot more and larger than people want to talk about. I even know a few who held their noses and voted for Hillary.

I'm also someone who believes that Trump is absolutely no different than any other GOP candidate who was running in terms of policies and positions. But the rest of them at least pretended and stuck to dog whistles instead of overt hatred and bigotry and I know a ton of voters who prefer the Republicans to be hidden racists rather than overt ones.

[dlk]

377. Hillary & Avenatti in 2020!

[Gothmog]

378. Here are the reasons why Clinton lost

Here is a list of reasons why Clinton lost and none are due to her being a weak candidate

1. Voter suppression. GOP voter suppression cost Clinton Wisconsin https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/

Neil Albrecht, Milwaukee’s election director, believes that the voter ID law and other changes passed by the Republican Legislature contributed significantly to lower turnout. Albrecht is 55 but seems younger, with bookish tortoise-frame glasses and salt-and-pepper stubble. (“I looked 12 until I became an election administrator,” he joked.) At his office in City Hall with views of the Milwaukee River, Albrecht showed me a color-coded map of the city’s districts, pointing out the ones where turnout had declined the most, including Anthony’s. Next to his desk was a poster that listed “Acceptable Forms of Photo ID.”

“I would estimate that 25 to 35 percent of the 41,000 decrease in voters, or somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 voters, likely did not vote due to the photo ID requirement,” he said later. “It is very probable that between the photo ID law and the changes to voter registration, enough people were prevented from voting to have changed the outcome of the presidential election in Wisconsin.”

A post-election study by Priorities USA, a Democratic super-PAC that supported Clinton, found that in 2016, turnout decreased by 1.7 percent in the three states that adopted stricter voter ID laws but increased by 1.3 percent in states where ID laws did not change. Wisconsin’s turnout dropped 3.3 percent. If Wisconsin had seen the same turnout increase as states whose laws stayed the same, “we estimate that over 200,000 more voters would have voted in Wisconsin in 2016,” the study said. These “lost voters”—those who voted in 2012 and 2014 but not 2016—”skewed more African American and more Democrat” than the overall voting population. Some academics criticized the study’s methodology, but its conclusions were consistent with a report from the Government Accountability Office, which found that strict voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee had decreased turnout by roughly 2 to 3 percent, with the largest drops among black, young, and new voters.

I was part of the Clinton Victory Counsel program and nearly went to Wisconsin but ended up running the statewide voter protection hotline in Texas and the poll watcher program in Harris County. Harris County turned blue and one of the poll watchers who I trained in 2012 was elected to the office in charge of voter registration. This cycle we focus on getting rid on the teabagger who runs elections.

BTW, the courts are still considering the Wisconsin voter id law http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99266 In Texas we have largely gutted the voter id law but have to fight to make sure that voters get to vote.

2. Russia. I will let Mueller handle this but there is ample evidence that russia helped elect trump. http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/26/media/facebook-russia-ads/index.html

Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr, a Republican, told reporters Tuesday that the use of Facebook and other social media platforms by Russian-linked accounts appears to be about creating chaos on both ends of the political spectrum, not necessarily collusion between the Trump camp and Russian officials.

"Listen, I've said I don't think this is about collusion. Facebook is a company that most advertisers rely on Facebook's information to determine what the target is," Burr told reporters. "I think clearly there was an effort to bring some chaos to groups on the right and the left, so there's nothing that, at least preliminary, would lean toward one candidate versus the other. I think there was equal money sent trying to create some type of chaos on both sides of the political or ideological spectrum. We'll find more as we go in."

I note that the idiots on JPR fell for a ton of russian fake news. There were a ton of thread on pizzagate on JPR for a while. Sanders supporters were targeted by Russia and judging from the studies posted above with great effect

Link to tweet

Again, sanders supporters were easily fooled by russian fake news and the studies cited above show this cost the election

Link to tweet

3. Comey. Nate Silver has done some good work that shows that Comey cost Clinton the election https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which said the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College.

4. Sanders and Stein voters. The studies cited above show that sanders cost the election. BTW, i was a delegate to the national convention. Sanders was not working hard for Clinton and in fact refused to try to stop his delegates from dong such things as booing Congressman John Lewis. These disruptions hurt the unity that one normally gets from a convention. For example, in 2008, Clinton conceded before the Texas state convention. In 2016 sanders waited until just before the convention and cause a ton of disruption. I was at the convention and sanders refusal to do his best to help Clinton was a factor.

[edhopper]

379. +1000