|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The public might be stupid, but at least it's smart enough to figure out something is wrong. This I agree with and it's why Hillary Clinton was the worst possible candidate to run in 2016 but you also can't ignore that 62 million people pulled the lever for an unfit, moronic game show host too.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
How many of those 62 million rightfully assumed that she didn't give two shits about them? Given the option of choosing between "Person who ignored me completely", "Person who lied to me and told me what I wanted to hear", and "I'm not choosing", the majority of people would choose 2 or 3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:How many of those 62 million rightfully assumed that she didn't give two shits about them? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
This doesn't actually disprove him, in case you were under that impression.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
also lol hillary literally lost the temperament argument to a man who rambled like a retard on national debate stage
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
In particular, your poll doesn't include an impression of the other candidate, and it's showing 'most important' response, not total approval.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
I'm having a hard time remembering how many general election stops Hillary made in the Rust Belt. You know, that area where eight years of time passed and the only progress was that gays could get married, as opposed to any sort of economic recovery. Someone have that figure handy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
I know she didn't make a single campaign stop in Wisconsin because Feingold was complaining to anyone who would listen that his people on the ground knew it was gonna be a lot tighter than the national polls were predicting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:This doesn't actually disprove him, in case you were under that impression. It certainly suggests we should view his evidence-free assertion with skepticism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:How many of those 62 million rightfully assumed that she didn't give two shits about them? Her policies would've helped them much more than his . Edit: The TEN (!!!!!) most popular governors in the country are all republicans... That's bad. https://morningconsult.com/governor-rankings-april-2017/ mcmagic fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Her policies would've helped them much more than his . It's a good thing she campaigned on policy rather than "TRUMP BAD GROPING MAN" then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:It's a good thing she campaigned on policy rather than "TRUMP BAD GROPING MAN" then. She did campaign on policy and that got no coverage because Trump sucked all the air out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:She did campaign on policy https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/8-ways-hillary-clinton-just-your-abuela/
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/8-ways-hillary-clinton-just-your-abuela/ I can't defend that but if you heard any of her speeches during the campaign they were all pretty heavy on policy...
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I can't defend that but if you heard any of her speeches during the campaign they were all pretty heavy on policy... no one attended her speeches cause they were giant snoozefests and her policy sucked. she also didn't air policy on tv so no one got exposed to it that way either
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I can't defend that but if you heard any of her speeches during the campaign they were all pretty heavy on policy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLngVebE3G4
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no one attended her speeches cause they were giant snoozefests and her policy sucked. she also didn't air policy on tv so no one got exposed to it that way either Her policies weren't as good as Bernie's would've been but they were fine and compared to Trump's they were incredible. That isn't why she lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Her policies weren't as good as Bernie's would've been but they were fine and compared to Trump's they were incredible. That isn't why she lost. Actually her policy was complete poo poo and it was entirely why she lost. Not only her policy stated during the election but the policies she's pursued over her entire political career. She certainly did provide a real way for rich people to pat themselves on the back and pretend like they care about social progress though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Her policies wasn't a good as Bernie's would've been but they were fine and compared to Trump's they were incredible. That isn't why she lost. oh? i'm gonna put you out of work is incredible compared to I'm gonna bring the jobs back? she tried to sell a tax credit as a well to help with student loans! her policy was really bad and you'd hear just a tiny piece of it and it was so awful you'd tune right out. hillary was really bad and out of touch, and she was also determined to prove she knew what was best for a populace she can't understand in the least. Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
So I think I figured it out. It's Obama's fault that the Democrats lost seats for not actively trying to be a leftist president, but it's Trump/the media/the voters' fault(s) that Hillary lost despite taking a firm watered down milquetoast stance between Bernie and 1990's Republicans positions. In conclusion, in order for the Democrats to beat Republicans, they need to become Republicans but more left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:oh? i'm gonna put you out of work is incredible compared to I'm gonna bring the jobs back? she tried to sell a tax credit as a well to help with student loans NewForumSoftware posted:Actually her policy was complete poo poo and it was entirely why she lost. Not only her policy stated during the election but the policies she's pursued over her entire political career. These aren't honest descriptions of the platform she ran on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:These aren't honest descriptions of the platform she ran on. Actually it is Feel free to regurgitate some of her "stated policy" War with Syria? All lives matter? Tell us in three emojis
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:So I think I figured it out. obama's got issues too mcmagic posted:These aren't honest descriptions of the platform she ran on. you're right, she ran on loan deferment for entrepreneurs quote:Reduce the burden of student debt by allowing entrepreneurs to defer student loan payments with no interest while they get their ventures off the ground seriously, her policy was absolutely terrible. and 8 years of that middling poo poo was all she was offering to the drowning lower and middle class. it's not surprising at all that she lost
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Would you like to compare her student loan tax credit plan to Trump's Student Loan plan? How about her modest minimum wage bump to Trump's plan? Or her debt free college plan to Trump's college plan? What about her mediocre criminal justice reform plan vs what Sessions is doing at DOJ now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Would you like to compare her student loan tax credit plan to Trump's Student Loan plan? How about her modest minimum wage bump to Trump's plan? Or her debt free college plan to Trump's college plan? What about her mediocre criminal justice reform plan vs what Sessions is doing at DOJ now? Friendly reminder that "better than Trump" and "good" are not the same thing, as much as Hillary's campaign bet on it. Nobody wants incrementalism any more after the past eight years of failure. Oh, except for the rich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:These aren't honest descriptions of the platform she ran on. If you were expecting a discussion in good faith these are probably not the posters you're looking for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Friendly reminder that "better than Trump" and "good" are not the same thing, as much as Hillary's campaign bet on it. It was a binary choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It was a binary choice. Actually it wasn't, seeing as over 50% of the country didn't cast a vote for the President. Surprise, there was a third option you forgot. Better check the models. Welcome to the end of the "lesser of two evils" road.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Actually it wasn't, seeing as over 50% of the country didn't cast a vote for the President. Not voting or voting for a joke candidate was a vote for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Not voting or voting for a joke candidate was a vote for Trump. Alright then 75% of the country wanted Trump so democracy wins Honestly with a popular vote mandate like that why even bother opposing the guy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Hillary's policies had little to nothing to do with her losing. Very, very few voters care about policy IMO, and the ones that do have already made up their mind about whether they are voting R or D. Yes, Bernie's policies are much better but the distance in policy between Bernie and Hillary, while significant, is still MUCH less than the distance between Hillary and Trump. The number of people who would have voted Bernie over Trump based on policy but not Hillary over Trump seems like it would be a tiny fraction of a percent (including those who decided to stay home and not vote). Hillary's problem came down to character, scandals (whether real or not), inspiring enthusiasm (was anyone really that excited to vote for her?), and not having a message that resonated with people. I'm not trying to absolve voters because the right choice was clear, but then again Hillary failed to recognize that voters almost always care about these things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Very, very few voters care about policy IMO lol source your quotes
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:I'm going to go out on a limb and say Hillary's policies had little to nothing to do with her losing. Very, very few voters care about policy IMO, and the ones that do have already made up their mind about whether they are voting R or D. Yes, Bernie's policies are much better but the distance in policy between Bernie and Hillary, while significant, is still MUCH less than the distance between Hillary and Trump. The number of people who would have voted Bernie over Trump based on policy but not Hillary over Trump seems like it would be a tiny fraction of a percent (including those who decided to stay home and not vote). I don't think there is anything she could've done because she lost because of who she was and her 30 years of baggage. Her policies didn't matter in the slightest. NewForumSoftware posted:lol Most voters can't name one policy plan of either candidate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't think there is anything she could've done because she lost because of who she was and her 30 years of baggage. Her policies didn't matter in the slightest. She could have not run. quote:Most voters can't name one policy plan of either candidate. Gary Johnson managed to attain 4% of the popular vote by inspiring voters with a message that resonated with them. Hillary Clinton didn't need to inspire "most voters" she needed to inspire "any voters", she was running against Donald Trump... and lost! lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:She could have not run. What message was that? "I don't know what the gently caress Aleppo is?" or "I smoke weed?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What message was that? "I don't know what the gently caress Aleppo is?" or "I smoke weed?" I don't know, why else would they have voted for him? Clearly not because of his policies. Voters don't even look at policy. Policy doesn't even matter! It's all enthusiasm scandals and inspriation. Oh, by the way you say some crazy stuff so I'd like to invite the thread to go to my personal blog where I'll be fact checking your posting throughout this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What message was that? "I don't know what the gently caress Aleppo is?" or "I smoke weed?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Actually her policy was complete poo poo and it was entirely why she lost. Laughs all around if you think this is remotely true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not knowing where something is reduces the risk of the president going to war against it. I doubt that inspired anyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol If Hillary completely adopted the policies of Bernie Sanders but kept her baggage and messaging do you really think that she would have won? Flip the script: If Bernie (or Obama) completely adopted the policy positions of Hillary but kept his message do you think he would have won? It's impossible to know for sure but I think the answers are "almost surely no" (the margin was very thin so MAYBE it would have put her over the top) and "absolutely" respectively. Democrats need to get more liberal on policy positions because it's better for people, I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying that it wasn't near the top in reasons why Trump won.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:21
|
|