At the same time she was a far more qualified candidate than Trump and gained 2.9m votes more than him (I would say easily more capable as well). Added to what the polls were saying and her superior performance in the TV debates, if she had an expectation of winning, it wasn't an unreasonable expectation at the time.
Hindsight, of course, shows she was perhaps a little complacent in certain areas. Neglecting to visit Michigan for instance. Being behind the curve on social media was another.
The perception associated with Clinton makes her a bad candidate for President. Qualified, educated, and well versed in politics, but she will never shakes the stink attached to her during the 2016 campaign.
Thirty solid years of being the Right Wing Media Echo Chamber's Life-Sized Karate Practice Dummy doesn't help, and GOOD LORD the amount of fear and loathing I saw in 2016 from self-described progressives who doubted her every commitment she made to their agenda.
Edited by Dave Kopperman on 13 January 2022 at 10:16am
"but she will never shakes the stink attached to her during the 2016 campaign"
---
Let's not forget that in 2008, she lost the primary to a guy with just over 2 years of active experience in federal government. That should have been enough of a sign that it wasn't "her turn".
Edited by Vinny Valenti on 13 January 2022 at 1:16pm
I'm a registered Democrat, but I don't care for either party's leadership, and care less for Hillary. Just watching her chortle about Libya sickened me, and yes, she comes off as entitled. Her derogatory comments about 50% of the country reminded me of an oligarch.
Getting rid of Qaddafi was bad? Bin Laden too? Post the invasion of Iraq with double the expense and personelle put into Afghanistan, based on a lie by the way.
So a feeling, impression, general vague 'something', not likable... these compared to provably racist b.s. 'business' guru of a reality tv show with an extensive record of legal conflicts and prominently displayed affluenza martyr complex? I don't think it's that people paid attention to a few blemishes on Hillary's record, it's that they didn't pay any attention to the Donald's record of zero experience and massive numbers of real warning alarms going off based on real documented and findable things.
Nah, just umpteen years of hysterical and mocking talk radio blather from the point of Bill Clinton coming in ('America held hostage' etc.) dumbing a lot of people down (to thinking they knew anything about politics as opposed to manipulative divide and conquer half-truth outrage manufacturing to benefit the few super wealthy funding a lot of these outlets).
Oh, that stink... 'basket of deplorables' has been proven to be a massive understatement, with many still there or at large! I think Basket of deplorables will come to rank with Eisenhower's statement about the military-industrial complex as a warning not heeded enough. Never seen so much drama made over such a refined put-down, talk about your snowflakes...
But yeah, beware of those women with a 'lust for power in their eyes'... suuuurre, they would be the main problem alright. Meanwhile... oops, there goes your post office after a hundred plus years. Oops, there goes your democracy after over two hundred.
(insert giant eye roll emoji here)
Not that I would have her run again either, but only because you can only lose so many times... or at least that used to be true!
True. The 'deplorables' comment was an obvious misstep (particularly for someone as microscopically analyzed as Hillary), but even in context it's clear she's not talking about 50% of the population. The exact quote is:
HRC wrote:
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.
Which:
a) mathematically isn't talking about 50% of the country, but 50% of the people who would vote for Trump, which in 2016 was 63 million Americans out of 323 million - or 20% of the population. (Which, yes, waaaaay uncool. The most offputting part is the "Right?" - which speaks to the entitlement that JB points to. But also... she's not wrong?)
b) A quote from Mitt Romney during his Presidential campaign is at least equally harsh and again refers to an equal 20% of the population (and was similarly willfully misinterpreted to be referring to half the country, not half the candidate's voters):
Mitt Romney wrote:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
Edited by Dave Kopperman on 13 January 2022 at 3:48pm
Still, Romney's comment doesn't come off as nearly as bad. And like you said....he was not wrong, either.
(Remember the days when that quote plus "binders full of women" was enough to derail a presidential campaign? Honestly, I believe that in the end it would have been better for everyone if Obama's second bid in 2012 was won by Romney, instead. It would have prevented a 2016 Trump run, and very likely a 2020 run as well).
Mitt wanted to fire Big Bird! I mean, that was it for him with (all us) intellectuals right there. :^)
No, you should've just gone straight to Big Bird for pres., we'd all be in a happy place now, and Grover would make a decent VP because everybody likes him! Sam The Eagle for Secretary Of Defense...
Romney's comment is definitely equally bad, even if he didn't resort to calling people 'lazy and shiftless leeches' he sure meant it.
Your second point (re: 2012 election) basically proves Hillary's point - a large part of the 2016 election was a racial backlash against Obama. Clearly Romney's mistake was that he wasn't racist enough to get those extra swing districts.
I also remember Romney saying something about the barbed wire on a plant in China he owned/used (?) was to keep all the people out who wanted jobs there. Perhaps this was left slanted media hype? I definitely didn't think much of Trump family members manufacturing their brand junk in China either which pretty much undid anything about 'America First' as well (you'd think).
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
