Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

[Elixir]

I've read through this thread now and I still haven't heard any solid argument for why Hillary is so bad.

What part of "thirty years of accumulated rumors, lies, innuendo, phony investigations and republican fomentation of hatred" don't you understand?
She is likely the very worst person on the entire north american continent to nominate for any national position.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I've read through this thread now and I still haven't heard any solid argument for why Hillary is so bad.

What part of "thirty years of accumulated rumors, lies, innuendo, phony investigations and republican fomentation of hatred" don't you understand?

In spite of which, she still won by some three million votes (and an additional five million in intended votes), thus incontrovertibly disproving:

She is likely the very worst person on the entire north american continent to nominate for any national position.

She won the vote. That literally makes her the very best person to nominate for a national position.

 

[Bloodnf]

I've read through this thread now and I still haven't heard any solid argument for why Hillary is so bad.

What part of "thirty years of accumulated rumors, lies, innuendo, phony investigations and republican fomentation of hatred" don't you understand?
She is likely the very worst person on the entire north american continent to nominate for any national position.

Ah. So all Republicans have to do is spread rumors, lies, innuendos, phony investigations and hatred against any Democratic nominee and that person is eliminated from contention. Just like they did agains, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid and every other person the Democrats nominate.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the important thing for the Democrats is to ensure that they do the exact same thing as last time and not learn any lessons at all from the election of Trump. It's the only way they'd be able to continue their strong tradition of fucking up things when there's really little to no chance of somebody being able to fuck it up.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think that the important thing for the Democrats is to ensure that they do the exact same thing as last time

Statistically speaking, you're absolutely correct, because the chances of that same anomaly happening again are nearly zero.

It's the only way they'd be able to continue their strong tradition of fucking up things when there's really little to no chance of somebody being able to fuck it up.

Cheap shots from the cheap seats all with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Yet, likewise, contradicted by the actual evidence.

 

[Elixir]

I've read through this thread now and I still haven't heard any solid argument for why Hillary is so bad.

What part of "thirty years of accumulated rumors, lies, innuendo, phony investigations and republican fomentation of hatred" don't you understand?
She is likely the very worst person on the entire north american continent to nominate for any national position.

Ah. So all Republicans have to do is spread rumors, lies, innuendos, phony investigations and hatred against any Democratic nominee and that person is eliminated from contention. Just like they did agains, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid and every other person the Democrats nominate.

It's the thirty years part that you don't seem to understand. Give your opponent that much advance notice, and they'll generally be able to squash you, even with a weaker force. Right now I believe that if one could force a referendum on Trump vs either Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid or virtually any other Dem, Trump would go down in flames. But vs Hillary? Probably not.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think that the important thing for the Democrats is to ensure that they do the exact same thing as last time

Statistically speaking, you're absolutely correct, because the chances of that same anomaly happening again are nearly zero.

It shouldn't have happened the first time. That it did shows her to be the complete failure of a candidate that she was. Next time should be an even easier victory for the Democrats, so if they fail again, then she'll at least get to be the 2nd worst candidate in recent memory.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think that the important thing for the Democrats is to ensure that they do the exact same thing as last time

Statistically speaking, you're absolutely correct, because the chances of that same anomaly happening again are nearly zero.

It shouldn't have happened the first time.

It's not a matter of "should," so already you've disqualified yourself from relevant commentary.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's the thirty years part that you don't seem to understand. Give your opponent that much advance notice, and they'll generally be able to squash you, even with a weaker force. Right now I believe that if one could force a referendum on Trump vs either Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid or virtually any other Dem, Trump would go down in flames. But vs Hillary? Probably not.

Gore and Kerry would both win in landslides. So would Obama if he could run again. So would Biden. So would Sanders. Until recently, so would have Warren. Pelosi and Reid could be closer, but would still beat him. Hillary herself? Even closer, but I think she'd still win now. She wouldn't carry the air of a sure bet that she did last time, and those leaning in her direction would come out and vote for her instead of not bothering to. You'd have to find a real historic stinker to lose to Trump in his 2nd term. I don't put it passed the Democrats to find this person.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's not a matter of "should," so already you've disqualified yourself from relevant commentary.

Yes it is. The vast majority of the US public supported Hillary's poorly communicated policies (especially after she took some from Sanders), as you keep repeating. She should have won in a landslide. She didn't. She failed America. Deal with it. Reform and win the next one.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's not a matter of "should," so already you've disqualified yourself from relevant commentary.

Yes it is.

No, it isn't as should have been evident to you had you actually read what I wrote (bolded for the slow of wit):

Statistically speaking, you're absolutely correct, because the chances of that same anomaly happening again are nearly zero.

 

[Bloodnf]

Ah. So all Republicans have to do is spread rumors, lies, innuendos, phony investigations and hatred against any Democratic nominee and that person is eliminated from contention. Just like they did agains, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid and every other person the Democrats nominate.

It's the thirty years part that you don't seem to understand. Give your opponent that much advance notice, and they'll generally be able to squash you, even with a weaker force. Right now I believe that if one could force a referendum on Trump vs either Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid or virtually any other Dem, Trump would go down in flames. But vs Hillary? Probably not.

Oh I understand. What that means that any Democratic candidate with experience and a record is vulnerable. So you want that Democrats should only nominate unknowns, newcomers and people with no track record.
Or perhaps people like you can stop buying into Republican propaganda.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the important thing for the Democrats is to ensure that they do the exact same thing as last time

Statistically speaking, you're absolutely correct, because the chances of that same anomaly happening again are nearly zero.

It's the only way they'd be able to continue their strong tradition of fucking up things when there's really little to no chance of somebody being able to fuck it up.

Cheap shots from the cheap seats all with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Yet, likewise, contradicted by the actual evidence.

Except it is validated by the actual evidence - namely the evidence of who is in the White House.

So, Clinton could run up the vote totals in Democratic states which they would have won if they'd nominated a stuffed badger. Whoop-de-fucking-shit. She couldn't get the votes in the swing states that actually matter to an election and that's what's important in a candidate. Getting Californians really excited so that the Dems take 65% of the vote instead of 60% isn't an accomplishment. Getting Floridians excited so that they take 51% of the vote instead of 49% is one. Clinton couldn't do the latter.

 

[Elixir]

Ah. So all Republicans have to do is spread rumors, lies, innuendos, phony investigations and hatred against any Democratic nominee and that person is eliminated from contention. Just like they did agains, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid and every other person the Democrats nominate.

It's the thirty years part that you don't seem to understand. Give your opponent that much advance notice, and they'll generally be able to squash you, even with a weaker force. Right now I believe that if one could force a referendum on Trump vs either Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid or virtually any other Dem, Trump would go down in flames. But vs Hillary? Probably not.

Oh I understand. What that means that any Democratic candidate with experience and a record is vulnerable.

Still not getting it. That should be "any Democratic candidate with experience who has been vilified, threatened and denigrated to cheering crowds, with a record that has been viciously misrepresented for thirty years, is vulnerable"

I understand that you don't think it should be that way, and I agree. But that's how it IS.
The good news, is that NOBODY has that much baggage - except Hillary.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Statistically speaking, you're absolutely correct, because the chances of that same anomaly happening again are nearly zero.



Cheap shots from the cheap seats all with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Yet, likewise, contradicted by the actual evidence.

Except it is validated by the actual evidence - namely the evidence of who is in the White House.

Due to a statistical anomaly that could not possibly have been planned for by either side (and we know wasn't as the actual evidence attests).

She couldn't get the votes in the swing states that actually matter to an election and that's what's important in a candidate.

The swing states according to Politico in 2016 were:

Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Though I would have included Minnesota.

Clinton won:

Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Virginia

And Minnesota. Or, half. Which, considering the presidency hinged on just three of them--and by razor-thin differentials--and all of the other many non-partisan forces at work in those three states, tends to argue against your assertion.

Getting Floridians excited so that they take 51% of the vote instead of 49% is one. Clinton couldn't do the latter.

Actually, according to the polls, she effectively did multiple times. Had the election been held on October 22nd, for example (ie., before the Comey letter), she likely would have taken Florida by a good 4 points. So, how exactly could she have accounted for--before the fact--that the head of the FBI would reveal (inadvertently as he may claim), that "the" investigation into her emails--that impossibly became a thing and had finally been put to rest--was suddenly back open and in play?

Not do what her predecessor had done and do something else completely benign and in no way a foreseeable scandal, until Republicans get their hands on it and poison you with it years after the fact? Not possible no matter who the candidate is, that's what Republicans would do.

Do you get that? She did NOTHING wrong and that didn't matter; they were able to make it LOOK like she did something wrong and that's all it took. They would have done the exact same thing to Sanders or Biden or anyone else and make it stick to them too. That's what they do. Obsessively.

So the proper question to ask is, in regard to everything they already did to Clinton to prepare for that moment--as you may right now and very mistakenly be thinking about in response--what happened in spite of everything thrown against her? She won.

Instead? Always the perspective-bias lie: I saw what Trump was, therefore he was easy to defeat, therefore it should have been a landslide.

And what happens when you look at the actual numbers combined with the preferences of intended voters? She was the preferred choice by a landslide (55% to 46%).

With the final irony being that one of the main reasons why there is such a large percentage of non-partisan voters who nevertheless chose Hillary is because they all believed exactly that; that Trump couldn't possibly win and Clinton had it locked so why bother to actually vote? It's already won according to every poll and nearly every news organization, etc., etc., etc.

IOW, elements completely out of the control of either candidate lead us to where we went.

But why bring facts into a proper post-mortem?

 

[lpetrich]

The Electoral College is thus a failure. It soon became a rubber-stamp body, and it has failed to keep a certain well-known Russian-supported demagogue out of office.

Non Sequitur since many LWers are seeking to replace the EC with direct democracy AKA popular vote. That's like saying we're going to reduce auto deaths by forcing everyone to ride motorcycles without a helmet. The EC isn't perfect, but it's the best we have to offer.

Who are LWers?

The Electoral College has departed rather grossly from Alexander Hamilton's conception of it. As to it being a rubber-stamp body, there is a name for electors who depart from rubber-stamp duty: faithless electors. So for nearly all of its history, it has done state-by-state aggregation of votes with winner-take-all choices of electors, though Maine and Nebraska do aggregation by Congressional districts for some of their electors.

I don't know what Max Rockatansky thinks is so great about the EC, but one thing it isn't: a bunch of political geniuses who gather together to choose the next president.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But why bring facts into a proper post-mortem?

Because there's only one fact that matters. People fucking hate her.

Hillary Clinton's Favorable Rating Still Low

Her favorable rating right now is lower than Trump's. Whether that's deserved or undeserved doesn't count worth a shit because she has proven herself to be unable to counter the negative narrative about her. Having her on the ballot would, once again, be relying on people to vote against Trump instead of vote for her. That may well be enough in the next election, just as it was almost enough in the last one, but it would mean the Dems going into the election with a massive anchor wrapped around their legs.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

But why bring facts into a proper post-mortem?

Because there's only one fact that matters. People fucking hate her.

It's just non-stop sophistry.

Once again, the FACTS prove otherwise. Aside from the results of the popular election and the stated preferences among registered voters who nevertheless did not cast a ballot, your OWN SOURCE CONFIRMS IT:

To the extent that Clinton's image has shifted with any of the major political groups, it is among Democrats. Clinton's favorable rating among Democrats fell 11 points to 76% just after the election; it has not improved significantly in the ensuing months, and currently stands at 77%.

Considering that when she finally surfaced she was met with nothing but shit being thrown at her YET AGAIN--the exact kind of baseless shit that's flying around here in fact--that's not exactly a surprise, but it does prove that at least 77% don't "fucking hate her."

Whether that's deserved or undeserved doesn't count worth a shit because she has proven herself to be unable to counter the negative narrative about her.

Demonstrably false due to the fact that she won the popular vote. That is the very definition of being able to counter any negative narrative about her.

Having her on the ballot would, once again, be relying on people to vote against Trump instead of vote for her.

An oft-repeated deplorable lie, fostered as well by Sanders supporters (and no doubt Russians), so well done. You're a carrier. Again, the shear volume of raw votes combined with the post-election Pew study of registered voters argues conclusively against that.

That may well be enough in the next election, just as it was almost enough in the last one, but it would mean the Dems going into the election with a massive anchor wrapped around their legs.

I actually agree that she shouldn't run again (but for different reasons, obviously), but then I don't see anything in what people have claimed is her alluding to running in 2020. I see it as her letting it be known she wants to be more involved in the process (i.e., more of an indirect blow at Sanders).

Time will tell, but if she did display massive balls in taking on that task for a third go, it sure as shit would have to be an HRC we've never seen before to scale that fucking mountain and I would love to see it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's just non-stop sophistry.

I know. I really wish you'd stop.

 

[lpetrich]

National Popular Vote If enough states agree, they will award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Currently, it is at 172 electoral votes with 98 to go.

Looking at the states that have passed it, it's mostly "blue states" -- northeast, west-coast, and Illinois. The remaining reliably-blue states are Delaware and Oregon, and they reduce the margin to 88 EV's. With Maine, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, that becomes 60 EV's. With Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, that becomes 40 EV's. With Michigan and Minnesota, 14 EV's. With Virginia and Wisconsin, a margin of victory of 9 EV's.