Hillary Clinton Rips 'Bankrupt' DNC Data Operation (axios.com) 524
An anonymous reader shares an article: Hillary Clinton slammed the DNC's 2016 campaign data operation Wednesday, saying she had "nothing" to work from once she won the nomination. She lamented that Donald Trump was able to walk into a well-funded and thoroughly-tested data operation, while she was forced to build hers largely from scratch. Axios conducted over two dozen interviews with experts associated with the Trump and Clinton data and advertising operations earlier this year, and while many sources agreed with this sentiment off the record, no campaign or DNC staffers used language as strong as Clinton did Wednesday to publicly to condemn the DNC's data enterprise. Further reading: "I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost," says Clinton.
Wipes her server with a cloth (Score:5, Insightful)
Now she is a data scientist ?
The laughs never stop with this woman. I'm with her 2020.
It's all in a slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'm with Her" is what lost her this race. It highlights a self centered, corrupt, egoist. It was basically all about Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. "She's with me" would have been a far better slogan. Push a narrative that she is with the people and understand what the common person is going through. Instead of Hillary and her campaign shouting "Me, Me, Me", they should have been shouting "You, You, You"...and that's why Trump won the union states and beat Hillary.
To be fair, Trump was pretty "Me, Me, Me" as well. In his acceptance speech, he said "Only I can do this, only I can do that, only I blah, blah, blah." Hillary's slogan "I'm with Her" was really just a euphemism for "I want a female president, it's our turn!"
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:5, Interesting)
'make america great again', vs 'i'm with her'
do you actually doubt that that's what they want to do? you might disagree with what defines great, you might disagree with how to get there... but i don't think anyone could actually reasonably argue that anyone in a 'maga' hat at one of those rallies didn't want the best for america.
i'm with her... yes? no? i don't really know because i don't know where that woman stands... and i should because I should have access, as an american, to every unclassified email she sent as secretary of state :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.
It's something a lot of Tea Partiers, etc., believed due to Obama being President.
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well (Score:3)
The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.
Most Americans do believe that the Government no longer works for them though, which was the hallmark of a Great America.
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.
Most Americans view the greatness of America in the context of the current quality of their own standard of living. Unfortunately over the last several years, many Americans have struggled to maintain their standard of living and for them, America (i.e., their perception of the part of America that they most clearly see) stopped being great. This economic struggle has been particularly challenging for many Americans who don't read slashdot and haven't necessarily benefited from the uptick in the tech industry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
About half the friends I spend time with are legal immigrants from England, France, Iran, Mexico, Russia, Ukraine, Canada, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, Cuba, etc., etc.
Gosh, what a bunch of dumb asses not to be able see this country as clearly as you!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:4, Insightful)
Every Trump voter I know was voting for him. They might have held their nose to vote for Jeb Bush if the Republican Establishment had managed to get him the nomination, but many would just have stayed at home if Trump wasn't the nominee.
That's not to say they wouldn't have preferred a different candidate, but he was the only one standing who they could get enthusiastic about.
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:5, Interesting)
Every Trump voter I know was voting for him.
I know several Trump voters who were voting against Clinton because they saw her being president an intolerable situation. Out of my 200 or so friends & family on Facebook, there were maybe a dozen Clinton supporters (mostly female or gay), and none of them were enthusiastic about it. They saw Trump as an existential threat to feminist causes, so they were motivated by fear.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote.
But that isn't exactly how the Presidential Elections are counted, and Hillary didn't campaign except in states that she was winning, securing the ... popular vote. Trump dumped a ton of money, and spent time in rust belt talking their language, and Hillary was avoiding the public like the plague it was with her health issues.
In the end, a lot people felt less uncomfortable with Trump than with Clinton, especially in key states, and tha
The vast majority of NY and CA for clinton (Score:5, Interesting)
True, the vast majority of Californians and New Yorkers voted for Clinton. The rest of the country not so much.
That's why the popular vote doesn't count in US elections - nobody wants CA and NY to decide who the next POTUS will be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lot's of people in California and New York voted for Donald Trump. 32% and 37% respectively. The reason that Hillary running up her totals in california and new york don't help her, is because she is already winning 100% of the electoral vote despite there being many republicans who did not for her.
Texas is projected to flip to being a blue state in 2024. I expect many electoral college proponents will changing their tune at that point.
The electoral college has 2 separate effects. It gives slightly more
Clinton lost the popular vote (Score:5, Informative)
48.38% Gore (Dem)
47.87% Bush (Rep)
2.74% Nader (Green)
0.96% Other (all conservative parties)
51.12% total liberal parties
48.83% total conservative parties
2016 election [wikipedia.org]
48.18% Clinton (Dem)
46.09% Trump (Rep)
3.28% Johnson (Libertarian)
1.07% Stein (Green)
0.69% Other (all conservative parties) 0.05% Other (all liberal parties)
49.3% total liberal parties
50.06% total conservative parties
Since the U.S. only allows a single vote for President, if nobody wins an outright majority (50%), you have to take into account votes for other candidates to really judge the will of the people in that election. This accounts for third parties siphoning votes away from the top candidates.
In 2000, Gore won a plurality (but not a majority) of the popular vote, and the liberal parties won a majority of the popular vote. Gore was the "best" winner of the 2000 election.
In 2016, Clinton won a plurality (but not a majority) of the popular vote, but the conservative parties won a majority of the popular vote. Trump was the "best" winner of the 2016 election.
Clinton lost because she wasn't popular enough to get enough liberal voters to go to the polling stations, plain and simple. She (and many liberal pundits) refuse to recognize this, and keep trying to blame external factors for her loss. Russian meddling (never mind that if emails saying Trump had been given debate questions in advance were leaked, that would've been the scandal instead of the source being Russia), "fake news" (which has been present forever, just not with a catchy name), Comey's announcements (Clinton's polls went down when Comey announced she wasn't being charged with anything, not even a reprimand - she likely lost a large number of voters with security clearances), and now poor DNC operations (Trump's campaign was even more disorganized). Winners adapt so they can win. Losers refuse to change even when they're told they're wrong, then blame others for their loss.
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:4, Interesting)
The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote.
Where the 'vast majority' describes a 2.1% margin. Seriously #fakenews
It was virtually a dead heat, and the "Vast majority" to lift your language of Clinton's votes over Trump came from a couple of bicoastal metropolises that have drastically different political make up and narrow interests than the rest of the nation.
Lets not get into where the "vast majority" of likely illegal alien votes were cast either.
Yes Trump's claim to have won the popular vote, but for the illegals and rigging in silly. However if you do remove those things than her already very small popular vote margin is even smaller. I would argue that allowing NY and CA to effectively dictate presidential outcomes would be very bad for the country as they don't represent same interests. Its why the electoral college exists. Its a good design, and statistically benefits democrats most of the time, to boot.
Take a look a Brexit, the most opposition was in a couple big cities that are heavily tied to international finance. Same thing with CA and NY here. If the rest of us had and real sense we'd find a way to not let them vote at all.
Mods are on crack today (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
Ding, ding, fucking ding. We have a winner.
I didn't LIKE voting for Trump, but there was no fucking way in hell I was going to vote for Hillary....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:4, Interesting)
No, oddly enough they voted for Obama's campaign slogan: "Change".
People feeling the squeeze of falling jobs, falling incomes, immigration pressures saw Clinton as a continuation of policies that had given them the shaft for the last 20+ years.
The same way that people came to the conclusion that any change in the healthcare system was worth a shot, so they viewed Trump.
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:4, Interesting)
No, oddly enough they voted for Obama's campaign slogan: "Change".
People feeling the squeeze of falling jobs, falling incomes, immigration pressures saw Clinton as a continuation of policies that had given them the shaft for the last 20+ years.
The same way that people came to the conclusion that any change in the healthcare system was worth a shot, so they viewed Trump.
Exactly this. The reason Trump won a lot of the same counties that Obama did is because they both ran on basically the same platform. Trump and Obama both campaigned on change while Clinton campaigned on "more of the same". Clinton should have seen this in the primaries when all the "more of the same" candidates on both side quickly fell. The only candidates that survived for any length of time were Bernie (change) and republicans that were also outsiders offering change. Granted Clinton was an exceptionally bad candidate with a lot of people who REALLY disliked her but in her defence, that's not what lost her the election. What lost her the election was that she chose to campaign on the "status quo" while both sides were looking for an outsider to upset the fruit basket.
One of the main reasons that liberals in the big city still have a hard time seeing this is that the last decade has been relatively good to them and they don't see the stagnation that the people in the rust belt see.
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your line of thinking is that you're saying she should have blatantly lied about policy choices in order to win. "Change" is/was not what the US needs, despite a vocal minority shouting at the top of their lungs. We've seen the projections for "change" over the last 8 months - 24 million Americans losing health insurance, regulations lowered or removed altogether on financial institutions and environmental pollution, weakened security due to willful ignorance and insults aimed at our allies.
The so-called "liberals in the big city" are doing well because they're adapting to, not fighting against, economic reality. The stagnation you mention in the rust belt has nothing to do with Obama, or "elitist liberals", or the ACA. It has to do with the economic realities of a 21st century global economy. I'm truly sorry if coal mining is no longer a viable means of supporting your community, but economic and political isolationism isn't the answer. Investments in education and subsidies for emerging markets (like clean energy) are the only real way to avoid the collapse of the rust belt. Unfortunately the GOP is doing its best to undermine both, while making entirely unrealistic promises to their base, like "we'll bring back coal".
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, Trump was pretty "Me, Me, Me" as well.
The difference is the "Me, Me, Me" message resonated with Trump supporters.
The "I'm with Her" message lost the people that believed more in "Stronger Together".
Trump did not win the election, Clinton lost it. Specifically Clinton lost Wisconsin and Michigan. Both states went to Sanders in the Primary and in the General saw a massive dive in DNC votes and a massive uptick in 3rd party votes. Johnson went from 8k to 172k between 2012 and 2016 in Michigan, That's not anything other than people going "Fuck Clinton".
State | Year | Green | Libertarian | Democratic | Republican |
Michigan | 2008 | 8,892 | 23,716 | 2,872,579 | 2,048,639 |
Michigan | 2012 | 21,897 | 7,774 | 2,564,569 | 2,115,256 |
Michigan | 2016 | 51,463 | 172,136 | 2,268,839 | 2,279,543 |
Wisconsin | 2008 | 4,216 | 8,858 | 1,677,211 | 1,262,393 |
Wisconsin | 2012 | 7,665 | 20,439 | 1,620,985 | 1,407,966 |
Wisconsin | 2016 | 31,072 | 106,674 | 1,382,536 | 1,405,284 |
I broke down which states would have flipped based on what percentage of additional 3rd votes would have gone to a candidate other than Clinton:
100% | 75% | 50%
Arizona | Florida | Michigan
Florida | Michigan | Pennsylvania
Michigan | Pennsylvania | Wisconsin
Pennsylvania | Wisconsin
Wisconsin
So if you assume half of the votes 3rd party candidates picked up between 2012 & 2016 would have gone to anyone but Clinton the democrats would have picked up PA in addition to MI and WI. If they were 75% they would have added Florida.
[I tried with the formatting but Slashdot doesn't like 'junk' characters, even in code blocks]
And the "fix"? [Re:It's all in a slogan] (Score:4, Insightful)
H was mostly a "status quo" candidate, for she often talked about continuing and improving O's plans. That wouldn't sit well with the rust-belt: they wanted change. The recovery mostly skipped over them. Non-rust-belt Dems mostly voted the expected pattern.
The rust-belt is a politically tricky sell because most those factory jobs are not coming back no matter what. T blaming lopsided trade on factory loss is mostly false (automation a bigger factor), but at least he give it strong lip-service. He was at least talking about THEIR main problem.
Being honest with the rust-belt would be delivering bad news, which usually doesn't fly politically. She could have talked much more about education and re-training for new industries, but that's NOT politically competitive with T's turn-the-clock-back promise. I'm not sure Bernie's socialist tilt would fly in that area either. Middle America wants their jobs back, not more socialism. The S word is poison there.
I welcome somebody to present a viable and honest rust-belt platform that would have worked politically. Change often creates tough choices, and selling tough choices politically is very difficult. 2 Presidents telling voters to wear sweaters indoors or check tire pressure as a "solution" to energy problems fell flat, even though it's good and practical advice. Voters wanted cheap energy back, not more chores.
T found the right lie at the right place at the right time. Politics is not about logic; it's an emotional sales game. H would probably have to lie to compete.
Re: (Score:3)
I've never looked for this data and am glad you took the time to dig it up. I find it fascinating, especially the Michigan numbers. Between 2012 and 2016 the Democrats lost 300000 votes. To me it is interesting that essentially half of them went to Libertarian, but the other half went to Trump. Sure, you can think of all of those Libertarian votes as fuck Clinton, but the switch to Republican (if in fact they represent the same voters - it may be more likely that 150000 Democrats voted Libertarian and half stayed home, and 150000 more Republicans showed up to vote) would indicate some resonance with his message.
From what I've seen, I think it is much more likely that the vast majority of those 300k democrats voted for Trump and the only reason that Trump didn't win in a complete landslide is because 150k republicans defected to the libertarian party. I have yet to meet a single democrat that says they voted libertarian while I've met a lot of democrats that voted for Trump and a lot of republicans that voted libertarian. It makes more sense to have a double shuffle like this than a complete jump. A defecting d
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump never claimed anything else. What was so blatantly fraudulent about Hillary was that she would always pay lip service to fighting for the little guys, but it was perfectly clear that she was an international oligarch, taking money from each and every obscenely rich donor after another, and clearly lying about it, over and over again. She has exactly zero charisma and avoided anything but the most softball venues where she could be assured of cloying praise. All the while, using a completely corrupt organization to crush another candidate like a bug, despite his large following. Bernie is a bumbling communist imbecile, but he at least believes what he says.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does so many Americans reject the thought of soceity keeping the population healthy and educated?
Is it because most Americans are religious, and believe if God gave you poor parents you must deserve it?
As an American, basically, yes. We really do believe that kind of thing here. We have tons of mega-churches telling us that rich people are loved more by God and that's why they're rich. I wish I were kidding.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ready For Hillary" was worse, still. The best interpretation is "gee, I guess I'm...resigned to the fact that Hillary's getting rammed through" and at worst it's something like "okay doctor I'm ready for my colonoscopy."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
She "launched" her campaign twice, the first one didn't result in the media feeding-frenzy she hoped for, apparently.
And her multiple "listening tours" to find out what her platform should be was an underwhelming endeavor.
But yeah, but the (as yet un-named as such) "Vast Russian Conspiracy" is what cost her the position she was entitled to...
Re:It's all in a slogan (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, if some folks in the US want anyone to blame for Trump being President, they should blame Hillary Clinton...
I know people who voted for Trump specifically as an "anyone but Hillary" vote. They might well have voted for Sanders if he had been offered up.
Re: (Score:3)
One would think that Bill Clinton's spouse would have gotten better advice.
I think she did, she just ignored it. In the article I read on...I want to say Politico...dissecting the loss shortly after the election, they were saying that Bill was telling her to make more stops in Michigan, Ohio, etc to talk to the white working class and they laughed Bill off. The blue wall was on lock and the data said they didn't need white men anymore. Whoops.
Re: (Score:3)
Both candidates were unbelievable egotists... it's hard to even compare them because I think we reached peak, saturated ego. With that said, what I heard from the Hillary Camp was roughly: "ME ME ME NOT TRUMP ME ME ME ME NOT TRUMP" and almost no other messaging. Trump did not have anything approaching a coherent message. I'm not sure he had a coherent thought. But his message was roughly: "ME ME ME EVIL HILLARY JOBS JOBS SAFETY SAFETY ME ME ME EVIL HILLARY". Notice that, even while yelling about himself and
Re:Wipes her server with a cloth (Score:5, Insightful)
Her husband, was one of the best politicians ever....for some reason she cannot fathom that she is the polar opposite of that.
I grew up in AR with her as first lady of the state, and she was just as dislikeable (sp?) then as now. This is nothing new for her.
But I guess...ego won't allow for true self exploration, and she's having to try to blame everything and everyone external to herself to get through this.....
She can't deal with the fact that she is not a beloved person like her husband was (to a very broad swatch of the US), and even to an extent Obama was to her party.
After this loss, she should really fade away and allow the youth of the Democratic party to start coming up through the ranks to help try to get themselves back on target.
I'm not a Democrat, but even I can see that she and many in power are holding them back at this point, and that getting someone that *is* likable, charismatic, younger and can connect with the millennials out there would make them a very formidable party.
Hell, I really fear that as that they might really make successful pushes to get pretty far left progressive legislation through....so, I make these thoughts at my own detriment as that I don't agree with the extreme progressive agenda, but if that's what you want, then you most likely need Hillary to get off the damned public stage and bring in "new talent".
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say all of that is true. Why does this negate the fact that the DNC needs to review their Data Analytical operation? After all, practically everyone who spoke about election predictions from the DNC had Clinton winning the Electoral College easily.
You can say that she lost because of various negative issues but the DNC and her campaign should have been able to identify this a lot earlier. There was no shift in her campaigning to focus on traditional democratic states that she lost. There was no in
Re:Wipes her server with a cloth (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'd think any smart political party, would conduct a Data Analytical operation review each year, to learn from previous year, as that things are in constant change.
And it wasn't just the DNC that predicted her easy EC win...look at most all of the talking heads on TV, and most all polling companies....they had it wrong too.
What they didn't see and didn't take into account, were the folks that had been somewhat silent in past election years, those that aren't out shouting loudly about this social justice or this inequality....but lower-middle and lower income workers, that have seen and continue to see their jobs and way of life being ripped away from them. Yes, they may often be heterosexual caucasian too (hey, not that there's anything wrong with that)....and they see all the whoopla about every other minority, or possible category of sexual preference being elevated constantly in the discussions, and they were basically tired of being not only ignored, but in many ways persecuted for being what would previously been termed as "normal white American working families".
I also think that the liberal hive mind that is centered primarily in the northeast and far west of the country, somehow assumed that pretty much everyone in the US saw the country and path to the future exactly as they did, with little if any meaningful numbers of people disagreeing with them. I think this may also be due, somewhat, to what we see with the progressive side constantly shouting down more conservative speech....and this has been going on in a more subtle manner on the national news scene for decades now, so that you never really saw much conservative speech or opposing conservative thoughts on mainstream media, and hence...when you don't see it, you assume it isn't there at all.
I think many of these general thoughts were large contributing factors for many of the polling elite missing a hidden undercurrent of scorn for the more liberal progressive agenda being pushed.
And also...perhaps no one wanted to admit, that Hillary is just NOT a likable person, much less a charismatic candidate. Many assumed her coronation would be just that...that it was manifest destiny for her to be president.
This also kinda blinded them that not everyone thought that way.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact is that Clinton didn't lose by much, and her poll numbers were hit by Comey's talk about emails at the last minute. This was a loss, not a landslide.
Re:Wipes her server with a cloth (Score:4, Insightful)
practically everyone who spoke about election predictions from the DNC had Clinton winning the Electoral College easily.
It wasn't just the DNC, it was just about every poll out there. Trump didn't have a chance. There is a video montage of all the people saying "Trump will never be president". All of them MSM, and DC inbreds, not just the DNC and Hillary campaigns.
The stunned pundits from NBC to CNN and heck, even FOX was surprised. The data people everywhere failed. Except Trumps, who spent time and money on states he was pretty much "wasting" his time and effort on, states he won.
Re:Wipes her server with a cloth (Score:4, Insightful)
Delusional (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Delusional (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Biden should run in 2020. The Onion articles would be epic. This country needs to laugh again.
Wait, I thought Trump was going to be comedy gold for comedians [latimes.com] and late night TV hosts [theblaze.com]? The Onion articles on Uncle Joe [theonion.com] were pretty epic though. :-D
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, I thought Trump was going to be comedy gold for comedians and late night TV hosts?
Laughing in sheer horror isn't the same as laughing in sheer fun.
Re: (Score:3)
Kathy Griffin, is that you?
Comedy Gold right there, not the severed head, the hypocritical "apology" and all the people saying "I forgive her" who won't forgive anybody with an (R) after their name for anything.
dealt a weak hand (Score:3)
It's not her fault she was dealt a weak hand. Even the "woman card" couldn't improve it. Let's face facts---even the RNC was surprised she couldn't win against Trump. Now she is really going off the rails with her blame game.
Re: dealt a weak hand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No she didn't. She inherited what Obama would give the campaign. And I'll bet he gave little.
After all this (Obama) is the man whose campaign claimed it couldn't report to the FEC on small donors because there was too much data.
Re:Delusional (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's my quick, off-the-cuff list of things she could have done to win:
1. Show up in Wisconsin during the campaign at least once.
2. Show up in a union hall in Michigan at least once.
3. Make yard signs available to her supporters. (Apparently Robby Mook thought them "old fashioned".)
4. Select an even mildly inspiring running mate, instead of Mr. Boring, Tim Kaine.
5. Tell Obama to stop lobbying for TPP while she's ostensibly running against it.
6. Have a clear message about why she wants to be president, not just that she's "the most qualified candidate in history".
7. Run on a core set of important issues, instead of being for a laundry list of vague "good things".
8. Don't spend 75% of your ad money on anti-Trump "he's a bad man" spots (spend it on #7, above).
9. Tell Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to stop rigging the primaries, so that when Podesta's emails get leaked, there's no "shenanigans" to get exposed.
10. Don't have a private email server in your closet, so there's nothing for James Comey to investigate in the first place.
11. Don't give speeches to Goldman Sachs for $225k a pop just a few years after the financial crisis, and just a couple of years before the election.
I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile Trump does everything 10 times worse, breaks all the rules, a hypocrite and lies all the time (even about the things he accused Hillary of), is into nepotism, taken more vacations in 150 days than Obama did in 4 years.. I mean should I go on?
but no doesn't matter. it's all Hillary's fault.
Re:Delusional (Score:4, Informative)
but no doesn't matter. it's all Hillary's fault.
Yeah, exactly. This election should not have been close. Any decent candidate should have whupped Trump's ass by a comfortable margin. Hell, polls showed Bernie Sanders beating him by double digits in the week before the election -- at a time when HRC was only a couple of points ahead.
And in fact she did beat him by a couple of points, just not in the states where it mattered! So yeah... it WAS her fault.
By the way, don't blame me. I voted for her. (Much fucking good it did me...)
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing person A does wrong excuses any actions of person B. No matter how many people Stalin killed, Hitler is still Hitler. No matter how incompetent and sleazy Trump is, Clinton is still who she is and has done what she has done, and that's why she'll never be President.
Re: (Score:3)
She didn't inherit "the most advanced political data operation in history", Obama took it and kept it as "Organizing For America" - an absolutely non-political organization that has never had it's 501C(3) status questioned, despite it being his entire "Obama For America" re-election committee...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
P.S. They're going to run her again in 2020, just watch.
I doubt it.
she tried in 2008 and if it wasn't for Obama she had a good chance of winning but between her and Obama, Obama was the stronger candidate. She almost went rogue and was going to run as an independent candidate but a backroom deal was probably made where she would be given a position in Obama's cabinet and in 2016 the DNC would put all of their weight behind her.
When the 2016 election started up she was the lead democrat and all the others running were just token canidates, except for Sanders, he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you can't fix 'triggered' son.
Re: (Score:2)
If ?
Look around for rainbow haired gender fluid twits, that's today's Democrats. Congenital idiots are likely offended at being lumped in with them.
The LBGTQI crowd earnestly believe that they can bully enough people into liking them that they can get a majority support for one of their own as a presidential candidate.
Re:Delusional (Score:5, Insightful)
Blamethrower for President in 2020 (Score:3)
So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?
Re: (Score:3)
So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?
I would say that Democrats couldn't possibly be stupid enough to nominate her again ... but on the other hand, they knew exactly how bad a candidate she was and nominated her anyway in 2016. So I wouldn't count her out.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?
No way, for a variety of reasons.
1) I can't imagine the superdelegates actually believe she remains the best option for 2020.
2) The DNC seems hell bent right now on making sure that people, mostly women, as divisive as Hillary remain the main decision makers going forward. If another presidential primary was coming up this year, Elizabeth Warren would be the front runner. And she has a great chance to be another Mondale and McGovern in a general election.
3) The email server stuff would start u
Re: (Score:2)
I see two scenarios. Trump f**ks things up, and they nominate Clinton because they think anyone could win (that worked so well with Kerry).
Or Trump doesn't f**k things up too much, they nominate Clinton in 2020 to save their good people for 2024.
#2 might actually be a decent strategy.
Utterly insane (Score:2)
Everything is to blame, except for her own manifold failings.
Translation: (Score:5, Interesting)
"Its not my fault I lost"
After failing both 2008 and 2016 for the exact same reasons, namely that people really really hate her character and dishonesty, she still does not get it.
I guess there really is no cure for stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
Here, let me tell you why you lost... (Score:4, Interesting)
Dear Hillary,
Please shut the fuck up.
I am a liberal democrat. I have been for 40 years. I have always voted for the Democrat, but not this time. I could not in good conscience pull the lever for you, and it was not because of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders (I am not a socialist).
Here, let me tell you why this liberal democrat, who has never abstained from pulling the (D) lever in a presidential election, did so for the first time in 2016.
It is because you are quite possibly the WORST person ever to walk the face of the Earth. You are self-serving, corrupt, and bought and paid for by dark special interests that you don't want us to know anything about. You are closed. You are opaque. You refuse to be transparent or even part way honest about anything. You are the OPPOSITE of what a liberal democrat is supposed to be. You are, for all intents an purposes, a totalitarian statist, not a liberal democrat who works for the people. Your husband is a saint next to you (and I had no problem voting twice for him, and would do it again today).
Plus, I am fairly certain you are going to die soon. Your iron-fisted secrecy around your obvious medical conditions could only lead someone to this conclusion.
So, in summary. You are corrupt. You are a bald-faced liar. You do not work for the American People. You are the worst possible choice for President.
Sincerely,
An American Liberal Democrat
Re: (Score:2)
I've often said, "Trump is the Iron Fist, Hillary is the Iron Fist in a velvet glove."
Re: (Score:3)
This would explain (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
nate silver isn't the personification of polling you know.
Actually he is (Score:3)
Who made her call 25% of America "deplorable"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Only Hillary Clinton made Hillary Clinton call 25% of the voting base "deplorable".
Hillary Clinton made the choices to ignore the states Trump was focusing on at the end (except Florida, she had an arguably correct amount of presence there).
Only Hillary Clinton is responsible for how she handled the myriad of accusations (true and false) from the right.
Hillary Clinton should blame Hillary Clinton. It doesn't matter that she won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
History vs Hillary (Score:3, Informative)
Hillary claims she lost because of Trump's superior data operation?
FiveThirtyEight [fivethirtyeight.com] a month before the election: "Clinton has more than twice as many field offices as Trump nationwide (489 vs. 207), and her organization dominates Trump’s in every battleground state."
Field Offices != data operation (Score:4, Interesting)
She's actually probably right. She lost because she didn't campaign in the rust belt. That's probably because their data op said they had a lock on it. Also keep in mind she lost by very, very slim margins. It came down to a few tens of thousands of votes in a few dozen districts.
Watch what you email, then leaks won't hurt (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary's right about one thing... (Score:2)
A bankrupted DNC hired an IT guy who didn't take the FBI warnings about hacking attempts seriously enough.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html [nytimes.com]
Preparing for a new campaign? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wut wut in the butt (Score:2)
I don't get this. In 2012 the Republicans were in a mess, so much so they thought they had the presidency won. Rove famously started panicking as it became clear Romney wasn't gonna win. (Some was theatrics get out the vote to help discouraged Republicans vote in downstream contests in western states, no doubt, but clearly it was unexpected.)
It was the Dems who won the day with big, advanced data mining.
What the hell happened?
The DNC is the last she should blame (Score:3)
This is the same DNC that corruptly threw Bernie under the bus to provide a clear path for Hillary. They did everything they could to get her elected. If they deserve any kind of blame for causing her loss, it should be for pushing such an unpopular candidate into the presidential elections in the first place.
Democrats are bankrupt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't my fault.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost," Clinton said.
I lost cause...
- I am a woman
- Fake News
- The Russians
- The DNC was incompetent
NOT
- I was repeated caught cheating against Bernie Sanders
- The DNC collusion
- Tarmac meeting to call off investigation
- Failed to campaign to blue collar workers
- Never got boots on the ground
(Both Bernie and Trump came thru redneck Pennsylvania and Michigan, Hillary assumed her win)
- The long history of being a corrupt insider
- Pass legacy of Clinton Administration
- People are tired of political dynasty's (Kennedy's, Bush's, Clinton's)
These are why she lost...despite her campaign having twice the funds as Trump's campaign, the DNC party spending more than the Republicans, and the SuperPAC's that supported her having nearly 3x the funds of those supporting Trump. Only to be tromped in the electoral college.
Close election: everybody's theory is right (Score:2)
The election was extremely close, so every little thing that flipped a few voters was one of the straws that broke the camel's back. Comey, the Russians, her slogan, the DNC apparatus, et cetera, et cetera. No single straw broke the camel's back, they were all required.
Heck she could have had a bad hair day that flipped a few voters and that straw could have been enough.
Absolutely laughable. (Score:5, Informative)
DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal [politico.com]
The DNC was an entity wholly within the umbrella of the Clinton machine for the 2016 election. To say it was bankrupted suggests her own inability to manage her operation. Its as if Hillary Clinton and the DNC spent millions on research to find out why people hate the smell of turds and millions more on trying to find a way for people to enjoy the smell of turds, and left with the conclusion it must just be everyone else's problem for why they don't enjoy the smell of turds. And to top it off, then she whines about being short on money. If every room you walk into smells like shit, check your pants.
Stop terminating data operations people then. (Score:3)
RIP, Seth Rich.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
OMG like did you know that Drumpf literally lost by 48 MILLION votes. like come on, he only got elected because of some antiquated system invented by white slave owners to suppress and disenfranchise people like transgender muslims. Blumpf is literally HITLER reincarnated and will shortly begin killing everyone who opposes him, most likely because he has tiny hands and needs to overcompensate due to his MAJOR deficiencies. Did you hear on CNN that cheetos face only won because a team of Russian spies, perso
popular vote (Score:3)
Actually wrong in this case (Score:3)
Hillary raised and spent nearly twice as much as Trump.