• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton greeted by sobbing women on Capitol Hill

She came so close to breaking that final Glass Ceiling and being the First Person Elected President While Under FBI Investigation :(
 
JoeTrumps said:
probably not good that I take immense joy in this scene. and so close to christmas. naughty, naughty!

Watch: Hillary Clinton greeted by sobbing women on Capitol Hill | Washington Examiner
Click to expand...

Way too victim culture for me, they should be giving her hell for wanting (demanding?) a coronation, then doing such a poor job that she got beat by Trump.

I mean if they had any standards this is what they would be doing.

No I dont think the criers will be much help on this project.

We will have to MAKE AMERICA GREAT without them.

More than likely.

Which sucks.

:thumbdown
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
Candidates matter. Choosing your nominee four years in advance and then doing everything possible to ensure she won the nomination was probably the wrong thing to do.
Click to expand...

Considering she was so unlikable, that was definitely the wrong thing to do.
 
looshawn said:
That was priceless.

Wonder if Tim Kaine was sobbing too...
Click to expand...

He was so happy to get away from Clinton Corp....first day back after the loss he was all "It is so great to be home, let me tell ya"(paraphrase).

So no, no he is not.
 
looshawn said:
That was priceless.

Wonder if Tim Kaine was sobbing too...
Click to expand...


One of Tim's first acts back on the job full-time was to call for pushing Congress to officially declare WAR on ISIS. In this viedo I think he may be holding the onions so Hillary can force a tear because polling said it plays well in the young female demographic.


Could anyone see if Huma was there? Maybe the crying sounds effect? Could be DNC paid plants to cry?



Whomever is crying is probably not old enough to have life really kick their ass and show them true disappointment yet. Buckle up butter cup life is a bitch on the best of days.
 
Last edited:
I can definitely understand why those women were crying. Hillary Clinton's campaign message of "VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN AND COULDN'T GET TO WHERE I AM WITHOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" is a real hopebringer for women who aren't talented enough to get into upper management based on their skills alone. What are untalented women supposed to do now?
 
reinoe said:
I can definitely understand why those women were crying. Hillary Clinton's campaign message of "VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN AND COULDN'T GET TO WHERE I AM WITHOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" is a real hopebringer for women who aren't talented enough to get into upper management based on their skills alone. What are untalented women supposed to do now?
Click to expand...


Everyone please give a warm welcome to Dusty.


Waarrant "Cherry Pie" starts playing.
 
reinoe said:
I can definitely understand why those women were crying. Hillary Clinton's campaign message of "VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN AND COULDN'T GET TO WHERE I AM WITHOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" is a real hopebringer for women who aren't talented enough to get into upper management based on their skills alone. What are untalented women supposed to do now?
Click to expand...

If that really fair? I'm sure those women have talents, perhaps even if undiscovered ones.
 
TheGoverness said:
Considering she was so unlikable, that was definitely the wrong thing to do.
Click to expand...

This was a very unique and unconventional election. Usually the candidate with the highest favorable rating wins. Or one could turn it around and say the candidate with the highest unfavorable rating loses. It has been this way since Gallup started keeping track of favorable/unfavorable ratings. One prior to this election could look at the favorable rating of the candidates and pretty much know who was going to win. Not this election, conventional was thrown out the window.

Clinton had a 38% favorable with Trump at 35% and Trump became the first candidate to win an presidential election with a favorable rating lower than his opponent. So many people disliked both candidates, 25% per Gallup, 22% of all Americans per YouGov. Perhaps the difference was Trump excited and energized his supporters where Clinton's were mostly ho hum in the key states. It could be as simple as that. Another way to look at it, most Republicans came home to Trump in the last two weeks of the campaign, a lot of Democrats didn't. But that may go back to the enthusiasm gap and the anti voters.
 
Hillary is old news..
 
Yeah, ladies, that doesn't really help to dispute the stereotype. Lol
 
Perotista said:
This was a very unique and unconventional election. Usually the candidate with the highest favorable rating wins. Or one could turn it around and say the candidate with the highest unfavorable rating loses. It has been this way since Gallup started keeping track of favorable/unfavorable ratings. One prior to this election could look at the favorable rating of the candidates and pretty much know who was going to win. Not this election, conventional was thrown out the window.

Clinton had a 38% favorable with Trump at 35% and Trump became the first candidate to win an presidential election with a favorable rating lower than his opponent. So many people disliked both candidates, 25% per Gallup, 22% of all Americans per YouGov. Perhaps the difference was Trump excited and energized his supporters where Clinton's were mostly ho hum in the key states. It could be as simple as that. Another way to look at it, most Republicans came home to Trump in the last two weeks of the campaign, a lot of Democrats didn't. But that may go back to the enthusiasm gap and the anti voters.
Click to expand...

Wrong. All the polling was proven dreadfully wrong. You have no idea what the favorability ratings were.
 
Perotista said:
This was a very unique and unconventional election. Usually the candidate with the highest favorable rating wins. Or one could turn it around and say the candidate with the highest unfavorable rating loses. It has been this way since Gallup started keeping track of favorable/unfavorable ratings. One prior to this election could look at the favorable rating of the candidates and pretty much know who was going to win. Not this election, conventional was thrown out the window.

Clinton had a 38% favorable with Trump at 35% and Trump became the first candidate to win an presidential election with a favorable rating lower than his opponent. So many people disliked both candidates, 25% per Gallup, 22% of all Americans per YouGov. Perhaps the difference was Trump excited and energized his supporters where Clinton's were mostly ho hum in the key states. It could be as simple as that. Another way to look at it, most Republicans came home to Trump in the last two weeks of the campaign, a lot of Democrats didn't. But that may go back to the enthusiasm gap and the anti voters.
Click to expand...

35 and 38 are the same for all intents and purposes even if the margin of error was less than 2%, which is doubtful.
 
eohrnberger said:
If that really fair? I'm sure those women have talents, perhaps even if undiscovered ones.
Click to expand...

Well I was gonna throw in "sleeping your way to the top" but it's a dated stereotype since most managers are trying to pick up their mistresses from outside the workplace nowadays.
 
Perotista said:
This was a very unique and unconventional election. Usually the candidate with the highest favorable rating wins. Or one could turn it around and say the candidate with the highest unfavorable rating loses. It has been this way since Gallup started keeping track of favorable/unfavorable ratings. One prior to this election could look at the favorable rating of the candidates and pretty much know who was going to win. Not this election, conventional was thrown out the window.

Clinton had a 38% favorable with Trump at 35% and Trump became the first candidate to win an presidential election with a favorable rating lower than his opponent. So many people disliked both candidates, 25% per Gallup, 22% of all Americans per YouGov. Perhaps the difference was Trump excited and energized his supporters where Clinton's were mostly ho hum in the key states. It could be as simple as that. Another way to look at it, most Republicans came home to Trump in the last two weeks of the campaign, a lot of Democrats didn't. But that may go back to the enthusiasm gap and the anti voters.
Click to expand...

The thing is, the dynamics made it fashionable to declare Trump an inferior candidate while supporting him with cautious optimism and an impressive EC vote. Ergo low approval ratings. And the same dynamics made it fashionable to support Hillary even though many of those who voted for her had to hold their nose to do it.

And since the election, Hillary is just being Hillary blaming anybody and everybody but herself for her problems.

And Trump continues to defy conventional wisdom from both the 'never Trump' people and those who honestly and openly supported him--he's definitely going to be able to say he did it his way.
 
Erod said:
Wrong. All the polling was proven dreadfully wrong. You have no idea what the favorability ratings were.
Click to expand...

No, the polls were right. There were a plus or minus of three points in the polls. RCP averages had Clinton winning the popular vote by 3.3 points with that MOE of plus or minus 3 points. Clinton won the popular vote by 2 points over Trump which would make the polls 1.3 points off or well within their MOE of plus or minus three points.

Bloomberg, ABC, YouGov, Fox, Monmouth, Gravis, NBC, Rasmussen, CBS were all well within the MOE, all within 2 points of the final results. Only IBD/TIPP which predicted a 2 point Trump win fell out of the MOE. IBD was one point outside the margin of error.

Remember, none of these polls predicted the electoral college results, just the national popular vote which Clinton won by two points. Rasmussen hit it right on the nose with her two point win in the popular vote. All the rest I mentioned above were within one or two points of the actual results and with an average MOE of plus or minus three points, all were accurate.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
35 and 38 are the same for all intents and purposes even if the margin of error was less than 2%, which is doubtful.
Click to expand...

Correct, just about the same as most polls which measured this had a MOE of plus or minus 3 points.
 
reinoe said:
I can definitely understand why those women were crying. Hillary Clinton's campaign message of "VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN AND COULDN'T GET TO WHERE I AM WITHOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" is a real hopebringer for women who aren't talented enough to get into upper management based on their skills alone. What are untalented women supposed to do now?
Click to expand...

Maybe they can post witty things like this on anonymous forums to feel better about how untalented they are in real life.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The thing is, the dynamics made it fashionable to declare Trump an inferior candidate while supporting him with cautious optimism and an impressive EC vote. Ergo low approval ratings. And the same dynamics made it fashionable to support Hillary even though many of those who voted for her had to hold their nose to do it.

And since the election, Hillary is just being Hillary blaming anybody and everybody but herself for her problems.

And Trump continues to defy conventional wisdom from both the 'never Trump' people and those who honestly and openly supported him--he's definitely going to be able to say he did it his way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, according to the exit polls, there were far more anti-Clinton voters than anti-Trump voters. Clinton was a boring candidate, she probably took this election for granted. Clinton didn't even visit Wisconsin, not once and visited Michigan only once. Trump was in both states at least a half a dozen times that I could find. Trump it seems out campaigned Clinton in those two states. Trump excited his supporters, energized them. They were willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Clinton didn't, that probably made the difference between winning and losing Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Clinton would be off to fund raisers in deep blue California or New York, Trump campaigning and holding rallies.
 
Perotista said:
Correct, just about the same as most polls which measured this had a MOE of plus or minus 3 points.
Click to expand...

If we elected Presidents by popular vote that would mean what you think it does.

But we dont.

A week out the polls showed Clinton winning with 273 votes

https://mic.com/articles/158313/pre...linton-with-edge-over-donald-trump#.n7rJq9oRu

She got 232.

That is a big difference. Did the race move that much at the end? Maybe but not likely.

I will await the final post mortems but I think the polls were wrong, which is something that I had said during the summer was likely to occur.
 
All of this emotional stuff is where the media hyped Clinton winning so much.
they are 100% to blame for what I would call an emotion bomb shell.

They were on the air every day say how badly trump was losing and going to lose that there was no way that he could pull
out a win. according to almost every site except for a few here and there that were deemed outliers Clinton was expected to win.

when reality doesn't meet expectation there is disappointment depending upon the degree to which that happens the bigger the disappointment is.

I can understand being disappointed that your candidate didn't win but it is a month ago. the situation doesn't call for that much crying over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom