• 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!

Bill Clinton bashes Trump, blames 'angry white men' and Comey for wife's loss

ttwtt78640 said:
Bill left out her high "trustworthiness" negatives, strong anti-2A stance, calling folks deplorable, liking PPACA, bragging about making coal miners unemployed, pep talks to Wall Street (for cash), raising the MW to half of the median wage, favoring more perks for illegal aliens, plans to invite ever more ME refugees and her goofy plan to make college "debt free" (to some students). Running as "not Trump" (or Obama 3.0) and taking "blue states" for granted simply did not git-r-done.
Click to expand...

Those are good examples of the halftruths that were used to rile up the angry white voters.
 
americanwoman said:
It must as least interest you, after all you read the title and still clicked and responded.
Click to expand...

If you make the assumption that other people are as reasonable and honest as you are, i fear you may be persistently disappointed.
 
American said:
Bill Clinton bashes Trump, blames 'angry white men' and Comey for wife's loss | Fox News


Speaking of angry, white men, how are you Bill? Mad bro'?
Click to expand...

If one looks at the numbers, Trump out campaigned Hillary big time. From 1 Sep to 8 Nov Trump made 116 campaign appearances to Hillary Clinton's 71. Some of those 71 were just fund raisers in Deep blue California and New York. States she had no worry about. Clinton outspent Trump by 2-1 waiting on the final figures. Roughly 1.5 billion to 750 million.

But where Trump out campaigned Clinton the most was in the three deciding states of Wisconsin, six to zero. In Michigan, five to one, Pennsylvania a closer seven to five. In Florida, a toss up state Trump made 13 appearances to Clinton's 8. Where Trump hogged the spotlight, sometimes good, sometimes bad, Clinton avoided it. Trump was calling in all the morning shows, getting himself on TV for what seemed liked a million times a day. Clinton refused to give interviews except to Oprah, the View and the like. She took days off the campaign trail, Trump didn't.

Trump was exciting, he energized his supporters, they would go to the four corners of the earth for him. Clinton was dull and boring. She didn't connect, a lot of her supporters were ho hum supporters. She had everything going for her. A democratic base vote of 32% to a republican base vote of 27%, the blue wall which turned out to be Obama's, not Hillary's. But if she paid attention and didn't ignore the fears of the middle class, the blue collar worker especially in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, she probably would be president elect today. Trump addressed their fears, the apprehensions, Clinton just promised to be Obama's third term. Not good enough in those three states.

I must admit from the get go, I always thought Trump was the wrong candidate to beat Clinton. That almost any other Republican would be a shoe in. It turned out that Clinton was the wrong candidate to beat Trump. So much baggage, so much distrust and so many Americans who just plain didn't like her. Her persona was aloof, elitist, she was next in line for the presidency, someone forgot to tell her she would have to work at it. She couldn't connect with the people like Trump did. Trump was probably a bit more disliked by Americans as a whole, but he connected with the people where it counted. With the middle class, with the blue collar worker and even with union house holds. Obama won union households by 18 points, Hillary by 9. Hillary failed at that.
 
Ellis_G said:
Lol, the pollsters didn't have a clue.
Click to expand...

Actually, the polling was fine. It was interpretations of the polling that were off.
 
Cardinal said:
That's not entirely how it happened. Polling was evening out toward a baseline, with Clinton coasting out to a win. The Comey letter will forever change the "October Surprise" to "The November Surprise." Its impact was nothing short of devastating. It was the last major narrative to dominate the news right before the election, and there was absolutely zero time for Comey's "Oops nothing there after all" announcement to do anything to correct it. Anybody trying to minimize the relevance of the Comey letter either has amnesia or they're gaslighting.
Click to expand...
It was big-enough, agreed. It was the coup de grace.

But her problem was a lack of enthusiasm, and an unresponsive campaign. When you run a losing campaign, any one of a myriad of things can be seen as the straw that broke the camel's back, when in reality the loss is due to a totality of failures. Confer Romney's 47%.

If you don't mind, please consider the article below. I think it's illustrative of the point I'm making, and a very good article in general. And yes, it does weight the Comey letter heavily as well.

How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election
 
americanwoman said:
It must as least interest you, after all you read the title and still clicked and responded.
Click to expand...

My main interest in those two lying degenerates--and in collectivists generally--is in seeing them and their vile philosophy become more and more thoroughly discredited.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Except that the Trump cabinet choices were made after he won the election. Other than that, your logic is solid. ;)
Click to expand...

Um...I never said he didn't. Only that by virtue of Trump's own honesty (nonexistent) as well as how he's setting up his cabinet, none of the criticisms of Clinton are relevant anymore.
 
Chomsky said:
It was big-enough, agreed. It was the coup de grace.

But her problem was a lack of enthusiasm, and an unresponsive campaign. When you run a losing campaign, any one of a myriad of things can be seen as the straw that broke the camel's back, when in reality the loss is due to a totality of failures. Confer Romney's 47%.

If you don't mind, please consider the article below. I think it's illustrative of the point I'm making, and a very good article in general. And yes, it does weight the Comey letter heavily as well.

How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election
Click to expand...

I already know that Clinton had other weaknesses and missteps. But if you take away the Comey letter then we'd be defending President-Elect Clinton against the hysteria of the far-right on this forum right now.

Bill Clinton was not wrong.
 
So Bill is upset his wife was unable to anger enough minorities into supporting her?


In the end Least I'm not Trump wasn't as effective as Least I'm not Clinton.
 
Cardinal said:
I already know that Clinton had other weaknesses and missteps. But if you take away the Comey letter then we'd be defending President-Elect Clinton against the hysteria of the far-right on this forum right now.

Bill Clinton was not wrong.
Click to expand...
Alright, I'm not going to beat on this to death.

The Comey letter was a failure point of one of many, each of which caused the loss.

Did you read the article?
 
If there's a party of angry white men (people), it isn't the GOP, it's the Democrat party.
 
Cardinal said:
I already know that Clinton had other weaknesses and missteps. But if you take away the Comey letter then we'd be defending President-Elect Clinton against the hysteria of the far-right on this forum right now.

Bill Clinton was not wrong.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of speculation on your part.

Had Clinton not behaved in a questionable fashion with her server theen the FBI has no reason to investigate her. Much less release any letter during this election.

Comey was not responsible for Hillary's actions that sparked the investigation. Nor should he be blaimed for the fallout from her actions.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes - but they lost because they ran a crap unresponsive campaign behind an unappealing arrogant candidate. And an establishment candidate during an anti-establishment year, to boot!

Check out their arrogance:

How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election
Click to expand...

It's easy to forget that before the Comey letter, and in spite of her many weaknesses, she was still 4.6 points ahead, which is a tenuous lead but still one that is outside the margin of error. Immediately after the letter was announced her lead dropped to 1.3 points, which is well inside the margin of error. So again, to mitigate the relevance of the letter requires amnesia or it's gaslighting.
 
Chomsky said:
Alright, I'm not going to beat on this to death.

The Comey letter was a failure point of one of many, each of which caused the loss.

Did you read the article?
Click to expand...

What you're not appreciating is the unique nature of the letter, and I'm not even referring to the timing of it. What makes the letter distinctive is its utter lack of connection to an action or misstep by Clinton. It existed in its own box. Clinton was not connected to Weiner's computer and did nothing to facilitate the investigation into him. Comey just said "Computer. Weiner. Clinton. Email. Investigation." It didn't matter that neither Clinton nor her emails had a scintilla of connection to any of it, but early voting was in full swing in the week before his announcement that it was all lulz, a week during which the question of her corruption was utterly locked in the public's consciousness.

If your article lists the missteps of Clinton, I know them already.
 
American said:
Bill Clinton bashes Trump, blames 'angry white men' and Comey for wife's loss | Fox News


Speaking of angry, white men, how are you Bill? Mad bro'?
Click to expand...

Not sure only angry, white males voted for him. I mean, I'm sure there were some who voted for him who were angry, white males, but was that enough to get the win?

Hillary lost because she ran a crap campaign, continually insulted Americans, thought herself unbeatable, etc. She lost because she lost. She was running against Trump, it should have been in the bag, it should have been her EC domination; but she fudged up huge and did so horrible of a job that she lost to Trump. Takes a certain level of incompetence to lose to Trump.
 
Cardinal said:
What you're not appreciating is the unique nature of the letter, and I'm not even referring to the timing of it. What makes the letter distinctive is its utter lack of connection to an action or misstep by Clinton. It existed in its own box. Clinton was not connected to Weiner's computer and did nothing to facilitate the investigation into him. Comey just said "Computer. Weiner. Clinton. Email. Investigation." It didn't matter that neither Clinton nor her emails had a scintilla of connection to any of it, but early voting was in full swing in the week before his announcement that it was all lulz, a week during which the question of her corruption was utterly locked in the public's consciousness.

If your article lists the missteps of Clinton, I know them already.
Click to expand...
Either way, I still suggest you consider checking-out the article if you get a chance. Not to bolster this discussion, but for some illumination as to what was occurring inside the campaign. It's a an interesting insight into the disconnect occurring between the local ground operations & the Brooklyn command & control center, and I suspect you'll like.
 
Chomsky said:
Either way, I still suggest you consider checking-out the article if you get a chance. Not to bolster this discussion, but for some illumination as to what was occurring inside the campaign. It's a an interesting insight into the disconnect occurring between the local ground operations & the Brooklyn command & control center, and I suspect you'll like.
Click to expand...

Again, I know most of the strategic misteps of Clintons. That really won't add to or clarify what I already know about those since I haven't and won't deny them. However, again, the Comey letter exists complete outside of those misteps, and thus the outrage over it.
 
Cardinal said:
I remember the entire election cycle, and Trump pandered exclusively to the angry white crowd. Also, the Comey letter was splashed across the front of every news site for a week and Clinton lost three points in that time, which is extraordinary change in polling in such a short time. Clinton is absolutely correct.
Click to expand...

So truth came out and people responded to it... That's a good thing, IMO...
 
Cardinal said:
Again, I know most of the strategic misteps of Clintons. That really won't add to or clarify what I already know about those since I haven't and won't deny them. However, again, the Comey letter exists complete outside of those misteps, and thus the outrage over it.
Click to expand...
Cardinal, you know I'm not debating the issue anymore, but suggesting an article that I thought might interest you - right?
 
Cardinal said:
Actually, the polling was fine. It was interpretations of the polling that were off.
Click to expand...


Cardinal said:
It's easy to forget that before the Comey letter, and in spite of her many weaknesses, she was still 4.6 points ahead, which is a tenuous lead but still one that is outside the margin of error. Immediately after the letter was announced her lead dropped to 1.3 points, which is well inside the margin of error. So again, to mitigate the relevance of the letter requires amnesia or it's gaslighting.
Click to expand...


Which is it? The pollsters were only wrong in what they said except when you can use the pollster numbers to prove you are right? Your definition of "wrong" seems to be flexible. If she didn't have any of the other numerous self inflicted wounds maybe she would have had that 1.3 points. I don't think the letter did her any damage but if it did then it was a just a part of the accumulation of issues.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Which is it? The pollsters were only wrong in what they said except when you can use the pollster numbers to prove you are right? Your definition of "wrong" seems to be flexible. If she didn't have any of the other numerous self inflicted wounds maybe she would have had that 1.3 points. I don't think the letter did her any damage but if it did then it was a just a part of the accumulation of issues.
Click to expand...

Your post bears no resemblance to anything I was saying, per usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom