• 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

Cardinal said:
That's not entirely how it happened. Polling was evening out toward a baseline, with Clinton coasting out to a win.
Click to expand...
immediately before election day, the polls told us hillary would win. the polling was flawed. doesn't matter who you tell the pollster you prefer if you don't bother to vote

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.
Click to expand...
a de minimis impact. this was a not a choice between two similar candidates. those for/opposed to tRump and hillary had made their decision prior to the Comey letter. and his retraction amounted to an exculpation, affirming hillary engaged in no illicit act. the only possible votes impacted were those early ballots that went to tRump instead of hillary during that span until Comey rescinded his interest in the weiner emails ... that number could not have been many

Anybody trying to minimize the relevance of the Comey letter either has amnesia or they're gaslighting.
Click to expand...
the Comey inquiry is nothing but an excuse. the reality is hillary was a terrible candidate. she surrounded herself with fools and spent twice as much as the donald only to lose the race. when bill won, "it's the economy, stupid" was the driving force behind his campaigns. hillary all but ignored that essence and instead advanced that tRump was unworthy
hillary lost this election because she could not turn out the vote. she turned off Bernie supporters, such that many refused to bother to vote. those are the actual reasons for her loss, despite the spin bill and hillary are attempting to put on it. notice they blame everybody and everything except their candidate and their campaign
 
Chomsky said:
Cardinal, you know I'm not debating the issue anymore, but suggesting an article that I thought might interest you - right?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're acting so frustrated by this debate since I was under the impression this was quite civil. Is there any message in particular you want me to take away from the article?
 
justabubba said:
immediately before election day, the polls told us hillary would win. the polling was flawed. doesn't matter who you tell the pollster you prefer if you don't bother to vote
Click to expand...

How was the polling flawed?


justabubba said:
a de minimis impact. this was a not a choice between two similar candidates. those for/opposed to tRump and hillary had made their decision prior to the Comey letter. and his retraction amounted to an exculpation, affirming hillary engaged in no illicit act. the only possible votes impacted were those early ballots that went to tRump instead of hillary during that span until Comey rescinded his interest in the weiner emails ... that number could not have been many


the Comey inquiry is nothing but an excuse. the reality is hillary was a terrible candidate. she surrounded herself with fools and spent twice as much as the donald only to lose the race. when bill won, "it's the economy, stupid" was the driving force behind his campaigns. hillary all but ignored that essence and instead advanced that tRump was unworthy
hillary lost this election because she could not turn out the vote. she turned off Bernie supporters, such that many refused to bother to vote. those are the actual reasons for her loss, despite the spin bill and hillary are attempting to put on it. notice they blame everybody and everything except their candidate and their campaign
Click to expand...

A 3.6 point loss in two days is the opposite of "de minimis."
 
Cardinal said:
I'm not sure why you're acting so frustrated by this debate since I was under the impression this was quite civil. Is there any message in particular you want me to take away from the article?
Click to expand...
It is civil conversation! I hope it wasn't construed as anything other! :cheers:

But yeah, the takeaway from the article seems to be detachment and arrogance.

I hope you enjoy it, if you decide to read it.
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah, but Trump also was on an upswing from post crotch-grabbing, too.

There's a lot of little and not so little things that added together to cause her loss, but the main one was she was a ****ty-assed candidate with an annoying sense of entitlement. And she ran a lousy unresponsive campaign.
Click to expand...

democrats got bob doled and john mccained in 1 person. lol.
 
Chomsky said:
And Romney'd, too!
Click to expand...

they would have been better off with sanders but there was a lot of pressure to put Clinton as the pick.
 
Cardinal said:
How was the polling flawed?




A 3.6 point loss in two days is the opposite of "de minimis."
Click to expand...

easy all polls are have a +-3% margin of error.
any poll or aggregate of polls that show anything near or close to that cannot be
considered anything but a tie.

it isn't until you start getting 4 or 5% away from that margin of error that you see any kind of real trend.

The other thing that was missed was the silent trump vote. there is now an acknowledgment that it did exist.
it went undocumented and unlooked for.
 
ludin said:
easy all polls are have a +-3% margin of error.
any poll or aggregate of polls that show anything near or close to that cannot be
considered anything but a tie.

it isn't until you start getting 4 or 5% away from that margin of error that you see any kind of real trend.

The other thing that was missed was the silent trump vote. there is now an acknowledgment that it did exist.
it went undocumented and unlooked for.
Click to expand...

Everyone is aware of the 3% margin of error, and Clinton was until the Comey letter outside of that margin. Nothing you're saying illustrates flawed polling.
 
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...

Your side lost because people are finally seeing through your angry white man mantra.

The beautiful thing is, that it's only going to get worse for your side.
 
MrPeanut said:
Bill is essentially right about the angry white men part, but it is hard to put a value on the Comey thing. I'm sure it had some effect, but I don't know if it was that dramatic.
Click to expand...

There are not enough white men in the country to cause anybody to win.

Don't these small brains know this?
 
eohrnberger said:
If there's a party of angry white men (people), it isn't the GOP, it's the Democrat party.
Click to expand...

We do see a lot of them on cable news, don't we.

The problem is they don't know what they are talking about most of the time.
 
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...

So you are saying it should have had no effect whatsoever on the election since it had nothing to do with her, right?
 
Cardinal said:
Everyone is aware of the 3% margin of error, and Clinton was until the Comey letter outside of that margin. Nothing you're saying illustrates flawed polling.
Click to expand...

sure because everyone was all over the fact that she had a 4% point lead.
that lead didn't exist. yet that didn't stop the media from throwing it all over the place.
 
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...

sure she was connected to the computer otherwise how did a ton of her emails end up on there?
the fact is she was sending them to her top aide who shared a computer evidently with her husband at the time.

there is no other reasons those emails should exist on that computer.

talk about mishandling of classified data.
 
Perhaps Bill is looking in the wrong place. Hillary lost due in large part of a lack of turnout and enthusiasm by black voters. Hillary came to Pennsylvania over and over again but she didn't go to many places. She visited Pittsburgh a few times, Harrisburg at least once and then dozens to trips to Philadelphia. With very few exceptions, she won every place she went and she was counting on turnout to put her over the top.

At the pep rally on the night before the election, she was in Philly rallying her supporters. It was as white as a Trump rally in a city that is 44% black.

Hillary Clinton rallying in Philadelphia with the Obamas, Springsteen, Bon Jovi
 
ludin said:
sure she was connected to the computer otherwise how did a ton of her emails end up on there?
the fact is she was sending them to her top aide who shared a computer evidently with her husband at the time.

there is no other reasons those emails should exist on that computer.

talk about mishandling of classified data.
Click to expand...

There was no reason to assume there was anything wrong with the computer or that there was any reason to announce her in an ongoing investigation. That's why it existed in its own box.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually I was quite happy when I voted. It was a happy moment to be against Hillary.
 
ludin said:
sure because everyone was all over the fact that she had a 4% point lead.
that lead didn't exist. yet that didn't stop the media from throwing it all over the place.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what "flawed polling" means. Merely pointing out that she had a 4% lead says nothing about whether or not the polling was flawed.

What definition of "flawed polling" are you working with?
 
Chillfolks said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is what I find funny about the whole "angry white voter" idea of Trump winning. The demographics a largely the same every election. The only real difference is that Trump did better than Romney with minorities and Hillary under performed Obama. Hillary likely would have won had she got the same turnout as Obama but instead of pointing that out it is simply "angry white voter!" If you want to look at it from a racial perspective. Honestly it was more "Angry American worker"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom