• 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!

More evidence of the Clinton team's amazing ineptitude

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
34,698
Reaction score
19,179
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
15380735_10104642140864565_1334599116419126552_n.jpg

This is a pretty sound argument for why this woman should never be put in a position of leadership.

As her staff said in secret, the woman screws up everything she touches.
 
I think it's amazing that people are saying Trump doesn't take advice.

Yeah. Hillary's campaign was crippled by her own hype.
 
This is a pretty sound argument for why this woman should never be put in a position of leadership.

As her staff said in secret, the woman screws up everything she touches.

Agreed! She's all hype, has always been a lot of liberal hype and the bozos who support her, eat the pablum!

I think it's amazing that people are saying Trump doesn't take advice.

No ****!

Some good ol Monday morning quarterbacking

And accurate ...too! ;)
 
View attachment 67211196

This is a pretty sound argument for why this woman should never be put in a position of leadership.

As her staff said in secret, the woman screws up everything she touches.

She lost to Trump, there is no bigger evidence of complete incompetence than that.
 
She lost to Trump, there is no bigger evidence of complete incompetence than that.

Well, that too. But it was that same kind of underestimation that doomed her campaign. She never stepped foot in Wisconsin because she thought there was no chance Trump could win there.
 
maybe if they had done more campaigning and less yea we are going to win.
then well she might have won.

It's kind of like the Democrat snafu in South Carolina a few years back where a nobody Alvin Greene won the primary against Democrat favorite Vic Rawl because the favorite didn't think the challenge was worth campaigning over.

And, of course, the humiliating defeat of Eric Cantor in the Republican primary a while back by David Brat.

She can spend the rest of her years commiserating with Rawl and Cantor at the "WTF Happened!?" Club socials.
 
Last edited:
It's kind of like the Democrat snafu in South Carolina a few years back where a nobody Alvin Greene won the primary against Democrat favorite Vic Rawl because the favorite didn't think the challenge was worth campaigning over.

And, of course, the humiliating defeat of Eric Cantor in the Republican primary a while back by David Brat.

She can spend the rest of her years commiserating with Rawl and Cantor at the "WTF Happened!?" Club socials.

It was waterloo for sure. no doubt about it.

She was going for the popular vote not the EC. Trump played the EC and won.
 
It was waterloo for sure. no doubt about it.

She was going for the popular vote not the EC. Trump played the EC and won.
That's actually a pretty apt way to describe it! :thumbs:
 
That's actually a pretty apt way to describe it! :thumbs:

There was a huge assumption on Clinton that polls would translate into votes. there was another huge assumption that typical blue states would stay blue.
She dismissed the notion of this silent trump vote which turned out to be accurate.

They found out later there was a large group of people across states that got tired of stating their opinion and just chose to be quiet.

I was skeptical early in the evening when trump was losing FL by a large margin, that was before they started counting the i4 corridor and the panhandle.
which can swing the state either way.

that is why the polls were so wrong. it was another case of Dewey vs Truman.

it didn't help that Clinton didn't even go to certain states.
She lost several states that she could have won by not even visiting.

people though trump was crazy for going to MN, WI, MI. he knew or his team knew what they were doing
and he got enough suburb votes to win those states.

for all the talk of how dumb he is the team he had was brilliant along with his campaign.
 
I'm not only glad she's gone, I'm grateful beyond words.
 
View attachment 67211196

This is a pretty sound argument for why this woman should never be put in a position of leadership.

As her staff said in secret, the woman screws up everything she touches.
I agree, she should not have become President.

That said her being a bad choice does not imply the other choice was better, he could be even worse. We shall see where we go from here, and if it goes well trump and the Repub Congress should be praised and if they screw it up then they should be criticized and bear the brunt of the fallout. One thing about winning all the marbles, you then end up in the limelight and there will be no one else to blame for your failures, even though we know it will be attempted when they screw up, and they Will screw up sooner or later.
 
There was a huge assumption on Clinton that polls would translate into votes. there was another huge assumption that typical blue states would stay blue.
She dismissed the notion of this silent trump vote which turned out to be accurate.

They found out later there was a large group of people across states that got tired of stating their opinion and just chose to be quiet.

I was skeptical early in the evening when trump was losing FL by a large margin, that was before they started counting the i4 corridor and the panhandle.
which can swing the state either way.

that is why the polls were so wrong. it was another case of Dewey vs Truman.

it didn't help that Clinton didn't even go to certain states.
She lost several states that she could have won by not even visiting.

people though trump was crazy for going to MN, WI, MI. he knew or his team knew what they were doing
and he got enough suburb votes to win those states.

for all the talk of how dumb he is the team he had was brilliant along with his campaign.
My thoughts exactly Ludin, down to my same reaction on election nite as I waited for the Miami counties to take Trump out - but it never materialized.

But I deviate from your analysis in one facet: I'm not so sure the Trump campaign was as skillful in determining the state of the race in WI, MI, MN, as that they could not see a path to 270 without cracking at least one of the three, so they pragmatically beat on them believing they had no choice. Even so, that would show good strategy though.

The above seems to be in concert with campaign insiders claiming that in terms raw data the Trump team thought they had most likely lost the race going into election nite, but in terms of support on the ground they were flummoxed seeing the groundswell of enthusiasm. This also seems to be reflected in the article I'm sourcing:

"When top aides to the Trump campaign mapped out the best-case scenarios for election night, they always fell short of 270, and Michigan was always the state that they couldn’t see a way through.

Trump’s last stop of the election was a massive rally in Michigan that went on past midnight, his campaign homing in on Trump’s chances there largely from nervousness it sensed coming out of Brooklyn.

Walking out at the end, Trump turned to his running mate, Mike Pence, almost confused: “This doesn’t feel like second place,” he said, according to a person familiar with the conversation."


Source: How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election

This is a fairly indepth article that appears well researched & well sourced (if often anonymously), and describes the fait accompli superiority attitude within the Brooklyn enclave of the senior levels of the Clinton campaign, and how they drove-off and dismissed the input of those on the ground. It's an excellent article showing the Clinton champaign leadership at its worse, and it's well worth the somewhat longish read.

I'm considering starting an OP thread based upon this article.
 
I agree, she should not have become President.

That said her being a bad choice does not imply the other choice was better, he could be even worse. We shall see where we go from here, and if it goes well trump and the Repub Congress should be praised and if they screw it up then they should be criticized and bear the brunt of the fallout. One thing about winning all the marbles, you then end up in the limelight and there will be no one else to blame for your failures, even though we know it will be attempted when they screw up, and they Will screw up sooner or later.
Well said.

The GOP have been handed a governing majority and a great economy. Their success will rise or fall on their abilities alone. Irrespective of whatever FUD they may deploy in the event of failure, I suspect it will not be enough to pacify the voters.
 
Back
Top Bottom