Was Hillary Clinton a lousy candidate?

[Ikari]

Super delegates have been in the process for decades, and they switched to Obama in 2008 even though people were making the same complaints. You might not like the system, but it was not put in place just so Hillary would win. Can you give me a link for the voter rolls thing? First time I''ve heard of such a thing.

It was this little tidbit, remember?
Sanders campaign sues DNC after database breach - CNNPolitics

All in all, the DNC was pulling for Clinton and they did everything they could to sway in that direction. The super delegates system is just some corrupt party system, easily used by the Party to influence elections.

I don't think anyone can actually say that the DNC wasn't in the pocket of Clinton and did what they could to influence the system in her favor. One may argue that the influence wouldn't have mattered in the end, Clinton would have won regardless. But it's clear that it was there.

Ancient history I suppose. The DNC put up Hillary and she was such a **** candidate she actually lost to Donald Trump. It's time for her to go away and the DNC to learn a lesson.

 

[backpacker]

I have been hearing since the election that democrats/liberals just can't admit reality... that Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate. I don't think this is true at all so I wanted to do a poll on it.

When I ask "is she a lousy candidate", I take that specifically to mean is she a likable person that can sway voters to her side? Is she charismatic? Does she inspire people? The typical qualities you'd want for any general politician regardless of political ideologies. The kind of person that builds momentum and can draw a crowd. That to me would make someone a great candidate. Therefor when I ask was she a lousy candidate I'm basically asking was she incapable of all those things?

I'd also like to point out that this isn't a question of "why did Hillary lose?". Because a question like that is complicated. Literally dozens of factors could go in to why someone, whether they are lousy or not, won or lost an election. You change a few variables and even a lousy candidate might end up winning. So ignore all of the "is this why she lost" stuff. I'm asking specifically, do you think she was a lousy candidate or not and why.

I'm more interested in democrats/liberals responses, but I am including a spot for conservatives and independents to vote. For the sake of simplicity I am asking everyone to just click on the group that you most consistently align with even if it's not perfect.

Thanks for voting and any input that people provide.

She is an elitist snob who thinks she knows better than everybody else and is better than everybody else. She deserved to be trounced.

 

[Ikari]

But I also think that many people who came out for Clinton (remember there were 63 million of them) wouldn't have come out for Sanders. Particularly POC.

I think that people would be voting against Trump at that point (much like people ended up voting against Hillary). And Bernie is the much easier pill to swallow in that match up, IMO.

It's all hypothetical, but I firmly believe Sanders would have won.

 

[Linc]

The DNC will need to run a good shake for their primaries and let the chips fall as they might. I think that so long as they get Not Clinton, they should have a good chance of beating Trump. But they'd better take stock as to how they lost this time around and learn from their mistakes.

As long as Sanders' voters continue to hold out and not vote, as in Wisconsin costing Finegold a Senate seat and in Pennsylvania with McGinty--just to name two, get ready to live your life with this GOP Supreme Court for decades to come; as well as having Ryan and McConnell ruin this Nation into the next decade.

I've run out of energy in trying to talk electoral sense to Sanders' voters. Good luck making it to my age with the GOP ruining this Nation because DEMs can't come together or bother to turnout and vote ...

 

[Nilly]

It was this little tidbit, remember?
Sanders campaign sues DNC after database breach - CNNPolitics

All in all, the DNC was pulling for Clinton and they did everything they could to sway in that direction. The super delegates system is just some corrupt party system, easily used by the Party to influence elections.

I don't think anyone can actually say that the DNC wasn't in the pocket of Clinton and did what they could to influence the system in her favor. One may argue that the influence wouldn't have mattered in the end, Clinton would have won regardless. But it's clear that it was there.

Ancient history I suppose. The DNC put up Hillary and she was such a **** candidate she actually lost to Donald Trump. It's time for her to go away and the DNC to learn a lesson.

The primaries are an inherently political process. Hillary is a lifelong democrat, Sanders wasn't. Of course the DNC want to put forward the candidate who they think has the most chance against the RNC candidate. That said, even without the superdelegate vote, Hillary won the popular against Sanders. IF Sanders had been the GE candidate he would still have been ripped apart by right wing media for being a socialist etc etc etc.

I know it's hypothetical but I don't see how you can say that Sanders could have beaten Trump in the GE when he lost against a 'terrible' Clinton in the primaries...

 

[roughdraft274]

Well, your description of likable certainly does not represent the man who eventually won...:lol:

Just because someone won doesn't mean they are a great politician. Trump is incredibly unlikable and a terrible politician. Period. Both Clinton and Trump would have been crushed by a likable or charismatic candidate.

 

[Nilly]

As long as Sanders' voters continue to hold out and not vote, as in Wisconsin costing Finegold a Senate seat and in Pennsylvania with McGinty--just to name two, get ready to live your life with this GOP Supreme Court for decades to come; as well as having Ryan and McConnell ruin this Nation into the next decade.

I've run out of energy in trying to talk electoral sense to Sanders' voters. Good luck making it to my age with the GOP ruining this Nation because DEMs can't come together or bother to turnout and vote ...

Not to mention, I think that many of the things that Sanders ran on (single payer, cheaper college education) would come about under the current democratic party.

ProgressivePunch: Senate Members by score / All issues

There are 9 democratic senators who vote more progressive than Sanders.

 

[JANFU]

I disagree that they rigged their election, but agree very much with bolded above. From the beginning, I said loudly that I thought she was very bad and that any decently likable republican would have crushed her.

From what i recall she has a 65 % disapproval rating by Democrats. To much baggage, to many lies, to many scandals, to much corruption.
I have posted this before. I think it reflects the views on many Repubs and Dems
View attachment 67222390

 

[Dirt Sands]

I have been hearing since the election that democrats/liberals just can't admit reality... that Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate. I don't think this is true at all so I wanted to do a poll on it.

When I ask "is she a lousy candidate", I take that specifically to mean is she a likable person that can sway voters to her side? Is she charismatic? Does she inspire people? The typical qualities you'd want for any general politician regardless of political ideologies. The kind of person that builds momentum and can draw a crowd. That to me would make someone a great candidate. Therefor when I ask was she a lousy candidate I'm basically asking was she incapable of all those things?

I'd also like to point out that this isn't a question of "why did Hillary lose?". Because a question like that is complicated. Literally dozens of factors could go in to why someone, whether they are lousy or not, won or lost an election. You change a few variables and even a lousy candidate might end up winning. So ignore all of the "is this why she lost" stuff. I'm asking specifically, do you think she was a lousy candidate or not and why.

I'm more interested in democrats/liberals responses, but I am including a spot for conservatives and independents to vote. For the sake of simplicity I am asking everyone to just click on the group that you most consistently align with even if it's not perfect.

Thanks for voting and any input that people provide.

Hillary would have been an amazing president but she was only an average candidate.

1st, I already know that you are a Bernie, based upon your post. So, it must be said, that she was infinitely better as a candidate.

2nd, I'm already bored with this topic so I won't finish.



Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

 

[Nilly]

I think that people would be voting against Trump at that point (much like people ended up voting against Hillary). And Bernie is the much easier pill to swallow in that match up, IMO.

It's all hypothetical, but I firmly believe Sanders would have won.

That's fair enough, and it's your opinion to have and I have no issue with it.

I just hope that this Trump presidency is enough for people to recognize that uniting under a flawed candidate to prevent someone like Trump getting in to power is better for America as a whole.

 

[Linc]

Not to mention, I think that many of the things that Sanders ran on (single payer, cheaper college education) would come about under the current democratic party.

ProgressivePunch: Senate Members by score / All issues

There are 9 democratic senators who vote more progressive than Sanders.

Sen. Sherrod Brown has to win his Ohio senate seat next year if DEMs hope to take back the Senate in 2020. He's one of my favorite Democrats. But, will Democrats in Ohio turn out to vote as they did when Obama was up in 2012? They sure didn't turn out for Finegold and McGinty last year.

The more I hear from Sen. Klobuchar, and this is from Minnesota people also, the more I love her as a POTUS candidate. The only other one I see close is term-limited Gov. Hickenlooper of Colorado.

I fully expect trump to retire after one term--for all the reasons, declare America Great Again, and go back to his businesses. I'm not at all afraid of a normal GOP like Gov. Baker of Massachusetts becoming POTUS ...

 

[MaggieD]

Just because someone won doesn't mean they are a great politician. Trump is incredibly unlikable and a terrible politician. Period. Both Clinton and Trump would have been crushed by a likable or charismatic candidate.

I don't disagree.

 

[Linc]

From what i recall she has a 65 % disapproval rating by Democrats. To much baggage, to many lies, to many scandals, to much corruption.
I have posted this before. I think it reflects the views on many Repubs and Dems
View attachment 67222390

This Nation changed for the bad forever in this century with the 5-4 Political vote for Bush v. Gore; as told to us by Sandra Day O'Connor ...

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

Why was she a lousy candidate? Because female?

 

[roughdraft274]

Hillary would have been an amazing president but she was only an average candidate.

1st, I already know that you are a Bernie, based upon your post. So, it must be said, that she was infinitely better as a candidate.

2nd, I'm already bored with this topic so I won't finish.



Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

I didn't support Bernie. Don't think he was the Democratic savior that people made him out to be. Want to make some other incorrect guesses?

 

[FieldTheorist]

I have been hearing since the election that democrats/liberals just can't admit reality... that Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate. I don't think this is true at all so I wanted to do a poll on it.

When I ask "is she a lousy candidate", I take that specifically to mean is she a likable person that can sway voters to her side? Is she charismatic? Does she inspire people? The typical qualities you'd want for any general politician regardless of political ideologies. The kind of person that builds momentum and can draw a crowd. That to me would make someone a great candidate. Therefor when I ask was she a lousy candidate I'm basically asking was she incapable of all those things?

She's obviously the worst Democratic candidate since Dukakis. Dukakis lost to Reagan, who despite being probably the worst president since Coolidge on policy matters, was considered a great and moving orator. But Hillary Clinton lost to Trump. I think that pretty much says it all.

Hillary Clinton knew how to talk to upper-middle class people and rich people (particularly with college-educated careers), and she had a history of building inroads with (particularly Southern) black communities. She was very good at talking to people in corporate and DC culture, and she especially knew very well (undoubtedly from personal experience) how to stoke a lot of women's resentment at having their gender used against them. So the media mostly adored her, a lot of older feminists loved her, corporations/banks/Wall Street largely loved her, and the kind of people that fall into those jobs. But in terms of broad appeal? Well, as far as the stats I've read are concerned, her ability to bring other groups to her side was basically non-existent. She didn't understand and didn't really care to understand how to people to non-core Democrats in the Midwest, the South, and the non-coastal West. I'm not sure she even understood that it was possible to appeal to rural voters, and the total absence of support for her in these areas (despite Obama's strengths in these areas) was clearly another major error. It didn't help that she spent a year ****ting on important groups in the Obama coalition, particularly youth voters, which was probably her largest error because they are particularly important for building momentum. Her only strategy to deal with any of this was "Trump is a terrible human being," which was successful enough to give her 3 million more in the popular vote, but it basically just cause a lot more people in New England and CA to vote for her.

Additionally, she also had no core message ("I'm With Her" is a really stupid campaign slogan), and I think that was another component of what really killed her campaign. Although, even if she did have a message, I'm not really sure why she would have come up with the right one; she admitted she couldn't figure out why people were flocking to populists which is pretty damning. This I think is the core reason for her failure in 2016: She didn't really understand that half of the country is really hurting and really pissed, and couldn't figure out any way to motivate these people to get to the polls.

 

[Ikari]

As long as Sanders' voters continue to hold out and not vote, as in Wisconsin costing Finegold a Senate seat and in Pennsylvania with McGinty--just to name two, get ready to live your life with this GOP Supreme Court for decades to come; as well as having Ryan and McConnell ruin this Nation into the next decade.

I've run out of energy in trying to talk electoral sense to Sanders' voters. Good luck making it to my age with the GOP ruining this Nation because DEMs can't come together or bother to turnout and vote ...

I've already steadied myself for the Republocrat Corporate-State. And quite honestly, it appears from your post, you have the corporate strategy as well. People need to put aside ideology and vote party. That's how we got locked into the current Republocrat structure.

Why should someone vote for the status quo if they don't like the status quo. Because of a D vs. and R? Party over Ideology? How are you going to influence the main party by supporting the main party?

So here it is. The DNC may be running into some issues trying to hold things together, and if they cannot move their candidates and platform in such a way as to recapture lost votes; then for sure they're not going to compete, they'll lose seats and power and prestige. They need to adapt and evolve to their base and to pull back those votes they lost. Can't run the status quo any longer.

So good job to all those who didn't "turn out" for the DNC when the DNC left their ideology behind. Huzzah! Because the only way the Main Party is going to learn is if the Main Party's power is threatened. You cannot change the status quo by supporting the status quo.

 

[Helix]

Was Hillary Clinton a lousy candidate?

yes. she was a unappealing legacy candidate, and now we're stuck with Trump as president at least partially because of that.

 

[Ikari]

The primaries are an inherently political process. Hillary is a lifelong democrat, Sanders wasn't. Of course the DNC want to put forward the candidate who they think has the most chance against the RNC candidate. That said, even without the superdelegate vote, Hillary won the popular against Sanders. IF Sanders had been the GE candidate he would still have been ripped apart by right wing media for being a socialist etc etc etc.

I know it's hypothetical but I don't see how you can say that Sanders could have beaten Trump in the GE when he lost against a 'terrible' Clinton in the primaries...

I don't even think it's the putting up a candidate they think is best to win. I think it's more, putting up a candidate they know is Party Loyal and will feed the Corporate-State machine.

Sander's did well in a system set up against him. And even though he lost to that system, in the general, free from that system and a world where Party Loyalties would still then have to support him, I don't think he would have lost. Because all those lost votes people are crying about wouldn't have been lost. Sanders would have got the Party Loyalists along with Progressives and the Outcasts, all the people Hillary lost in the general. And while the right-wing media would have its say of propaganda, it the end he would have been going up against Trump and I believe that America in general would find Sanders the easier pill to swallow in that match up.

But we'll see where it goes from here. DNC will need to make some changes if it wishes to compete.

 

[Linc]

She's obviously the worst Democratic candidate since Dukakis. Dukakis lost to Reagan, who despite being probably the worst president since Coolidge on policy matters, was considered a great and moving orator. But Hillary Clinton lost to Trump. I think that pretty much says it all.

Hillary Clinton knew how to talk to upper-middle class people and rich people (particularly with college-educated careers), and she had a history of building inroads with (particularly Southern) black communities. She was very good at talking to people in corporate and DC culture, and she especially knew very well (undoubtedly from personal experience) how to stoke a lot of women's resentment at having their gender used against them. So the media mostly adored her, a lot of older feminists loved her, corporations/banks/Wall Street largely loved her, and the kind of people that fall into those jobs. But in terms of broad appeal? Well, as far as the stats I've read are concerned, her ability to bring other groups to her side was basically non-existent. She didn't understand and didn't really care to understand how to people to non-core Democrats in the Midwest, the South, and the non-coastal West. I'm not sure she even understood that it was possible to appeal to rural voters, and the total absence of support for her in these areas (despite Obama's strengths in these areas) was clearly another major error. It didn't help that she spent a year ****ting on important groups in the Obama coalition, particularly youth voters, which was probably her largest error because they are particularly important for building momentum. Her only strategy to deal with any of this was "Trump is a terrible human being," which was successful enough to give her 3 million more in the popular vote, but it basically just cause a lot more people in New England and CA to vote for her.

Additionally, she also had no core message ("I'm With Her" is a really stupid campaign slogan), and I think that was another component of what really killed her campaign. Although, even if she did have a message, I'm not really sure why she would have come up with the right one; she admitted she couldn't figure out why people were flocking to populists which is pretty damning. This I think is the core reason for her failure in 2016: She didn't really understand that half of the country is really hurting and really pissed, and couldn't figure out any way to motivate these people to get to the polls.

Dukakis lost to Bush-41 and Lee Atwater, not Reagan. Mondale and Carter lost to Reagan.

It was Ted Kennedy who challenged his sitting President Carter in the primaries and at the convention, throwing the election of 1980 to Reagan.

Similar parallels to Sanders giving trump ammunition to use against Clinton and Nader giving Florida to Bush against Gore ...

 

[JANFU]

This Nation changed for the bad forever in this century with the 5-4 Political vote for Bush v. Gore; as told to us by Sandra Day O'Connor ...

I am not all that familiar with the reason why certain areas votes were recounted, and in others they were not.
In the end it is a State total that determines who receives/ will receive the EC vote.

 

[Linc]

I've already steadied myself for the Republocrat Corporate-State. And quite honestly, it appears from your post, you have the corporate strategy as well. People need to put aside ideology and vote party. That's how we got locked into the current Republocrat structure.

Why should someone vote for the status quo if they don't like the status quo. Because of a D vs. and R? Party over Ideology? How are you going to influence the main party by supporting the main party?

So here it is. The DNC may be running into some issues trying to hold things together, and if they cannot move their candidates and platform in such a way as to recapture lost votes; then for sure they're not going to compete, they'll lose seats and power and prestige. They need to adapt and evolve to their base and to pull back those votes they lost. Can't run the status quo any longer.

So good job to all those who didn't "turn out" for the DNC when the DNC left their ideology behind. Huzzah! Because the only way the Main Party is going to learn is if the Main Party's power is threatened. You cannot change the status quo by supporting the status quo.

We're all sure that the Republocrats in the Democratic Party would have have chosen Gorsuch for the Supreme Court and the disastrous cabinet of trump that hurts Sanders' voters more than it hurts Clintons' ...

 

[Linc]

I am not all that familiar with the reason why certain areas votes were recounted, and in others they were not.
In the end it is a State total that determines who receives/ will receive the EC vote.

The election of 2000 was won 5-4 by GOP presidential choices to the Supreme Court. I hope Sanders' voters are happy with trump's choice(s) to the USSC because they'll live with them long after I leave this earth ...

 

[Ikari]

We're all sure that the Republocrats in the Democratic Party would have have chosen Gorsuch for the Supreme Court and the disastrous cabinet of trump that hurts Sanders' voters more than it hurts Clintons' ...

I'm well sure that the Republocrat Party in general wouldn't produce terribly different futures from either side of its parts. You might not get Gorsuch, but you'll get some other status quo political pick. Trump's cabinet is pretty laughable. I knew he'd be a trainwreck, and he didn't disappoint on that front.

The one thing I gave Hillary over Trump was that she would likely have been slightly less embarrassing.

 

[Dirt Sands]

I didn't support Bernie. Don't think he was the Democratic savior that people made him out to be. Want to make some other incorrect guesses?

What incorrect guess? I was a Hillary delegate in Seattle. SEATTLE! Bernie is, in fact, a Democrat. The problem was those that supported him we're not. Most were socialists. Why they can't have their own convention, I do not know. What the Bernie's don't get, among other things, is...

Bernie caucuses with the Democrats!

Why can't his voters?

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk