Like the whole “HRC was the WOAT candidate” shpiel is just pure rogan-esque, berniebroish, not even remotely based in fact bullshit. The most VALID criticism is the wisconsin thing which I have mocked for the last 3 years. And honestly given the data, there’s no way you could expect her to devote huge resources to that state. It’s been used to create this false narrative where she somehow ignored the midwest (which she DIDN’T) and actually outspent obama and devoted more resources to the industrial midwest than any other previous D candidate. It’s just so stupid and that post I responded to is such a classic example of the misinformation surrounding this.
I’ll say it to my dying day, 2016 presidential election was not a fair democratic election. Keep trying to maintain this illusion that it was somehow all HRC’s fault because something something wisconsin. She was probably the perfect candidate the D’s could have come up with, won by several million votes, and was just a few thousand votes shy in these surprise (shockingly republican governed) states from winning the election outright.
I’ll say it here for the record, if Trump’s opponent is Warren, he will win by a larger margin of victory than against HRC. And there’s a lot of reasons for this that I don’t and won’t feel like elaborating on, but suffice it to say, the fix is in.
Carter, Mondale and Dukakis got absolutely crushed in the general. Mondale lost 49 states, yeah 49. I suppose it’s fair to say that graph shows that there’s some basis in fact to think HRC is WOAT, but maybe it’s just that people used to hate candidates less because they didn’t have the TV feeding them poison 7 hours a day.
Honestly I am really tired. Is my post really hard to understand? It doesn’t matter who the 2020 candidate is and you guys are still arguing about proper policy like the proper dems you are. Come on. It’s over.
[quote=“jmakin, post:5829, topic:91”]
Like the whole “HRC was the WOAT candidate” shpiel is just pure rogan-esque, berniebroish, not even remotely based in fact bullshit.
[/qu
Uh, no. She’s about as inauthentic as it gets and that’s why she fails the “beer test.” Also she had been on the receiving end of a 25 year smear campaign and there were a lot of deeply held beliefs that people had about her… Sure that’s unfair, but it impacted her chances of running a successful campaign.
At the time she got the nomination she had one of the lowest approval ratings of any major party nominee ever. That’s WOAT level stuff. Was it due to unfair Fox News/GOP bullshit? Sure. But that didn’t make it any less impactful.
Lol c’mon… Most qualified, sure. Best resume, sure. Perfect candidate? Give me a break.
They were so close you could put almost anything at the end of that sentence and argue it. Russia, Comey, bad campaign decisions, Jill Stein, voter suppression, the media portraying it as a coronation, etc.
A better candidate would have been so far ahead of Trump that none of those things could have pushed him over the line. It’s like playing horrible as a team for 59 minutes of a game, then blaming the one guy who screwed up at the end. Yeah, if he doesn’t mess up you win… But what about all those first half mistakes that put you way behind?
She was deeply unpopular to begin with, came off as too inauthentic (til a few days later when the defenses came down), ran a campaign that basically said “I’m not Trump,” and did very little to explain what a Hillary win would DO for people, and she got too enamored with the idea of running up the margin of victory rather than securing the tipping point states.
Cool. Did you expect the average voter to actually read it?
Her messaging during the campaign was way too focused on “I’m not Trump, Trump is bad,” and not nearly enough on how her policies would help average voters.
If voters have to read a book to figure it out, you’ve already lost.
Nobody is saying she was unprepared or lacked policies or ideas. She just did a horrible job inspiring people by selling her ideas.
Her policy was to support NAFTA and the TPP and then campaign as if she were against them. Her policy was to support “welfare reform” and then campaign as if that wasn’t what she wanted. Her policy was to campaign against $15/hr and then for it. Her policy was to push for being tough on crime and then pretend she supports just the opposite. Her policy was to support the Iraq war, and then pretend she thought it was a mistake.
She was actually terrible. Not as bad as Biden, but still terrible. Warren on the other hand is awesome.
The problem wasn’t that voters were stupid. They knew what she was about. So, why Trump? Well, some of them stayed home and some of them believed Trump, and well, even though a lot of those people who voted for Obama agree with some of us on a lot of things, a lot of them are not on the same page regarding immigration or Islam. At best it just wasn’t the priority for a lot of people. But really, lots of Democrats are very anti-immigrant.
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
i think anybody who is that hateful and sour and generally regarded as a complete ******* (bonus points for excessive receding hairline) is a huge favorite to have a tiny virgin penis
Originally Posted by JoeC2012
I think we’ve discussed this before, there is zero chance Stephen Miller is a virgin. I would take the over $50k on his lifetime tab on hookers.
Originally Posted by suzzer99
I’d put the odds Stephen Miller likes to bottom with black trannies and call them the N-word at 50%.
Originally Posted by ChrisV
This is extremely plausible.
This is all FPS. Miller has boring nazi sex with lady nazis. He will marry one and have a baby with her. He will name it Adolf Hitler Miller.
There’s a strange comfort in thinking dudes like Miller are weirdo incels, but they’re common and they’re breeding.
Democrats win when they express a vision for the future that inspires people. They lose when they run on being competent, experienced bureaucrat who can manage the government. She may have had good policies, but she lacked a compelling narrative that tied all of her policies together. At best, her narrative was that women should get their turn now that blacks had theirs.
On the other hand, I think Warren has a story to tell people. We have a corrupt financial system which allows corporations and banks to exploit the common folk and a corrupted political system which enables those moneyed interests.
