What truly doomed Hillary?

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

To be honest, I think when she fainted at that September 11th memorial event, in my opinion that was it for her. She was done.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Comey's letter is just "emails". She was reasonably popular before the email scandal, so she was not doomed from the start. "Russia helped Trump win!" is also about emails. 9/11 was forgotten by Nov 8.

[NOVA Green]

None of the Above---

It was her election to lose, just as was the case with Al Gore in 2000.

1.)Personal hubris played a major factor---- the sense of inevitability that dominated her campaign staff.

2.) Lack of attention to detail---- Why did the campaign nor recognize that they had major issues in the MidWest and Pennsylvania until the waning days of the campaign?

3.) Over-reliance on the Obama '08/'12 Coalition---- Obama was not running for his 3rd term as President in '16, and the flawed assumption that she would be able to recreate those turnout levels and margins among key Demographic groups (AA voters in NC, PA, OH,MI, and WI), WWC voters in the Midwest (WI, MI, OH, IA), and that somehow she could translate and estimated drop-off among those two voting blocks based upon Upper Income voters in the suburbs of PA, and younger voters in NC, and where () was a flawed concept for starters....

4.) Complete misunderstanding of the impact of MFN status for China, which was granted under a Republican President, expanded under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama..... Over 3.5 Million American jobs have been lost as a direct result, the vast majority in the manufacturing sector, and meanwhile MNCs are making record profits shipping production overseas (Tech companies in particular), not to mention massive transfers of raw timber to China (Oregon leads the nation in total job losses to China--- 3.8% of the entire '13 state workforce).... Trump was able to capitalize on that, although I don't think he will actually do anything to change the problem, the reality is that for many working-class Americans, we have seen high paying jobs disappear overseas (Myself included) while both Democratic and Republican Presidents say that this is "good for the American economy"....

5.) Role of the Media & Image---- It's totally not Clinton's fault that the media had such an obsession with Trump, which was awesome for ratings on all Cable channels... Regardless, despite her extremely detailed policy positions on many issues (For example a huge government program to create jobs in Appalachia) these issues were so over shadowed by the Trump tweets of the day.... It doesn't matter because as a candidate, she should have helped create positive news cycles by hitting back on substantive policy issues, instead of taking a month long vacation in August....

A few random musing from an old man, so please humor my humble opinion on these matters...

[GoTfan]

Overall, I think it was her consistent habit of raising the metaphorical middle finger to Bernie's supporters. She needed them to win, and failed tom appeal to them properly. She had the chance to pick someone like Feingold, Brown or Merkley, and she picked Tim Kaine, who's about as interesting as a beige sweatshirt.

[This Has Only Just Begun]

The closest answer I could say is she was doomed from the start.  Going back to what I just said in the Blaming Russia thread a better candidate would not have opened themselves up to the controversies and scandals that Clinton had.  A large number of executives in corporate America have two or even three phones on standby for business reasons, why couldn't Clinton deal with having another Blackberry?  She should know this she hangs out with Wall Street types (many of who are, shocker, older than she is and thus getting rid of the excuse "I'm an old bat who doesn't understand how technology works).  Also, even if we did assume that was a big enough issue let me point out right now that it really isn't that hard to set up multiple email servers on a Blackberry.  I mean, don't they have interns and crap who can help deal with issues like that?

This might seem ridiculous to some on here, bringing up the whole phone/email issue as to why she was a bad candidate, but it seems obvious that a person who thinks it is too much of an inconvenience to them to carry an extra phone for state business really doesn't scream competence.  Especially if they have already had a couple decades worth of controversies before that and should know better than to invite Pandora's Box to be open.

[Blair]

Overall, I think it was her consistent habit of raising the metaphorical middle finger to Bernie's supporters. She needed them to win, and failed tom appeal to them properly. She had the chance to pick someone like Feingold, Brown or Merkley, and she picked Tim Kaine, who's about as interesting as a beige sweatshirt.

A bit unfair- Brown had a Senate Seat, Feingold was running and Merkely wasn't ready to be President. Besides bar her appointing Sanders as VP I doubt it would have made a difference. Sanders got the most progressive party platform. Considering Sanders called her unfit to be President, and didn't have a chance to win after March 15th I really don't understand this view.

In 2008 a lot of Clinton voters came out for Obama; who actually did less than Clinton in '16 to appease the loser

None of the Above---

It was her election to lose, just as was the case with Al Gore in 2000.

2.) Lack of attention to detail---- Why did the campaign nor recognize that they had major issues in the MidWest and Pennsylvania until the waning days of the campaign?

3.) Over-reliance on the Obama '08/'12 Coalition---- Obama was not running for his 3rd term as President in '16, and the flawed assumption that she would be able to recreate those turnout levels and margins among key Demographic groups (AA voters in NC, PA, OH,MI, and WI), WWC voters in the Midwest (WI, MI, OH, IA), and that somehow she could translate and estimated drop-off among those two voting blocks based upon Upper Income voters in the suburbs of PA, and younger voters in NC, and where () was a flawed concept for starters....
A few random musing from an old man, so please humor my humble opinion on these matters...

Her campaign knew it was in trouble in Michigan (hence why she flew Obama in on the last weekend, and aired ads) She also knew that Pennsylvania would be close- hence why her last campaign rally was there with Obama.

The interesting thing is that people rightly point out her losing in Wisconsin and Michigan- but her campaign lost in both Pennsylvania and Florida; states that she visited dozens of times, and which had millions thrown at them.

I don't think the Clinton campaign thought they would re-create the Obama coalition- I think more so people on the forum/political spectators assumed they would. Clinton's campaign knew that AA turnout would drop; so they tried to replace it with moderate white suburban women.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The whole "inevitable" and "blue firewall" narrative had some effect for sure.

[Virginiá]

Emails. That boneheaded decision long ago laid the groundwork for an FBI investigation, over a year and a half of relentless hounding in the media and from her opponents, thus destroying trust, and finally, the Comey letters, which probably did cost her PA/MI/WI, given how close they were. This whole issue was very damaging to her image.

The Podesta/DNC hacks were bad but I think Trump himself was doing a decent job overshadowing that. The Comey/email stuff was simply too potent in the media. She should have dropped out as soon as that "scandal" exploded. She already had a troubled history that was going to be used against her - that she believed she could absorb the email controversy on top of all her other baggage speaks of extreme selfishness or a lot of hubris, or both.

[Xing]

It wasn't just one thing, so much as death by a thousand paper cuts, but if I had to say what might have had the biggest influence, I'm actually going to say NAFTA, given the region that cost her the election.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Emails. That boneheaded decision long ago laid the groundwork for an FBI investigation, over a year and a half of relentless hounding in the media and from her opponents, thus destroying trust, and finally, the Comey letters, which probably did cost her PA/MI/WI, given how close they were. This whole issue was very damaging to her image.

The Podesta/DNC hacks were bad but I think Trump himself was doing a decent job overshadowing that. The Comey/email stuff was simply too potent in the media. She should have dropped out as soon as that "scandal" exploded. She already had a troubled history that was going to be used against her - that she believed she could absorb the email controversy on top of all her other baggage speaks of extreme selfishness or a lot of hubris, or both.

-Bingo.

[Mr. Smith]

Her staff.

No Huma Abedin, no Anthony Weiner, no Comeyghazi,  so Michigan and Pennsylvania stay on and Arizona flips. This was the final straw after all.

No Podesta, no DNC leaks

It was also they who devised the "try to be LBJ against Goldwater" strategy, which didn't really do much for the base.

All those Benghazi trials and she still got through 'em all just fine. There's a reason all the other contenders besides Trump were clearly scared sh(^less by her. But her staff advised all the wrong things.

They ignored much of what Sanders aides suggested too.




But just as well, the wrong ideas would've been learned and she would've probably lost 2020...and the consequences of losing THAT election are far more costly anyway.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

She's a woman, you see.

I'm ready for the firing squad. Basically none of the things mentioned in this thread would have been as potent if she were a man. They would have been assets if she were Donald Trump.

[Mr. Morden]

She's a woman, you see.

I'm ready for the firing squad. Basically none of the things mentioned in this thread would have been as potent if she were a man. They would have been assets if she were Donald Trump.

Which is funny because, while I can't find it now, I did a poll here about 3 years ago (back when Clinton was still popular), asking if being female would be a net positive or net negative for a presidential candidate in the general election, and almost everyone said it would either be neutral or a net positive, with most people reasoning that the number of women excited about electing a woman would more than offset the number of sexist men who would refuse to back her over her being female.

I think they were figuring that that's how the dynamic worked with race for Obama, so why wouldn't it work for a woman, who make up a far larger fraction of the population than blacks?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

She's a woman, you see.

I'm ready for the firing squad. Basically none of the things mentioned in this thread would have been as potent if she were a man. They would have been assets if she were Donald Trump.

-Had Clinton been a man, Her Mondale-esque rally appearances would have been criticized far more strongly, Her indiscretions far more fearlessly covered, and she would have lost the popular vote.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Her staff.

No Huma Abedin, no Anthony Weiner, no Comeyghazi,  so Michigan and Pennsylvania stay on and Arizona flips. This was the final straw after all.

No Podesta, no DNC leaks

It was also they who devised the "try to be LBJ against Goldwater" strategy, which didn't really do much for the base.

All those Benghazi trials and she still got through 'em all just fine. There's a reason all the other contenders besides Trump were clearly scared sh(^less by her. But her staff advised all the wrong things.

They ignored much of what Sanders aides suggested too.




But just as well, the wrong ideas would've been learned and she would've probably lost 2020...and the consequences of losing THAT election are far more costly anyway.

-That sounds about right.

[ApatheticAustrian]

nothing.

each and any of this reason would be enough for her town...and the other way around.

[Fargobison]

She was the definition of the establishment, not a good thing in a cycle that was very anti-establishment.

She did pick up some of the ideas Sanders had but they never really came off as being all that genuine.   Especially anything regarding trade.

She is kind of like a Democratic version of Romney, intelligent and a qualified leader but people struggle with connecting to her. She comes off as inauthentic and overly scripted at times.

[Lincoln Republican]

She was simply a terrible candidate with a number of flaws after being in the public spotlight for 25 years.

She lacked the charisma and campaign abilities of her husband Bill Clinton and of Barack Obama.

[Deblano]

She was the worst possible candidate that the Democrats could have picked against Trump, and in general led a rather tone-deaf, arrogant, and status quo campaign.

[mgop]

She was doomed from the start, worst candidate ever.

[Pandaguineapig]

Not one thing, she made several mistakes, that while not big individually, eroded her support and cost her the election

[Mr. Morden]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=204693.0

[Bojack Horseman]

Write-in: Bernie voters who refused to vote for her, even though they knew it meant Trump would win the election.

[pbrower2a]

America has had a strong rightward drift in its politics since 2008 with 2012 as a minor reversal. Americans are becoming increasingly authoritarian, and thus insensitive to hostility toward people that the Right can characterize as pariahs.

If America votes for someone with as bigoted and demagogic, then such shows that democracy in America is pearls before swine -- almost as badly as democracy was pearls before swine in Germany around 1932.

Should we be fortunate, then the only consequence of electing Donald Trump is a nasty economic meltdown that forces us to start caring about each other again. I count upon him and his GOP stooges to support policies that will force declines in living standards -- lower wages, and monopolistic prices, with tax shifts that push higher taxes onto the non-rich while exempting the super-rich.nIf it takes another Great Depression to make America good again, at least in its values, then so be it.

Donald Trump is simply a horrible person, and the bucket list of Republican policy-dreams is truly deplorable. We start undoing the damage only when we become better people -- people who show empathy for the poor and disadvantages, and people who demand integrity from elected officials.   

[Mr. Smith]

America has had a strong rightward drift in its politics since 2008 with 2012 as a minor reversal. Americans are becoming increasingly authoritarian, and thus insensitive to hostility toward people that the Right can characterize as pariahs.

If America votes for someone with as bigoted and demagogic, then such shows that democracy in America is pearls before swine -- almost as badly as democracy was pearls before swine in Germany around 1932.

Should we be fortunate, then the only consequence of electing Donald Trump is a nasty economic meltdown that forces us to start caring about each other again. I count upon him and his GOP stooges to support policies that will force declines in living standards -- lower wages, and monopolistic prices, with tax shifts that push higher taxes onto the non-rich while exempting the super-rich.nIf it takes another Great Depression to make America good again, at least in its values, then so be it.

Donald Trump is simply a horrible person, and the bucket list of Republican policy-dreams is truly deplorable. We start undoing the damage only when we become better people -- people who show empathy for the poor and disadvantages, and people who demand integrity from elected officials.   

So what, America went leftward with Nixon and Ford, Nixon was arguably further left than his shtick in '68 no change in sight until Carter didn't solve stagflation.

Fact of the matter is, the country usually drifts in the opposite direction of whom they elect president. The opposition becomes bitter and emboldened, and the proponents either celebrate victory and consider the battle over...or resign themselves wondering why they didn't get everything they wanted when they wanted out of the promises.

That's what happens when you have a figurehead and leader who gets the blame by presence.