What truly doomed Hillary?

[jojoju1998]

Basing an election strategy around swinging rich suburbanites and neoconservatives really wasn't the best idea.

And now they've become deeply entrenched into the party and have become pretty darn vocal.

Yes,

it was originally my and others hope that these types could be reconciled with real liberals and progressives to helping America move forward in it's time of greatest need.  Day by day, especially with the whole DNC bullcrap, it's becoming apparent that these are extremely unreasonable dangerous people with delusions of madness about their importance and role in the Democratic Party.  And the more power and influence they gain the more of a joke the party becomes.  At this point they are about two steps away from being socially liberal Reagan Republicans.

If they keep having their way leftists, progressives, liberals and the like should finally grow balls and learn to oppose them by means outside the traditional two-party structure. . . . . . if not by unlawful means themselves.

Liberals are a overrated word. Because Liberals in other Countries means Classical Liberals, Free Markets and stuff.

Who gives an Inks?  In the US context it clearly means something else.  That's not the point of the diwcussion.  The point of the discussion is we have a very powerful outright corporatist faction of the Democratic Party who acts like economic concerns are a myth.  This is dangerous, especially if they continue to refuse to see the damages their strategy has caused.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13318750/hillary-clinton-vision-government
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/

I'm not a Democrat but.....

One could say that Hillary Clinton proposed the biggest plans for the Working Poor in History !

According to the Atlantic, " She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word  “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce. "

" What’s more, the evidence that Clinton lost because of the nation’s economic disenchantment is extremely mixed. Some economists found that Trump won in counties affected by trade with China. But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits. In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy. If the 2016 election had come down to economics exclusively, the working class—which, by any reasonable definition, includes the black, Hispanic, and Asian working classes, too—would have elected Hillary Clinton president. "

Clinton won the People who said Economics was their most deciding factor. 

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

"In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy."

-This is a lie an alternative fact. Trump had a double-digit advantage on the economy among voters as a whole in every single serious poll. He jut lost those who had the economy as their first priority.

[Pericles]

Inconvenient vote distribution.

Yes but she should have won by more than 2%.

[hopper]

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.   

Yeah but wages didn't go up under Obama or they went up very minimumly.

I have sympathy for the poor but eventually you have to get up and get a job since nobody is gonna get a job for you. There is only so many unemployment checks you can receive.

I agree with you about integrity from elected officials.

[krazen1211]

Inconvenient vote distribution.

It takes a spectacular brand of stupid to actively pursue an inconvenient voter distribution.

[hopper]

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.

Yeah she just couldn't connect.

[hopper]

She was doomed from the start, worst candidate ever.

I don't think she was the worst candidate ever. She was no worse than Romney in 2012 or McCain in 2008. Dukakis in 1988, Goldwater in 1964, and McGovern in 1972 were worse Presidential Candidates than she was.

[hopper]

Hillary was always a lousy candidate...she was essentially the Democrats version of Marco Rubio

Nah Rubio is way more charismatic than she'll ever be.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If you don't like my gender answer, I can amend it to America's general penchant for dumbassery instead? Better?

[hopper]

It wasn't the only factor, but her biggest problem was that Democrats held the White House for two terms.

True. I think another factor was that only 30% of people thought the country was on the "wrong track".

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Hillary was always a lousy candidate...she was essentially the Democrats version of Marco Rubio

Nah Rubio is way more charismatic than she'll ever be.

-Whoa, man, that is a sick, sick burn. Probably too strong.

[Pericles]

Why is Rubio now such a big deal? He lost, fortunately or unfortunately, and he didn't come particularly close. The glorification of Hillary Clinton is far more deplorable.

[Pericles]

Hillary was always a lousy candidate...she was essentially the Democrats version of Marco Rubio

Nah Rubio is way more charismatic than she'll ever be.

Rubio has all the charisma of an autistic savant

Still 100 times more charismatic than Hillary Clinton.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Hillary was always a lousy candidate...she was essentially the Democrats version of Marco Rubio

Nah Rubio is way more charismatic than she'll ever be.

-Whoa, man, that is a sick, sick burn. Probably too strong.

What is it with this board and Rubio. 

Stop trying to make Marco Rubio happen, he's not going to happen.

-I'm anti-Rubio, man. So I was (sarcastically) defending HRC here.

[Deblano]

Why is Rubio now such a big deal? He lost, fortunately or unfortunately, and he didn't come particularly close. The glorification of Hillary Clinton is far more deplorable.

#StillWithHer

/s

[ApatheticAustrian]

indeed...still with her, becomes more visible each day.

she was a hardworking technocrat who tried to improve the country for decades..... the alternative is going to be a bill which his own voters can't pay.

[JoshPA]

after Indiana and north Caroline was called for romney in 2012 the democrats were never going to win 2016 i knew since those two states went republican.

[Reaganfan]

As someone who clearly is biased against her, I'll admit I was surprised by her lack of popularity.

I remember back in 2014, I was talking to a friend of mine (a really beautiful girl who enjoys chatting politics, but she's much more liberal than myself) and I cringed and said, "I don't know...I really don't want Hillary to win but I can't see beating her." Her response was, "Oh no way, those e-mails will do in Hillary."

I remember kinda chuckling because I thought, "Nobody will care about stupid e-mail stuff".

I am still utterly shocked when I look back. John Kerry never scared me as a Republican. When I was younger, I always felt confident against the Gore campaign. But Obama and Hillary freaked me out. I kept thinking: The first female candidate, known for decades. How can anyone beat her?

It still is kinda stunning when you hear people talk about "Hillary lost the election". She actually lost the election. Wow.

[Torie]

Hillary's dissembling about the emails, time and again, rather than just saying she screwed up and no excuses, I think had a toxic effect on her credibility. At that point, the campaign in the end was about whether or not a Trump presidency was just too dangerous, no matter what Hillary's character flaws. Just enough folks decided that Trump was not dangerous enough to vote against him.

[ApatheticAustrian]

the tragedy of 2016 is that the evil anti-republican MSM killed hillary and the republicans are never going to forgive them.

a big THANK YOU would be the nice thing to do.

[Fuzzy Bear]

the tragedy of 2016 is that the evil anti-republican MSM killed hillary and the republicans are never going to forgive them.

a big THANK YOU would be the nice thing to do.

A very astute analysis.

Journalism is the kind of field that attracts liberals.  That journalism has a liberal bias isn't something I view as horrible; it's a matter-of-fact reality due to what journalism is.

This past year, however, journalists ramped up their liberal biases to the point where it damaged their credibility.  They came off as in the tank for Hillary, whether they meant to be or not.  CNN, in particular, destroyed its credibility; it was once one of the more objective news outlets, but they're now on a par with MSNBC and FOX News for objectivity.  USA Today railing against Trump in a front page editorial.  It all became a "doth protest too much".  The American media's loss of credibility was a real factor in Trump's election

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

the tragedy of 2016 is that the evil anti-republican MSM killed hillary and the republicans are never going to forgive them.

a big THANK YOU would be the nice thing to do.

A very astute analysis.

Journalism is the kind of field that attracts liberals.  That journalism has a liberal bias isn't something I view as horrible; it's a matter-of-fact reality due to what journalism is.

This past year, however, journalists ramped up their liberal biases to the point where it damaged their credibility.  They came off as in the tank for Hillary, whether they meant to be or not.  CNN, in particular, destroyed its credibility; it was once one of the more objective news outlets, but they're now on a par with MSNBC and FOX News for objectivity.  USA Today railing against Trump in a front page editorial.  It all became a "doth protest too much".  The American media's loss of credibility was a real factor in Trump's election

The corporate media certainly didn't have a liberal bias, seeing as they didn't give Bernie much coverage. The corporate media was pretty clearly 3rd way for the most part.

[NOVA Green]

Clinton's aggressive cheerleading and boosting of unpopular "Free" Trade agreements that both Democratic and Republican Presidents, Senators, and US House Reps alike in retrospect was clearly her Achilles Heal....

Her visible "flip-flop" during the primaries likely hurt her even more so, since suddenly she looks more like a typical Politician than a principled statesperson.

Now, lest the Clintonistas on the Forum jump in and say "Bernie started it"..... No, that was not the case.

In the modern political era, NAFTA started it..... even though this was a political ideology initially promoted by Democrats (FDR & JFK) during eras where the US had a strategic economic advantage to exploit weakness in Europe), it has essentially been something that became fashionable under the Reagan era and various right-wing think tanks in Washington DC promoting bunk economics based upon a fetish about some ideas of some 19th century economists (Smith & Ricardo) that are all but irrelevant in today's economy.

The fact that NAFTA was signed into law by a Democratic President, basically only supported by Republicans, says a ton about the subject and how this was perceived in Industrial sectors in working-class America....

Needless to say auto companies & tech firms alike started shifting operations towards a lower-wage and non-union setting, and screwed the American Middle-Class....

Now.... fast forward to MFN status to China. This was rammed through under the Presidency of George W. Bush in 2001.....

Ok--- enjoy buying your cheap furniture from WalMart while several 100,000 jobs are lost in the Piedmont regions of Appalachia and elsewhere in America....

Enjoy buying your "recycled toilet paper" from China while paper & pulp mills are being shuttered in Oregon, Maine, and Wisconsin....

Meanwhile privately owned timber lands and forests in the Western United States are being strip-mined to be turned into building material, while the plywood mills are shutting down throughout the country.

Coal mining has now been virtually turned into an export operation to China, although the operators such as Peabody Coal blame it on "environmental regulation", they have been "double-breasting" (anyone not familiar with that term please look it up) from Union Mines starting in Appalachia going back to the Pittston Strike of '89/'90 and then later in the strike of '93, which I help support when I was living in Ohio:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/03/us/coal-miners-begin-strike-in-4-states.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/1993/0907/07021.html

Now production has shifted to the Non-Union mines of Wyoming, where 40% of US Coal is mined, and Bill Clinton's feeble triangulation during the strike of '93, likely created an image based on substance of Democratic Presidents not standing up.... several decades later an non-union coal mines are the norm, heavily based in the West, and product being shipped over to China.... this was actually a political issue in Oregon a few years ago in a small community along the Columbia River that would have received Wyoming Coal by Rail in order to be loaded onto cargo ships to be sent to China.

What the heck does TPP in the '16 Presidential Election have anything to do with all of the disastrous effects of US economic policy decisions over the past 25 years backed by both Democrats and Republicans alike?

Ultimately, TPP was a symbol of how the political elites have become so beholden to the interests of Multinational Corporations (Although most of the damage has long been done) that have placed the profits of the few above the interests of the American working and middle-class, where the decisions made in the boardrooms and golf courses to please the almighty God of the Free Market, have wrecked havoc throughout our great nation.

Unfortunately, Trump was able to capture enough voters to create an electoral vote majority, simply because there was not a coherent and credible alternative position from the Left.

I fear that unless the Democrats select a nominee that is able to address these issues more successfully in 2020, that there won't be enough opportunity until 2024 or even further beyond.

[Shadows]

She was a terrible candidate who helped elect Trump (by being Hillary) & handing the Supreme Court to the Conservatives for 15-20 years!

[Beet]

the tragedy of 2016 is that the evil anti-republican MSM killed hillary and the republicans are never going to forgive them.

a big THANK YOU would be the nice thing to do.

A very astute analysis.

Journalism is the kind of field that attracts liberals.  That journalism has a liberal bias isn't something I view as horrible; it's a matter-of-fact reality due to what journalism is.

This past year, however, journalists ramped up their liberal biases to the point where it damaged their credibility.  They came off as in the tank for Hillary, whether they meant to be or not.  CNN, in particular, destroyed its credibility; it was once one of the more objective news outlets, but they're now on a par with MSNBC and FOX News for objectivity.  USA Today railing against Trump in a front page editorial.  It all became a "doth protest too much".  The American media's loss of credibility was a real factor in Trump's election

The corporate media certainly didn't have a liberal bias, seeing as they didn't give Bernie much coverage. The corporate media was pretty clearly 3rd way for the most part.

The corporate media painted a target on its back by seeming pro-Hillary in the GE all the while filling people's heads with nothing but Clinton's EMAILS and broadcasting Trump's campaign rallies as free advertising for him. All in all, the worst possible combination if you're Hillary.

But yeah they didn't give Bernie much coverage either.