Did Hillary Clinton do anything right

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, she held onto the Democratic leaning Latino states and the coast: IL, NJ, NM, CA, CO, NY and NV.

OH, MI, Iowa and WI have alot of female suburbanites and blacks who vote Democrat though but not enough of them to Trump the white working class vote. Because of Clinton's baggage

[ApatheticAustrian]

If you have evidence contrary to my judgment, show me where I err.

i could quote poll after poll but those are - in fact - useless, since the electorate was unhappy with trump in MANY ways ...before and after the election..and it still didn't matter.

but..at that point, even the russians thought, trump was dead in the water and stopped hacking for a short time to cut their losses. all political experts called it a major mistake, especially in the US where "gold star families" are adored.

the professional thing would have been, if a grieving father pushes back against a felt slight, to honor the service of his son and point out that trump was not talking about THIS KIND OF MUSLIMS! the other ones, who have killed colleagues of mister khan's son inside of the US.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Her Twitter account and trotting out Khan were net negatives for Her, I think.

She got a huge bounce in the polls after the Khans and the DNC compared to Trump's meager convention bounce and for all of August she was dominant. Khan helped her.

-Correlation is not causation. I think the Khan thing alienated more voters from HRC than from DJT in the long run.

You aren't most voters Eharding, you're special. All the evidence shows Khan helped her and hurt Trump.

-Not seeing it. The only bounce from the Democratic convention came among women, and probably specifically elderly women. I think the Khan thing may have been part of what kept the men from experiencing the support boost for Hillary.

Regarding Trump's response to the Khan thing, the only thing he did wrong was to not make Khan a target of his ridicule at every one of his rallies, as well as sell some Khan piniatas to encourage the spirit of the American people. He should really have criticized Khan much, much harder, since I was absolutely disgusted by him in every single way.

[ApatheticAustrian]

once again a honest take:

you are taking a position here which, imho, is seen in the west as a good example for an evil mind.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

once again a honest take:

you are taking a position here which, imho, is seen in the west as a good example for an evil mind.

-Let me give you a secret, "Austrian": Trump won.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Let me give you a secret, "Austrian": Trump won.

yeah....which doesn't mean that mocking disabled, spinning sexist "locker room talk", dissing war veterans and grieving parents is going to be a great theory for future campaigns.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Let me give you a secret, "Austrian": Trump won.

yeah....which doesn't mean that mocking disabled, spinning sexist "locker room talk", dissing war veterans and grieving parents is going to be a great theory for future campaigns.

-How do you know? Trump did worse than that, and look where he is.

[Pericles]

once again a honest take:

you are taking a position here which, imho, is seen in the west as a good example for an evil mind.

-Let me give you a secret, "Austrian": Trump won.

Trump's favorabiloty rating was the worst in history, he would have lost if Clinton had not also been historically unpopular and he had not won the voters who disliked both him and Clinton.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

once again a honest take:

you are taking a position here which, imho, is seen in the west as a good example for an evil mind.

-Let me give you a secret, "Austrian": Trump won.

Trump's favorabiloty rating was the worst in history, he would have lost if Clinton had not also been historically unpopular and he had not won the voters who disliked both him and Clinton.

-That's what I said a page ago.

[Pericles]

once again a honest take:

you are taking a position here which, imho, is seen in the west as a good example for an evil mind.

-Let me give you a secret, "Austrian": Trump won.

Trump's favorabiloty rating was the worst in history, he would have lost if Clinton had not also been historically unpopular and he had not won the voters who disliked both him and Clinton.

-That's what I said a page ago.

If he had not attacked the Khans, Machado and Curiel and instead focused on Clinton and her vulnerabilities he would have done better. Clinton was very effective at baiting him. She had pyschoanalysts help her bait Trump for debate prep and she was able to throw him off balance. Without that, Trump would have been less unpopular and could have won the popular vote.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

once again a honest take:

you are taking a position here which, imho, is seen in the west as a good example for an evil mind.

-Let me give you a secret, "Austrian": Trump won.

Trump's favorabiloty rating was the worst in history, he would have lost if Clinton had not also been historically unpopular and he had not won the voters who disliked both him and Clinton.

-That's what I said a page ago.

If he had not attacked the Khans, Machado and Curiel and instead focused on Clinton and her vulnerabilities he would have done better. Clinton was very effective at baiting him. She had pyschoanalysts help her bait Trump for debate prep and she was able to throw him off balance. Without that, Trump would have been less unpopular and could have won the popular vote.

-Curiel hurt him; the others didn't. But the effect of all was temporary. Yes; Clinton was effective during Her first debate all around, and Trump was less prepared. It wasn't a matter of "baiting".

[Pericles]

once again a honest take:

you are taking a position here which, imho, is seen in the west as a good example for an evil mind.

-Let me give you a secret, "Austrian": Trump won.

Trump's favorabiloty rating was the worst in history, he would have lost if Clinton had not also been historically unpopular and he had not won the voters who disliked both him and Clinton.

-That's what I said a page ago.

If he had not attacked the Khans, Machado and Curiel and instead focused on Clinton and her vulnerabilities he would have done better. Clinton was very effective at baiting him. She had pyschoanalysts help her bait Trump for debate prep and she was able to throw him off balance. Without that, Trump would have been less unpopular and could have won the popular vote.

-Curiel hurt him; the others didn't. But the effect of all was temporary. Yes; Clinton was effective during Her first debate all around, and Trump was less prepared. It wasn't a matter of "baiting".

Part of the reason she was effective was because she managed to subtly get under Trump's skin(calling him 'Donald', bring up Machado at the end of the first debate, adding in an attack on Trump when defending her Social Security proposal) that would make Trump lose focus, get angry and come off worse on the debate stage. When she made a comment about Trump's taxes, he called her a 'nasty woman' which was then used by the Clinton campaign. The first 30 mins of the debates were Trump's best but he would be unable to stay on message for 90 minutes and by the end he lost it.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Let me give you a secret, "Austrian": Trump won.

yeah....which doesn't mean that mocking disabled, spinning sexist "locker room talk", dissing war veterans and grieving parents is going to be a great theory for future campaigns.

Obama also mocked the disabled yet no one seems to care.

It's so frustrating (the hypocrisy).

[ApatheticAustrian]

The obama bowling video surely wasn't very smart but if one really can't see a difference between a self-critical gaffe and someone clearly wanting to diminish another person, that's imho your own responsibility.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I don't deny Hillary tried to get under Trump's skin. But I saw no evidence that it worked.

[ApatheticAustrian]

eh.....every "idiot" is able to get under trump's skin, he is a real equalist in that area, no one is too small or unimportant not to get insulted back.

it just doesn't matter.

[7,052,770]

She ran a good campaign. Trump ran a great one, even though it wasn't obvious at the time.

Trump added millions of first-time voters, flipped a bunch of Obama voters in the states where he needed them, and somehow kept almost all of the conservative evangelicals onboard, despite not really agreeing with them on their most important issues.

No other Republican would have done #1 and few would have done #2.

-This is a bad take. Hillary got fewer votes than Obama. Trump got a smaller percentage of the vote than Mitt Romney. They both ran bad campaigns; HRC the worse one.

You didn't refute any of my points. Depsite coming across as a jackass to liberals, Trump added millions of first-time voters, held onto evangelicals, and flipped enough Obama voters in the right states to eke out a win. He campaigned very well.

Hillary also did a good job of getting most Bernie voters back on board and flipping a bunch of moderate Republicans to her side. It just wasnt quite enough.

[Crumpets]

I think her tour at the start of her campaign when she did a series of small, personal meetings with people to discuss issues like addiction and "kitchen table" issues was, sadly, one of the high points of the campaign itself. Of course, then Bernie came along with his stadium tour, and that whole strategy just became "look how small Hillary's crowds are!"

[ApatheticAustrian]

the crowd size thing usually is an indicator for nothing, as romney learned in 2012 ...and the PV has shown again this year.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

She ran a good campaign. Trump ran a great one, even though it wasn't obvious at the time.

Trump added millions of first-time voters, flipped a bunch of Obama voters in the states where he needed them, and somehow kept almost all of the conservative evangelicals onboard, despite not really agreeing with them on their most important issues.

No other Republican would have done #1 and few would have done #2.

-This is a bad take. Hillary got fewer votes than Obama. Trump got a smaller percentage of the vote than Mitt Romney. They both ran bad campaigns; HRC the worse one.

You didn't refute any of my points. Depsite coming across as a jackass to liberals, Trump added millions of first-time voters, held onto evangelicals, and flipped enough Obama voters in the right states to eke out a win. He campaigned very well.

Hillary also did a good job of getting most Bernie voters back on board and flipping a bunch of moderate Republicans to her side. It just wasnt quite enough.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/197027/ratings-trump-campaign-worst-recent-election-years.aspx

[Pericles]

Her anti alt-right speech was good. While her fainting on 9/11 was bad, I respect that she came into work even though she was sick and persevered(to excess in this case (, Hillary wouldn't pull a sick day on you.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Her anti alt-right speech was good. While her fainting on 9/11 was bad, I respect that she came into work even though she was sick and persevered(to excess in this case (, Hillary wouldn't pull a sick day on you.

-Her anti-alt-right speech was absolutely hilarious, and only showed more to everyone sensible that Her campaign was a massive joke, concentrating more on Internet trolls than poverty.

People avoid sick days for a reason.

[Pericles]

She did some good anti-Trump ads and they were effective, though she should have added in more policy ads and focused on her own vision. It was funny when she went on Between the Two Ferns

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

She did some good anti-Trump ads and they were effective, though she should have added in more policy ads and focused on her own vision. It was funny when she went on Between the Two Ferns

-The ads appear to only have been effective among elites, not non-college Americans. Of course, that doesn't mean they weren't effective; just that they only worked on a specific demographic. Ohio went for Obama. It went for Trump by 8 points. Black turnout, contrary to some predictions here, collapsed.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

No