How does Hillary Clinton's concession rank among historic GE concessions?

[Illini Moderate]

I voted one of the best. I was a tad bit teary eyed when I watched it because the woman fought her whole life for something just to suffer one of the worst defeats possible. Also it was one of the first time many saw her really let her guard down and you could just feel the disappointment. One of my female friends (who reluctantly voted Trump) actually cried because she never really thought Hillary would actually lose and really felt for her.

At the end of the day the woman has consistently remained graceful in the face of MANY setbacks (many of her own doing). She's been publicly humiliated on multiple occasions and for the most part has been stoic in her handling of each situation. It was sad to see a man who was completely unprepared, unqualified, and last but not least a racist, be elected over her. It was also frustrating that she made dumb mistakes and blew her chance to be the first female President. I still, always will believe that she deserved to be the first female President. And its kind of upsetting to know that she never will be. And its even more frustrating to know that her character has been assassinated so badly that she will never get the respect she deserves for her years of public service.

[Illini Moderate]

It was mediocre, maybe a shade better at decent at best, not bad, not great. No surprise that the one who are crying & praising it to the moon are full on insane Hilary fans. Clinton seemed wooden, rehearsed, competent (like she is as a candidate) without many great lines. The best ones have a great emotional cord with humility & some good lines.

IMO Carter had a better one. Maybe McCain, but who cared then because of Obama's historic speech & the wait for that.

Not an "insane" Hillary fan. Just a normal fan of hers who can and has acknowledged her flaws. God forbid someone actually be emotional watching someone they admire suffer such a devastating loss.

[Illini Moderate]

Thank you. I am sick and tired of the unjustified persecution Hillary Clinton has received. Yes, she's not perfect, and yes, her campaign made mistakes(was Trump's campaign really brilliant and her's terrible though?!) But she is still being attacked and can't even get the recognition and popularity previous losers like Mitt Romney got after his loss. I will be buying her book and I think she is more than deserving of my money. Hopefully she finally gets the vindication she deserves, and I know that America will definitely regret their choice in the end. She tried to stop a Trump presidency(though her campaign did make mistakes) and she warned America, it was America-or at least 46% of it in the right states-that chose not to listen.

This is a nice little soliloquy, but I'm afraid it doesn't hold up in reality. The fact of the matter is that she DIDN'T try very hard to stop a Trump presidency. She ran one of the laziest campaigns in American history, and conducted herself in a smug, entitled fashion that gave off the air that the election was already won.

While Trump was out fighting for every last vote, the Clinton campaign was laughing at him for targeting states that "he couldn't possibly win." Her demeanor after the third debate crystallized her whole attitude throughout the entirety of her campaign when she said something along the lines of, "It's frightening that Donald Trump won't accept the election results." She didn't even acknowledge the fact that he may win...she just totally took for granted that she was going to cruise to victory and that Trump would contest the election.

If I hated Trump, I'd probably hate Hillary right now almost as much. She is, without a doubt in my mind, the one person more responsible than anybody for his election. She did nothing in 2016 to deserve a victory, and I have no sympathy for her.

Fox News asked her if she would accept the results like a day after the debate and Clinton + her campaign literally laughed then went on about how Trump needs to accept the results.

One thing I found interesting: in one of her few honest moments, she admitted it made her nervous/feel tons of pressure knowing she was the only thing between Trump and the Presidency.

She also made the same mistakes in 2016 she made in 2008 - that is, she focused on running up the score rather than winning electoral votes/delegates. In 2008, Obama had an absolutely INCREDIBLE delegate campaign. Even in states he LOST he got more delegates than Clinton did (such as Nevada).

Not only did Clinton want to win in 2016, she wanted a landslide. A Clinton 96 landslide. Hell, maybe even a Bush 88 landslide. Instead of focusing on just holding most of the Obama swing states, she pumped up the vote in Chicago and New Orleans over Michigan!

What do you mean "in one of her few honest moments"? Hillary has lied before, yes, but she is not a fundamentally dishonest person. People who consistently assume that everything she says is a lie don't even bother to back that up with FACTS. Trump literally lied in nearly every speech he made, sometimes multiple times, yet no one cared. Hillary was actually the second most honest candidate in the 2016 campaign and yet somehow she is still portrayed as the liar. *rolls eyes

[Illini Moderate]

She used to not be as calculated, and was more genuine, but we all saw how the media crucified her in the 90's for her every move. I would be "calculated" too if I was subject to some of the BS that she had to endure back then. She's not a naturally charismatic person. She shines in small groups, and many people like her. Hell even a lot of Republican politicians like her.

[Illini Moderate]

She used to not be as calculated, and was more genuine, but we all saw how the media crucified her in the 90's for her every move. I would be "calculated" too if I was subject to some of the BS that she had to endure back then. She's not a naturally charismatic person. She shines in small groups, and many people like her. Hell even a lot of Republican politicians like her.

Want to see the media rip someone to shreds for no reason? Look at Sarah Palin in 2008.

The Clintons have been babied by the media their entire lives.

I mean, Hillary Clinton literally had the gall to say "All sexual assault victims deserve to be believed."

One thing too, is I hate how she tries to be a feminist icon when she is anything but. Here's why:

- She married her husband with the sole intent of gaining power/becoming first lady
- She stayed with her husband (for the above reason) even after he humiliated her multiple times by cheating on her
- The two above are like the biggest stereotypes about women - that women need a man to be successful and that women are weak. Those stereotypes are wrong but Hillary is like the epitome of those stereotypes!
- She became the Senator of New York ONLY as a stepping stone to the Presidency. Nita Lowey actually worked her entire life to become that Senator and worked her way up (not married her way up) but Clinton literally came in and stole that seat from a hard working woman

It goes on and on.

She is everything I hate in a politician.

Sarah Palin ripped to shreds for no reason? That's laughable.... She was ripped to shreds because it was evident she had NO IDEA what she was talking about half of the time. Even McCain's own team was horrified by her. I agree that the targeting of Bristol and her special needs child was down right disgusting and unfair, but other than that she was a fair target.

Additionally, you have no way of knowing if Hillary married Bill for "the sole intent of gaining power". MAYBE, JUST MAYBE THE TWO OF THEM HAVE ACTUALLY GENUINE FEELINGS TOWARDS EACHOTHER?!  (gasps)

And I am dying at the idea of the Clintons being babied by the media. Hillary was literally openly bashed for being "too ambitious" in the 90s. Ambition is something no one should be criticized for. Bill's affair and other alleged affairs were continually brought up throughout his campaigns and Hillary's.  Pundits and moderators constantly chided her about her "likability" in 2008. In fact, in 2008 several news outlets actually were called out for sexist coverage of her and  actually had to lighten up a bit because of how negatively they covered her compared to Obama. Hillary's emails were the MOST COVERED issue of the 2016 campaign. AND FINALLY Fox News and other conservative outlets continue to bash Hillary every time Trump says/does something stupid.

And criticizing someone for staying in their marriage and working through issues is ridiculous. I'm sure if she would have left him you would have blasted her for "not appreciating the sanctity of a marriage". The only people that have the right to criticize the Clinton's marriage are THE CLINTONS. Just like people need to stop criticizing President Trump and Melania.

Also Clinton "stole" a seat from a hardworking woman? Was Clinton herself not hardworking? Various Republicans and Democrats have spoken out about her great work ethic, and she earned a reputation as a tireless worker in the Senate.

I am not saying Hillary is perfect. Trust me, I know she is far from it. But the amount of blind hatred and insults the woman faces is far from justified. Biased speculation is the basis for all of your arguments against her that you have stated above. I am not saying everyone needs to like the woman, but the attacks on her that are not based in facts are ridiculous and I am tired of sitting there and watching everyone use her as a punching bag.

[Illini Moderate]

A normal loser would have conceded the night of. Maybe this one was drunk and had to sober up?

Maybe this one is reading too many internet rumor mills?^ It was 2 AM when Trump secured all 270 votes. Why would she go on to concede when many of her supporters had already gone to sleep. Might as well wait till the morning when everyone is awake

[Illini Moderate]

A normal loser would have conceded the night of. Maybe this one was drunk and had to sober up?

Maybe this one is reading too many internet rumor mills?^ It was 2 AM when Trump secured all 270 votes. Why would she go on to concede when many of her supporters had already gone to sleep. Might as well wait till the morning when everyone is awake

The real reasons she didn't do a concession speech are simple:

1. She was physically unable (too drunk? too sedated? passed out? inconsolable? I think it's somewhat of a combination)
2. She didn't want to concede under the glass ceiling and on top of the USA map
3. She wanted to fight the results and planned on lawyering up and asking for recounts

Of course, she eventually conceded once the AP called the race (she told the Trump campaign he had 15 minutes to concede after the AP or 2 networks call it). One of the reasons she didn't do 3 was because Obama told her not to - I am guessing he told her he'd try to sabotage his Presidency with bogus Russia claims.

She was also an hour late to her concession speech in the morning, so I think she was still at 1 as well - but more inconsolable.

I want to see what she says in her book. Let's see how honest she can be. She should give an explanation on what happened election morning.

Romney also didn't want to concede and fought the results for a while before conceding at 1AM (almost 2 hours after all the networks called it!). You can tell his concession speech was just written too LOL.

I love how you are listing those reasons as if you know for a fact that they are true. You literally have no idea. But its Hillary so just assume the worst I guess. Maybe she/her team didn't think conceding at 3 AM ET was a good time considering most people wouldn't even be up to see it?

[Illini Moderate]

I love how you are listing those reasons as if you know for a fact that they are true. You literally have no idea. But its Hillary so just assume the worst I guess. Maybe she/her team didn't think conceding at 3 AM ET was a good time considering most people wouldn't even be up to see it?

Why was she an hour late to her concession speech in the morning after the election then? Traffic jam? LOL.

(Nope - she was still at the hotel, as I said, she was either inconsolable or sedated. No other explanation)

Everyone should just come to you for insider info. You seem to know it all! (All while providing zero evidence to back up your claims) Anyway, I'm done entertaining your trolling. Bye

[Illini Moderate]

Everyone should just come to you for insider info. You seem to know it all! (All while providing zero evidence to back up your claims) Anyway, I'm done entertaining your trolling. Bye

This is not insider info?

Everything I have said can be inferred by public information.

Huh, I didn't expect you to admit you were making this up.

[Illini Moderate]

Oh for God's sake; I've never seen so many grown people cry than on the night of Clinton's defeat, it was really pathetic. Clinton herself crying was the final nail in the coffin of a weak and laughable campaign.

Oh PLEASE. There were far more grown ass men crying on election nights 08 and 12 solely because a black man won the presidency. And I'm sure there would've been many crying if Trump lost. Grow up. It's called democracy and people get passionate. You have no right to vilify voters who didn't agree with you.
[/quote]
Yeah right! I may have seen 'angry' voters, voters venting their frustrations on social media and voters pretty despondent about the direction of the country, but you can bet your bottom dollar I didn't see anyone crying. Crying over the loss of a politician is tantamount to crying because you died in a video game; it's just as stupid, just as childish. How many people were crying when Wilkie lost to FDR? Stevenson to Eisenhower? Nixon to Kennedy? That's right, NO ONE!

And if criticising grown men and women for crying over something so transitory and stupid is vilification, then I am vilifying people and proud of it! It's pathetic! Perhaps the Democrats dog-whistling Trump so that he sounded like the literal embodiment of Hitler had something to do with all the silly tears? I mean, give me a break! It's not as if he can't just be voted out in four years anyway.
[/quote]
This post makes absolutely no sense. People DID cry when McCain and Romney lost. And I didn't know you were aware of the reactions of every single American from elections that go back 40, 50, and 60 years.
[/quote]
Show me then! I definitely didn't see anything on the night or subsequent days, but if you can disprove me then go ahead. Whereas with Hillary, the evidence is far more forthcoming with idiot bloggers and the like literally balling their eyes out on camera. Hell, the tears were flowing big time on election night while HRC's supporters waited for the results.

And yeah, I don't need to know the mind of every single individual citizen going back half a century. Just using a little common sense and by comparing the psyche of the public then and now, it's pretty obvious that there's a disparity in maturity levels.
[/quote]

Here's 60 photos "showing you" that you are wrong . (not a fan of the website title btw)

http://gossiponthis.com/2012/11/09/60-moving-images-white-people-mourning-mitt-romney/

Don't criticize people for crying when the person they supported, admired, and may have campaigned for loses. People become very invested in candidates and the cause they champion. Get over it. People are always going to cry and always have. Have a good day now

[Illini Moderate]

So, let me get this straight: one person on an internet forum, who could very possibly be a troll, calls you a pinhead, and you think this is sufficient evidence to back up your more radical claims?

Hagrid is behaving like every other (hardcore) Clinton supporter I have come across.

First of all, you failed to prove how Clintonites are leftists.

Seen Clinton's policies? Amnesty, climate change, wars, anti-police/pro-BLM, pretending to raise taxes on the rich (tbf Democrats sell this crap every 4 years but do the opposite), free college, etc. etc.

Next, you failed to explain how Clintonites "attack any woman that does not abide by the code", never mind explaining what "the code" really is.

"The code" is vote Democrat.

Democrats were 100 times worse on Sarah Palin than Republicans ever were on Hillary. Today I am reading about how Melania is evil because of the shoes she's wearing to Texas.

When Melania wore white to her RNC speech, it was a symbol of white supremacy. When Hillary wore white to her DNC speech, it was a symbol for suffrage.

It's like how the African American museum ignores Clarence Thomas, but is going to have an exhibit for Colin Kaepernick.

Finally, Trump never "curb-stomped" anyone. He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. Last time I checked, his approval ratings were somewhere in the 30s.

1. He was expected to lose. What was it, 98% chance to lose? Lol.
2. Hillary had EVERYONE on her side - she had the media, Wall Street, billionaires, etc. etc. Hell, she had Republicans on her side.
3. She spent like $1.2 billion on her campaign to get the same results Jeb Bush got. Trump spent pennies (annoyingly so IMO). For being the party that it supposed to be against Citizens United/Super PACs, you guys sure don't mind having a million of them lol!
4. Democrats were telling Trump to "stop whining" and to "accept the results." A famous saying was "Trump it's not rigged - you're just losing."

The sitting President was literally stating that Trump would not win the Presidency.

I was amazed how Democrats reacted to Trump the SAME way the Republican Establishment did. It was REALLY eye opening and IMO proved the "horseshoe theory" of politics true.

When Trump was beating the Republicans the Republicans had every excuse in the book:

- Trump is colluding with Hillary Clinton
- Trump is doing this for a reality TV show
- Trump is just wanting attention
- Trump is running just to help his business

etc. etc.

When Trump defeated the Democrats rather easily, the excuses were the same except switch out colluding with Hillary Clinton to colluding with Russia, and switch out realty TV show for "Trump TV."

>b-b-but that's cuz illegals voted for Hillary in mass

Nope. Fake news.

1. Politifact is known to be liberally biased.
2. I know many illegals who voted. They use stolen/fake SSNs.

>b-b-but the polls were wrong and are wrong about 2016

Nope. If you check the polls, while they did show leads for Clinton, those leads were within the margin of error by election day. Nate Silver of 538 put Trump's chances of success at 30%.

71% chance for Clinton to win does not mean he thought Trump would win lol.

No participation trophies here!

Nope. A vocal minority of protesters doesn't represent all Democrats, just like a vocal minority of white supremacists doesn't represent all Trump voters.

Vocal minority? Lol.

It's everywhere.

It's MILLIONS of them.

We have celebrities holding a fake Trump head with blood on it; a famous singer wishing she could blow up the White House; a drunk has-been actor wondering when's the last time a celebrity assassinated a President; etc. etc.

What? Are you kidding me? The original topic of the thread was about the quality of Clinton's concession speech, are you living in an alternate reality?

In conclusion, it seems like you're a huge cat with a tiny head.

I am talking about the quality of her concession - and I feel it was down a lot because she refused to publicly concede til the morning. She had all sorts of time to work on her concession speech.

The fact she didn't concede on election night is interesting, because of all the crap they gave Trump about "accepting the results of the election."

In the end, it ended up being Democrats who still can't accept it.

I really hope you don't ever attempt to become a lawyer. There are so many flaws in your arguments... It's comical really.

Justifying your conclusion that millions of illegals voted by reasoning:

1. The Pulitzer Prize winning site that was one of MANY sources to refute this claim has a "liberal bias". (attacking the source instead of the facts/argument presented by the source... common rookie mistake)

2. You know a couple illegals personally who voted. (this is sampling error)


You also clearly do not understand statistics. Odds of winning aren't a matter of wrong or right. They are the likelihood something happens based on available data. Trump had 30% chance of winning. Nate never said he WOULD NOT win.  In fact there were several times where Nate emphasized that Trump still could very well win the election.


Also I cannot believe that you are actually trying to make the argument that A MAJORITY of Democrats are calling for violence against Trump. Once again I would like to see some data to back this up.....

Also don't act like the media was harder on Trump than Hillary. Her emails were the most covered story of the election. Trumps policies also got more coverage than Hillary's by far. Trump had more individual scandals and major gaffes throughout the campaign than Hillary did as well. Hell towards the end he straight up LIED and claimed Obama yelled at a protester during a Hillary rally when he did not whatsoever. (Just an example)  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/25/studies-agree-media-gorged-on-hillary-clinton-email-coverage/?utm_term=.091ed9e9c3d8

[Illini Moderate]

No, but complaining about climate change while flying on carbon guzzling airplanes makes you one. 

Complaining about climate change while flying on an airplane makes you a leftist? That's a new one. How is she supposed to get around to campaign? On an even bigger note, I think you are missing the point of climate change. No one is saying that air travel should cease to exist.... God its like having a discussion with a fourth grader......

By inviting the parents of Trayvon Martin/Eric Garner/etc. etc. to bash police.

Ok for one, Trayvon Martin was not killed by a police officer. He was killed by a citizen who was armed pursued him for wearing a hood after being told not to by a dispatcher. Second, she did not bring them out to "bash police". They were there to speak out against police brutality. Being anti police brutality does NOT mean being anti police. Hillary made ZERO anti police statements.

Bush was more left wing than even Obama.

http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/l/39/George-W-Bush
http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/l/2/Barack-Obama

You are literally ignoring facts if you believe this. They are not even close. But then again I'm not surprised considering you think Donald Trump is the only true conservative candidate in 50 years.

it was Clinton that started birtherism in 2008.

That has repeatedly been debunked. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/

Sorry, but 71% is saying "Clinton will win."

You don't get to be that wrong and then claim you are "right."

No.... A 71% chance of winning does not mean "Clinton will win" it means "she had a 71% CHANCE of winning"   
There isn't a right or wrong in this case. You really do not understand probability do you?