Did Hillary lose because she was not progressive enough

[Da2017]

She did move left in the general because of Sanders.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In her own words, she had private and public positions, and occupied the center right. I'll let that speak for itself.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

She did move left in the general because of Sanders.

She ran on the most liberal platform in recent memory. She was too far left to win.

[Confused Democrat]

She was definitely progressive enough. She was just weighed down by scandal, high unfavorables, her tendency to keep secrets, and an in-cohesive campaign message

[YE]

Her real problem was only 25% of her ads focused on policy.

[TPIG]

Hillary had decently left-wing positions; she just came off as canned, uncaring of everyday people, and inauthentic at a time when voters were craving those qualities in a candidate. Scandals also played a role, but as Trump proved, scandals are not campaign killers; being a bad candidate however, certainly is.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Hillary had decently left-wing positions; she just came off as canned, uncaring of everyday people, and inauthentic at a time when voters were craving those qualities in a candidate. Scandals also played a role, but as Trump proved, scandals are not campaign killers; being a bad candidate however, certainly is.

She's the Mitt Romney of the Democratic party.

[Phony Moderate]

Political skills are more important in winning elections than ideology.

[mijan]

Yes. Clinton political ideology was  the mixing of corporate neo liberalism with identity politics.

[Del Tachi]

No.  Polls consistently showed that most voters were aligned with Hillary Clinton on the issues, but it wasn't policy issues that ended up deciding the election.

Also, anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton isn't progressive obviously forgot that she had a ten year voting record in the U.S. Senate.

[Illini Moderate]

No.  Polls consistently showed that most voters were aligned with Hillary Clinton on the issues, but it wasn't policy issues that ended up deciding the election.

Also, anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton isn't progressive obviously forgot that she had a ten year voting record in the U.S. Senate.

Seriously, its about time someone reminded people. . .

[Mr. Reactionary]

I thought she lost because one day, Russia, the FBI, Obama and Biden, Bernie Sanders, and the media all got together in the same room and entered into a misogynistic conspiracy to stop an extremely popular woman from ending hate.

[uti2]

Hillary had decently left-wing positions; she just came off as canned, uncaring of everyday people, and inauthentic at a time when voters were craving those qualities in a candidate. Scandals also played a role, but as Trump proved, scandals are not campaign killers; being a bad candidate however, certainly is.

She's the Mitt Romney of the Democratic party.

More like Romney was the John Kerry.

[uti2]

She was definitely progressive enough. She was just weighed down by scandal, high unfavorables, her tendency to keep secrets, and an in-cohesive campaign message

What happened to Al Gore? Both Gore and Hillary ran had similar campaign styles - reaching out to republicans at the expense of their bases and trying to emphasize the anti-intellectualism of their opponents in hopes of winning over reluctant opposition party voters.

[AtorBoltox]

She did move left in the general because of Sanders.

She ran on the most liberal platform in recent memory. She was too far left to win.

The problem was no one believed her because she's changed her stances and political persona so many times

[Mr. Smith]

Correct.

 That's why Minnesota was so thin, Wisconsin and Michigan were lost, and NC wasn't closer [seems to be the one state in The South where Democrats are quite leftist]

Sure, her actual record would've ended such doubts, but that wasn't what she used now was it?


Oh and as for the Gore comparison, Gore literally would've won NH, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio and Missouri if he had used the same arsenal Clinton had. His problem was the failure to use what he had because "muh Lewinsky".

If Hillary had tried to run away from Obama to the same extent Gore did, she probably would've lost Nevada [which should've happened anyway], New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado, Maine...and Rhode Island might've become just a single-digit win as a consequence.

[Lord Admirale]

She did move left in the general because of Sanders.

She ran on the most liberal platform in recent memory. She was too far left to win.

[twenty42]

Hillary had decently left-wing positions; she just came off as canned, uncaring of everyday people, and inauthentic at a time when voters were craving those qualities in a candidate. Scandals also played a role, but as Trump proved, scandals are not campaign killers; being a bad candidate however, certainly is.

She's the Mitt Romney of the Democratic party.

More like Romney was the John Kerry.

Gore, Kerry, Romney, and Hillary all ran similar campaigns. I can't really put my finger on it, but it seemed like all four just had an air about them that they were superior to their opponents and voters should be smart enough to realize it. They acted like they couldn't be bothered to relate to people and tell them why they deserved their vote...just that they deserved it. Whether you liked them or hated them...GWB, Obama, and Trump made a concerted effort to reach out to voters, and they were rewarded with EC victories.

I think McCain actually ran a pretty decent campaign despite the circumstances, and it was because of this that 2008 wasn't a 1980-style blowout. I think it would've been a 1960/2000-style nail-biter without the economic collapse, with Obama's EC advantage putting him over the top despite a close PV margin.

[PoliticalJunkie23]

Hillary didn't lose on policy. She lost because of her character.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hillary had decently left-wing positions; she just came off as canned, uncaring of everyday people, and inauthentic at a time when voters were craving those qualities in a candidate. Scandals also played a role, but as Trump proved, scandals are not campaign killers; being a bad candidate however, certainly is.

She's the Mitt Romney of the Democratic party.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No, of course not.  She lost because she didn't see the trend of working class voters flocking to Trump because of his protectionist stance and opposition to illegal immigration.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No, of course not.  She lost because she didn't see the trend of working class voters flocking to Trump because of his protectionist stance and opposition to illegal immigration.

She saw the trend, but was unwilling to offend the SJWs and social liberals by speaking to these folks on THEIR terms.  Without the "girl power" themes of so many of her ads.  Without the endless emphasis on social liberalism, but lip service toward the economic issues working class voters mattered most.

One reason BILL Clinton won in 1992 was because his "It's the economy, stupid!" campaign featured some key themes.  One was WORK; a respect for work, and an acknowledgment that much of the hardest work in America was done by MEN.  Another theme was "PLAYING BY THE RULES".  BILL Clinton pointed out that working class folks not only worked hard, but obeyed laws, lived by a social contract that was real to them (and only became unreal when the boss decided to break it), and valued the fact that they were makers, and not takers.  Those economic themes were NOT the crux of the HILLARY Clinton campaign, and the "pay inequality for women" issue seemed, to both WWC men AND women, as a niche issue that was relevant to female executives, but not female workers.  It didn't affect THEM, and remediating that issue wouldn't improve THEiR lives.

BILL Clinton recognized that concessions had to be made to the most conservative Democratic voters if the Democratic Party were to be able to not only elect a President, but elect Congressional majorities.  Hillary knows better, but allowed her campaign to be a SJW/Social Liberal Girl Power Lecturepallooza, where she would show her Gender Feminist side (the kind most hostile toward males) and lecture and moralize how a President ought to know how to treat women.  And, yes, Donald Trump is a pig on that score, but (A) so was Bill Clinton, and (B) the voters Hillary needed to put her over the top didn't need to be lectured.  They wanted to be accepted by THEIR candidate as THEY were, and to be ratified by THEIR candidate as OK people.  Instead, many of these folks were referred to as "Deplorables" by Hillary at a time when a critical percentage of these folks were only considering Trump, but hadn't made up their minds. 

If Democrats want to know why "working people vote against their interests", it's real simple.  They are constantly talked down to by Democratic candidates and treated as if they are owed their votes.  Republicans let these folks know that they're OK, as they are.  That may, or may not, be the practical thing to do for those critical WWC voters who helped elect Trump, but they got what they wanted.  They got a President who respects them.  Hillary Clinton did not respect these voters, and she couldn't hide the fact that she didn't. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

No, she lost because she was who she is.