Hillary's non-appearance at the Javits Center

[TML]

As we all know, Hillary sent her campaign manager, John Podesta, to the Javits Center shortly after 2 am to disperse the crowd there, by which time it was pretty clear that her goose had been cooked.

That reminded me of an alternative scenario described by FiveThirtyEight several weeks before the election: Hillary narrowly wins 278-260 (winning MI/WI/PA in the process), with her victory only being secured shortly after 1 am (when PA finishes reporting its results). In that alternative scenario, would she have opted to go ahead and make an appearance at the Javits Center that late at night, or would she have also waited until the next morning to address her supporters?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

She would have appeared at the Javits Center. Hillary's venue was set up with express purpose of welcoming in the first female president under a shattered glass ceiling. Obama's huge outdoor venue in '08 was also something that went beyond the generic and was meant to capture a moment in history. Both were chosen with the understanding that their candidates were overwhelmingly more likely to win than not.

In Hillary's case, it wasn't so. But that was not the place to concede. It would have given off a vibe of total and complete hopelessness. The next morning in an understated location with a polished speech after the sun had risen was much more appropriate.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Of course she would have. Why would the winner not address their supporters that night? It would have been a massive celebration especially in the case of the first female president-elect.

I see no problem with her decision not to appear when it was clear she lost. There is no way in the world she was prepared to give a concession speech, especially in an election campaign were she was the favorite. The campaign was so nasty and divisive, and people were literally fearful of her GOP competitor winning. It would have been so emotional. Everyone needed the night/morning to process it.

[TML]

I've heard reports both from herself and others involved in her campaign that she had originally expected her victory to be secured by about 11 pm or so (and her appearance at Javits would have been around that time). In that case, would a 2-3 hour delay in officially securing her victory have influenced her decision to appear that night or not?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hillary came unglued and wasn't ready for prime time.  Or post-prime time, as the case turned out.

If she became this unglued losing to Trump, how emotionally stable a President would she have been?  Having the emotional makeup to be President involves being able to deliver bad news, even devastating news, and deliver it when it happens.

Her supporters would have been devastated, but that's the name of the game when you're vested in a campaign that comes up short.  They'd have gotten over it.  If she intended to challenge results, she could have made a statement at 2 am stating that she was reviewing her options, or something like that.  I believe she was too unhinged to make a public appearance, period.

That's how she'll be remembered; too unglued to concede.

[uti2]

Hillary came unglued and wasn't ready for prime time.  Or post-prime time, as the case turned out.

If she became this unglued losing to Trump, how emotionally stable a President would she have been?  Having the emotional makeup to be President involves being able to deliver bad news, even devastating news, and deliver it when it happens.

Her supporters would have been devastated, but that's the name of the game when you're vested in a campaign that comes up short.  They'd have gotten over it.  If she intended to challenge results, she could have made a statement at 2 am stating that she was reviewing her options, or something like that.  I believe she was too unhinged to make a public appearance, period.

That's how she'll be remembered; too unglued to concede.

Hillary boldly opposed the GOP or decades. She had spent 6 months going against every political instinct she ever had praising republicans like Bush and Paul Ryan in her attempts to court republicans, and it still failed. She was 'shattered', everyone around her told her, including those very neoconservative republicans that her courtship strategy was the right one, yet it still failed. She did not run the campaign she originally wanted to run, she wasn't true to herself, and she lost.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/how-a-decision-in-may-changed-the-general-election

[Pericles]

It's amazing that Trump supporters think Clinton was the emotionally unstable one. It shows how stupid some people are and tbh proves her right on the issue of sexism. No matter what she did people will call her a shrill, unhinged woman. Look at the Trump presidency and tell me that's a glued-on, emtionally stable President. It is not, period.

[uti2]

It's amazing that Trump supporters think Clinton was the emotionally unstable one. It shows how stupid some people are and tbh proves her right on the issue of sexism. No matter what she did people will call her a shrill, unhinged woman. Look at the Trump presidency and tell me that's a glued-on, emtionally stable President. It is not, period.

It's not just Trump supporters, it's also the 'nevertrump' republicans you constantly try to rehabilitate and reinforce. You still think she's unhinged relative to the likes of Rubio who literally melted down and descended into juvenile insults during the campaign. What's the difference?

[TheSaint250]

It's amazing that Trump supporters think Clinton was the emotionally unstable one. It shows how stupid some people are and tbh proves her right on the issue of sexism. No matter what she did people will call her a shrill, unhinged woman. Look at the Trump presidency and tell me that's a glued-on, emtionally stable President. It is not, period.

Why can't they both be unhinged?

[uti2]

It's amazing that Trump supporters think Clinton was the emotionally unstable one. It shows how stupid some people are and tbh proves her right on the issue of sexism. No matter what she did people will call her a shrill, unhinged woman. Look at the Trump presidency and tell me that's a glued-on, emtionally stable President. It is not, period.

Why can't they both be unhinged?

That speaks to the point I outlined in my above post. Why can't rubio be unhinged? He literally melted down as if he had a psychotic break.

[BigVic]

I was surprised to see Podesta, not Clinton speak at Javits on Election Night at around 2 ET.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hillary came unglued and wasn't ready for prime time.  Or post-prime time, as the case turned out.

If she became this unglued losing to Trump, how emotionally stable a President would she have been?  Having the emotional makeup to be President involves being able to deliver bad news, even devastating news, and deliver it when it happens.

Her supporters would have been devastated, but that's the name of the game when you're vested in a campaign that comes up short.  They'd have gotten over it.  If she intended to challenge results, she could have made a statement at 2 am stating that she was reviewing her options, or something like that.  I believe she was too unhinged to make a public appearance, period.

That's how she'll be remembered; too unglued to concede.

Evidence please, sh-tstain.