How do you make the south go to Clinton in 2016

[Continential]

States like Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia 

[Inmate Trump]

Impossible unless Trump is dropped from the ballot for some reason and not replaced. So if Hillary is the only major party candidate on the ballot. And in that event I’d imagine a huge shift for Gary Johnson.

[ON Progressive]

Basically impossible, especially the latter two. Satan had higher approval numbers than Hillary in Appalachia.

[here2view]

Get a time machine so you can go back 25 years while running 2008 Hillary.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think a convoluted story could make it work.

Hillary Clinton refuses to drop out of the 2008 primary race and takes the nomination battle to the convention. She publically and forcefully argues through the summer that Obama is not fit to be commander-in-chief. Her supporters become more and more vitriolic in the face of calls for party unity, and the PUMA crowd becomes a real force. She loses the nomination at the convention and the optics are horrible for Obama.

After, Hillary still refuses to endorse Obama and says flattering things about McCain throughout the fall. Obama still wins, of course, but with a much smaller margin than he did in reality. The Democrats' congressional majorities are smaller as well, and mainstream media pundits go out of their way to blame Clinton and her block of "economically anxious" white voters for hurting the party. Let's imagine she also managed to retain a following of socially-moderate/conservative Latinx Democrats. Her supporters get more and more frustrated with Obama and the media: They see 2008 as stolen from Hillary, and they believe it is Obama's fault that he could not win them over. Hillary is not offered the SecState job, nor would she have accepted if she was.

Fast-forward through Obama's first term, and legislatively he manages to get very little done without Congressional supermajorities. From the beginning, there are constant rumblings of a Hillary 2012 primary challenge, and there are clues that she's even laying the groundwork for such a run herself. She fans the flames and becomes quite critical of Obama, even from the senate floor. She holds "round tables" and "town halls" throughout New York and even beyond her state, mostly criticizing Obama's incompetence. She remarks that he has had trouble consolidating support from members of his own party (no thanks to her, of course).

The 2010 midterms come along, and the Tea Party is a big force, but the PUMAs are too. The two movements are often conflated. Hillary does her best to draw distinctions on the issues but muses that both groups represent large slices of the electorate that are challenging Obama to reach across the aisle. As in reality, 2010 does not go well for the Democrats, though some Blue Dogs do manage to survive thanks to their growing prominence in the political discourse of the day.

2012 comes along and the "will she/won't she" punditry kicks into a frenzy. She draws it out, but eventually chooses not to run. Many Democratic insiders are disappointed because they believe it is unlikely Obama can win reelection. The new political environment is decidedly moderate, so neither Joe Biden nor Barack Obama come out in support of marriage equality. In a desperate attempt to shore up Democratic support, Bill Clinton is offered a primetime speaking spot at the 2012 Democratic Convention. He uses his speech not to offer a resounding defence of Obama, but to outline a new path forward for the party, which is very much in-line with the vision Hillary has been offering. The speech further divides Democrats and Obama has a hell of a time recovering. He does manage to win reelection, but it is a narrow win and his popular vote margin is negligible.

The next four years are a disaster, nothing gets accomplished, and Obama is still afraid to speak out on behalf of socially-progressive causes for fear that his party is not yet ready to embrace marriage equality, trans rights, etc. Hillary Clinton does not come out in support of marriage equality. She does not show signs of wanting to re-asssmble Obama's rainbow coalition, because the truth is, Obama barely managed to scrape one together himself.

Hillary continues to flirt with running for president and basically waits to be begged to enter the 2016 race, which she does relatively late, to effusive praise and bipartisan support. Other candidates had been waiting for her to run before making their own decision, and the few who did jump in soon regreted it after she announced her run. She relies on her white working-class PUMAs and core base of Latinx support. Despite outwardly running against many of Obama's  policies and qualities, she manages to shore up black support with the help of her husband. Kook senator Bernie Sanders attempts to mount a bid but has no natural base of support outside young people. He fails to gain traction after the first debate so drops out. Hillary has no e-mail issues and no Benghazi "scandal." She runs away with the nomination on a decidedly moderate message. Black Lives Matter? What's that? It's about pocketbook issues, stable families, and "gut" common sense. She handily defeats jackass Donald Trump, who she easily brands an elite, money-grubbing scumbag. It is not close.




The point of convergence for such a scenario really has to be her actions as she begins to lose the primaries in 2008. Interesting to see how much power she might have had.

[Continential]

I think if she was more moderate she could of won Blue Dogs

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think if she was more moderate she could of won Blue Dogs

This is an insightful post as to how people were pretty much projecting whatever they wanted onto Clinton. She was whatever you think she was, apparently. Too far left, "a neoliberal," a moderate, too conservative, a sellout, an elitist, a practitioner of "identity politics," etc. It's ridiculous.

[cvparty]

I think if she was more moderate she could of won Blue Dogs

This is an insightful post as to how people were pretty much projecting whatever they wanted onto Clinton. She was whatever you think she was, apparently. Too far left, "a neoliberal," a moderate, too conservative, a sellout, an elitist, a practitioner of "identity politics," etc. It's ridiculous.

well obviously her ideology is gonna be perceived differently by conservatives versus by solid left-wingers

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think if she was more moderate she could of won Blue Dogs

This is an insightful post as to how people were pretty much projecting whatever they wanted onto Clinton. She was whatever you think she was, apparently. Too far left, "a neoliberal," a moderate, too conservative, a sellout, an elitist, a practitioner of "identity politics," etc. It's ridiculous.

well obviously her ideology is gonna be perceived differently by conservatives versus by solid left-wingers

I know that, but it wasn't just ideology that I was referring to.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The 2016 campaign brought out the REAL Hillary Clinton.

On domestic issues, Hillary will say what she needs to do to get elected.  She was for mandatory minimum sentences for (black) "superpredator" juvenile criminals before she was against them.  She was for the interests of coal miners before she was against them.  She was for repealing Glass-Steagall before she was against it.  She was for the invasion of Iraq before she was against it.  She was for DOMA before she was against it.  The list goes on.

One thing that has never changed, however, is this:  Hillary Clinton, was, is, and always will be a Radical Feminist, one of the most strident voices of the Feminist Left.  She was Hillary Rodham when she was First Lady of Arkansas in 1979-80; that cost Bill reelection in 1980 (along with Carter dumping loads of Mariel Boatlift refugees in Ft. Smith, AR).  She was ALWAYS asserting herself, always insisting she could do Bill's job, only better.  Her campaign featured "Girl Power" on steroids.  "This Is My Fight Song!" ads.  Constant references to the "condition of women and girls".  Reveling int he idea of "Madame President".  And she was doing this at a time where Men's earning capabilities were dropping, their abilities to support their families diminishing, their self-esteem and sense of self-effacacy under attack, and the condition of BOYS declining rapidly, even as the condition of GIRLS (based on school performance, college graduation, etc.) was increasing.

This tone-deafness to 49% of the population has always been Hillary Clinton's undoing, something that Bill, himself, has occasionally paid for.  Hillary projects contempt for working men, and for men who view themselves as leading their families, and that contempt shows.  On the campaign trail, Hillary made heroes out of "single Moms".  In the real world, "single Moms" are often unable to provide for their children, even with child support, and (even worse) are unable to control the behavior (including criminal behavior) of their children (and, especially, their sons).  Of course, in the real world, "single Moms" are often not "single" at all; they're UNMARRIED Moms with a boyfriend who, often, lives with her, but is not always vested in the interest of children not his own.  On THESE issues, Hillary has embraced the issues that work AGAINST family preservation, because preserving families is something that Hillary (I believe) abhors.  If, indeed, "It Takes A Village" to raise children, it's because our society has signed off on the idea of Fathers being unnecessary for very much beyond check-writing, and it's usually true in situations where the family has either fallen apart, or was never fully formed in the first place.

Hillary's solutions to the social problems of America have made our society worse; less able to produce responsible, law-abiding citizens.  Some degree of this can be blamed on income inequality and automation, but the disintegration of the American family has done the most to leave kids vulnerable, and Hillary has done more to create this (perhaps with good intentions) than she will ever acknowledge.  America knows this, however.  This may well be the reason the specific folks who had been ancestrally Democratic and not motivated by race hatred could not stomach her.  She hated THEM.  She shouldn't be shocked that she was hated back.

[Jay 🏳️‍⚧️]

Hillary Clinton is not the type of candidate that would have won the deep south / Appalachian region. At least not in this type of environment. She just wasn't the person who connected with heaps of disaffected voters in the southern U.S.

She was not the candidate of the people, she was the candidate of whatever gets her elected. You can name almost any issue and find two examples of her policy position, two completely different examples. Also, she doesn't inspire minority Democrats to come out in droves to vote for her, while Obama was a young, charismatic, black man, Hillary is an old, dry, white woman, which doesn't inspire minorities to come out and vote.

Her economic policies, which were notable in favor of trade agreements such as NAFTA and the TPP, were hugely unpopular in Appalachia, combined with her opposition to coal, and all she could do was hope to stop the bleeding. The Democrats did historically bad at the top of the ticket in states like West Virginia, and to an extent, Kentucky and Ohio. Hillary didn't have a message that everyone could get around, she had a message about shunning people who supported Trump, and instead relied on GOTV missions in key states. Trump on the other hand, had a passionate and motivated base of supporters, and with his coalition of passionate supporters and GOP-leaning independents, he managed to win in almost all of the key swing states.

[ReaganLimbaugh]

The below is very well thought out and makes a lot of sense.

The 2016 campaign brought out the REAL Hillary Clinton.

On domestic issues, Hillary will say what she needs to do to get elected.  She was for mandatory minimum sentences for (black) "superpredator" juvenile criminals before she was against them.  She was for the interests of coal miners before she was against them.  She was for repealing Glass-Steagall before she was against it.  She was for the invasion of Iraq before she was against it.  She was for DOMA before she was against it.  The list goes on.

One thing that has never changed, however, is this:  Hillary Clinton, was, is, and always will be a Radical Feminist, one of the most strident voices of the Feminist Left.  She was Hillary Rodham when she was First Lady of Arkansas in 1979-80; that cost Bill reelection in 1980 (along with Carter dumping loads of Mariel Boatlift refugees in Ft. Smith, AR).  She was ALWAYS asserting herself, always insisting she could do Bill's job, only better.  Her campaign featured "Girl Power" on steroids.  "This Is My Fight Song!" ads.  Constant references to the "condition of women and girls".  Reveling int he idea of "Madame President".  And she was doing this at a time where Men's earning capabilities were dropping, their abilities to support their families diminishing, their self-esteem and sense of self-effacacy under attack, and the condition of BOYS declining rapidly, even as the condition of GIRLS (based on school performance, college graduation, etc.) was increasing.

This tone-deafness to 49% of the population has always been Hillary Clinton's undoing, something that Bill, himself, has occasionally paid for.  Hillary projects contempt for working men, and for men who view themselves as leading their families, and that contempt shows.  On the campaign trail, Hillary made heroes out of "single Moms".  In the real world, "single Moms" are often unable to provide for their children, even with child support, and (even worse) are unable to control the behavior (including criminal behavior) of their children (and, especially, their sons).  Of course, in the real world, "single Moms" are often not "single" at all; they're UNMARRIED Moms with a boyfriend who, often, lives with her, but is not always vested in the interest of children not his own.  On THESE issues, Hillary has embraced the issues that work AGAINST family preservation, because preserving families is something that Hillary (I believe) abhors.  If, indeed, "It Takes A Village" to raise children, it's because our society has signed off on the idea of Fathers being unnecessary for very much beyond check-writing, and it's usually true in situations where the family has either fallen apart, or was never fully formed in the first place.

Hillary's solutions to the social problems of America have made our society worse; less able to produce responsible, law-abiding citizens.  Some degree of this can be blamed on income inequality and automation, but the disintegration of the American family has done the most to leave kids vulnerable, and Hillary has done more to create this (perhaps with good intentions) than she will ever acknowledge.  America knows this, however.  This may well be the reason the specific folks who had been ancestrally Democratic and not motivated by race hatred could not stomach her.  She hated THEM.  She shouldn't be shocked that she was hated back.

[Alabama_Indy10]

The 2016 campaign brought out the REAL Hillary Clinton.

On domestic issues, Hillary will say what she needs to do to get elected.  She was for mandatory minimum sentences for (black) "superpredator" juvenile criminals before she was against them.  She was for the interests of coal miners before she was against them.  She was for repealing Glass-Steagall before she was against it.  She was for the invasion of Iraq before she was against it.  She was for DOMA before she was against it.  The list goes on.

One thing that has never changed, however, is this:  Hillary Clinton, was, is, and always will be a Radical Feminist, one of the most strident voices of the Feminist Left.  She was Hillary Rodham when she was First Lady of Arkansas in 1979-80; that cost Bill reelection in 1980 (along with Carter dumping loads of Mariel Boatlift refugees in Ft. Smith, AR).  She was ALWAYS asserting herself, always insisting she could do Bill's job, only better.  Her campaign featured "Girl Power" on steroids.  "This Is My Fight Song!" ads.  Constant references to the "condition of women and girls".  Reveling int he idea of "Madame President".  And she was doing this at a time where Men's earning capabilities were dropping, their abilities to support their families diminishing, their self-esteem and sense of self-effacacy under attack, and the condition of BOYS declining rapidly, even as the condition of GIRLS (based on school performance, college graduation, etc.) was increasing.

This tone-deafness to 49% of the population has always been Hillary Clinton's undoing, something that Bill, himself, has occasionally paid for.  Hillary projects contempt for working men, and for men who view themselves as leading their families, and that contempt shows.  On the campaign trail, Hillary made heroes out of "single Moms".  In the real world, "single Moms" are often unable to provide for their children, even with child support, and (even worse) are unable to control the behavior (including criminal behavior) of their children (and, especially, their sons).  Of course, in the real world, "single Moms" are often not "single" at all; they're UNMARRIED Moms with a boyfriend who, often, lives with her, but is not always vested in the interest of children not his own.  On THESE issues, Hillary has embraced the issues that work AGAINST family preservation, because preserving families is something that Hillary (I believe) abhors.  If, indeed, "It Takes A Village" to raise children, it's because our society has signed off on the idea of Fathers being unnecessary for very much beyond check-writing, and it's usually true in situations where the family has either fallen apart, or was never fully formed in the first place.

Hillary's solutions to the social problems of America have made our society worse; less able to produce responsible, law-abiding citizens.  Some degree of this can be blamed on income inequality and automation, but the disintegration of the American family has done the most to leave kids vulnerable, and Hillary has done more to create this (perhaps with good intentions) than she will ever acknowledge.  America knows this, however.  This may well be the reason the specific folks who had been ancestrally Democratic and not motivated by race hatred could not stomach her.  She hated THEM.  She shouldn't be shocked that she was hated back.

Once again Fuzzy, you hit the nail on the head.

[Beet]

The 2016 campaign brought out the REAL Hillary Clinton.

On domestic issues, Hillary will say what she needs to do to get elected.  She was for mandatory minimum sentences for (black) "superpredator" juvenile criminals before she was against them.  She was for the interests of coal miners before she was against them.  She was for repealing Glass-Steagall before she was against it.  She was for the invasion of Iraq before she was against it.  She was for DOMA before she was against it.  The list goes on.

One thing that has never changed, however, is this:  Hillary Clinton, was, is, and always will be a Radical Feminist, one of the most strident voices of the Feminist Left.  She was Hillary Rodham when she was First Lady of Arkansas in 1979-80; that cost Bill reelection in 1980 (along with Carter dumping loads of Mariel Boatlift refugees in Ft. Smith, AR).  She was ALWAYS asserting herself, always insisting she could do Bill's job, only better.  Her campaign featured "Girl Power" on steroids.  "This Is My Fight Song!" ads.  Constant references to the "condition of women and girls".  Reveling int he idea of "Madame President".  And she was doing this at a time where Men's earning capabilities were dropping, their abilities to support their families diminishing, their self-esteem and sense of self-effacacy under attack, and the condition of BOYS declining rapidly, even as the condition of GIRLS (based on school performance, college graduation, etc.) was increasing.

This tone-deafness to 49% of the population has always been Hillary Clinton's undoing, something that Bill, himself, has occasionally paid for.  Hillary projects contempt for working men, and for men who view themselves as leading their families, and that contempt shows.  On the campaign trail, Hillary made heroes out of "single Moms".  In the real world, "single Moms" are often unable to provide for their children, even with child support, and (even worse) are unable to control the behavior (including criminal behavior) of their children (and, especially, their sons).  Of course, in the real world, "single Moms" are often not "single" at all; they're UNMARRIED Moms with a boyfriend who, often, lives with her, but is not always vested in the interest of children not his own.  On THESE issues, Hillary has embraced the issues that work AGAINST family preservation, because preserving families is something that Hillary (I believe) abhors.  If, indeed, "It Takes A Village" to raise children, it's because our society has signed off on the idea of Fathers being unnecessary for very much beyond check-writing, and it's usually true in situations where the family has either fallen apart, or was never fully formed in the first place.

Hillary's solutions to the social problems of America have made our society worse; less able to produce responsible, law-abiding citizens.  Some degree of this can be blamed on income inequality and automation, but the disintegration of the American family has done the most to leave kids vulnerable, and Hillary has done more to create this (perhaps with good intentions) than she will ever acknowledge.  America knows this, however.  This may well be the reason the specific folks who had been ancestrally Democratic and not motivated by race hatred could not stomach her.  She hated THEM.  She shouldn't be shocked that she was hated back.

Once again Fuzzy, you hit the nail on the head.

The ironic thing about Hillary's "feminism" is that she herself gave up a very promising career to follow her alpha male to a backwoods conservative state and spent the next quarter century supporting him. She supported his career through his infidelities, sexual harassments, alleged sexual assaults and rapes, and sided with him against his accusers, and stood by her man, just like the Tammy Wynette song (despite what she claimed). As Kingpoleon will tell you this did real damage to women's lives. She changed her name from Rodham to Clinton. After Bill was Governor of Arkansas, she considered running for that office. After Bill was president, she started to get presidential ambitions. Sure, she claims to be a strident Feminist, but did she ever really live out her principles? Had she been elected president, we would have had the first woman president who was elected succeeding her husband. What kind of message would that have sent young girls? Don't make a path for yourself; only marry a powerful man, ride his coattails. Not very feminist.

What never gets talked about is the damage that feminism has done to Black communities. The Black family collapsed, and 70 percent of Black children are now born out of wedlock. The economic consequences of this have been devastating; no matter what race, being born out of wedlock already explains 2/3 of the reason for growing up in poverty. The abortion rate among Black mothers is three times higher than white mothers. The sexual revolution and legalized abortion has pushed Black poverty and Black genocide. What Black communities in the past 50 years have needed was social conservatism. The Clintons' Baby Boomer liberal generation helped destroy Black communities via the sexual revolution and then locked them up for the resulting increase in crime and drug use.

[mvd10]

The 2016 campaign brought out the REAL Hillary Clinton.

On domestic issues, Hillary will say what she needs to do to get elected.  She was for mandatory minimum sentences for (black) "superpredator" juvenile criminals before she was against them.  She was for the interests of coal miners before she was against them.  She was for repealing Glass-Steagall before she was against it.  She was for the invasion of Iraq before she was against it.  She was for DOMA before she was against it.  The list goes on.

One thing that has never changed, however, is this:  Hillary Clinton, was, is, and always will be a Radical Feminist, one of the most strident voices of the Feminist Left.  She was Hillary Rodham when she was First Lady of Arkansas in 1979-80; that cost Bill reelection in 1980 (along with Carter dumping loads of Mariel Boatlift refugees in Ft. Smith, AR).  She was ALWAYS asserting herself, always insisting she could do Bill's job, only better.  Her campaign featured "Girl Power" on steroids.  "This Is My Fight Song!" ads.  Constant references to the "condition of women and girls".  Reveling int he idea of "Madame President".  And she was doing this at a time where Men's earning capabilities were dropping, their abilities to support their families diminishing, their self-esteem and sense of self-effacacy under attack, and the condition of BOYS declining rapidly, even as the condition of GIRLS (based on school performance, college graduation, etc.) was increasing.

This tone-deafness to 49% of the population has always been Hillary Clinton's undoing, something that Bill, himself, has occasionally paid for.  Hillary projects contempt for working men, and for men who view themselves as leading their families, and that contempt shows.  On the campaign trail, Hillary made heroes out of "single Moms".  In the real world, "single Moms" are often unable to provide for their children, even with child support, and (even worse) are unable to control the behavior (including criminal behavior) of their children (and, especially, their sons).  Of course, in the real world, "single Moms" are often not "single" at all; they're UNMARRIED Moms with a boyfriend who, often, lives with her, but is not always vested in the interest of children not his own.  On THESE issues, Hillary has embraced the issues that work AGAINST family preservation, because preserving families is something that Hillary (I believe) abhors.  If, indeed, "It Takes A Village" to raise children, it's because our society has signed off on the idea of Fathers being unnecessary for very much beyond check-writing, and it's usually true in situations where the family has either fallen apart, or was never fully formed in the first place.

Hillary's solutions to the social problems of America have made our society worse; less able to produce responsible, law-abiding citizens.  Some degree of this can be blamed on income inequality and automation, but the disintegration of the American family has done the most to leave kids vulnerable, and Hillary has done more to create this (perhaps with good intentions) than she will ever acknowledge.  America knows this, however.  This may well be the reason the specific folks who had been ancestrally Democratic and not motivated by race hatred could not stomach her.  She hated THEM.  She shouldn't be shocked that she was hated back.

I'm not a huge fan of modern feminism at all (like I said somewhere else, they just want to bully men) but on the other hand I can't really blame women for 'taking the spotlights' with their issues now they're finally independent. And to be fair they probably still face discrimination in some places. I'm not sure what you want to say with your post. If your main point is that Hillary was extremely condescending and lost because of that, you're right. But I get the impression that you think we should return to old gender roles and that girls should be more obedient. I get that not all women are college feminists (though 95% of the women I interact with are lol), but there are a lot of women who enjoy their new freedoms and I think they have the full right to do that. You could argue that feminism has destabilized American families, which might very well be true, but the alternative really isn't better. A world where your birth sex largely decides your role in society doesn't strike me as appealing. Sure, it may offer stability but I really don't think it's worth it.

Boys/young men losing self-worth is a very serious problem. I think we should seek the solution in changing the educational system instead of going back to traditional family structures with the men as breadwinner and the woman as housewife. The main problems are that boys don't have many male role models when they go to school (especially problematic if they also don't have a father figure) and that the educational system strongly favours cooperation and other more 'feminine' qualities over competition. Change those 2 things and you can largely solve the problem without sending women back to their traditional roles. Face it, many young women don't really want those traditional roles anymore and I can't blame them. I guess single motherhood is mainly caused by a lack of 'suitable' males (suitable being entirely subjective here obviously). More women than men have college degrees, and for some reason they're much less inclined to 'marry down' (again, entirely subjective) while most college-educated men enjoy the ride and don't want to settle down (can't blame them ). Again, improving boys' prospects in education should solve that problem. I don't want to sound like a MRA, but most educational systems are skewed against boys and I think that's really the main cause of the problem. Blame the schools for failing boys, not the women who're finally liberated.

[mvd10]

As for the main purpose of the thread, the South obviously wasn't going to vote for Hillary. But we shouldn't forget Hillary drastically changed her playbook because Trump got nominated. If Rubio or Jeb was the nominee she would have ran a much more populist campaign, and I definitely think Appalachia would have been more D than in 2012. She probably still would have lost the general election in the end (though EC-wise it would have been much closer), but we would have seen completely different coalitions and a completely different county map.

[Mr. Smith]

As for the main purpose of the thread, the South obviously wasn't going to vote for Hillary. But we shouldn't forget Hillary drastically changed her playbook because Trump got nominated. If Rubio or Jeb was the nominee she would have ran a much more populist campaign, and I definitely think Appalachia would have been more D than in 2012. She probably still would have lost the general election in the end (though EC-wise it would have been much closer), but we would have seen completely different coalitions and a completely different county map.

Nope, had to be Trump. Her original playbook would have been a winner, also I highly doubt she would've taken so much for granted, let alone that August vacation.

Anyway, the answer would be for some kind of apocalyptic catastrophe to hit The Upper South.

At worst, a yuge chunk of white voters are dead, leaving only the polarized-but-semi-close Deep South to be contested, and wins in Georgia, NC, FL, Virginia [thanks to a less flattened black vote], along with the shift in Texas would ensure a victory.

At best, it's a disaster that she responds to in a sane fashion while Trump pulls the same sh*( he pulled with Maria and Harvey. This goodwill allows her to do much better than expected, maybe even get LBJ's Great Plains numbers in the Upper South.

So yeah, not happening under normal circumstances.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, this thread sure got disgusting quickly.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Well, this thread sure got disgusting quickly.

It's not my fault that your favorite candidate's hatred of males got the best of her judgment.  Not just in 2016, but over the years.

If you want a good laugh, check these out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMIoYihU7VU

This is the real Hillary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCyvyyo6dtQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI

I mean, you really have to laugh.  Or, at a minimum, admit that Hillary is more than a little pathetic.

Donald Trump is nowhere near as phony as this.  Nowhere near as pandering as this.  That's saying something.  It's hard for me to view Hillary Clinton as someone with dignity after watching this Panderfest, granted that dignity is sometimes an overrated virtue.

[Da2017]

It's not my fault that your favorite candidate's hatred of males got the best of her judgment.  Not just in 2016, but over the years.

If you want a good laugh, check these out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMIoYihU7VU

This is the real Hillary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCyvyyo6dtQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI

I mean, you really have to laugh.  Or, at a minimum, admit that Hillary is more than a little pathetic.

Donald Trump is nowhere near as phony as this.  Nowhere near as pandering as this.  That's saying something.  It's hard for me to view Hillary Clinton as someone with dignity after watching this Panderfest, granted that dignity is sometimes an overrated virtue.

I found myself laughing. Even I can sense Hillary being phony. No wonder not many people trust her. The accent evolution was the funniest.

[Continential]

It's not my fault that your favorite candidate's hatred of males got the best of her judgment.  Not just in 2016, but over the years.

If you want a good laugh, check these out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMIoYihU7VU

This is the real Hillary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCyvyyo6dtQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI

I mean, you really have to laugh.  Or, at a minimum, admit that Hillary is more than a little pathetic.

Donald Trump is nowhere near as phony as this.  Nowhere near as pandering as this.  That's saying something.  It's hard for me to view Hillary Clinton as someone with dignity after watching this Panderfest, granted that dignity is sometimes an overrated virtue.

I found myself laughing. Even I can sense Hillary being phony. No wonder not many people trust her. The accent evolution was the funniest.

Hillary isn't southern anymore like in 2008

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Free NASCAR 2017 Season Ticket giveaway at your nearest raceway. November 8 only. Must be present and stand in line all day to win. First 50,000 fans at each location get a free authentic replica 1:5 scale General Lee Dodge Charger.

[Horatii]

Evaporate the south and replace it with a big ocean, then make Puerto Rico a state and stick it in it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

- Obama loses Narrowly in 08(Due to Crash being delayed another 6 months)

- Hillary wins 2012 in an even larger margin than Bill did in 1996 and wins every southern state Bill did with exception of TN and LA but she wins VA, NC, and GA. Democrats have an even larger majoirty in Congress than they did after 08(due to 2010 being a disastrous election for the GOP and 2012 going against them too )

- Due to a growing economy and Republicans getting more of the blame of problems the nation is facing due to being in power for 12 years She wins big again in 2016(though she loses KY and GA).

[reagan84]

Back off the unrestricted abortion on demand.
Tougher on illegal immigration but not nearly Trump like
Stronger on defense and gun rights.

While I don't think that would be enough to win the South, she could have been more competitive.