I doubt Bernie would have done better with them hammering him as the socialist from day 1. Also he wouldn't have raised anywhere as much as Hillary.
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Anyone with the name Clinton is going to be tainted. Unless she uses her married name.One would think so, but she's still closer to the Dem establishment than anyone alive, maybe Chelsea will run in 2020.
Michelle Obama though...
I can't help but wonder how much taxes had to do with it. How many people would be fine with rampant racism and misogyny if it meant they didn't have to pay another 3% tax?
It's not often you see a candidate say we're going to raise taxes without offering something extraordinary in return, and she didn't offer anything extraordinary.
It's not often you see a candidate say we're going to raise taxes without offering something extraordinary in return, and she didn't offer anything extraordinary.
What, they'll call him socialist all day? Trump has nothing on him while he had plenty on Clinton. Not to mention that Clinton is just uncharismatic and unlikeable. She also lost an election to Obama, so there's that.
The Democrats just bet on a losing horse from the start.
This. She comes across as an incredibly unlikeable person to most.
Last edited:
Clinton was always going to be the Democratic nominee in 2016. It was the wrong decision at the beginning of the race, it was he wrong decision during the primaries (as soon as Trump was nominated)the DNC should have able to foresee the 'anti establishment' shitstorm that was brewing. Sanders was without doubt too far left for the DNC to not feck over, but it was the wrong decision, as I believe had he have won the primary, the Democrats would have been a lot more competitive not only in the race to The White House, but also in the House and Senate.
They chose wrongly and hoped that Trump would shoot himself in the foot. However every time he said something completely fecking ridiculous it just made his supporters more and more passionate about ensuring his place in the white house. I have yet to meet one person from The States that was passionate about Clinton. I'm not saying they're not out there, but as a movement it had nothing on Trump, Sanders, or especially Obama.
The Democrats are fecked short term. The silent majority (a minority of racist/sexist/homophobes, and the majority of ill informed-fox news watching idiots) have spoken like they did in The UK a few months back. The only difference is that the UK has at least some opposition from the left in Jeremy Corbyn. I think Labour voters have chosen wisely in electing a genuinely anti-establishment figure with more political experience than the majority of the tories.
In short, Hillary and the DNC beat themselves in this election. The DNC for making the wrong choice, and Clinton for proving them correct.
They chose wrongly and hoped that Trump would shoot himself in the foot. However every time he said something completely fecking ridiculous it just made his supporters more and more passionate about ensuring his place in the white house. I have yet to meet one person from The States that was passionate about Clinton. I'm not saying they're not out there, but as a movement it had nothing on Trump, Sanders, or especially Obama.
The Democrats are fecked short term. The silent majority (a minority of racist/sexist/homophobes, and the majority of ill informed-fox news watching idiots) have spoken like they did in The UK a few months back. The only difference is that the UK has at least some opposition from the left in Jeremy Corbyn. I think Labour voters have chosen wisely in electing a genuinely anti-establishment figure with more political experience than the majority of the tories.
In short, Hillary and the DNC beat themselves in this election. The DNC for making the wrong choice, and Clinton for proving them correct.
They have nothing on him because he has not been under the scrutiny she has for decades.
Running someone so far left with unworkable policies simply wouldn't work.
Barack to fulfill the Bill dream of becoming the first first dude?
It would not effect many Americans. And the fact that Trump won without talking much tax policy shows that is not what has won Republican elections in the past.
That's not an argument at all. It's the equivalent of saying "Well of course there's less dirt on my 5 year old son."
On running someone "far" left, it would have at least opened up the debate at state level.
I have no idea whether or not Sanders would have won, but all we know for sure now is that Hillary didn't, and the DNC did everything the could to make sure she was the nomination.
Obama had about every celebrity endorsement imaginable and even his own song and it did not hurt him one bit even though it was during one of the worst recessions ever.
The Fascist Bureau of Investigation certainly did their job. Comey for Def Sec.
Yeah, people are drawing correlations where there's absolutely zero causation.
Dancing with the stars followed by a stint in the jungle?
Also she lost to a reality TV star.
It's like when people said Trump was doing well in September because of his tweeting.
They will investigate the foundation now trump's the president, the department of justice (I think was that one) blocked any attempts from the FBI to do a proper investigation.
You are seriously offering conventional wisdom akin to the kind that was being bandied about a year and a half ago when the campaigns first got underway?
Newsflash, there's a new bloody paradigm.
Sanders would have had the advantage that he created enthusiasm and energy among the base. He was also seen as principled which is a huge plus. His problem might have been, that his policies are not as universally popular in america as many here believe. Clinton didn't lose because she was a centrist, but because she was hated. She also acted like the prime example of an establishment politician in and anti-establishment election.
I said it a couple of month ago: If she doesn't want to gamble on a 50/50 election, she needs to change something, but she tried to play it save, which was a huge mistake.
I said it a couple of month ago: If she doesn't want to gamble on a 50/50 election, she needs to change something, but she tried to play it save, which was a huge mistake.
The support for Bernie among young people was something really special. If he would have been the candidate, i imagine all this young people would have taken the job to convince their family's why he is the best alternative, etc... "Mom, Dad, you guys know the political system in those countries where the people is happy and thriving? well, its something like what Sanders propose to make us. Aren't you guys tired of supporting this corrupt system of ours? We live in the greatest country in the world, the richest, yet, we are so far away from the standard of living in some other countries with less resources than us, etc etc"
in a some parallel universe, Sanders won easily.
Thinking Bernie would have won this election is just fanciful thinking. It's all very well saying a better millennial turnout could have swung things his way, but then you're assuming everyone who voted Hillary would have voted for him. Let's not forget Hillary won by millions of votes in the primaries.
A lot of people sees her as a racist
Bernie was outperforming her in crucial swing-states where she flopped. He was also adressing the disillusionment people felt with the political system. Had the places been reversed, you wouldn't have found a lot of would-be Hillary supporters trading a Bernie vote for Trump, or Johnson or what have you, whereas it's easy to see why a large part of the Bernie contingent decided to stick it to the Dems after having been marginalised by the party. Let's not forget, a ton of people found that their party affiliation had been switched unbeknownst to them, and at best they had to settle for provisional ballots that in the end were tossed out, and such ballots numbered in the hundreds of thousands, if not more.
Hillary would very likely have lost a fair fight, and Bernie would definitely not have hemorrhaged as many voters as Hillary did after the conclusion of the primaries. And remember, this is a candidate who barely got a look-in in the media until well into the spring, and who gave her a hell of a run despite having virtually ZERO name recognition upon the launching of his campaign.
Amen, brother. The movement was a sight to behold.
I don't think being seen as racist is a deal breaker anymore evidently.
And by alot of people I assume you mean racists themselves?
Most 18-25 year olds voted Hillary
I think Bernie would probably have won. Didn't take a lot in raw votes to swing it in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and his message would've played there. 278-9 EVs I'd say.
Trump still won the White millennial vote though.
Southern states which voted Hillary were solid republican states. Most states that were her firewall in the primaries went to Trump, in addition to the blue states in the coasts.
Only a 55% among the 18-29 year olds... not so good.
Trump got 37%...
now, all this is based on polls, so not the best way to judge.
Personally, never saw young people making the noise they did for Sanders, replicated for other candidate.
I think a lot of voters from that age gap just stayed at home because they felt betrayed and didn't bother to vote for the lesser evil, and plenty others just went Trump or Johnson just to stick it back. Sanders could have unified them all i think.
Last edited:
Romney did as well to be fair.
That loss had little to do with Hillary. It was more to do what Trump did to rally his movement.
You clearly don't know the woman. She's not the type of person that would involve herself in blocking and obstructionism. Her career record speaks for itself...it's almost impeccable and the main reason why Republicans (up to this day) can't find a single fault with her.
He wouldn't have needed to raise a lot of money in this election. Hillary raised much, much more than Trump. He didn't spend a lot of money, didn't have much campaign infrastructure on the ground in a lot of places, and still won.
This is what Bernie said about this election last year.
"Let me be very clear. In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regain the Senate, will not gain the House and will not be successful in dozens of governor’s races unless we run a campaign which generates excitement and momentum and which produces a huge voter turnout.
With all due respect, and I do not mean to insult anyone here, that will not happen with politics as usual. The same old, same old will not be successful.
The people of our country understand that — given the collapse of the American middle class and the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality we are experiencing — we do not need more establishment politics or establishment economics.
We need a political movement which is prepared to take on the billionaire class and create a government which represents all Americans, and not just corporate America and wealthy campaign donors.
In other words, we need a movement which takes on the economic and political establishment, not one which is part of it."
~ Bernie Sanders August 28th, 2015
She should have retired after losing to Obama.
Usually racists.
Michelle Obama, the massive racist
I'm genuinely interested in how you have come to that conclusion. Was it through talking and corresponding with a minority of the silent majority?
That's very well, but to assume Hillary voters will happily vote for him but not the other way round is tenuous at best.
Between the FBI investigation and the wikileaks emails she was successfully painted as a crooked politician. Most people believe that if it was anyone other than a Clinton she would have been charged.
She will probably do 'charity work' for the Clinton Foundation
She will probably do 'charity work' for the Clinton Foundation
She did far too few things right. Simple really.