-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Hillary Clinton have any Chance at Winning?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
When you win the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes I would say that you had a very good opportunity of winning.
I didn't find her arrogant....or any more so than the usual politician.
Clinton won the popular vote. In any democracy but America's we'd be talking right now about what a great, successful campaign she ran. The only reason we're not doing that is the electoral college. It was the college, and not Clinton, who gave the election to Trump -- and that by a margin of less than 300,000 votes in four key states.
However, about the only reason Clinton would have won without the college is because Trump was such a dismal choice for the majority of voters. Her victory would have had little enough to do with her or her platform.
Had I been her campaign manager, I would have changed her message to be as close to the message Sanders ran on in the primaries as possible. I would not have had her run against Trump. I would have had her run for affordable health care and education, for raising wages and taking action on climate change.
In the primaries, Sanders would often draw crowds of 30,000+ people. The same day or the next day, Clinton would be lucky to get a single thousand. But she had the machine, the people on the ground, and Sanders didn't. Had she tapped into the enthusiasm for Sander's platform in the general election, she'd be president now.
However, about the only reason Clinton would have won without the college is because Trump was such a dismal choice for the majority of voters. Her victory would have had little enough to do with her or her platform.
Had I been her campaign manager, I would have changed her message to be as close to the message Sanders ran on in the primaries as possible. I would not have had her run against Trump. I would have had her run for affordable health care and education, for raising wages and taking action on climate change.
In the primaries, Sanders would often draw crowds of 30,000+ people. The same day or the next day, Clinton would be lucky to get a single thousand. But she had the machine, the people on the ground, and Sanders didn't. Had she tapped into the enthusiasm for Sander's platform in the general election, she'd be president now.
WalterTrull
Godfella
OK, I checked. I got it backwards. "Rooster" is rubbish. Haste and age, what a cauldron.
The cock crowed. What is this "rooster" rubbish?
#49 exchemist, Today at 11:05 AM
And this has what to do with me or my post?
Tom
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Yes. The input of Russian bots into the American news networks, particularly the right-wing “news”, had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of your oh-so-well-informed, god-fearing, all American patriot opinions.
Oh wait! That concept was already proven to be wrong.
That said. Yes. Hillary had a very weak personality (unlike her opponent), She should have been much more forceful in condemnation of the Chump.
Having at least some of the news agencies avoid being goto tools and sounding boards for....
1. Trump’s unhinged personality;
2. right-wing lies/conspiracy theories, and
3. treating the most important election of the U.S. like a high-school personality reality TV show.
......That would have been helpful (to democracy, and all of human civilization). But she doesn’t control the press (a handful of rich, conservative, old, white men do
). Oh well.As noted above, playing more time in the purple/red zones addressing facts about the H.E.N. issues, and ripping the Chump lies about said same issues, probably would have helped.
Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
If only we lived in a perfect world...........
WalterTrull
Godfella
Everything has to do with you Tom.
I don't think conceding to Sanders would have been a good thing at all.
I supported his vision for the country far more than any other serious candidate. But I don't think he could have gotten elected. And even more important, I don't think he could have accomplished as much of his platform as Hillary could have, even if he did get elected. He would have gotten run over, the way Obama did.
He just didn't have what it takes, like clout and broad support amongst the people who really run this country. He was insufficiently predatory and politically astute. He wouldn't even have had the support of the Democrats. Because he is not one.
Tom
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
I've watch Clinton when she's not reading from a script-- and she's very good, a capable speaker, with a razor wit.
I think if she'd have pulled the gloves off, and put on some iron panties? She could have driven trump to say things that even his blind-eye people could no longer ignore.
The trump has absolutely no self-control, after all-- so with some very sharp verbal pokes from Clinton? I'd bet a $100 that he'd have incriminated himself by October.
She was way, way too nice-- nicer than Sanders was, by a lot. But even Sanders could have spent more time denigrating trump, instead of trying to smear Clinton (not that I expect him to be so far-thinking-- he's way too short-sighted)
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Sanders pretty much repeated the GOP lies, word-for-word sometimes. He's an old scoundrel, and no-- nobody "stole" the primary from that lying old deadbeat. He was never a legitimate democrat anyway.
He had so many skeletons in his closet, he had absolutely zero chance against trump-- it would have been an actual landslide, once all of that ugly was dug up.
No-- he acted the shill for the Russians, really-- unwitting, I'm sure. Which is another reason why he's unfit.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Actually? That was all up on her webpage. The truth is, nobody really gave much of a sh-- about that. The media ignored the ISSUES to nearly 100%.
They sold more air-time and papers, repeating the trash-talking from Clinton's opponents.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Naaah... I started out really liking Sanders-- and then? The more I researched him, the more I dug up his records, listened to his speeches, and the more I found out about that old scoundrel? The less I liked him.
By the time of the primaries, I was pretty much anti-Slanders.
He's got so much dirt in his closet, that if he'd have "won" the primaries, the trump Machine would have buried him so deep, he could look up to find oil. A literal landslide.
Besides, the US isn't really ready for a communist....
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
A most amusing repeat of the GOP Machine's campaign of lies. I see their money was well spent.
Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
He's not a communist. He's barely even a socialist.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
LMAO! Oh, my that's the funniest thing ever-- that would have been a landslide for trump!
Poor old commie Sanders has so much crap in his closet, he'd have been sunk before November. Likely have to drop out to avoid prosecution or worse...
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
"controversy"? Really? What ... "controversy"? It was a Tempest in a Teacup.
There was no controversy until the Republicans made it into a political weapon.
Everyone knew that she was using a private server, from the FBI to the Russian government to the CIA to the State Department to the Republican Party.
She was doing the People a favor, given the inability of the USA government to keep anything confidential. Julian Assange managed to publish a whole bunch of top secret government communications, as you recall.
The FBI investigated and came back with, "She broke a rule, but it wasn't an important rule. No harm was done to state interests." Millions of dollars worth of taxpayer funded investigation later, the verdict remained the same.
But Trump fired the same FBI chief, attempting to end the investigation into his own security lapses, and his lies about them.
And now the Deplorables are squealing "Innocent until proven guilty!".
What's up with that?
Tom
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Which lies were those? No really....