Did Hillary Clinton have any Chance at Winning?

[idav]

If so, if you had had the opportunity to run her campaign, what should she have done different?

The campaigns against Clinton were the most underhanded I’ve ever seen and the most false. Nothing much wrong with her campaign she won more of popular vote than some passed and the present Republican Presidents. I was fine with her losing rather than stoop to the things the Russians, the FBI and he Trump campaign did to mislead the American people. The fact that almost half the folks condone it all is deeply troubling for our system of government.

 

[Underhill]

I think it's pretty obvious she could have won. As close as it was a rain storm in the south could have cost Trump the election.

But there are a number of things she should have done differently. Call Trump out on his lies is the big one that comes to mind. Call it dirty if you want to, but I would call it simply speaking the truth. Obviously there are a few states she should have campaigned more in. And she could have handled some aspects of the investigation better.

 

[columbus]

Which lies were those? No really....

Need I mention the Birthers? Of whom Trump is one?
Or, how about this?
Hillary defended a rapist in court as his lawyer once. And stood by her husband, despite deep flaws. That got her labeled a misogynous enabler of sexual predators.


How is that for a start?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

The campaigns against Clinton were the most underhanded I’ve ever seen and the most false. Nothing much wrong with her campaign she won more of popular vote than some passed and the present Republican Presidents. I was fine with her losing rather than stoop to the things the Russians, the FBI and he Trump campaign did to mislead the American people. The fact that almost half the folks condone it all is deeply troubling for our system of government.

Underhandedness is very perspective based.
Hate Trump....then his side was crooked.
Hate Hillary....then her side was crooked.
One thing I noticed (as an avid NPR listener) was how they misquoted
Trump in order to misrepresent him, thereby enhancing his bigotry &
boorishness. There was much underhandedness to go around.

 

[idav]

Underhandedness is very perspective based.
Hate Trump....then his side was crooked.
Hate Hillary....then her side was crooked.
One thing I noticed (as an avid NPR listener) was how they misquoted
Trump in order to misrepresent him, thereby enhancing his bigotry &
boorishness. There was much underhandedness to go around.

I found there wan never any reason to misquote Trump, his statements dig his own holes. However that aside the Dems didn’t do anything near as much, there were more than just Trump going after Clinton like the FBI disclosing stuff about Clinton knowing they were investigating Trump pee allegations, and whoever was behind Wikileaks, and whoever was behind the hacking and the underhanded aspects of trumps campaign like asking people to hack Clinton, bringing Bills accusers to the debate, a lot of things like that. I know campaigns are dirty but this was the most filthy I have seen coming frim anti-Dems I have ever seen. Others in this thread said she should have stooped to his level, I disagree. I think keeping a bit of honor is better than stooping to anything for a win, but I’m sure people disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

I found there wan never any reason to misquote Trump, his statements dig his own holes.

I agree.
But you know what happens in the media, & how things become more so in a heated campaign.

However that aside the Dems didn’t do anything near as much, there were more than just Trump going after Clinton like the FBI disclosing stuff about Clinton knowing they were investigating Trump pee allegations, and whoever was behind Wikileaks, and whoever was behind the hacking and the underhanded aspects of trumps campaign like asking people to hack Clinton, bringing Bills accusers to the debate, a lot of things like that. I know campaigns are dirty but this was the most filthy I have seen coming frim anti-Dems I have ever seen. Others in this thread said she should have stooped to his level, I disagree. I think keeping a bit of honor is better than stooping to anything for a win, but I’m sure people disagree.

Honor is a wonderful thing.
But don't expect it in politics.

 

[columbus]

Others in this thread said she should have stooped to his level, I disagree. I think keeping a bit of honor is better than stooping to anything for a win, but I’m sure people disagree.

This is the only part I mildly disagree with.
Trump is a disaster on the level of Carter. ProLife as I am, I could still be convinced that a murder or two that headed that off would have been OK.
Tom

 

[Underhill]

Underhandedness is very perspective based.
Hate Trump....then his side was crooked.
Hate Hillary....then her side was crooked.
One thing I noticed (as an avid NPR listener) was how they misquoted
Trump in order to misrepresent him, thereby enhancing his bigotry &
boorishness. There was much underhandedness to go around.

Yep, because clearly they were off base on that one. I'm not sure what that has to do with the campaign...

Of course both sides were trying to win. But the two are night and day. One is spouting lock her up over unproven allegations while the other failed to bring up his numerous bankruptcies, fraud cases and investigations. Clearly the two were not operating from the same play book.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep, because clearly they were off base on that one. I'm not sure what that has to do with the campaign...

Of course both sides were trying to win. But the two are night and day. One is spouting lock her up over unproven allegations while the other failed to bring up his numerous bankruptcies, fraud cases and investigations. Clearly the two were not operating from the same play book.

One could also say that she was the more crooked of the two.
He had his party fighting against him. While she had her party
cheating on her behalf, eg, feeding her debate questions, axing
Bernie in the back.

 

[Underhill]

One could also say that she was the more crooked of the two.
He had his party fighting against him. While she had her party
cheating on her behalf, eg, feeding her debate questions, axing
Bernie in the back.

Valid point, although she was hurt by her actions as much as Trump was helped by his.

The difference is that it seems every time Trump did something career ending for any other politician, the media ate it up. Meanwhile Hillary was questioned about her fitness to run because she contracted a cold at one point.

 

[columbus]

The difference is that it seems every time Trump did something career ending for any other politician, the media ate it up. Meanwhile Hillary was questioned about her fitness to run because she contracted a cold at one point.

Yet still, Trump has the gall to claim that he has been treated unfairly by the media. And his supporters believe it!
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Valid point, although she was hurt by her actions as much as Trump was helped by his.

The difference is that it seems every time Trump did something career ending for any other politician, the media ate it up. Meanwhile Hillary was questioned about her fitness to run because she contracted a cold at one point.

Notice how you're seeing the media as aiding Trump, but being against Hillary?
I saw most news media as being more for her & against him.
So the results were about the voters reacting to the candidates themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet still, Trump has the gall to claim that he has been treated unfairly by the media. And his supporters believe it!
Tom

He has a legitimate claim of unfair treatment.
But this disadvantage pales in comparison to the disadvantage due to fair treatment.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Need I mention the Birthers? Of whom Trump is one?
Or, how about this?
Hillary defended a rapist in court as his lawyer once. And stood by her husband, despite deep flaws. That got her labeled a misogynous enabler of sexual predators.


How is that for a start?
Tom

Those aren't lies. In fact, Hillary ran the Bimbo Eruptions Unit which came down hard on those women to get them to shut up or try to discredit them. And Hillary's 2008 campaign was the first to bring up the issue of Barry's birth certificate.

And "for a start" why don't you explain the so-called Russia connection with Trump. Before the results of the election were announced, Obama insisted there was no connection. But the minute Trump won, voila, there is was, how could he--not to mention the FBI planting a spy in the Trump campaign, which the NY Times now has to admit, or the blank check Rosentein gave to Mueller. The Left has no cred left at all.

 

[Woberts]

Those aren't lies. In fact, Hillary ran the Bimbo Eruptions Unit which came down hard on those women to get them to shut up or try to discredit them. And Hillary's 2008 campaign was the first to bring up the issue of Barry's birth certificate.

And "for a start" why don't you explain the so-called Russia connection with Trump. Before the results of the election were announced, Obama insisted there was no connection. But the minute Trump won, voila, there is was, how could he--not to mention the FBI planting a spy in the Trump campaign, which the NY Times now has to admit, or the blank check Rosentein gave to Mueller. The Left has no cred left at all.

Yes, because the right hasn't done anything immoral or corrupt.

 

[columbus]

Those aren't lies.

Nothing in this post is any more worth responding to.
Tom

 

[Underhill]

Notice how you're seeing the media as aiding Trump, but being against Hillary?
I saw most news media as being more for her & against him.
So the results were about the voters reacting to the candidates themselves.

Sure, I could see that. If you ignore the fact that Trump is a braggart who should not have made it through the first week of primaries with half the stuff he did on a regular basis. So the media was always posting garbage about him, but it was generally accurate reporting. Why would anyone have to be biased against him? He did it to himself.

 

[Woberts]

Of course Clinton had a chance of winning. She won the popular vote, which means that the majority of Americans wanted her as president.

 

[Underhill]

He has a legitimate claim of unfair treatment.
But this disadvantage pales in comparison to the disadvantage due to fair treatment.

Okay, but here is the thing. If a candidate is a liar and a cheat who constantly shows himself to be racist, bigoted and just a despicable person.... isn't it dishonest reporting to treat him as anything but a scumbag?

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, I could see that. If you ignore the fact that Trump is a braggart who should not have made it through the first week of primaries with half the stuff he did on a regular basis. So the media was always posting garbage about him, but it was generally accurate reporting. Why would anyone have to be biased against him? He did it to himself.

I agree that there was no need to juice up his
quotes to make them appear even worse.
But people will do what people will do.
And altering quotes is really dishonest.