Can we admit Hillary had the worst campaign of all-time?

[Duderonomy]

I'm more interested in political strategies than anything else. In my opinion Hillary underestimated two things non-mainstream media and progressives she alienated. Trump picked PENCE to solidify the conservative base. Hillary didn't have a left of center liberal representative.

Hillary was Trump's #1 hypeman. After the basket of deplorables comment. Every pro-trump group had a new name Trump's Deplorables, American Deplorables, Proud Deplorables, etc. It was brilliant marketing for him. Just like LoveTrumpsHate which has Trump's name in it to promote another candidate. lol

It's ironic Democratic leadership told Republicans failure to denounce Trump would destroy their party (and some Repubs fell for it)
While choosing not to denounce Hillary actually did weaken the Democrats at all levels. It was pot calling the kettle black.

From insider reports the people she had working for her were all yes ma'am cucks and she thought the public Wouldn't even find out about her paid speeches.:facepalm
She ran a campaign that was outdated by 20 years and she got left behind.

[NumberSix]

To be fair to Hilldawg, she had some things working against her. It's very hard for a party to win 3 terms in a row and she probably wins if all those hackings don't happen.

[9erempiree]

To be fair her crooked ass ran into GOAT campaign and Donald Trump.

It was going to be a landslide regardless of the hacks.

Lol

[LJJ]

Are you kidding me? The candidate was the problem, not the campaign. They were in league with all the mainstream media to carefully craft the best message possible for them and the worst message possible for the opponent. It doesn't get much better than that. (although, they probably should've had a more clear message)

The problem was that you can only polish a turd so much. One of the least likable and electable candidates ever who was obviously only on the ballot due to corruption and nepotism. Clinton has virtually nothing going for her, that's why they pushed the "first female president" angle so much, it's the only thing Clinton has going on.

[Duderonomy]

Are you kidding me? The candidate was the problem, not the campaign. They were in league with all the mainstream media to carefully craft the best message possible for them and the worst message possible for the opponent. It doesn't get much better than that. (although, they probably should've had a more clear message)

The problem was that you can only polish a turd so much. One of the least likable and electable candidates ever who was obviously only on the ballot due to corruption and nepotism. Clinton has virtually nothing going for her, that's why they pushed the "first female president" angle so much, it's the only thing Clinton has going on.
All true but it seemed like there was no reason to vote for her. If she had Bernie as the VP it would be game over but stubbornness or persistence from her donors to allow corporate shill Kaine. :rolleyes:

She didn't offer legalization of weed (which would mobilize millennials)

The whole campaign was a big f*** you more status quo without any sugar or coloring in the poison.

[Bourne]

Without the hacks, I think she wins. When you already have the popular vote, taking away the biggest hit you took in the campaign probably leaves you winning the EC too.

That said, you take away Trump's biggest hit, the audio tape from the bus which was obtained/produced in a similarly illicit manner one may argue, and Trump is back winning.

[9erempiree]

Corruption ran into GOAT campaign.

People are ignoring Trump's 2 a day rallies. He had no real ground game and he was essentially the ground game himself.

I don't think anyone would beat Trump.

The many many rallies he did was unheard of.

[senelcoolidge]

It was mostly the candidate (hillary). If they had a more energetic candidate they probably would have campaigned harder. They thought they had it in the bag...they were poll clingers. Their arrogance cost them..they didn't listen to the American people.

[sammichoffate]

I'm just hoping she fades away into obscurity after this, I doubt she'll get prison time because that would cause even more gridlock with the Liberals. Although God knows she deserves it

[Micku]

She may not have lost depending on a few things. She only lost PA, MI, and WI by 1% I think? And some didn't even vote, but that's due to lack of enthusiasm, but that's on her. Her VP probably helped her get Virginia, but there could've been better choices to spark excitement.

If it weren't for the hackings, she may have had a bigger chance.

With that said tho, I think it's a bit embarrassing that she lost MI, WI and PA. And she had more money, staff, a high approval rating president backing her up, and the media going on her side and she still lost.

[1987_Lakers]

She was just a very flawed candidate.

- No charisma, doesn't come off as genuine
- Clinton Foundation
- Emails
- Is the definition of the establishment

I don't think it was about the campaign, but the person itself.

The American people are tired of politicians lying and Clinton represented that, they wanted change so they will get it with Trump, but the problem with that is it might not be good change.

With that said I don't think I've ever seen a candidate so close to being president only to choke it away two times, she was pretty much a shoe in the be the next president in 2008 & 2016.

[9erempiree]

With that said I don't think I've ever seen a candidate so close to being president only to choke it away two times, she was pretty much a shoe in the be the next president in 2008 & 2016.

Lol @ being close.

It was a landslide defeat and please don't use polls to try and justify how close she was to the presidency.

[9erempiree]

She may not have lost depending on a few things. She only lost PA, MI, and WI by 1% I think? And some didn't even vote, but that's due to lack of enthusiasm, but that's on her. Her VP probably helped her get Virginia, but there could've been better choices to spark excitement.

If it weren't for the hackings, she may have had a bigger chance.

With that said tho, I think it's a bit embarrassing that she lost MI, WI and PA. And she had more money, staff, a high approval rating president backing her up, and the media going on her side and she still lost.

With all that said we need to give the Trump campaign for running a GOAT campaign.

[1987_Lakers]

Lol @ being close.

It was a landslide defeat and please don't use polls to try and justify how close she was to the presidency.

Yes, winning the popular vote is a landslide defeat.:oldlol:

[Bourne]

Yes, winning the popular vote is a landslide defeat.:oldlol:

In the EC system, it was indeed a landslide. And the fact HRC lost a landslide EC race yet won the popular vote suggests her campaign was very flawed.

The point I would like to add to this discussion is.... which single statement by either candidate hurt them the most? Trump's audio tape was bad, but it didn't change any minds or bring anyone to the polls - on the other hand (that isn't grabbing her by the p*ssy), the "basket of deplorables" comment to me was the single stupidest thing said by either candidate all year. You never attack the voter base, period. That wasn't a leak, that wasn't bravado caught on tape, that wasn't an email from a campaign advisor with gross content, that wasn't a campaign advisor making a dumb statement on the news, that was a planned statement made during a campaign speech.

[1987_Lakers]

In the EC system, it was indeed a landslide. And the fact HRC lost a landslide EC race yet won the popular vote suggests her campaign was very flawed.


306 to 232 is a landslide? Ok.

[Jameerthefear]

In the EC system, it was indeed a landslide. And the fact HRC lost a landslide EC race yet won the popular vote suggests her campaign was very flawed.

The point I would like to add to this discussion is.... which single statement by either candidate hurt them the most? Trump's audio tape was bad, but it didn't change any minds or bring anyone to the polls - on the other hand (that isn't grabbing her by the p*ssy), the "basket of deplorables" comment to me was the single stupidest thing said by either candidate all year. You never attack the voter base, period. That wasn't a leak, that wasn't bravado caught on tape, that wasn't an email from a campaign advisor with gross content, that wasn't a campaign advisor making a dumb statement on the news, that was a planned statement made during a campaign speech.
it wasn't really a landslide though. obama in 2012 and '08 is a landslide.

[fiddy]

it wasn't really a landslide though. obama in 2012 and '08 is a landslide.
Not that Obama had real competition doe. 290 for Trump is still pretty impressive, considering that he was supposed to lose.

[Jameerthefear]

Not that Obama had real competition doe. 290 for Trump is still pretty impressive, considering that he was supposed to lose.
meh. losing to a reality tv star is embarrassing for hillary imo
mccain was good but no one was voting republican right after bush
romney was decent but boring and unrelatable. hope he ends up on trump's staff though.
290 is definitely impressive though when you consider what hillary had on her side. she's a historically bad candidate.

[bdreason]

They clearly underestimated the value of the mid-west states in the electoral college system. The liberal media bias gave the appearance that the Dems had this election in the bag, but the mainstream media doesn't represent middle America.

[Micku]

it wasn't really a landslide though. obama in 2012 and '08 is a landslide.

Real landslides don't happen that much anymore.

You don't see stuff like Reagan, Nixon, FDR, or Ike type of victories. Those guys won 80 to 90% or more on the ECs.

This is a landslide:
http://reagan.procon.org/files/1-reagan-images/1984-election-results-map-picture.jpg


Trump won 57% of the ECs if we count MI. In Clinton case, that's bad. She could've won MI and WI and still lost. Trump was supposed to have no chance.

It's pretty shocking that he accomplish what he did and embarrassing for her.

[bdreason]

Also, I think they banked way too much on automatically getting the female vote. My mom is a Republican. She didn't vote for Bill or Obama, but she does like Bill Clinton. I thought for sure she would vote for Hillary because she's a woman, and because of the way Trump was being framed as a misogynist by the media... but she didn't care about any of that stuff, and voted for Trump.

[Jameerthefear]

Real landslides don't happen that much anymore.

You don't see stuff like Reagan, Nixon, FDR, or Ike type of victories. Those guys won 80 to 90% or more on the ECs.

This is a landslide:
http://reagan.procon.org/files/1-reagan-images/1984-election-results-map-picture.jpg


Trump won 57% of the ECs if we count MI. In Clinton case, that's bad. She could've won MI and WI and still lost. Trump was supposed to have no chance.

It's pretty shocking that he accomplish what he did and embarrassing for her.
landslides like that are never going to happen again.

[fiddy]

meh. losing to a reality tv star is embarrassing for hillary imo
mccain was good but no one was voting republican right after bush
romney was decent but boring and unrelatable. hope he ends up on trump's staff though.
290 is definitely impressive though when you consider what hillary had on her side. she's a historically bad candidate.
mccain was good? How come, old warmongering fart with zero charisma. That was an easy pick, especially after dubaya as you said. Im kind of curious, how Hillary's investors feel ATM, more than half a billion in the drain :roll:

[9erempiree]

Hitting 3 bills is a landslide.

What we think about landslide and sweeps from the past are long gone.

A modern day landslide is what we saw from Trump.

I was telling everyone that she ran a horrible campaign and you guys were being duped.

[AirBonner]

Hitting 3 bills is a landslide.

What we think about landslide and sweeps from the past are long gone.

A modern day landslide is what we saw from Trump.
agree :cheers:

[dude77]

trump won what, 3,080 out of something like 3,130 counties ? flipped 3 1980s blue states .. yes it was a landslide .. remember she had the whole machine behind her and he was still able to do what he did .. also I don't think she won the pv .. I'd like to know how many illegals and dead people voted for her

[StephHamann]

Instead of pointing out the fact that she has decades of experience in the political game whereas Trump has zero clue how politics work she played the "I am a woman and a woman should be president, and Mr Trump is a racist" card.

Incredible stupid if you think about it.

[Sarcastic]

trump won what, 3,080 out of something like 3,130 counties ? flipped 3 1980s blue states .. yes it was a landslide .. remember she had the whole machine behind her and he was still able to do what he did .. also I don't think she won the pv .. I'd like to know how many illegals and dead people voted for her

And yet still didn't win the popular vote. Who cares if you win a county that has more livestock than humans?

She lost for many reasons, but James Comey coming out at the end with his fake investigation at the end tipped the scale. Something like 69% of voters said it affected their vote.

[falc39]

I'm more interested in political strategies than anything else. In my opinion Hillary underestimated two things non-mainstream media and progressives she alienated. Trump picked PENCE to solidify the conservative base. Hillary didn't have a left of center liberal representative.

Hillary was Trump's #1 hypeman. After the basket of deplorables comment. Every pro-trump group had a new name Trump's Deplorables, American Deplorables, Proud Deplorables, etc. It was brilliant marketing for him. Just like LoveTrumpsHate which has Trump's name in it to promote another candidate. lol.

The deplorable comment was a huge mistake and a lot of people, even parts of the mainstream media, caught on it. It immediately reminded me of Romney's 47% comment except this one was probably ten times worse.


Are you kidding me? The candidate was the problem, not the campaign. They were in league with all the mainstream media to carefully craft the best message possible for them and the worst message possible for the opponent. It doesn't get much better than that. (although, they probably should've had a more clear message)

The problem was that you can only polish a turd so much. One of the least likable and electable candidates ever who was obviously only on the ballot due to corruption and nepotism. Clinton has virtually nothing going for her, that's why they pushed the "first female president" angle so much, it's the only thing Clinton has going on.

In my opinion, there should be some fault to the campaign. I remember reading reports that Bill Clinton argued a lot with the campaign on strategy and how they weren't focusing on the economy. Not heeding his advice was a big mistake as that was one of the main reasons why they lost the rust belt states.

[9erempiree]

They had no policies at all and you can tell through out her campaign. I don't think she even gave a single policy speech while Trump gave 5. Everything was on her website lol.

She thought the general public liked her and can easily beat Trump because Trump said mean things.

Her hardly campaigning was a huge mistake because she doesn't care to even meet and greet her supporters. She is convincing nobody.

[dude77]

And yet still didn't win the popular vote. Who cares if you win a county that has more livestock than humans?

She lost for many reasons, but James Comey coming out at the end with his fake investigation at the end tipped the scale. Something like 69% of voters said it affected their vote.

I don't believe she won the popular vote .. a shitload of those votes probably came from liberal shithole california .. that place has been long gone anyways .. he won where it counted .. she got schlonged in the ec

[ALBballer]

-Democrats picked the most establishment candidate against an anti-Establishment Candidate in an election cycle where the country wanted an anti-establishment candidate. Hence the reason Bernie Sanders was so popular against Hilary Clinton.

-Democrats identity politics bit them in the ass. Lower and Middle-class white voters don't want to constantly hear how "privilege" they are while Trump catered to this groups.

-Democrats ran a narcissistic campaign. "I'm with her" while Trump's message is "I'm with you." Her campaign ads in general were terrible. Instead of constantly attacking Trump's policy she ran a complete and borderline SJW campaign. "Trump is a sexist, Trump is a racist, Trump uses curse words" etc etc .

-Wikileakers hurt Hilary. Most knew politics was dirty and even "rigged" but these claims could easily be dismissed as "conspiracy theories." Well we finally had proof.

Finally some credit should be given to Trump. He hustled towards the end of the election and was speaking at 3 to 4 cities a day while Hilary Clinton only started to campaign aggressively towards the end. At one point in the campaign, Hilary had Obama, Biden, Sanders, Michelle Obama and basically anyone but herself campaigning. I'm not sure if it was laziness or her advisers thinking the more we see Hillary the less she is liked but this was something she could control.

[Sarcastic]

I don't believe she won the popular vote .. a shitload of those votes probably came from liberal shithole california .. that place has been long gone anyways .. he won where it counted .. she got schlonged in the ec


https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-lead-donald-trump-now/story%3fid=43667918

She's up by 1.5 million. He won because there are a lot of racists in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan that he appealed to, and our system is based on the electoral college. It's true he won more counties, but who gives a shit when no one lives in 90% of them.

[Hawker]

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-lead-donald-trump-now/story%3fid=43667918

She's up by 1.5 million. He won because there are a lot of racists in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan that he appealed to, and our system is based on the electoral college. It's true he won more counties, but who gives a shit when no one lives in 90% of them.
Hillary Clinton lost because of Hillary Clinton. Doubtful that you've spent enough time in those states to make a characterization like that. She was unelectable and her past mistakes deemed her unqualified to be president. Those that live in liberal bubbles continue to deny reality almost two weeks later.

[dude77]

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-lead-donald-trump-now/story%3fid=43667918

She's up by 1.5 million. He won because there are a lot of racists in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan that he appealed to, and our system is based on the electoral college. It's true he won more counties, but who gives a shit when no one lives in 90% of them.


from what I've read, he got less white votes than romney and more black and latino votes ..

democrats:

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/b/b5/Exploding-head.gif/revision/20120914120348

[RedBlackAttack]

The running tally is 63,049,607 votes for Clinton and 61,610,484 for Trump. A 1.4 million vote lead by Clinton is not statistically insignificant, so obviously either she was doing something right or people just really dislike Trump. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Just for context, Barack Obama received almost 67 million votes in 2008. He would have destroyed either of these candidates.

That being said, Clinton's campaign was not particularly well run and -- in truth -- Clinton's biggest weakness as a politician is her ability to connect with people on a campaign. It's not something that everyone can just walk out there and do. Being a great campaigner on a national scale is also almost a completely useless skill once you actually get the job as a statesman.

I live in Ohio, btw, as most of you know. There was a point close to the election where it felt like Trump had almost pulled out. He made a dramatic late run in the last 2-3 weeks. It was pretty amazing to see in person.

[ALBballer]

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-lead-donald-trump-now/story%3fid=43667918

She's up by 1.5 million. He won because there are a lot of racists in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan that he appealed to, and our system is based on the electoral college. It's true he won more counties, but who gives a shit when no one lives in 90% of them.

This type of mentality is another reason she lost . Yep Trump won because all those racist that voted for Obama got in line and went to their racist roots.

:biggums:

[sd3035]

As bad as her campaign was, it was still better than her

[HarryCallahan]

Hillary's campaign was fine. It was her, the disgusting, ego-maniacal, evil, corrupt, war-mongering, pants shitting, stroke having, half dead piece of fvcking garbage that was roundly rejected by the American people.

Her campaign did all they could.

[Heilige]

The running tally is 63,049,607 votes for Clinton and 61,610,484 for Trump. A 1.4 million vote lead by Clinton is not statistically insignificant, so obviously either she was doing something right or people just really dislike Trump. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Just for context, Barack Obama received almost 67 million votes in 2008. He would have destroyed either of these candidates.

That being said, Clinton's campaign was not particularly well run and -- in truth -- Clinton's biggest weakness as a politician is her ability to connect with people on a campaign. It's not something that everyone can just walk out there and do. Being a great campaigner on a national scale is also almost a completely useless skill once you actually get the job as a statesman.

I live in Ohio, btw, as most of you know. There was a point close to the election where it felt like Trump had almost pulled out. He made a dramatic late run in the last 2-3 weeks. It was pretty amazing to see in person.


In terms of ability to connect with people, how would you rank these greatest to least?

Franklin D. Roosevelt

John F. Kennedy

Richard Nixon

Ronald Reagan

Bill Clinton

Barack Obama

Donald Trump

[sd3035]

Hillary's campaign was fine. It was her, the disgusting, ego-maniacal, evil, corrupt, war-mongering, pants shitting, stroke having, half dead piece of fvcking garbage that was roundly rejected by the American people.

Her campaign did all they could.

:roll: :roll:

[RedBlackAttack]

In terms of ability to connect with people, how would you rank these greatest to least?

Franklin D. Roosevelt

John F. Kennedy

Richard Nixon

Ronald Reagan

Bill Clinton

Barack Obama

Donald Trump
Simply connecting with a majority of people?

1. FDR
2. Obama
3. Reagan
4. JFK (people listening to the radio as opposed to watching TV overwhelmingly favored Nixon)
5. Bill Clinton
6. Nixon
7/8. Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump


In any other election, Trump gets trounced. He was not a strong candidate. At all... which is why he lost the popular vote by what is likely to amount to a couple million votes.

But, he got the votes in the areas that he needed and he was going against an equally poor candidate. Let's not act like Trump was a great campaigner, though. He completely outraged half the country, 20% voted for him by default, and he had ardent support among maybe 25-30% of his constituency. At least that's the way I saw it.

Make no mistake... I'm not saying Clinton was good. She wasn't. Neither were good campaigners.

[Heilige]

Simply connecting with a majority of people?

1. FDR
2. Obama
3. Reagan
4. JFK (people listening to the radio as opposed to watching TV overwhelmingly favored Nixon)
5. Bill Clinton
6. Nixon
7/8. Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump


In any other election, Trump gets trounced. He was not a strong candidate. At all... which is why he lost the popular vote by what is likely to amount to a couple million votes.

But, he got the votes in the areas that he needed and he was going against an equally poor candidate. Let's not act like Trump was a great campaigner, though. He completely outraged half the country, 20% voted for him by default, and he had ardent support among maybe 25-30% of his constituency. At least that's the way I saw it.

Make no mistake... I'm not saying Clinton was good. She wasn't. Neither were good campaigners.


Thanks, appreciate it!

I think Trump got 58% of the white vote and is that impressive and indicative of him being a good campaigner? Reagan got around the same percentage of the white vote I believe.


Also, what were your thoughts on Van Jones whitelash comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRZS0yvM8WA



One more thing in terms of giving speeches, how would you rank those same people from greatest to worst?

[9erempiree]

In any other election, Trump gets trounced. He was not a strong candidate. At all... which is why he lost the popular vote by what is likely to amount to a couple million votes.

But, he got the votes in the areas that he needed and he was going against an equally poor candidate. Let's not act like Trump was a great campaigner, though. He completely outraged half the country, 20% voted for him by default, and he had ardent support among maybe 25-30% of his constituency. At least that's the way I saw it.

Make no mistake... I'm not saying Clinton was good. She wasn't. Neither were good campaigners.

Why do you keep saying 'any other election Trump gets trounced' and in another post you said Obama would beat Trump and proceed to bring up Obama's total votes?

Total votes don't win an election and lets not pretend we can use past numbers and compare it to another candidate from another election. Obama's numbers are only valid against the opponent he is running against. Can't use his numbers and say he would beat Trump when he's not running against Trump.

You cannot use the past to predict the future in an election.

With that said, I believe Trump would wipe the floor with Obama because he ran the greatest campaign in history with little support from his own party and mainstream media. If they were to give Trump the same support they have with past nominees....then Trump would have a 50 state sweep. Of course this is my opinion but at least I didn't try to use numbers from past elections and say nominee A can beat nominee B because of numbers in different elections.

[9erempiree]

In terms of ability to connect with people, how would you rank these greatest to least?

Franklin D. Roosevelt

John F. Kennedy

Richard Nixon

Ronald Reagan

Bill Clinton

Barack Obama

Donald Trump

I would have Trump and Kennedy as number 1. I'm going with Trump since I wasn't around during Kennedy's time and we cannot act like we know how the country was unless you lived in those times. I have a hard time even mentioning Kennedy because I don't know how our country was then. History books only tell so much.

Lets face it...Trump ran the greatest presidential campaign in history. There were so many people against him and he won in a landslide by connecting with Americans.

Those rallies. :eek:

[1987_Lakers]

Simply connecting with a majority of people?

1. FDR
2. Obama
3. Reagan
4. JFK (people listening to the radio as opposed to watching TV overwhelmingly favored Nixon)
5. Bill Clinton
6. Nixon
7/8. Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump


In any other election, Trump gets trounced. He was not a strong candidate. At all... which is why he lost the popular vote by what is likely to amount to a couple million votes.

But, he got the votes in the areas that he needed and he was going against an equally poor candidate. Let's not act like Trump was a great campaigner, though. He completely outraged half the country, 20% voted for him by default, and he had ardent support among maybe 25-30% of his constituency. At least that's the way I saw it.

Make no mistake... I'm not saying Clinton was good. She wasn't. Neither were good campaigners.

Seems about right, although I'd probably put JFK ahead of Reagan, both those guys connected well with Americans, but Reagan loses points for lying about the Iran-Contra Affair.

[Lakers Legend#32]

It was going to be a landslide regardless of the hacks.

Lol
Hillary's lead is up to 1.5 million votes more than Trump. Where's your landslide?

[9erempiree]

Hillary's lead is up to 1.5 million votes more than Trump. Where's your landslide?

3 bills is a landslide.

[HarryCallahan]

Hillary's lead is up to 1.5 million votes more than Trump. Where's your landslide?
3 million illegals voted. Trump won by 74 EC votes.

#landslide


http://i.giftrunk.com/9hyzxc.gif

[Terahite]

Hillary's campaign was fine. It was her, the disgusting, ego-maniacal, evil, corrupt, war-mongering, pants shitting, stroke having, half dead piece of fvcking garbage that was roundly rejected by the American people.

Her campaign did all they could.

:oldlol:

[KyrieTheFuture]

No, but only because no one on here is familiar with campaigns from before 2000

[Nick Young]

Her campaign was a massive fail. Just like her entire career in politics.

least qualified presidential candidate ever

[9erempiree]

She also turned the presidential election process into a shit show.

The world was laughing at us because of her candidacy.

[Nick Young]

James Cameron directed her DNC inauguration video. Morgan Freeman narrated it.

Bruce Springsteen, Jay-Z, Beyonce and Katy Perry put on free concerts in her honor.

Robert DeNiro, a man universally considered one of the coolest actors ever, made a 15 minute character assassination monologue video against her opponent.

A president considered one of the best orators of his generation spent 2 months campaigning for her.

3 million illegal immigrants voted for her.

She still somehow managed to lose in a landslide.

https://i.redd.it/repav9oq09cx.gif

[9erempiree]

Put it this way the same people that were clinging onto those polls are now saying Trump didn't win in a landslide.

I will play along here....those polls had Trump losing by double digits and polling maestro Nate Silver had a 90% chance of her winning.

In one night Trump won the election. That is a landslide.

[BoutPractice]

Let's remember that under election systems not based on slavery, Clinton would've won handily... And that the electoral college was eviscerated by her opponent in 2012. As for his argument that he would've won the popular vote had he wanted to, this is simply Trumpian swagger. The cold hard truth is that he did want to win the popular vote (who doesn't want to win?), but wasn't able to... there was no way that a Trump could appeal more to the public in places like California, where his words and policies are essentially deal-breakers.

With that said it was a bad campaign. Part of it was due to the candidate (should've been stopped before she got to the general), part of it was due to her opponent being so preposterous that she thought she didn't have to make a positive case for herself.

Hindsight is 20/20 but she made key mistakes:
- A campaign based on defensive retreat when her opponent was bold, dynamic and offensive (in every sense of the word)
- Condescension ("deplorables")
- Lack of a simplistic, repeated slogan, like yes we can or MAGA
- Lack of a simple, signature policy like "build the wall" (universal health care, that would've made the Sanders people turn out without turning off too many others)
- Drawing the contrast on identity issues and temperament instead of economics. Obama (and regardless of what you think of him, that's one man who, like Trump, has good political instincts) was incredibly successful at using the Warren playbook against Romney, painting an unfair caricature that actually fit Trump much better. The narrative should've been "Don the Con", not "Don the sexist pig" and certainly not "instant, contradictory reaction to whatever crazy thing the Don just said or did"... Don the Con is how Sanders, Warren and Biden would've played it, and that's how they would have won

[Terahite]

James Cameron directed her DNC inauguration video. Morgan Freeman narrated it.

Bruce Springsteen, Jay-Z, Beyonce and Katy Perry put on free concerts in her honor.

Robert DeNiro, a man universally considered one of the coolest actors ever, made a 15 minute character assassination monologue video against her opponent.


Don't forget Bran and Curry both endorsing her, talk about a stacked campaign. Basically there were no excuses.

And then a landslide. :facepalm

[UK2K]

Let's remember that under election systems not based on slavery, Clinton would've won handily... And that the electoral college was eviscerated by her opponent in 2012. As for his argument that he would've won the popular vote had he wanted to, this is simply Trumpian swagger. The cold hard truth is that he did want to win the popular vote (who doesn't want to win?), but wasn't able to... there was no way that a Trump could appeal more to the public in places like California, where his words and policies are essentially deal-breakers.

With that said it was a bad campaign. Part of it was due to the candidate (should've been stopped before she got to the general), part of it was due to her opponent being so preposterous that she thought she didn't have to make a positive case for herself.

Hindsight is 20/20 but she made key mistakes:
- A campaign based on defensive retreat when her opponent was bold, dynamic and offensive (in every sense of the word)
- Condescension ("deplorables")
- Lack of a simplistic, repeated slogan, like yes we can or MAGA
- Lack of a simple, signature policy like "build the wall" (universal health care, that would've made the Sanders people turn out without turning off too many others)
- Drawing the contrast on identity issues and temperament instead of economics. Obama (and regardless of what you think of him, that's one man who, like Trump, has good political instincts) was incredibly successful at using the Warren playbook against Romney, painting an unfair caricature that actually fit Trump much better. The narrative should've been "Don the Con", not "Don the sexist pig" and certainly not "instant, contradictory reaction to whatever crazy thing the Don just said or did"... Don the Con is how Sanders, Warren and Biden would've played it, and that's how they would have won

You don't know if we he won the popular vote because absentee votes were not counted.

Also, you have to assume practically no Republicans voted in New York or CA, as most probably already assume they will lose. You can't dismiss his claim with no data. You also can't prove it.

[Hawker]

Let's remember that under election systems not based on slavery, Clinton would've won handily... And that the electoral college was eviscerated by her opponent in 2012. As for his argument that he would've won the popular vote had he wanted to, this is simply Trumpian swagger. The cold hard truth is that he did want to win the popular vote (who doesn't want to win?), but wasn't able to... there was no way that a Trump could appeal more to the public in places like California, where his words and policies are essentially deal-breakers.

With that said it was a bad campaign. Part of it was due to the candidate (should've been stopped before she got to the general), part of it was due to her opponent being so preposterous that she thought she didn't have to make a positive case for herself.

Hindsight is 20/20 but she made key mistakes:
- A campaign based on defensive retreat when her opponent was bold, dynamic and offensive (in every sense of the word)
- Condescension ("deplorables")
- Lack of a simplistic, repeated slogan, like yes we can or MAGA
- Lack of a simple, signature policy like "build the wall" (universal health care, that would've made the Sanders people turn out without turning off too many others)
- Drawing the contrast on identity issues and temperament instead of economics. Obama (and regardless of what you think of him, that's one man who, like Trump, has good political instincts) was incredibly successful at using the Warren playbook against Romney, painting an unfair caricature that actually fit Trump much better. The narrative should've been "Don the Con", not "Don the sexist pig" and certainly not "instant, contradictory reaction to whatever crazy thing the Don just said or did"... Don the Con is how Sanders, Warren and Biden would've played it, and that's how they would have won

First paragraph is absolute horseshit and speculation. Electoral college had nothing to do with slavery.

[Nick Young]

First paragraph is absolute horseshit and speculation. Electoral college had nothing to do with slavery.
Exactly. The Kaepernick interpretation.

[9erempiree]

Electoral college was created to prevent traitors like Clinton from becoming the president.

It's still solid in the modern era against voter fraud, a national pastime of the Democrats.