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

[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.g...%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.g...%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.g...%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:

[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.g...%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.

[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.

[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.