Was Hillary's loss result of campaigning in error?

In this thread, I taught you a new word.

I teach you things.

 

She campaigned at staged photo ops and wondered why she lost..

 

I'm not saying Hillary deliberately wanted somebody to hack her. I'm saying that she's a ****ing idiot and didn't THINK about that.

Also, thank you for proving to us that she was completely incompetent, caught in a lie, and not fit for the white house.

 

IMO her worst mistake was parading a host of people boasting about their special status as "minorities" of one sort or another. It was a slap in the face to those of us who have quietly assimilated into the majority culture as productive citizens.

IMO the "identity politics" thing is un-American.

 

Let's all remember...she denied the possibility that the server was not secure. More serial lying from the #Nobody'sPresidentEver

 

Just in case we have wandered off course, the purpose of my OP was to explore whether she might have won had she campaigned differently. I say no, even if she HAD campaigned in Wisconsin. Wisconsin, just for example, has a Republican governor who has withstood incredible political challenges. This means the Republican base there is strong.

And so if she had campaigned more in WI, she might have gotten even fewer votes, though the convention wisdom is that her loss was due to tactical blunders! The more I get to know her, the less I like, and I'm not alone. Who here would have voted for Hillary had she not made the "basket of deplorables" comment? Not I .... I knew what she thought of me long before this. Because I'm so smart, as you guys are always saying.

Another thing to think about in this connection is whether she would have lost had, say, someone like John Kasich been the Republican nominee.

 

I think the "Basket of Deplorables" was a really stupid move. Clearly that was a planned comment too. It displayed total arrogance and smug, and complete ignorance.

 

Sorry, left the second part out. Had Kasich won the right side, that would have been a total sweep over Hillary. I would have voted for Kasich.

 

Yeah, me too. I voted for Johnson but am now supportive of Trump.

 

Exactly the same for me. I voted Johnson, but I don't FULLY support Trump. I like a lot of what he's doing, and I love the fact that he doesn't give a **** about the left wing. However, there's a lot I want to see him address soon or I'll throw less support his way. Mainly military-related issues he needs to fix from the disaster of Obama's administration.

 

She wasn't sober either. Her campaign was so vapid she resorted to hot sauce to garner votes.

 

And I see you made a post without using the usual catch-phrases such as RW fever swamp, 1+1=3, so what, and who cares, and the rest. It is good to see that you are capable of doing that, although you're still using the carry on one. Good for you as well.

 

Not sure about Pence, but Colin Powell did not have a private email server, he had private email accounts. The two are different things. Also, because of Powell, the federal regulations about federal officials and email changed. They were changed while Rice was SOS.

She apologized because she had no choice. She also lied, as it was set up on purpose, not accidentally.

Taking classified information off of a government computer and putting it on a non-secure computer has been against the law for at least 13 years, so that excuse doesn't fly. Federal regulations require all employees with security clearances to take courses EVERY YEAR that explain those requirements. I have a clearance, and have had one for over 13 years (i.e. started during the GW Bush admin). What she did would have been illegal then, and ignorance is no excuse. There is no requirement in federal law that leakage of classified material by gross negligence is any less of a crime than doing so on purpose.

Hillary lost because of the deplorable comment more than anything else. I live in a very conservative corner of Florida. I saw the resolve in Trump supporters that was solidified by the deplorables comment. You can't insult a large part of the electorate without risking a big loss. It was as bad of a mistake as Romney's 47% remark, and had the same result-- a loss.

 

I think, besides Cruz, any of the major candidates (Rubio, Kasich, or Jeb) would have mopped up against her. They would have won the popular vote, but would have won the electoral vote by a lower margin.

 

Not a Hillary fan, but I googled the hot sauce thing, and it's actually one of the few things in her campaign that was genuine (unfortunately for her, she does so much low-level lying, that nobody beleived the truth). She has been eating hot sauce for quite a while, claiming that it does something for her health.

 

We'll never know, but here's another point of view:

The election turned on four states, one of which no Republican had won since 1984 (Wisconsin), two since 1988 (Michigan, Pennsylvania), and one since 2004 (Ohio)—the latter by a mere 2 percent, or 100,000 votes. If that one state had flipped, John Kerry would have been president. Trump by contrast won Ohio by almost eight points. And, with the exception of an Ohio-Pennsylvania combination, he would have had to lose three of those four states to lose the election.

Who else was in a position to keep every state Romney won, add Florida and Iowa, plus at least two of the Rust Belt Four? I won’t go through the entire, overstuffed field. I’ll just look at a few of the more prominent candidates, in order of their dropping out.

Scott Walker—At least he was from the upper Midwest, so he might seem the most likely. But he had two fatal flaws. First, his position on immigration began as terrible and evolved into merely incoherent. At best, he’s never thought about the issue. At worst, like his fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan, he’s an open-borders guy. Whatever the case, as the early campaign progressed, he realized that he had to move right on the issue and tried to do so, but never convinced anyone he was sincere. Trump by contrast, for all his inconsistencies, came off as sincerely committed to the issue. That surely helped him win those Big Four. Second, for all Walker’s apparent talents as a governor, he never showed the requisite charisma or stage presence to make it as a national candidate.

Jeb Bush—Really? Does a case need to be made here? More war, more immigration, more trade. Everything you didn’t like about Romney and McCain, only more. In what possible way did this fit the national mood, much less the mood of the Republican base or the Party’s working class converts?

Marco Rubio—The strongest case here is that he outpolled Clinton nationally the entire time he was in the race. Is that decisive? I think not. Do I need to remind anyone about the limits of polling exposed by this election? That aside, even if every Rubio-Clinton head-to-head poll had been accurate, they were taken eight months before the actual vote. Why should we believe those numbers would have held? Especially since Rubio, no less than Jeb, was for the same more-more-more program that the base hates. And, unlike Jeb, Rubio had not merely his fingerprints but his name on the Gang of Eight bill.

John Kasich—Perhaps he would have won Ohio (though friends who know the state very much dispute this). But otherwise has campaign had two defining characteristics. First, he was running the Huntsman 2012, McCain 2000 strategy: I hate and am embarrassed by my Party. No wonder he didn’t get the nomination! We’re supposed to believe he would have done better in the general? Held all of Romney’s states (North Carolina?) and picked up either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and Michigan? Not likely, because the other characteristic of his campaign was to further the donor class agenda, just like Jeb and Marco, only with a greater left wing tilt.

That leaves Ted Cruz, the last man standing. Here I think there really was a chance at a Goldwater-level defeat. One may agree with all or most of Cruz’s positions, as I do, but understand those positions are no longer (if they ever were) capable of building a national majority. Cruz was the candidate of the pure. Purist Republicanism has been turning off blue collar voters for a generation. It’s impossible to imagine Ted Cruz winning even one of the Rust Belt states that Trump won, while it’s quite possible to imagine him losing Florida and even North Carolina.

Honorable Mention: Mitt Romney—Hahahahaha. No, seriously: Hahahahaha. I firmly believe that Romney is a good, even virtuous man. In 2012, I voted for him without the slightest reservation and even with some enthusiasm. But was Mr. Private-Equity-Layoff-King going to flip Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin in 2016?

 

It was planned-she said it several times.

She's so brilliant she called much of the nation (including those she wanted to vote for her) names.

 

Bernie, collusion with the DNC to knock him out? The Clinton Foundation? The Ukraine meddling, donations etc. A lot , after all she is more corrupt than John Gotti.

 

Now THAT was embarrassing. WHY can't politicians just ONCE try to just say what their actual taste in something, anything, really IS instead of trying to show how "down home" they are. There isn't such a thing as a 70 year old digestion that likes hot sauce enough to carry it about.

Trump looked fracking silly about to chow down on that Taco Bowl. I don't think John Kerry has ever hunted in his life and Dukakis should have figured that you at least take your suit coat off before you go driving a tank.

 

The mistake was running a total ****, incapable of even beating Trump

 

Some real freekin retards running that campaign

 

She admitted what most of us realized for fact. Trump was a candidate for the worst people and his main appeal was to the worst in us. He's giving us exactly that too

 

Much like Hillary, you are externalizing blame.

 

What Trump is doing right now can be blamed ONLY on those who voted for him, how is it externalizing to say that?

 

Because your side offered nothing better.