Hillary Clinton: Classic or Dud?

like in what universe do these "PWT who voted for Trump" accurately remember the events of 8 years ago, much less the legal rationale required for indictments, much less what a fucking indictment even is.

xp

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:58 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I can't find the tweet but some focus group/study of the voters who tipped the scales for trump were still PISSED bout 2008 and there being no consequences for the people who started it

fp'd you for uncalled-for Quidditch references

xp

yeah no one who had their home foreclosed, and or rented a home that had been foreclosed, then bought out by a bailed out bank, and was then thrown out for not paying their rent, was remotely bothered about any of that.

I don't think Bernie would have won. There's just too much dirt on him in the oppo files, that the GOP held in reserve and Clinton never campaigned on.

― behavioral sink (Sanpaku), Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:25 PM (thirty-three minutes ago)

i voted for bernie in the primary and would've been thrilled to see him get the nomination but he definitely had some significant vulnerabilities that didn't come up in that race for obvious reasons. i have no idea who would've won a sanders v. trump race (before november i would've said sanders, but who fucking knows now that we live in the twilight zone) but i've no doubt trump would've run a more or less explicitly anti-semitic campaign against him, and it would've been really ugly to watch that play out.

voters who tipped the scales for trump were still PISSED bout 2008 and there being no consequences for the people who started it

so they voted for a guy who basically personifies and loves all the people who started it and was all set to hand them cabinet positions. Like I said, parsing this bullshit for logical consistency is not worth attempting. these people are idiots.

like, I don't really believe them that that was a motivating factor in their vote BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE

And uh she won the most convincing popular vote count in American history, so clearly this election was notIke the others.

― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, May 2, 2017 6:01 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no she did not

― k3vin k., Tuesday, May 2, 2017 7:03 PM

you know perfectly well what I mean -- as far as electoral/popular splits go

ymp- fair points against revisionism, but not against criticism after the fact, which is an unavoidable reality of... action, unfortunately.

and if its accepted that doing the right things loses you elections in surprising and dismaying ways every one in two or three i suppose you need to wear that proudly and make a selling point out of it or something.

voters who tipped the scales for trump were still PISSED bout 2008 and there being no consequences for the people who started it

so they voted for a guy who basically personifies and loves all the people who started it and was all set to hand them cabinet positions. Like I said, parsing this bullshit for logical consistency is not worth attempting. these people are idiots.

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, May 2, 2017 4:07 PM (thirty-seven seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and the american liberals living in a country where they don't hold either houses of the legislature, executive power, and are soon to have a conservative court for the rest of their lives are the smart guys in this scenario?

Everybody is also weirdly ready to forget that pretty much all the smart people who do nothing but think about this - Sam Wang, Larry Sabato, other aggregators - were putting odds of her victory in the 95%+ range. They were only undecided about whether it would be the biggest smackdown in 100 years, or the biggest smackdown in 1,000 years.

Yeah, 538, I hear you cry. Outlier 538 was roundly mocked (here and elsewhere) for being Not So Sure. However, that was less about whether she would win but by how much. They saw there was a large pool of undecideds, and registered resultant uncertainty, but still kept their predictions safely Hillarific

this is pure revisionism. the flaws in wang's model were pointed out very early (both here and by 538 [the website with a history of getting elections right]). wang either was too dumb or too lazy to fix his model -- i assume the latter, since he made all sorts of revisions toward the end as it became clear the race was closer than previously thought.

and 538 indeed was uncertain about whether HRC, not just by how much. they were getting mocked for putting her win probability in the 70s, not for saying she wasn't going to win by enough

and the american liberals living in a country where they don't hold either houses of the legislature, executive power, and are soon to have a conservative court for the rest of their lives are the smart guys in this scenario?

in the sense that there's less of a disconnect between their stated interests and their voting patterns, yes.

also sports analogy only works if there are rules that both parties are playing by and there is a working appeal process.

and the scores are decided by votes from idiots and racists.

the sporting analogy maybe doesnt work.

wang's model didn't even have hillary at 95% -- it was at >99%, weeks out from the election. anyone with any knowledge of probability or statistics could have told you that was nonsense. and plenty of people did!

is that the singer from The Juan MacLean

and the american liberals living in a country where they don't hold either houses of the legislature, executive power, and are soon to have a conservative court for the rest of their lives are the smart guys in this scenario?
― -_- (jim in vancouver), Tuesday, May 2, 2017 4:09 PM

No one cared about the Supreme Court we had more important make or break issues like TPP

And uh she won the most convincing popular vote count in American history, so clearly this election was notIke the others.

― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, May 2

gone Trump but for the other side, eh

As we lay this thread to rest i refer you to post #2 from 2001.

thanks morbs. i recommend turning off your tv the next time hillary is on it

@DRUDGE Watch Terry McAuliffe. Watch him closely. He's Clinton ticket to redemption in '20. Vicious, perfect Dem. Will unite behind 'Mac the Knife'

I suck at sports metaphors, but here goes: Imagine you're the commander of a sportsing team. It's the eighth chukker and the only scoreboard you can see says you're four touchdowns ahead.

can we leave the Falcons out of this

too soon

xp J.D.

Mudslinging against Sanders wouldn't need to rely (overtly) on antisemitism, as there are enough children of the Cold War that could be swayed by his pride in socialism or his mid-80s praise of Fidel Castro and the Sandinistas. Or his unemployment til age 35, etc.

Also, if Michael Moore is correct that the Trump vote was a grenade tossed against the D.C. establishment, I'm not sure the flyover electorate would understand that a sitting senator could fill this role. Unfortunately, the marginal vote is no more familiar with civics than Trump himself.

Ideally, the next Dem nominee will be a wonk that can nonetheless speak impromptu, conveying the discontent of the masses with fervor, and not have to rise above decades of calumnies. Clinton only had the wonk down.

his unemployment til age 35

ok where are you pulling this out of

his parents died before he graduated are you saying he won the lottery or something

did he finish college at 35?

After graduating from college, Sanders returned to New York City, where he initially worked at a variety of jobs, including Head Start teacher, psychiatric aide, and carpenter.

both his parents were dead when he was 21 i don't imagine he lived rent free for the following 14 years

hard not to conclude Dud at this point, but fwiw i still like her and think DJP is otm upthread

Sam Wang is a hack fwiw, despite some tenuous connection to Princeton, and shouldn't be read or grouped with others

Mea culpa, I mispoke from my memory of the Kurt Eichenwald piece:

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas...

That Eichenwald piece was ridiculous.

It mostly just seemed like an excuse to rail against Sanders and his supporters. He provided no real evidence that it was those myths that cost the Democrats the election. I don't even really see how myth #2 would have done so: if anything, if Democratic/left/anti-Trump voters thought HRC was less of a strong candidate against Trump, that should have motivated them to come out in greater numbers. And a lot of that ostensible opposition research seems trivial to me, including the latter two points you quote. I don't think writing a dumb porny work of fiction 45 years ago would play as equivalent to the Secretary of State using a private server for classified communications.

i recommend turning off your tv the next time hillary is on it

i'm too poor for cable and an antenna gets nothing; the folx i work for have CNN on (always) in the lunchroom and dat election ain't NEVER gonna be over dere

vast majority of his voters were delusional, racist, misogynist, or some combination thereof. I don't want them in our party.

i have some bad news for you about millions and millions of people who are already in your party

Trump just tweeted about Clinton.

Clinton earlier: "Better that than interfering in foreign affairs, if he wants to tweet about me..." pic.twitter.com/hA82VrzG1Q

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 3, 2017

I mean, it must be hell for you, Morbs, but I can't think of anyone who can piss of Trump as much as a returning Hillary Clinton can, so...

And yeah, Trump then tweeted about her.

david axelrod is a brocialist!

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/331714-axelrod-on-clinton-it-takes-a-lot-of-work-to-lose-to-donald-trump

It's true, Donald Trump is indestructible teflon and also super easy to beat in elections.

"If I were her, if I were advising her, I would say, 'Don't do this. Don't go back and appear as if you're shifting responsibility.' ... She said the words 'I'm responsible,' but the — everything else suggested that she doesn't really feel that way," he said.

good use of eyes and ears

Here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

so an estimated 1-4 percentage points. in this article from days before the election he characterized 2.7 percentage points as "Just A Normal Polling Error"

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/

right but she didn't lose those states by 2.7

the email server thing, while trivial, was an actual criminal investigation by the fbi. it is the candidate's fault for doing something in the first place - that peers such as obama found stupid and mystifying - which could so needlessly cause them to be under-investigation by the fbi during an election.

also never owning the email server thing - admitting that it was wrong, admitting that top secret emails were sent through it etc. sometime quite a long time before the election, like i dunno, june or something, might have helped just a tiny bit

BUT HER EMAILS was a bullshit controversy cooked up by her opponents, it was mostly a media trap specifically designed to give Hillary no good options or way out.

Arguing that it could've been refuted somehow gloss over the fact that the accusations were nonsense contrived in bad faith to begin with.

Basically a "when did you stop beating your wife" frame.

She called it a mistake and apologized several times for it. I agree that she trivialized the whole thing more than she should but she was getting raked over the coals for it day in and day out. I'd probably avoid the subject too.

btw I don't think the argument was that the email thing was ok, it's that there were at least 20 bigger fires in the Trump camp that were getting like 1% of the attention. including an active criminal FBI investigation for crimes a bit more serious than "mishandling of classified data"

The real guilty party (as Silver touches on) was the media for taking the (click)bait

also Comey seemed to deliberately make it sound like Clinton was getting special treatment because of who she was, which really did fire people up

She called it a mistake and apologized several times for it. I agree that she trivialized the whole thing more than she should but she was getting raked over the coals for it day in and day out. I'd probably avoid the subject too.

she sort of half apologized for it and didn't mention top secret emails aspect until it came out in the press. not being more forthcoming made people - must throw a bone to the libs here, these people are mainly dumb - imagine there was more there than there was.

there are so, so many political controversies which have caused someone's electoral campaign or career grave damage that were ultimately trivial indiscretions. reacting to them is part of the game.

hillary was held to a higher standard than trump by the media and lots of other people because we live in a bullshit sexist society. (see our president, for example.) the whole thing stank. that a young James Comey served as deputy special counsel to the U.S. Senate Whitewater Committee is icing on the chocolate cake

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/james-comey-fbi-accountability-214234

^^^