Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

But not only Donald Trump but the entire Republican apparatus beginning with the Congress and the constant email hits...FBI director Comey and he rest of the FBI with their leaks...They even leak that they didn't find Trump ties to Russia...Putin's hacking of the DNC and Hillary's campaign...How about Assange and Wikileaks because the US, and Hillary was trying to arrest him thus he now lives in an Embassy...I guess now Trump will probably pardon Assange...Jokes...What's actually shocking is that Republicans are fine with all this...And they are the first to profess love of country...

Yeah but I don't think anyone else was as good at tearing her down (or the Republican primary opponents) as Trump was.

I disagree, I think the whole email episode, the FBI and Russia decided the election...

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Those same pollsters claimed Clinton would coast to an easy victory. Clinton's attack ads were much more frequent, and much better.

Get your head out of the numbers for a minute and consider the role the Clintons policies have had on the outcome. You don't seem to appreciate the suffering they have caused. You have to add a BC next to the date the last time inequality was this bad. You cant just brush that fact aside, ignore the Clintons role in us getting to this place. It shouldnt have even been close.

These states that Trump pulled off "upsets" in were actually rated as "toss-ups" by real clear politics.

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

But not only Donald Trump but the entire Republican apparatus beginning with the Congress and the constant email hits...FBI director Comey and he rest of the FBI with their leaks...They even leak that they didn't find Trump ties to Russia...Putin's hacking of the DNC and Hillary's campaign...How about Assange and Wikileaks because the US, and Hillary was trying to arrest him thus he now lives in an Embassy...I guess now Trump will probably pardon Assange...Jokes...What's actually shocking is that Republicans are fine with all this...And they are the first to profess love of country...

Yeah but I don't think anyone else was as good at tearing her down (or the Republican primary opponents) as Trump was.

I disagree, I think the whole email episode, the FBI and Russia decided the election...

Something isn't right with the Comey thing. He looks at 30,000 emails and that takes 18 months. There are stories of revolt from agents. Then he opens the "inquiry" again 2 weeks or so before the election This is because of Emails found on Huma Abedin's phone, from her pedophile husband, in a directory called Life Insurance. Comey/FBI then look at 650,000 emails (minus duplicates) for 8 days and say nothing was there.

Understand, Hillary broke the law having that private server and yet you want to blame the hacks on Russia? She created this whole problem herself by not following the law. And she basically created Trump as her opponent. There are Wikileaks for that. It is just a riot, she fully created this whole debacle herself.

Instead of questioning where these emails came from, be it Russia or our own Intelligence Communities , we should be talking about what is in them. And that is Corruption. If there was nothing bad in those emails then Hillary would have been exonerated, so to speak.

In time, but already clear to see, Hillary Clinton is going be known as a part of a House of Cards that came tumbling down.

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Hillary breaking the law, as well as those around her, and then getting it made public while the agencies and MSM did little about it, certainly had an effect on the election (on their own).
With: MSM almost 100% behind Hillary, Soros owning electronic voting machines in 16 States, Jay Z and Beyonce singing "free" for Hillary, Corporate America backing her, Sup Pac's spending Millions to "Correct the Record" on the worlds largest social media platforms, etc. Hillary still couldn't stop Trump.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Hillary breaking the law, as well as those around her, and then getting it made public while the agencies and MSM did little about it, certainly had an effect on the election (on their own).
With: MSM almost 100% behind Hillary, Soros owning electronic voting machines in 16 States, Jay Z and Beyonce singing "free" for Hillary, Corporate America backing her, Sup Pac's spending Millions to "Correct the Record" on the worlds largest social media platforms, etc. Hillary still couldn't stop Trump.

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

But not only Donald Trump but the entire Republican apparatus beginning with the Congress and the constant email hits...FBI director Comey and he rest of the FBI with their leaks...They even leak that they didn't find Trump ties to Russia...Putin's hacking of the DNC and Hillary's campaign...How about Assange and Wikileaks because the US, and Hillary was trying to arrest him thus he now lives in an Embassy...I guess now Trump will probably pardon Assange...Jokes...What's actually shocking is that Republicans are fine with all this...And they are the first to profess love of country...

Yeah but I don't think anyone else was as good at tearing her down (or the Republican primary opponents) as Trump was.

I disagree, I think the whole email episode, the FBI and Russia decided the election...

Something isn't right with the Comey thing. He looks at 30,000 emails and that takes 18 months. There are stories of revolt from agents. Then he opens the "inquiry" again 2 weeks or so before the election This is because of Emails found on Huma Abedin's phone, from her pedophile husband, in a directory called Life Insurance. Comey/FBI then look at 650,000 emails (minus duplicates) for 8 days and say nothing was there.

Understand, Hillary broke the law having that private server and yet you want to blame the hacks on Russia? She created this whole problem herself by not following the law. And she basically created Trump as her opponent. There are Wikileaks for that. It is just a riot, she fully created this whole debacle herself.

Instead of questioning where these emails came from, be it Russia or our own Intelligence Communities , we should be talking about what is in them. And that is Corruption. If there was nothing bad in those emails then Hillary would have been exonerated, so to speak.

In time, but already clear to see, Hillary Clinton is going be known as a part of a House of Cards that came tumbling down.

I feel like this is groundhog day, We have went over this like three times already..SHE DIDN'T BREAK ANY LAWS..I showed you the statues involved which couldn't be applied...TWICE..

For the sake of argument, let's say she didn't break any laws with the Server, which former prosecutor Giuliani says she did (15 laws actually, but overall https://investmentwatchblog.com/rudy-giuliani-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law-15-times/), she still got herself into this mess.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/785615427913199616/photo/1

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Hillary breaking the law, as well as those around her, and then getting it made public while the agencies and MSM did little about it, certainly had an effect on the election (on their own).
With: MSM almost 100% behind Hillary, Soros owning electronic voting machines in 16 States, Jay Z and Beyonce singing "free" for Hillary, Corporate America backing her, Sup Pac's spending Millions to "Correct the Record" on the worlds largest social media platforms, etc. Hillary still couldn't stop Trump.

I'm not buying that either. It's just a narrative that Trump to his credit successfully sold. The media spent more time talking about her e-mails than any policy issues or any of Trump's legal issues.

it is pretty apparent whose side MSM was on.

I agree

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, the popular vote is growing further apart (600K now). Chuck Todd just said Hillary will likely have won it by 2 points by the time all the votes are counted. It sucks that our voices won't be heard.

You do understand that election campaigns are run to win the Electoral Vote, right? So, if the winner was decided by popular vote, the Trump campaign would have changed tactics. You can't use numbers from an electorally run campaign and linearly project them out to a popular vote and say "See, she would have won." That is totally missing a huge amount of data (which we all know you love.)

I didn't do that. All I said was it sucks our voices won't be heard.

No, your voices were heard, just like the system designed. The Electoral College vote did what it was intended to do. It didn't take anyones voice away, but tried to stop a Tyranny of a few very large States deciding the election. The Clinton camp ran their campaign to win the electoral vote, not popular vote and they lost, even with Soros voting machines all over the place.

We have a lot of work ahead of us and I hope Trump keeps his promises, but if he does, his life will be in danger as he is talking about cleaning up this corrupt System that Hillary was a big part of.