Hillary said "fukk middle America"

[DirtyD]

Even some of Clinton's own former aides and surrogates say the former Democratic presidential nominee should back away from the discussion about her failed campaign because it's harmful to the party.

Dems are angry over Hillary Clinton’s latest comments

It's not bad enough that this fukking buffoon lost what should've been the easiest election ever she has to continuously alienate potential voters and people who voted for her last time who live in these areas.

 

[the cac mamba]

and then people wonder why she lost the election

Her popular vote difference was basically just her NY voter base outnumbering trump voters. You shouldn't win if you are just hoping for Cali and NY to save you.

yeah she won by what, 3 million votes? thats literally cali and NY

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

He won AZ,TX,NC,FL,GA. All places where African Americans are thriving . She won Ill,CA,NY,NJ. Places black people are being pushed out and can barely afford to live .

Cherry picking ass clown

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

So Nap (once again) and Conservatives Cherry Picked Hillary's statements:

 

[acri1]

and then people wonder why she lost the election

Her popular vote difference was basically just her NY voter base outnumbering trump voters. You shouldn't win if you are just hoping for Cali and NY to save you.

I'd argue that you should win if you get the most votes. But that's just me.

Not that Hillary's strategy wasn't bad, but it strikes me as unfair that rural white voters literally have more voting power per vote than everyone else.

 

[wickedsm]

So Nap (once again) and Conservatives Cherry Picked Hillary's statements:

this. i still havent bothered to listen.
but i knew that since it was being pushed by the RNC it was just some more bullshyt.
[i hard passed on the first page]
those people and those that hate her that arent repubs are gonna hear what they want to
hear anyway.

 

[DeuceCypherUno]

I'd argue that you should win if you get the most votes. But that's just me.

Not that Hillary's strategy wasn't bad, but it strikes me as unfair that rural white voters literally have more voting power per vote than everyone else.

it's to help prevent BS like moving to NY or CA, being a senator so you can guarantee winning that state and a majority the votes there and basically just having to campaign in Cali to try to win as many of the popular vote as possible. I don't think it's fair that literally two states (AND not even that, 2-4 CITIES) can be enough for you to gain an insurmountable lead in the pop vote.

 

[King Kreole]

So Nap (once again) and Conservatives Cherry Picked Hillary's statements:

This doesn't at all negate the main problem with what she said. She's still casting the areas she won as good and virtuous, while the areas she lost as backwards and pessimistic. This is a view generally held by the liberal class who live on the coasts and benefit from the current socio-economic order, but go into any of these coastal cities and metropolises and ask the economic and racial underclasses how "progressive" and "dynamic" these places are. I don't view the coastal regions and large cities Hillary won as havens of progress, I view them as the genesis of some of the most immoral and corrupting practices in the nation.

That article I posted did a good job of explaining how the very socio-economic institutions that form the foundational structure of these "optimistic" and "diverse" coastal regions Hillary won are directly responsible for the "backwards" and pessimistic views of the areas she lost. The most lecherous and anti-progressive institutions and industries are product of the coasts. The financial institutions that maliciously destroyed the social and financial security of everyone but their operators are creatures of the coasts. The tech companies that are currently vacuuming up the industrial wealth and power of this nation while giving pittance in return are creatures of the coasts. To split the entire country into the virtuous coastal liberals and wicked middle America conservatives is a brutally ignorant act that requires one to elide even the most cursory critique of America's institutional structure in this day and age. Which is why such a belief flows so easily out of the mouth of Hillary Clinton and other liberals. They are progenitors and beneficiaries of this brutal order.

 

[the cac mamba]

This doesn't at all negate the main problem with what she said. She's still casting the areas she won as good and virtuous, while the areas she lost as backwards and pessimistic. This is a view generally held by the liberal class who live on the coasts and benefit from the current socio-economic order, but go into any of these coastal cities and metropolises and ask the economic and racial underclasses how "progressive" and "dynamic" these places are. I don't view the coastal regions and large cities Hillary won as havens of progress, I view them as the genesis of some of the most immoral and corrupting practices in the nation.

That article I posted did a good job of explaining how the very socio-economic institutions that form the foundational structure of these "optimistic" and "diverse" coastal regions Hillary won are directly responsible for the "backwards" and pessimistic views of the areas she lost. The most lecherous and anti-progressive institutions and industries are product of the coasts. The financial institutions that maliciously destroyed the social and financial security of everyone but their operators are creatures of the coasts. The tech companies that are currently vacuuming up the industrial wealth and power of this nation while giving pittance in return are creatures of the coasts. To split the entire country into the virtuous coastal liberals and wicked middle America conservatives is a brutally ignorant act that requires one to elide even the most cursory critique of America's institutional structure in this day and age. Which is why such a belief flows so easily out of the mouth of Hillary Clinton and other liberals. They are progenitors and beneficiaries of this brutal order.

hell of a post

 

[the cac mamba]

it's to help prevent BS like moving to NY or CA, being a senator so you can guarantee winning that state and a majority the votes there and basically just having to campaign in Cali to try to win as many of the popular vote as possible. I don't think it's fair that literally two states (AND not even that, 2-4 CITIES) can be enough for you to gain an insurmountable lead in the pop vote.

im not a fan of the electoral college, but i still dont see how this is true

lets look at the popular vote in those states
hilary - 8.7 mil in cali. trump - 4.5
hilary - 4.5 in NY. trump - 2.8

so thats 13 million to trumps 7 million. but 127 million people voted last election. and more people would vote if their vote wasnt gonna get thrown in the trash because "its a blue state" or vice versa

and the other thing is that its not like the fukkin electoral college acts like the senate. its still weighted, right she WON 55 electoral votes to montanas 3 or whatever the fukk they have. how is that really different than getting more popular vote when she got all 55 and the 3 million who voted trump got none of them?

 

[southpawstyle]

Woats gonna Woat

 

[teacher]

I actually agree with her fukk dem clowns, but fukk her to

 

[DirtyD]

Its also hilarious that when anyone proposes a Medicare for all bill or decriminalization of marijuana centrists will start screaming bloody murder about the votes Dems will lose, but when their god empress insults large swaths of the country it's justified and we shouldn't give a fukk about the possible political ramifications.

 

[DeuceCypherUno]

im not a fan of the electoral college, but i still dont see how this is true

lets look at the popular vote in those states
hilary - 8.7 mil in cali. trump - 4.5
hilary - 4.5 in NY. trump - 2.8

so thats 13 million to trumps 7 million. but 127 million people voted last election. and more people would vote if their vote wasnt gonna get thrown in the trash because "its a blue state" or vice versa

and the other thing is that its not like the fukkin electoral college acts like the senate. its still weighted, right she WON 55 electoral votes to montanas 3 or whatever the fukk they have. how is that really different than getting more popular vote when she got all 55 and the 3 million who voted trump got none of them?

To be honest, i would prefer it be broken down by county. you win a county you get an electoral point i guess

 

[the cac mamba]

To be honest, i would prefer it be broken down by county. you win a county you get an electoral point i guess

its like george carlin used to say, this country was bought and paid for generations ago. if voting mattered they wouldnt let us do it