Why Do Democrats Feel Sorry for Hillary Clinton?
- Thread starter Shogun
- Start date
Relevant. The most stinging point: Hillary outspent Trump nearly two-to-one, and still lost. 
Hillary is the WOAT DNC candidate for President. :kanyebp:
Getting Over Hillary
Getting Over Hillary
Democrats need to comprehend the Electoral College.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at the Women in the World Summit on April 6 in New York City. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
By James Freeman
April 18, 2017 4:30 p.m. ET
Among the more remarkable aspects of Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign in 2016 is that a political rookie seemed to have a better grasp of the rules of the election than his highly experienced opponent. Specifically, Mr. Trump’s message to voters was premised on the idea that the Electoral College would decide the winner. More than any candidate in recent memory, he offered an explicit pitch to the Midwestern voters he needed to secure an electoral win, while making almost no effort to build a constituency in states he was likely to lose. The losing side in 2016 is still struggling to come to grips with this fact, as it explores various reasons to explain away its failure.
“Why Do Democrats Feel Sorry for Hillary Clinton ?” is the headline on a recent Andrew Sullivan column for New York magazine that blames Mrs. Clinton for her 2016 loss. Mr. Sullivan writes that he’s amazed by the hold that the Clinton family “still has on the Democratic Party — and on liberals in general.”
It might seem obvious to blame a loss on the loser, but Mr. Sullivan observes:
Perhaps Democrats will take Mr. Sullivan’s message to heart. Perhaps they will not spend years railing against the design of the U.S. Constitution—as many did after Al Gore received the most votes nationwide in 2000 but lost the election. Perhaps Democrats will simply acknowledge the unlikelihood of persuading 38 states to abolish the Electoral College and go about the business of trying to find a candidate who can build a winning coalition.
Perhaps Democrats will choose not to indulge the latest Russia theory advanced by MSNBC and instead focus on how to appeal to more voters outside the northeast and the West Coast. Yesterday this column noted that Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez is visiting several states in the South and West this week. Still, the fact he’s touring with Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders suggests the party is more focused on talking about its most extreme ideas than on listening to swing voters.
Mrs. Clinton for her part seems in no mood to publicly accept blame for the race she ran in 2016. “Almost four months after her stunning defeat, Hillary Clinton on Thursday primarily blamed her loss to President Donald Trump on four factors that were beyond her control,” reported NBC News on April 7. “The former Democratic presidential candidate cited Russian meddling in the election, FBI Director James Comey’s involvement toward the end of the race, WikiLeaks’ theft of emails from her campaign chairman, and misogyny,” added the peacock network.
This could be fake news, judging from reports on a new book about the Clinton campaign. According to a Washington Post review of “Shattered,” when the results came in on Election Night Mrs. Clinton seemed to express a different view of who was at fault during a call with Barack Obama :
Hillary is the WOAT DNC candidate for President. :kanyebp:
Getting Over Hillary
Getting Over Hillary
Democrats need to comprehend the Electoral College.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at the Women in the World Summit on April 6 in New York City. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
By James Freeman
April 18, 2017 4:30 p.m. ET
Among the more remarkable aspects of Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign in 2016 is that a political rookie seemed to have a better grasp of the rules of the election than his highly experienced opponent. Specifically, Mr. Trump’s message to voters was premised on the idea that the Electoral College would decide the winner. More than any candidate in recent memory, he offered an explicit pitch to the Midwestern voters he needed to secure an electoral win, while making almost no effort to build a constituency in states he was likely to lose. The losing side in 2016 is still struggling to come to grips with this fact, as it explores various reasons to explain away its failure.
“Why Do Democrats Feel Sorry for Hillary Clinton ?” is the headline on a recent Andrew Sullivan column for New York magazine that blames Mrs. Clinton for her 2016 loss. Mr. Sullivan writes that he’s amazed by the hold that the Clinton family “still has on the Democratic Party — and on liberals in general.”
It might seem obvious to blame a loss on the loser, but Mr. Sullivan observes:
...everywhere you see not an excoriation of one of the worst campaigns in recent history, leading to the Trump nightmare, but an attempt to blame anyone or anything but Clinton herself for the epic fail. It wasn’t Clinton’s fault, we’re told. It never is. It was the voters’ — those ungrateful, deplorable know-nothings! Their sexism defeated her (despite a majority of white women voting for Trump). A wave of misogyny defeated her (ditto). James Comey is to blame. Bernie Sanders’s campaign — because it highlighted her enmeshment with Wall Street, her brain-dead interventionism and her rapacious money-grubbing since she left the State Department — was the problem. Millennial feminists were guilty as well, for not seeing what an amazing crusader for their cause this candidate was. And this, of course, is how Clinton sees it as well: She wasn’t responsible for her own campaign — her staffers were.
This column has heard other explanations for Mrs. Clinton’s defeat, including fake news and the WikiLeaks publication of Clinton adviser John Podesta’s private emails. But Mr. Sullivan is urging Democrats to stop making excuses:
Let us review the facts: Clinton had the backing of the entire Democratic establishment... the Clintons so intimidated other potential candidates and donors, she had the nomination all but wrapped up before she even started. And yet she was so bad a candidate, she still only managed to squeak through in the primaries against an elderly, stopped-clock socialist who wasn’t even in her party, and who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union... She had the extra allure of possibly breaking a glass ceiling that — with any other female candidate — would have been as inspiring as the election of the first black president. In the general election, she was running against a malevolent buffoon with no political experience, with a deeply divided party behind him, and whose negatives were stratospheric. She outspent him by almost two-to-one... And yet she still managed to lose!“But … but … but …” her deluded fans insist, “she won the popular vote!” But that’s precisely my point. Any candidate who can win the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and still manage to lose the Electoral College by 304 to 227 is so profoundly incompetent, so miserably useless as a politician, she should be drummed out of the party under a welter of derision.
Perhaps Democrats will take Mr. Sullivan’s message to heart. Perhaps they will not spend years railing against the design of the U.S. Constitution—as many did after Al Gore received the most votes nationwide in 2000 but lost the election. Perhaps Democrats will simply acknowledge the unlikelihood of persuading 38 states to abolish the Electoral College and go about the business of trying to find a candidate who can build a winning coalition.
Perhaps Democrats will choose not to indulge the latest Russia theory advanced by MSNBC and instead focus on how to appeal to more voters outside the northeast and the West Coast. Yesterday this column noted that Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez is visiting several states in the South and West this week. Still, the fact he’s touring with Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders suggests the party is more focused on talking about its most extreme ideas than on listening to swing voters.
Mrs. Clinton for her part seems in no mood to publicly accept blame for the race she ran in 2016. “Almost four months after her stunning defeat, Hillary Clinton on Thursday primarily blamed her loss to President Donald Trump on four factors that were beyond her control,” reported NBC News on April 7. “The former Democratic presidential candidate cited Russian meddling in the election, FBI Director James Comey’s involvement toward the end of the race, WikiLeaks’ theft of emails from her campaign chairman, and misogyny,” added the peacock network.
This could be fake news, judging from reports on a new book about the Clinton campaign. According to a Washington Post review of “Shattered,” when the results came in on Election Night Mrs. Clinton seemed to express a different view of who was at fault during a call with Barack Obama :
“Mr. President,” Clinton said softly. “I’m sorry.”
bernie sanders has been repeatedly telling people not to label all trump supporters as racist misoygnist bigosts...
in fact he performed better in swing states than hillary did. get this author the fukk outta here
bernie sanders has been repeatedly telling people not to label all trump supporters as racist misoygnist bigosts...
WSJ, man. I'm not saying I agree with him about Bernie. :kanyebp:
I voted for Bernie in the primaries
GPBear
The Tape Crusader
Terrible. Neggable post breh.
Here's a the response article to the one OP posted
Andrew Sullivan’s Perpetuation of Model-Minority and Black-Pathology Myths Is Pretty Boring at This Point
Way to post a blatantly racist article, breh.
Here's a the response article to the one OP posted
Andrew Sullivan’s Perpetuation of Model-Minority and Black-Pathology Myths Is Pretty Boring at This Point
Way to post a blatantly racist article, breh.
the cac mamba
Veteran
that cock smoker sullivan ethered her with that article. cant wait til she's dead
The Fukin Prophecy
RIP Champ
Worst presidential candidate and campaign of all time...
