How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Hillary Clinton

**Cold Pizza** · 02-05-2017, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Hillary Clinton lost because Obama voters went to Donald Trump | McClatchy Washington Bureau

Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost

"A select group of top Democratic Party strategists have used new data about last year’s presidential election to reach a startling conclusion about why Hillary Clinton lost. Now they just need to persuade the rest of the party they’re right. Many Democrats have a shorthand explanation for Clinton’s defeat: Her base didn’t turn out, Donald Trump’s did and the difference was too much to overcome.
But new information shows that Clinton had a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later.

Yes, I've stated this many times online and to people in person and they just did not understand it.

**Norton** · 02-05-2017, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

A conversation about where Democrats go next as a party inevitably turns into a discussion about whether it should embrace a form of economic populism similar to one pushed by liberal icon Bernie Sanders or it should tack instead to the political middle.

Economic populism is the political middle as James Carville famously noted in leading Bill to a win.
Carville's big three:

Change vs. more of the same.
The economy, stupid.
Don't forget health care.

Bring back James.

**Storekeeper** · 02-05-2017, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Yes, I've stated this many times online and to people in person and they just did not understand it.

Originally Posted by Norton

Economic populism is the political middle as James Carville famously noted in leading Bill to a win.

Well, we all read the same article but one of the things that stood out most to me:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Democrats are quick to acknowledge that even if voters switching allegiance had been Clinton’s biggest problem, in such a close election she still could have defeated Trump with better turnout. She could have won, for instance, if African-American turnout in Michigan and Florida matched 2012 levels.

And I read another article in the past that claimed something like 160,000 less blacks voted in Pennsylvania in 2016 than in 2012.

So we got blacks sitting out the election rather than choose ... we got blacks crossing over from Obama to Trump ...

And we know that basically HRC lost the election by a combined total of around 80,000 votes in three states that would have given her the election.

Hate to point the finger at blacks for HRC losing the election ... but I'm going to go ahead and point the finger anyway.

**Cold Pizza** · 02-05-2017, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

And I read another article in the past that claimed something like 160,000 less blacks voted in Pennsylvania in 2016 than in 2012.

So we got blacks sitting out the election rather than choose ... we got blacks crossing over from Obama to Trump ...

And we know that basically HRC lost the election by a combined total of around 80,000 votes in three states that would have given her the election.

Hate to point the finger at blacks for HRC losing the election ... but I'm going to go ahead and point the finger anyway.

Yes, I noted this as well.

The data was available within a day after the election.

Also, Blacks in Milwaukee also did not show up to vote (for HRC). Hillary did not visit Wisconsin once (even though visiting a state does not mean much, IMO, in these circus-elections).

Yes, the black no-show vote was (one of several) factors.

And who to point the finger to?

HRC, her campaign, and the DNC.

HRC played the race cards in some very bad ways during the Primaries against Sanders. It's on youtube, I'm sure.

**Slick** · 02-05-2017, 03:45 PM

Why the Democrats refuse to acknowledge that their policy & front woman choice were the reason for failure is beyond me.

It's always "something else".

Full retard left is not a sellable platform. They really should look inward.

After 2018 of course. 2020 even better. Need some more SC seats first.

**Storekeeper** · 02-05-2017, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Yes, the black no-show vote was (one of several) factors.

Originally Posted by Slick

Why the Democrats refuse to acknowledge that their policy & front woman choice were the reason for failure is beyond me.

It's friggin' huge IMHO when blacks in 3-4 states can have such a huge impact on the result of a Presidential election. Blacks staying home and blacks crossing over is a pretty powerful statement if you choose to listen. Will the DNC figure this out or even listen? Probably not.

**Cold Pizza** · 02-05-2017, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

It's friggin' huge IMHO when blacks in 3-4 states can have such a huge impact on the result of a Presidential election. Blacks staying home and blacks crossing over is a pretty powerful statement if you choose to listen. Will the DNC figure this out or even listen? Probably not.

No, IMO.

The DNC machine just replaced the faces. It's Tom Perez, a Clintonite at the helm.

And what could the Dems do to lure black voters?

I don't know.

In recent decades it was "promoting policies" that might affect them.

HRC and the DNC seemed to focus on the "Latin" vote - which is not as homogenous as people think and even worse - focused on illegals with DACA, DAPA, Dreamer act, and other things.

Give stuff to this block and you'll get their vote - well, they did not get enough of their vote.

Ridiculous.

**SKkin** · 02-05-2017, 04:51 PM

The HRC machine...worse than tone deaf.

After Trump’s election triumph, the top tier of Clinton strategists quickly moved to seize as much of the narrative as they could, surely mindful of what George Orwell observed: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” After all, they hardly wanted the public discourse to dwell on Clinton’s lack of voter appeal because of her deep ties to Wall Street. Political recriminations would be much better focused on the Russian government.

In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summed up the post-election approach neatly in a Washington Post opinion article: “If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they’ll be with us.”

The inability of top Clinton operatives to identify with the non-wealthy is so tenacious that they still want to assume “the public will be with us” the more they talk about Russia Russia Russia. Imagine sitting at a kitchen table with average-income voters who are worried sick about their financial futures — and explaining to them that the biggest threat they face is from the Kremlin rather than from U.S. government policies that benefit the rich and corporate America at their expense.

Tone deaf hardly describes the severe political impairment of those who insist that denouncing Russia will be key to the Democratic Party’s political fortunes in 2018 and 2020. But the top-down pressure for conformity among elected Democrats is enormous and effective.

One of the most promising progressives to arrive in Congress this year, Rep. Jamie Raskin from the Maryland suburbs of D.C., promptly drank what might be called the “Klinton Kremlin Kool-Aid.” His official website features an article about a town-hall meeting that quotes him describing Trump as a “hoax perpetrated by the Russians on the United States of America.”

quote from:

Drinking the Russia-gate Kool-Aid
Norman Solomon

edit: Speaking of 'Russia-gate' why not a probe of 'Israel-gate' Robert Parry wonders? I think 'we' know why...

Why Not a Probe of ‘Israel-gate’?
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/2...f-israel-gate/

So, the open secret of Israeli influence is studiously ignored, even as presidential candidates prostrate themselves before the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both appeared before AIPAC in 2016, with Clinton promising to take the U.S.-Israeli relationship “to the next level” – whatever that meant – and Trump vowing not to “pander” and then pandering like crazy.

**harrybarracuda** · 02-05-2017, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

It's friggin' huge IMHO when blacks in 3-4 states can have such a huge impact on the result of a Presidential election. Blacks staying home and blacks crossing over is a pretty powerful statement if you choose to listen. Will the DNC figure this out or even listen? Probably not.

No, IMO.

The DNC machine just replaced the faces. It's Tom Perez, a Clintonite at the helm.

And what could the Dems do to lure black voters?

I don't know.

In recent decades it was "promoting policies" that might affect them.

HRC and the DNC seemed to focus on the "Latin" vote - which is not as homogenous as people think and even worse - focused on illegals with DACA, DAPA, Dreamer act, and other things.

Give stuff to this block and you'll get their vote - well, they did not get enough of their vote.

Ridiculous.

You're forgetting one big factor: Voter apathy.

Even those black folk that could easily vote probably didn't bother because the media were too busy telling them that Clinton was going to win.

**Cold Pizza** · 02-05-2017, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

It's friggin' huge IMHO when blacks in 3-4 states can have such a huge impact on the result of a Presidential election. Blacks staying home and blacks crossing over is a pretty powerful statement if you choose to listen. Will the DNC figure this out or even listen? Probably not.

No, IMO.

The DNC machine just replaced the faces. It's Tom Perez, a Clintonite at the helm.

And what could the Dems do to lure black voters?

I don't know.

In recent decades it was "promoting policies" that might affect them.

HRC and the DNC seemed to focus on the "Latin" vote - which is not as homogenous as people think and even worse - focused on illegals with DACA, DAPA, Dreamer act, and other things.

Give stuff to this block and you'll get their vote - well, they did not get enough of their vote.

Ridiculous.

You're forgetting one big factor: Voter apathy.

Even those black folk that could easily vote probably didn't bother because the media were too busy telling them that Clinton was going to win.

I agree. There was voter apathy - towards HRC and this is a fact.

As David Alxlerod said, "you cannot manufacture enthusiasm."

I see your point on the media, film stars, pundits, telling the narrative of HRC winning.

However, the polls did tighten in in tbe stars SK mentioned and in the end and many voters (including blacks) that votes in the previous election stayed home.

**Storekeeper** · 02-05-2017, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

No, IMO.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Even those black folk that could easily vote probably didn't bother because the media were too busy telling them that Clinton was going to win.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

However, the polls did tighten in in tbe stars SK mentioned and in the end and many voters (including blacks) that votes in the previous election stayed home.

Sure, there are a bunch of reasons HRC lost the election. But the point of the article was pretty much to cast shade on blacks ... right or wrong that's pretty much what the writer intended to do. And it's a significant point whether people choose to acknowledge it or ignore it. Again, IMHO, it's huge when blacks choose to not vote or cross over to the likes of tRump. Isn't the DNC supposedly supposed to be the party that best represents blacks? We can talk about all the other reasons HRC lost, and there seem to be many, but it sure seems like HRC could have won ... if blacks had turned out in the 3-4 key states. TBH ... I would have expected more push back on this from those on the left screaming "white privilege" to even think about blaming blacks for HRC's loss. Either way ... my point is we can't give blacks a pass on this. They bear some of the blame for us ending up with Orange SCROTUS as our President.

**Norton** · 02-05-2017, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

my point is we can't give blacks a pass on this. They bear some of the blame for us ending up with Orange SCROTUS as our President

Really? Could be blacks saw the same thing whites saw. Government unresponsive to their concerns. Hillary was offering the same ole package. Is it any wonder many said screw it and did a no show or in some cases voted Trump. The notion the Dems have that they represent the "black community" and therefore blacks have an obligation to turn out and vote Dem is condescending and politically naive.

Dems want to improve their lot they better appeal to all Americans regardless of race or more Trumps on the way. Bernie came close and then the DNC and Hillary torpedoed him with not so subtle race card playing. Shameful arrogance which cost them the Presidency.

**Storekeeper** · 02-05-2017, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

my point is we can't give blacks a pass on this. They bear some of the blame for us ending up with Orange SCROTUS as our President

Really? Could be blacks saw the same thing whites saw. Government unresponsive to their concerns. Hillary was offering the same ole package. Is it any wonder many said screw it and did a no show or in some cases voted Trump. The notion the Dems have that they represent the "black community" and therefore blacks have an obligation to turn out and vote Dem is condescending and politically naive.

Dems want to improve their lot they better appeal to all Americans regardless of race or more Trumps on the way. Bernie came close and then the DNC and Hillary torpedoed him with not so subtle race card playing. Shameful arrogance which cost them the Presidency.

IMHO both Obama and Hillary are a version of Republican lite. So a lot of what you say is probably correct. But if that's the the case it sounds to me like "cutting off your nose to spite your face" to just not vote or to cross over and vote for tRump because the Republican Party is hardly concerned with issues expressed by folks who support Black Lives Matter. Often blacks say, "It's a black thing. You wouldn't understand". Well, you know what ... they're right. I sure as hell don't understand blacks voting for tRump and his teabagger constituents.

**Cold Pizza** · 02-05-2017, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

No, IMO.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Even those black folk that could easily vote probably didn't bother because the media were too busy telling them that Clinton was going to win.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

However, the polls did tighten in in tbe stars SK mentioned and in the end and many voters (including blacks) that votes in the previous election stayed home.

Sure, there are a bunch of reasons HRC lost the election. But the point of the article was pretty much to cast shade on blacks ... right or wrong that's pretty much what the writer intended to do. And it's a significant point whether people choose to acknowledge it or ignore it.

OK. Understood.

It's a very valid point and I raised this right after the election but people online and in person did not want to even discuss it.

The media definitely - did NOT want to discuss it.

**Cold Pizza** · 02-05-2017, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

It sounds to me like "cutting off your nose to spite your face" to just not vote or to cross over and vote for tRump because the Republican Party is hardly concerned with issues expressed by folks who support Black Lives Matter. Often blacks say, "It's a black thing. You wouldn't understand". Well, you know what ... they're right. I sure as hell don't understand blacks voting for tRump and his teabagger constituents.

Do I agree with black lives matter? Not really.

Did Trump? No. Did Hillary? No.

For many reasons.

Black lives matter? Go to Chicago, Baltimore, and other cities. It's blacks killing blacks as usual.

We don't understand? That's not important. Black slaughter blacks and ruin neighorhood in general. It's not about "understanding."

It is, what it is.

**Storekeeper** · 03-05-2017, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

No, IMO.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Even those black folk that could easily vote probably didn't bother because the media were too busy telling them that Clinton was going to win.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

However, the polls did tighten in in tbe stars SK mentioned and in the end and many voters (including blacks) that votes in the previous election stayed home.

Sure, there are a bunch of reasons HRC lost the election. But the point of the article was pretty much to cast shade on blacks ... right or wrong that's pretty much what the writer intended to do. And it's a significant point whether people choose to acknowledge it or ignore it.

OK. Understood.

It's a very valid point and I raised this right after the election but people online and in person did not want to even discuss it.

The media definitely - did NOT want to discuss it.

They don't want to talk about it because it's a dangerous path to walk down for those of us who would like to stay on th PC straight and narrow. My message to blacks is, "Is you Is or is you ain't our constituents?" ... if you is then quit being petulant children and running home with your football when you don't get your way. Sometimes you got to give a little to get a little. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. If not, then get on over there with Bubba and his angry red hats. I'm sure they have a spare confederate flag to fly off your 20 year old Cadillac.

**Cold Pizza** · 03-05-2017, 04:07 PM

High school graduates were blamed, White males were blamed, then HRC Campaign Director Jessica Palmieri blamed women, and we've discussed black voters in critical states that chose to sit out this election b/c of....Hillary. Well, now, Hillary is blaming.....

Shock: CNN says HRC is in blame-mode:

Hillary Clinton: "I Was On The Way To Winning Until Comey And 'Russian' WikiLeaks"

Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
May 2, 2017

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Speaking during an interview on CNN, losing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton explained why she thinks she lost the election...

"I was on the way to winning before Jim Comey's letter and 'Russian' Wikileaks... scared off late voters."

So to be clear - until the head of the FBI admitted to the world that many of your actions were under investigation for potentially breaking law and WikiLeaks published 'proof' of multiple mis-dealings and relationships - you were on the way to winning? So, other than that how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

All of this is ironic given Democratic Party strategists recent comments:

Hillary Clinton: "I Was On The Way To Winning Until Comey And 'Russian' WikiLeaks" | Zero Hedge

Democrats Have Finally Figured Out Hillary's Loss: "Her Base Didn't Turn Out"

Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
May 1, 2017

Democrats Have Finally Figured Out Hillary's Loss: "Her Base Didn't Turn Out" | Zero Hedge

Anthoney Brian Logan with her interview and his perspective:

**Storekeeper** · 03-05-2017, 04:19 PM

^ Blacks still pissed about her conveniently carrying around a bottle of hot sauce in her purse ...

**SKkin** · 03-05-2017, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Hillary Clinton: "I Was On The Way To Winning Until Comey And 'Russian' WikiLeaks"

Comment there:

to quote the philosopher Bubba Clinton: "Damn, bitch, do you ever NOT whine/complain/snivel like a spoiled little girl??"

edit: and another comment there...

You're a bitch girl, and you've gone too far
What difference does it make anyway?
You can rely on the old scam's money
You can rely on the old scam's money
Say "He was a snitch" girl, but it's gone too far
'Cause you know it don't matter anyway
Say money but it won't get you too far
Get you too far

~Apologies to Hall and Oates

**longway** · 08-05-2017, 10:13 PM

I've grown to love hilarity Dumpty Clunkton too. By no small measure Trump is president because her insane lust for power was only matched by her ineptitude in obtaining it.

She had the support of the dnc, the fsm, a former and sitting president campaigning for her, far more money, hundreds of staff, a massive ground game, decades of direct experience and the ec was very much in her favour and she was still too incompetent to win.

Thanks hilarity, we could not have done it without you.

I hope she and pacohontas are the face of the resistance, along with all the other crazed entitled middle class lunatic and completely hopeless women the libtards produce in such abundance, it's going to be a great 8 years.

She thought she was going to be a sitting president, but she turned out to be a running joke. The dnc forced the only candidate that could lose to Trump onto the voting public.

And she is blaming 'teh Russians'.

And her soggy knees

And the FBI

**Dragonfly** · 08-05-2017, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by longway

I hope she and pacohontas are the face of the resistance, along with all the other crazed entitled middle class lunatic women the libtards produce in such abundance, it's going to be a great 8 years.

quite good

Homer and bsnob are going to be offended again

**harrybarracuda** · 08-05-2017, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by longway

I hope she and pacohontas

Now I see why people call them trumpanzees.

Your word of the week longface:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas

**SKkin** · 09-05-2017, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by longway

pacohontas

Wait a minute...I thought her name was Liawatha?

**harrybarracuda** · 09-05-2017, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Humbert

^you belong in a mental institution.

Maybe he's already in one and they have an internet connection.

It would explain ENT.

**harrybarracuda** · 09-05-2017, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by Muddywaters

Originally Posted by longway

I've grown to love hilarity Dumpty Clunkton too. By no small measure Trump is president because her insane lust for power was only matched by her ineptitude in obtaining it.

She had the support of the dnc, the fsm, a former and sitting president campaigning for her, far more money, hundreds of staff, a massive ground game, decades of direct experience and the ec was very much in her favour and she was still too incompetent to win.

Thanks hilarity, we could not have done it without you.

I hope she and pacohontas are the face of the resistance, along with all the other crazed entitled middle class lunatic and completely hopeless women the libtards produce in such abundance, it's going to be a great 8 years.

She thought she was going to be a sitting president, but she turned out to be a running joke. The dnc forced the only candidate that could lose to Trump onto the voting public.

And she is blaming 'teh Russians'.

And her soggy knees

And the FBI

Sad old woman. That's what her legacy is.

Multinic wankers.

Gotta love 'em.

Still fucking idiots though.

Thread: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Hillary Clinton

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions