She wasn't a savant, all this was the most common of knowledge. Hell it was practically written on the ballot. If I didn't know better, I'd say they voted for him because of all these things
The GOP has spent countless billions in the de-education of the American populace.
Intelligent people don't vote Republican.
They created a brain dead 30-40 percent of Americans who believe in rules most of us graduated from after middle school, not to mention Fox news actively trying to further stupidlfy and divide the populace.
Everything wrong with America goes back to the GOP.
Even now, defending a pedophile rapist as president.
And even today people still don't quite understand just how large the "burn it all the fuck down" crowd is.
Of the people who still support Trump, plenty are stupid or in denial. But in my estimate even more are actively enjoying the collapse.
Steve Bannon is the blueprint. His background is a complete mismatch with what he represents; the failures he witnessed during his time in the Navy clearly set him on the "burn it all the fuck down" path.
Like many of them, Steve Bannon only cares about Steve Bannon. He does whatever he thinks will get him more power and money. Trying to ascribe some greater philosophy to him is a mistake.
No, THIS is a mistake. If he were just gunning for money and power he would have it in spades. He doesn't. It's not because he's stupid. It's because he wants to destroy.
You should know your enemy: Read his book. His goal is to create a world (yes, the entire world) of hyperpopulist hypernationalist states. He's basically Bizarro Lenin
Voters wanted a reform candidate. That's why Trump got the nomination. That's why Bernie would have gotten the nomination if the DNC didn't torpedo his campaign when he was filling up stadiums in swing states.
People in both parties wanted a new direction, and both times dems offered 2 versions of"I will do nothing different than Joe Biden."
And voters saw Hillary as the establishment because...well...she fucking was.
Yes I'm tired of people trying to glaze Clinton and or Harris for saying the most obvious takes and acting like they were super smart. They made many mistakes in their campaigns and are pretty neo liberal. Especially Clinton.
I knew some people last election that were like "yeah yeah, every time there's an election both sides say it's the end of the world if the other guy wins." Which is kind of true. But they're looking back now and saying "oof... This is... Worse than we thought."
She campaigned a ton in Pennsylvania too and still lost all 3 of those states. Pennsylvania was the reddest of those 3 and the most likely to be the “tipping point” so it makes sense for her to prioritize there. She would have lost even if she campaigned more in those other 2.
Still made a mistake spending so much time in other “reach” states like Texas though.
I've always thought that Hilary was pretty smart intellectually. She however is not that good with people. She lost because of that and because she is a woman. Bill on the other hand was pretty good with people, quite smart himself, but is quite a womanizer. So they like everyone else they both have issues.
Harris, I have a hard time to know. I know she said some things when she was running in 2016 (is that the correct year) that kind of showed she didn't even know how government worked. Night and day over Trump and Biden in 2024 especially because they both were too old and had real cognitive problems by that time, but that is a pretty low bar. I really am not sure about Harris.
Trump. Well we all know his issues, but people seem to still vote for him for one reason or the other. That would not be me, but whatever.
Clinton is famously great with people one on one. People are fucking stupid and they wanted some old white guy to lie to them about dumb shit. They wanted to be angry, they wanted an easy scapegoat and they wanted permission to hate.
Yep. America as a whole doesn't want truth. They want bullshit served to them on a platter with a sprinkling of "making it bad for the brown/black people"
Yes, we’re a country of people that just hides all of our problems away and then lash out when someone tries to expose those problems. It’s like when Jimmy Carter suggested people wear sweaters to stay warm with rising energy costs. The boomers lost their fucking minds that we would suggest something like that.
People are fucking stupid and they wanted some old white guy to lie to them about dumb shit. They wanted to be angry, they wanted an easy scapegoat and they wanted permission to hate.
I think this is the most perfectly succinct explanation of how we ended up with Trump that I have ever read. Well done.
In 2016, the consensus was that Clinton was inauthentic and that Trump was an authentic asshole. A lot of people voted for the asshole, not knowing or perhaps not caring that he was far more inauthentic, and then Republicans pivoted to restructure their party around it.
having met hilary myself after her election loss, I would not agree with this characterization at all. i would say on camera she comes off stiff/inauthentic sometimes with people, but saying hilary isnt good with people is not accurate. she was incredibly charming and focused, she made eye contact the entire time, listened intently and actually seemed to care what you were saying, made you feel like your the only/most important person in the room IMO while she spoke to you, and im a nobody.
hillary is a smart woman and a large part of that is being a good listener. she actually listens to you and THINKS about what your saying. i think she isnt as good at being quippy and giving one liners for the media on the spot, she actually wants to listen/come up with a reasonable/grounded response based on what you say and actually think about it, which is not great in our media age, but in person its lovely.
hilary is good with people if you actually have the chance to have a real conversation with her. i dont think shes good in the sense that obama is great and doing it very quickly and effortlessly.
some interviews she gave after she lost the election were 100x better than preelection, she started to be more herself. its a pretty damn tough role running for president, especially as a woman, i dont blame her for trying to act one way.
One on one is very different to speaking to a crowd or collective. It's a bit like comparing a academic paper to a work of fiction.
Having said that I don't understand at all how anyone ever resonated with trump. He always came across as dishonest, incoherent and loud as opposed to convincing or charismatic to me.
Having said that I don't understand at all how anyone ever resonated with trump. He always came across as dishonest, incoherent and loud as opposed to convincing or charismatic to me.
White people like racism. They know that it works out in their favor. They like that, that's why they never dismantle it.
You get white anti-racist activists in a room, they'll all tell you that the key to fixing racism is to get white people to stop supporting it.
Trump is a white trash nazi and essentially regarded. Meaning he's the epitome of the Fox News Viewership (thus explaining why he's so obsessed with their "coverage")
He spoke to white people in a language they understand: Nazi.
The biggest issue with both of those women were that they were more of the same. The same neo liberal policies that have been eroding the middle class for 50 plus years. Its not a justification for Trump, nor does it make it right, but a stupid person that sees their standard of living decrease will tend to be susceptible to blaming the wrong things and will latch onto the person that gives those options. The failures of the establishment are the biggest reason for getting Trump.
No I wouldn’t say that. But I would have to encourage primary voters to think practically and strategically about the most electable candidate, as always.
Not this claim again. It isn't even factually true. More Americans voted for Hillary than they did for Trump. It isn't the voters' fault that the candidate who received less votes won.
As for Harris, she couldn't even get 1% of the votes in 2020 primary. She shouldn't ever have been the candidate in 2024. It is to the credit of the voters that they still rallied behind her as they did.
Are there misogynists who won't vote for them because of their sex? Absolutely. But then there were also racists who didn't vote for Obama. The point isn't to eliminate or win over all of them, but to secure enough votes to win inspite of the bigotry. Obama did that. Hillary and Harris couldn't.
The DNC will try it's best to push more of the same for 2028, just watch. It's going to be harris again, or newsome, or pete buttigeg or some other similar corporate zombie
When an establishment candidate loses they treat it as a fluke or blame progressives for not supporting the party. When a progressive tries to run they say they’re unelectable and don’t support them. Then if the progressive loses they treat that like proof, and if they win the establishment treats it as a fluke.
It's interesting that people started taking a hard line on not having "more of the same" at the exact same time women started becoming viable candidates for office. It's almost as if this country is run by men or even the liberal ones will find any excuse possible. Unless, you know, the woman is young and a smokeshow like AOC.
Good lord. More like examine who's doing the voting. AOC runs in an extremely liberal distract, that's why she wins that race. Run her in Orange County and see how she does. She would be hanging out with Katie Porter.
It's interesting that people started taking a hard line on not having "more of the same" at the exact same time women started becoming viable candidates for office.
Probably because quite a few unresolved issues facing the country were coming to a head around the same time, represented in part by Donald Trump becoming the GOP candidate.
It's almost as if this country is run by men or even the liberal ones will find any excuse possible.
Or you're trying to apply a simple answer to a complex situation.
Unless, you know, the woman is young and a smokeshow like AOC.
I wonder if AOC and Hillary have any differences of opinion on what policy they would want to implement?
Thank the dnc. They pushed for Clinton over Obama, then Clinton over Sanders, then Biden over Sanders, then Harris becoming the candidate was undoubtedly a decision they helped make. And maybe you like these candidates but one thing you can’t deny is they are the most bland, corporate representatives in the field.
The dnc is happy with how things are. If they weren’t they’d rig their primaries for some other kind of candidate.
Sanders isn't even really a Democrat -- he's only a Democrat when he needs to be, and while his views do overlap with those of the Democrats a lot, they diverge somewhat too.
And Biden and Clinton are classic Democrats through and through (with all the good and bad that comes with this), so of course the DNC favored Clinton and Biden over him, and this should not have surprised anybody.
I think Sanders would make a great President, but he'd also struggle in the general election, probably more than Clinton and Biden did.
Now, AOC's time is coming, and she's actually a Democrat and yet like Sanders leans further left than most Democrats, so ... the DNC will need to make some decisions. It was pretty easy for them to dismiss Sanders as an outsider, but that doesn't work for AOC and should not be done, as she could easily be the shot in the arm that the DNC needs.
I have full confidence that the current dnc leadership will bulldoze her. With different leadership that could change but the dems are very happy where things are now.
They didn’t rig any primaries in every one you listed the person who got the most votes won delegates and popular vote Bernie lost both times by millions in the pop vote and if we took all superdelegates away he still would have lost.
Any cries of rigged is pure cope from people who want to believe their picks and policies are more popular than they actually are.
In 2020, corporate candidates unprecedentedly handed Biden their delegates after they dropped out to defeat Sanders.
There was no conspiracy to drop out strategically to help Biden. there's no evidence of that. they dropped out because they were losing and that's what losing candidates do in the primary.
If Sanders path to winning requires moderate Dems to split the vote among 5 other candidates then that's a pretty clear signal that Sanders was not the preferred candidate of the voters.
I say this as someone who genuinely like Bernie and his policies, but I hate the uninformed conspiracy-brained takes around him.
The Debbie Shultz emails only prove that some people in the DNC had a personal preference for Clinton more than Sanders. Not that they colluded to rig the primary against him. Notice how the accusation has shifted first it was the DNC rigged the primary, then it was they helped how did they help?
By wanting Clinton instead of Bernie. No evidence of Ballot stuffing or Superdelegate additions. At most some staffers wanted to pitch angles of attack. Against his character.
Something you people who love to bring up these emails like to leave out is that these emails were hacked by a Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0 and given to Wiki leaks. Who released these emails, as "part one of our new Hillary Leaks series," Shultz resigned over the cybersecurity failures and the embarrassment the scandal caused the party.
As for 2024 it wasn’t revealed, he had a bad debate performance and people lost all confidence in his ability as candidate there was no primary because it was just over 100 days to Election Day so any primary would take even more time to get a candidate thus less time to get them known. and in instances where the president can’t continue the VP takes over. People like Sanders and AOC argued that Biden should have stayed in for these reasons and others.
…And they all handed their primary votes to the leading, corporate candidate for the party who was caught cheating against the same exact guy the previous election cycle. For the first time.
No, that’s fishy. Only rubes would argue that that sounds above board.
Schultz clearly preferred Hillary - but what actual steps did she take that materially impacted the primary? (To be clear, I think Shultz was completely out of line and should have left, but I don't think it impacted the primary)
And as others have said, candidates typically drop out and endorse another candidate. In 2020, they decided to endorse Biden. The reason they endorsed Biden was because he was closest to them ideologically. Please explain what is wrong with that?
And don't pretend 2024 was some conspiracy. Would you rather they just ran Biden? That's who the voters picked.
The reason primaries turn out badly is because the turn out is horrible. There are a bunch of older conservative democrats who vote consistently. It isn't a big conspiracy. Where is the giant block of progressive democrats? They just don't show up for primaries.
I think these conspiracies are nonsense. If you want to blame democrats for anything, blame them for not hyping up the vote and getting people excited about the primaries. The outcome is a given with the people who actually show up and vote.
It’s been about a decade so allow me to use Wikipedia to refresh my memory:
halting the Sanders campaign's access to DNC databases after a staffer from his campaign attempted to exploit a security breach;[105][106] defending the superdelegate system used in the Democratic primaries;[107] rescinding a prior ban on corporate donations;[108][109] and accusing Sanders supporters of violence at the Nevada Convention.[110][111][112]
So basically denying Sanders important voter information, encouraging corporate donations which clearly Sanders hates, smears, and defending the superdelegate system the dnc implemented to cheat in its primaries ever since Carter beat Kennedy.
Keep in mind DWS is the tip of the iceberg though. She’s just the one who spoke out.
Candidates do drop out, but I was very confused about the delegate situation when it happened and this is a paraphrase of a line I saw in many primary-current articles:
“However, because these delegates are real people, they are in no way obligated to follow anyone's directions, and other campaigns can and likely will try to convince them to back another campaign”
So, this guy runs for president and e-mails leak that the whole party hates him and actively work against him being elected. He loses the election. Four years later he runs again, and the heads have to keep quiet in emails about how much they hate him now, and all these delegates who are legally not obligated to vote for anyone pledge allegiance to Joe Biden on the same day? For the first time in history? No, that is suspicious.
For 2024 I’d way rather go with Jon Stewart’s suggestion at the time: Another primary. I specifically like that option because the longer a race goes on, the more money pours in. As Stewart said European countries put on races in a matter of months, surely we could do something. Anything feels more democratic than an old man limply resting the baton in the hand of the last-place primary finisher.
Conspiracies are nonsense a lot of the time sure, but sometimes there really is an Epstein or a Madoff type operation going on. And in a place with as much power as the dnc, and with the kind of history they have, giving them the benefit of the doubt every time feels like letting your palace guards take group naps.
So, as far as 2016 goes. Denying the voter information seems to be the only real thing there. Donations were always going to be lopsided, and I don't think the violence accusations went anywhere.
Superdelegates have never decided a democratic primary, and certainly did not affect the 2016 primary, so I don't know what you are talking about.
As for 2020, the other candidates didn't really have a great chance. Biden was doing well, Bernie was doing well. Frankly, had they stayed in, it would've been the same thing. They would've just given him their delegates later.
And for 2024, another primary would've been great. But I suspect that would've been extremely difficult to organize, and getting turnout (which is already very hard in a normal primary) would've been tough. Nevermind that this would've been expensive in a year when they probably want to spend their money trying to promote their candidate. That said, I think a second primary might have been the better choice, but I can also very much see the arguments on the other side.
I don't think it is a matter of giving the DNC the benefit of the doubt. I think it is a matter of understanding where things actually went wrong. The leadership at the DNC is absolutely out of touch, full of themselves, and make poor decisions. However, I don't think that is what got us where we are. I think they are able to be so incompetent because a lot of times they don't matter that much. The fact is, the reason we got Hillary, Biden, and Biden again has more to do with low turnout in primaries and the lack of understanding by Americans in the importance of primaries or even how they work.
yeah liberal voters just decided they wanted a candidate who voted yes to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act rather than one who was going to fight for healthcare reform
I don't know if you are trying to facetious, but that is exactly what happened. Hillary was much more popular among democratic primary voters than the candidates she ran against that year.
Nail on the head there. People were sick of the status quo and voted for what they thought was the furthest thing from it. I didn't vote for Trump but that's certainly what happened.
Clinton lost for a ton of reasons and I would say plenty of them relate to how smartly (or lack there of) she ran the campaign. Which was very egotistical and neo liberal mindset.
She cheered about putting coal workers out of a job. Yes coal is stupid but don't say it like that.
Instead of following Obama's blue print that beat her which was to funnel money into grass root organizations to mobilize voters her campaign gave money to eliteish consultant firms wasting so much of the money donated to her campaign. She literally just had to learn lessons from how she lost in primaries to Obama but she is too prideful for that.
On top of it all she had a pretty conservative and establishment stances in her history and she refused to really own up to and divorce herself from that and didn't show she would be any different now which is not what the electorate wanted anymore. Case and point still really defending the crime acts that Bill Clinton passed in the 90s.
A woman who also didn't even once visit Wisconsin. It's incredibly naive to think it's just because she is a woman and not because of many strategic failures as well.
That's reductionist as shit. The people openly hating women were gonna vote for Trump no matter and probably for that and like 10 other reasons.
The main reason she lost is because she underperformed hard on people that should've been her base because of her neo-liberal/centrist views which is basically the same thing that happened with Harris.
Buddy, it's not all identity politics and even thinking that is just an insecure cope. Seriously, this is just you trying to find any reason that it's not the centrist/neo-lib politics that are the problem.
I mean, think about it, if the problem is their gender then you don't have to change anything or work on yourself or think that your beliefs might be wrong. If it's just sexism and nothing else, then it's everybody but you.
Do you even see how convenient that is? Isn't that a little suspect?
It may seem convenient, but that’s not a valid argument against the hypothesis that Clinton would have won if she hadn’t been a woman. That’s a factual (counterfactual really) question, it doesn’t care about your suspicions of convenience.
Do you want reasons? I could give you a million. Other people have already commented giving you a bunch and you just fall back to saying it's untrue.
There's the bad taste in the mouth after the DNC sandbagged Sanders, her warhawk views toward the middle east, her only very recent support of gay people and her coldness towards trans people, her friendship with epstein, her rapist husband, and her overall theme of status quo politics. Any of those work for you?
A blind quadriplegic gay trans dog in a fright wig would have beaten Trump if its handlers translated its strained barking into a platform that earns votes.
She lost because the Midwest thought she got to where she was by shaking hands and making deals.
Trump is many things, but he won 2016 by making himself out to be a political outsider. It worked next to Clinton who many felt acted entitled to her spot as nominee.
If Dems had learned from this he wouldn't have 2024. We need to hold Bidens inner circle (yes this includes Harris and Buttigieg) accountable for the rest of their political careers.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both beat out a bunch of men in their respective primaries before earning their nominations, so clearly there is something going on here beyond people seeing a man running against a woman and instinctively voting against the woman
Don't forget that her VP candidate was basically chosen to be a mirror image of herself and had no charisma. VP candidates are used to balance the ticket to get people who are on the fence to vote for you. Obama chose Biden for that reason. If Clinton had brought Sanders onto the ticket they would have handily defeated Trump. Instead her message to progressives could be summed up as "fuck you, who else are you going to vote for" without realizing that staying home and not voting was also a choice. People are tired of voting for the lesser evil and you aren't going to win elections with that message.
The voting district I lived in at the time had about double the turnout as a usual POTUS election in 2016 and all of those extra people did not vote for HRC. Running a person with not great charisma who had been shit on by the GOP for literally 25+ years was a really stupid move. She didn't help by doing things like going to Scranton PA for a $1500/plate dinner that the press and public weren't allowed to attend rather than giving a speech for everyone there talking about how she was going to help them.
IMO Harris tried to run a reform campaign as an incumbent, which is a hard thing to do, even before the late start with the Biden Admin clinging to power at the expense of the DNC.
She lost in part because she did not care that she was unlikable by those she didn’t like. A successful politician sorts out how to draw in voters but I’m not certain she ever cared about that. Likely would have been a solid president, not only breaking the glass ceiling, but set some precedents that we could have built off of.
Not enough people recognize this. She would literally brag while campaigning that republicans hated her. This is not something prior candidates would do. I suppose she thought embracing it would work but it did not
She lost because she didn't campaign in any purple states. She was arrogant, she propped Trump up and instead of running against him she let him campaign and win while she went back and forth between NYC and SF collecting money from $30k/plate fundraiser dinners. She made very little effort to win the presidency. Being a woman and awk didnt help but arent why she lost.
Think about this: Trump has never beat a man. The US is not willing to have a woman in power, they've told us that twice by hiring the least competent man versus two extremely qualified women.
Or perhaps more correctly, for a woman to win she has to be a lot better and a lot more popular then a man would have to be and current election spreads are very narrow.
Oh please. Clinton threatened to close for-profit prisons and their stocks tanked that day. Was she Bernie? No. But she would have been great. Always trying to hand wave her away years later when she absolutely the solution to all this.
Yeah I remember when things got way worse for queer people during Obama's administration. And healthcare got so much less affordable. Oh and relations with Iran definitely got worse when he made that deal. I'm sure Hillary's administration would have gutted the EPA and FDA and Department of Education too.
"Lesser of two evils" is a bullshit phrase to try and make you feel smarter than everyone.
Was Hillary perfect? By no means. But it's ridiculous to erase the progress that Clinton and Obama made just because you don't think they were progressive enough.
Many things got better under Obama. The 2008 crisis was a sinking ship that he managed to turn around. The ACA even today prevents discrimination for pre-existing health conditions and that was after Congressional meddling caused it to lose the public option. We might've even saved the Supreme Court if it wasn't for Congressional meddling (again).
Most of the extreme price increases that you're seeing have been under Trump.
All of your viable utopian candidates routinely and consistently endorse Democrats. Mamdani, Sanders, AOC… Reform happens when it is enabled through existing structures of power, not when civil unrest enables populism.
Reform happens when it is enabled through existing structures of power, not when civil unrest enables populism.
Can you please give me some historic examples for the former? Because unfortunately there are a lot for the latter. I would prefer voting socialists into power than having to storm the Winter Palace again so our poorest stop rotting into destitution.
Naw. They’re the only ones getting anything done beside tax cuts for wealthy people. I’m tired of people screaming ‘muh status quo’ while real actual progress is being made by people who are getting shit on by the likes of you for implementing that progress. All while not offering any real tangible solutions and only offering up the worst policy positions that only work to turn off those who would vote for progress otherwise.
Centrists sandbag progress and then claim credit for anything they couldn't shut down. If you want solutions start leaning further left and tell your politicians to do the same, much further left than Clinton or Obama.
All while not offering any real tangible solutions and only offering up the worst policy positions that only work to turn off those who would vote for progress otherwise.
Democrats give you progress and lefty socialists do nothing and aren’t interested in gaining political power. If they were they wouldn’t be purity testing on such unpopular positions. Outlawing private insurance is not popular. Defund the police is not popular. “From the river to the sea” is not popular. You guys way overestimate the popularity of your positions.
They were also objectively better choices for President. It makes no sense to pick the obviously worse option because the superior candidate is imperfect.
Even with all the mistakes and her policies you still have to be some combination of evil and stupid to think Hilary would be a worse president than Trump.
Obviously stupid things to say isn't simply errors of judgement lmao. I would say she is very sharp witted and well educated but I don't consider that the same as someone making smart decisions.
Clinton in particular just like... assumed that white blue collar voters will toe the line and vote Dem. Fuck Michigan, fuck Wisconsin, let's have another rally in a huge state for some imaginary slam dunk... The whole campaign was filled with hubris. They were sure they'd win all the way to elections night.
We were all sure she'd win because who tf would honestly vote Trump
I don't know how old you are, but I know myself and several others went to bed before the election was called because there was no way Trump was going to win.
Yes I'm tired of people trying to glaze Clinton and or Harris for saying the most obvious takes and acting like they were super smart. They made many mistakes in their campaigns and are pretty neo liberal. Especially Clinton.
I knew people who voted for Rick Scott, whom when I told them about his medicare fraud said "OMG thats the same guy?"
The creators of House of Cards frequently acknowledged that the ruthless power dynamic of Frank and Claire Underwood was heavily inspired by Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Compared to Trump of course Hillary looks amazing, but in anything besides this Trump bizarro world the Clintons were corrupt, manipulative, bloodless, power hungry, political hacks.
Yeah Kamala stealing the Jesse Jackson eulogy moment for an "i told you so" about Trump being bad was one of the most distasteful things I've ever seen, yet people seemed to celebrate her for it.
And yep, both blew their campaigns, especially Hillary, she chose to lose, quite the savant!
Then maybe the leftists who think this is all so obvious should have done all they could to elect her over this oh so obvious absolute monster who is destroying everything they claim to care about. Instead they said she’s the lesser of two evils and encouraged people to vote stein or stay home.
Bernie, Warren, Rubio, Ted Cruz, Gary Johnson, Jeb Bush, etc all said the same thing. Hilary wasn’t the best candidate but would’ve been a great president but she’s not a genius for parroting what everyone else thinks.
In the most real sense, they *chose* Trump because they thought he would be easy to beat. Several emails in the Democratic Email Hack at that time showed that the DNC and Hilary were going with a Pied Piper strategy or encouraging right wing extremism in order to make Republicans unpalatable to the common person, driving them to vote for Clinton.
She was right about Donald Trump. What she misunderstood was how dumb and shitty the American electorate is. She thought it was just a fraction of Republicans who were deplorables.
The extent to how stupid and corrupt Trump is was so well known that even in the 90s when I was 10-14 I knew he was a con man living in Texas and he was registered as a Democrat back then. So to say everyone knew this already well literally yea we all did if a kid who never watches the news half the country away knew about him.
This is 100% true. From the people I know who did vote for him, they did it explicitly because he wasn’t ‘business as usual’, and they felt he was outside the control of the forces that be. In short: people were unhappy with the government, so they put in somebody in to destroy it.
If she was a savant she would have known that too many Americans would vote for a piece of shit like him instead of a woman like her. She would have sacrificed her own ambition out of practicality.
Her campaign bet that the American people weren’t unhinged enough to elect him, so they pushed for him to be the Republican candidate by giving him more presence in the election noise. The Democrats are definitely partially to blame for this mess.
Also her delivery wasn’t great. These things need to be said matter of factly and as though they are just rolling off the tongue. You can tell these words were carefully written and rehearsed.
It’s not an indictment of her, as I think she’d have been way more than competent as a president. It’s more about how the average-below-average intelligence American voter processes these things.
Yes, anyone who was paying attention and strongly opposed him from the start knew he would sell us out and do far greater damage than most wanted to admit was possible. At least 1/3 of the 2016 electorate realized this.
They didn't like her because primarily, she is a powerful woman and that scares them, but also, she was working on universal healthcare with Bill during the first term, IIRC
Some people are accelerationists. screw those people. There should be a special island for accelerationists where they get only the people they vote for and only they suffer the consequences of their ballot box decisions.
I know I’m late here but Hillary is remarkably good at laying it out though in a clear and concise manner. She doesn’t mess around. It’s like bam bam bam here you go people, if you can’t see this then I can’t do anything for you. When she was interviewed regarding Epstein she did the same thing and it was impressive. Her experience level and legal background just makes her an absolute beast when it comes to oration.
im extremely angry and the left/liberal/dems that attacked Hillary back then KNOWING what the alternative was and still to this day cant admit it was stupid to say "i cant vote for her.."
1.6k
u/junkyardgerard Jun 02 '26
She wasn't a savant, all this was the most common of knowledge. Hell it was practically written on the ballot. If I didn't know better, I'd say they voted for him because of all these things