What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Hillary takes responsibility for loss. Blames Russia, FBI, misogyny, media, and unprecedented interference. (1 Viewer)

IvanKaramazov said:
Honestly, no, I can't come up with any rational reason why a person would choose to be a Bills fan.
Click to expand...
I was as critical as anyone on these boards of GWB from '01 - '08. I think even conservatives now admit he was in over his head, an awful President, and his decisions led to a lot of really bad things for our country.  But I've never hated him. 

This is one area where the right is definitley > the left.  Vilification and demonization.  

 
jon_mx said:
Very little.  They already hated Hillary and some of the reasons were very legit.  No different than the impact of watching MSNBC or listening to the liberal talking heads.  The 'mouth breathers' comment was childish and dismissive of the failings of the candidate. 
Click to expand...
Your full of ####.  

Meh, anyone who listens to Alex Jones is a mouth breather.  

 
A panel on CNN was talking about the new health care plan and said that Obamacare is what cost Hillary the election and were pretty blunt about it. The huge increases and costs for the average families made them look elsewhere.

 
tommyGunZ said:
I was as critical as anyone on these boards of GWB from '01 - '08. I think even conservatives now admit he was in over his head, an awful President, and his decisions led to a lot of really bad things for our country.  But I've never hated him. 

This is one area where the right is definitley > the left.  Vilification and demonization.  
Click to expand...
:lmao:   You are kidding, right? 

 
tommyGunZ said:
I was as critical as anyone on these boards of GWB from '01 - '08. I think even conservatives now admit he was in over his head, an awful President, and his decisions led to a lot of really bad things for our country.  But I've never hated him. 

This is one area where the right is definitley > the left.  Vilification and demonization.  
Click to expand...
So you and your ilk don't hate Donald Trump, amirite?

 
tommyGunZ said:
This is why there have been so many women Presidents right?  
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure how this is responsive to the two previous posts.  timschochet stated that Hillary lost due to racism and bigotry, and that nothing she could have done would have been enough to overcome those factors.  I noted that her campaign was incompetent, yet she still barely lost.  Given the tiny margin of victory as it was, had she run a competent campaign, it would have been enough to overcome whatever factors caused her to lose (and, sure, I'll include racism and bigotry as one of those factors).

 
Rich Conway said:
I'm not really sure how this is responsive to the two previous posts.  timschochet stated that Hillary lost due to racism and bigotry, and that nothing she could have done would have been enough to overcome those factors.  I noted that her campaign was incompetent, yet she still barely lost.  Given the tiny margin of victory as it was, had she run a competent campaign, it would have been enough to overcome whatever factors caused her to lose (and, sure, I'll include racism and bigotry as one of those factors).
Click to expand...
In retrospect, obviously Hillary and her campaign would make some changes.  The campaign wasn't "incompetent".  That's silly.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
In retrospect, obviously Hillary and her campaign would make some changes.  The campaign wasn't "incompetent".  That's silly.  
Click to expand...
By all accounts, the mistakes made by Hillary's campaign went beyond the sort of thing that anybody would write off as Monday morning quarterbacking.  She didn't bother to campaign in states that she was counting on to get to 270.  Not "didn't campaign enough" -- she literally didn't visit the state of Wisconsin.  I think it's pretty fair to describe that as incompetence.  Or maybe hubris.  Regardless, it's not just some little, minor thing.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
By all accounts, the mistakes made by Hillary's campaign went beyond the sort of thing that anybody would write off as Monday morning quarterbacking.  She didn't bother to campaign in states that she was counting on to get to 270.  Not "didn't campaign enough" -- she literally didn't visit the state of Wisconsin.  I think it's pretty fair to describe that as incompetence.  Or maybe hubris.  Regardless, it's not just some little, minor thing.  
Click to expand...
Hillary's campaign included a bunch of Obama campaign veterans and all of the big data stuff they used in '08 and '12 to run what most analysts suggested were brilliant campaigns.  

And much of your post is just factually incorrect.  She did in fact campaign in states she was counting on to get to 270.  She won a lot of those states.  She lost others, like PA, where she campaigned and allocated lots of resources.

The reason she didn't campaign in Wisconsin is obvious - internal polling suggested she didn't need to campaign there.  In retrospect, that was obviously a mistake, and I'm sure Hillary and her campaign strategists would be the first to admit it.

But this "incompent" stuff is just plain lazy.  You're better than this IK.  Hillary and her staff are lots of things, but incompetent is not one of them.   

 
IvanKaramazov said:
By all accounts, the mistakes made by Hillary's campaign went beyond the sort of thing that anybody would write off as Monday morning quarterbacking.  She didn't bother to campaign in states that she was counting on to get to 270.  Not "didn't campaign enough" -- she literally didn't visit the state of Wisconsin.  I think it's pretty fair to describe that as incompetence.  Or maybe hubris.  Regardless, it's not just some little, minor thing.  
Click to expand...
To be fair lots of folks don't know where Wisconsin is.  Let me help.  Its the state shaped sort of like a mitten.

True Story.  Freshman year, meeting roommate for the first time.  In Rochester N.Y.  I'm from Wisconsin he is from Long Island.   He asks where I am from, I tell him Wisconsin, I don't say Chenequa Wisconsin because no one has heard of Chenequa (this is before Chenequa became a popular female name in the black Community).  This room mate, a National Merit Scholar, comments, "Oh yeah, that's in Minneapolis".  He literally thought Wisconsin was a city in the state of Minneapolis. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
Hillary's campaign included a bunch of Obama campaign veterans and all of the big data stuff they used in '08 and '12 to run what most analysts suggested were brilliant campaigns.  
And much of your post is just factually incorrect.  She did in fact campaign in states she was counting on to get to 270.  She won a lot of those states.  She lost others, like PA, where she campaigned and allocated lots of resources.

The reason she didn't campaign in Wisconsin is obvious - internal polling suggested she didn't need to campaign there.  In retrospect, that was obviously a mistake, and I'm sure Hillary and her campaign strategists would be the first to admit it.

But this "incompent" stuff is just plain lazy.  You're better than this IK.  Hillary and her staff are lots of things, but incompetent is not one of them.   
Click to expand...
This post is amazing.

Every time you post I always get the impression you belong to some cult.  You certainly have the right mind-set for it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth said:
I tend to think it was 4 years of talk radio bashing her.  The Dems showed their cards way too soon, and guys like Rush and Alex Jones had plenty of time to tell their mouth breathers to hate her.  

Kasich would have beaten her much worse.  
Click to expand...
I disagree about Kasich.  He was pretty far out there... I don't think he would have held up so well to scrutiny

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/07/john-kasich-bags-on-harry-potter-ohio-guv-thinks-its-weird-that-daniel-radcliffe-is-an-atheist/

 
tommyGunZ said:
Hillary's campaign included a bunch of Obama campaign veterans and all of the big data stuff they used in '08 and '12 to run what most analysts suggested were brilliant campaigns.  

And much of your post is just factually incorrect.  She did in fact campaign in states she was counting on to get to 270.  She won a lot of those states.  She lost others, like PA, where she campaigned and allocated lots of resources.

The reason she didn't campaign in Wisconsin is obvious - internal polling suggested she didn't need to campaign there.  In retrospect, that was obviously a mistake, and I'm sure Hillary and her campaign strategists would be the first to admit it.

But this "incompent" stuff is just plain lazy.  You're better than this IK.  Hillary and her staff are lots of things, but incompetent is not one of them.   
Click to expand...
not visiting a swing-state gets conveniently lumped into the nebulous  "Mistakes Were Made" subsection of why she lost. maybe she'll address this point specifically in her book, though i doubt it. 

 
MaxThreshold said:
This post is amazing.

Every time you post I always get the impression you belong to some cult.  You certainly have the right mind-set for it.
Click to expand...
She is bulletproof.  Someone may have been incompetent, but not her, or anyone her staff.  THE NUMBERS WERE INCOMPETENT, NOT THE POLLS OR THE PEOPLE DOING THE POLLS!!!!!

 
Quint said:
not visiting a swing-state gets conveniently lumped into the nebulous  "Mistakes Were Made" subsection of why she lost. maybe she'll address this point specifically in her book, though i doubt it. 
Click to expand...
Hillary campaigned in several swing states that she eventually lost.  Those ridiculing her for not visiting seem to be suggesting that had she visited Wisconsin she would have won.  I dont think thats clear.

 
MarvinTScamper said:
She is bulletproof.  Someone may have been incompetent, but not her, or anyone her staff.  THE NUMBERS WERE INCOMPETENT, NOT THE POLLS OR THE PEOPLE DOING THE POLLS!!!!!
Click to expand...
How about the voters?  You know, the ones who actually voted for DJT?  I think the fault for electing Trump lies with them. :shrug:

 
tommyGunZ said:
Hillary's campaign included a bunch of Obama campaign veterans and all of the big data stuff they used in '08 and '12 to run what most analysts suggested were brilliant campaigns.  

And much of your post is just factually incorrect.  She did in fact campaign in states she was counting on to get to 270.  She won a lot of those states.  She lost others, like PA, where she campaigned and allocated lots of resources.

The reason she didn't campaign in Wisconsin is obvious - internal polling suggested she didn't need to campaign there.  In retrospect, that was obviously a mistake, and I'm sure Hillary and her campaign strategists would be the first to admit it.

But this "incompent" stuff is just plain lazy.  You're better than this IK.  Hillary and her staff are lots of things, but incompetent is not one of them.   
Click to expand...
Yeah, on second thought, you're right.  She and her staff ran a brilliant campaign.  There's not a thing I would have done differently.

 
tommyGunZ said:
How about the voters?  You know, the ones who actually voted for DJT?  I think the fault for electing Trump lies with them. :shrug:
Click to expand...
now that's a hot take.

Let me make sure I have this correct...the people who wanted DJT for their President, and thusly elected him so, are responsible for his election?

 
tommyGunZ said:
How about the voters?  You know, the ones who actually voted for DJT?  I think the fault for electing Trump lies with them. :shrug:
Click to expand...
The general public is a bunch of morons; it's not like this is new.  It was Clinton's job to run a better campaign, and she didn't.  She ran a bad campaign.  They had repeated messaging problems.  She never tried to get out in front of the e-mail issue, instead preferring to hope it would go away on its own.  She refused to campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin, despite repeated, desperate pleas from the field offices there.  Podesta managed to get himself phished, something even my computer illiterate parents know how to avoid.

 
Honestly, tGunZ, you're smart enough to know she ran a poor campaign.  You're also smart enough to realize that she's not a good campaigner.  I'm not sure why you're tripping over yourself to deny it.

 
Rich Conway said:
Yeah, on second thought, you're right.  She and her staff ran a brilliant campaign.  There's not a thing I would have done differently.
Click to expand...
See, you're getting out over your skis again.  No one is saying she ran a "brilliant" campaign.  No one is saying there aren't things that she would do differently in hindsight.  Of course she would make different decisions.  

The question is if the campaign was "incompetent" for making the decisions that they made at the time.  I disagree with those who suggest not winning = incompetence. 

 
tommyGunZ said:
See, you're getting out over your skis again.  No one is saying she ran a "brilliant" campaign.  No one is saying there aren't things that she would do differently in hindsight.  Of course she would make different decisions.  

The question is if the campaign was "incompetent" for making the decisions that they made at the time.  I disagree with those who suggest not winning = incompetence. 
Click to expand...
I prefer to use what Comey called her.... "careless". Not visiting Wisconsin at all is pretty careless. 

 
Politician Spock said:
I prefer to use what Comey called her.... "careless". Not visiting Wisconsin at all is pretty careless. 
Click to expand...
If it's later revealed that her campaign was pleading with her for months to visit Wisconsin and she refused, I'll agree with you.

Of course that's unlikely. More likely is that internal polling suggested that she didn't need to visit and deploy vast resources there, and she followed the data and consensus from her team.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
If it's later revealed that her campaign was pleading with her for months to visit Wisconsin and she refused, I'll agree with you.

Of course that's unlikely. More likely is that internal polling suggested that she didn't need to visit and deploy vast resources there, and she followed the data and consensus from her team.  
Click to expand...
That's incompetent on her campaign's part then. It's her campaign, ultimately she's responsible for that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump was viewed negatively by 63% of the voters in Wisconsin.....but yet he won.  Obviously Hillary did something right to pull off that stunt.    

 
tommyGunZ said:
If it's later revealed that her campaign was pleading with her for months to visit Wisconsin and she refused, I'll agree with you.

Of course that's unlikely. More likely is that internal polling suggested that she didn't need to visit and deploy vast resources there, and she followed the data and consensus from her team.  
Click to expand...
WTF? If she CARED about winning Wisconsin, she would have campaigned in Wisconsin. She thought Wisconsin was in the bag, so she didn't care. Just because her campaign felt the same doesn't mean she isn't careless. It means they're both careless. She's a careless person who hired a careless campaign staff. Birds of a feather. 

 
jon_mx said:
Trump was viewed negatively by 63% of the voters in Wisconsin.....but yet he won.  Obviously Hillary did something right to pull off that stunt.    
Click to expand...
Voter suppression had a lot to do with it:

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/

The GOP’s Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story of 2016

[...]

We’ll likely never know how many people were kept from the polls by restrictions like voter-ID laws, cuts to early voting, and barriers to voter registration. But at the very least this should have been a question that many more people were looking into. For example, 27,000 votes currently separate Trump and Clinton in Wisconsin, where 300,000 registered voters, according to a federal court, lacked strict forms of voter ID. Voter turnout in Wisconsin was at its lowest levels in 20 years and decreased 13 percent in Milwaukee, where 70 percent of the state’s African-American population lives, according to Daniel Nichanian of the University of Chicago.

I documented stories of voters in Wisconsin—including a 99-year-old man—who made two trips to the polls and one to the DMV on Election Day just to be able to vote, while others decided not to vote at all because they were denied IDs. When Margie Mueller, an 85-year-old woman from Plymouth, Wisconsin, wasn’t allowed to vote with her expired driver’s license, her husband, Alvin, decided not to vote either. They were both Democrats. “The damn Republicans,” he said, “don’t want Latinos and old people to vote.”  

Andrew Voegele, a schoolteacher, recently moved from Minnesota to Wisconsin and was forced to cast a provisional ballot yesterday that will not be counted unless he surrenders his Minnesota license and spends $34 for a Wisconsin driver’s license by Friday. The ACLU filed a court order last night to have his vote count. Over 200 people in Wisconsin petitioned the DMV on Election Day to get a voter ID.

How many people were turned away from the polls? How many others didn’t bother to show up in the first place? These are questions we need to take far more seriously. In 2014, a study by Rice University and the University of Houston of Texas’s 23rd Congressional District found that 12.8 percent of registered voters who didn’t vote in the election cited lack of required photo ID as a reason they didn’t cast a ballot, even though only 2.7 percent of registered voters actually lacked an acceptable ID. Texas’s strict voter-ID law blocked some voters from the polls while having an ever larger deterrent effect on others. Eighty percent of these voters were Latino and strongly preferred Democratic candidates.   [...]

 
squistion said:
Voter suppression had a lot to do with it:

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/

The GOP’s Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story of 2016

[...]

We’ll likely never know how many people were kept from the polls by restrictions like voter-ID laws, cuts to early voting, and barriers to voter registration. But at the very least this should have been a question that many more people were looking into. For example, 27,000 votes currently separate Trump and Clinton in Wisconsin, where 300,000 registered voters, according to a federal court, lacked strict forms of voter ID. Voter turnout in Wisconsin was at its lowest levels in 20 years and decreased 13 percent in Milwaukee, where 70 percent of the state’s African-American population lives, according to Daniel Nichanian of the University of Chicago.

I documented stories of voters in Wisconsin—including a 99-year-old man—who made two trips to the polls and one to the DMV on Election Day just to be able to vote, while others decided not to vote at all because they were denied IDs. When Margie Mueller, an 85-year-old woman from Plymouth, Wisconsin, wasn’t allowed to vote with her expired driver’s license, her husband, Alvin, decided not to vote either. They were both Democrats. “The damn Republicans,” he said, “don’t want Latinos and old people to vote.”  

Andrew Voegele, a schoolteacher, recently moved from Minnesota to Wisconsin and was forced to cast a provisional ballot yesterday that will not be counted unless he surrenders his Minnesota license and spends $34 for a Wisconsin driver’s license by Friday. The ACLU filed a court order last night to have his vote count. Over 200 people in Wisconsin petitioned the DMV on Election Day to get a voter ID.

How many people were turned away from the polls? How many others didn’t bother to show up in the first place? These are questions we need to take far more seriously. In 2014, a study by Rice University and the University of Houston of Texas’s 23rd Congressional District found that 12.8 percent of registered voters who didn’t vote in the election cited lack of required photo ID as a reason they didn’t cast a ballot, even though only 2.7 percent of registered voters actually lacked an acceptable ID. Texas’s strict voter-ID law blocked some voters from the polls while having an ever larger deterrent effect on others. Eighty percent of these voters were Latino and strongly preferred Democratic candidates.   [...]
Click to expand...
Hahahahahahahaahahahahaha

They should let anyone vote...regardless of where they live, or whether they want to follow the voting laws.  Multiple times.  Or just go to landowners only.  I'm fine with both.

 
squistion said:
Voter suppression had a lot to do with it:

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/

The GOP’s Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story of 2016

[...]

We’ll likely never know how many people were kept from the polls by restrictions like voter-ID laws, cuts to early voting, and barriers to voter registration. But at the very least this should have been a question that many more people were looking into. For example, 27,000 votes currently separate Trump and Clinton in Wisconsin, where 300,000 registered voters, according to a federal court, lacked strict forms of voter ID. Voter turnout in Wisconsin was at its lowest levels in 20 years and decreased 13 percent in Milwaukee, where 70 percent of the state’s African-American population lives, according to Daniel Nichanian of the University of Chicago.

I documented stories of voters in Wisconsin—including a 99-year-old man—who made two trips to the polls and one to the DMV on Election Day just to be able to vote, while others decided not to vote at all because they were denied IDs. When Margie Mueller, an 85-year-old woman from Plymouth, Wisconsin, wasn’t allowed to vote with her expired driver’s license, her husband, Alvin, decided not to vote either. They were both Democrats. “The damn Republicans,” he said, “don’t want Latinos and old people to vote.”  

Andrew Voegele, a schoolteacher, recently moved from Minnesota to Wisconsin and was forced to cast a provisional ballot yesterday that will not be counted unless he surrenders his Minnesota license and spends $34 for a Wisconsin driver’s license by Friday. The ACLU filed a court order last night to have his vote count. Over 200 people in Wisconsin petitioned the DMV on Election Day to get a voter ID.

How many people were turned away from the polls? How many others didn’t bother to show up in the first place? These are questions we need to take far more seriously. In 2014, a study by Rice University and the University of Houston of Texas’s 23rd Congressional District found that 12.8 percent of registered voters who didn’t vote in the election cited lack of required photo ID as a reason they didn’t cast a ballot, even though only 2.7 percent of registered voters actually lacked an acceptable ID. Texas’s strict voter-ID law blocked some voters from the polls while having an ever larger deterrent effect on others. Eighty percent of these voters were Latino and strongly preferred Democratic candidates.   [...]
Click to expand...
So illegals without an ID wanted to vote and weren't able to, right?

 
squistion said:
When Margie Mueller, an 85-year-old woman from Plymouth, Wisconsin, wasn’t allowed to vote with her expired driver’s license, her husband, Alvin, decided not to vote either. They were both Democrats. “The damn Republicans,” he said, “don’t want Latinos and old people to vote.”  
Click to expand...
The old dude just flat decided not to vote and then blamed the Republicans not wanting him to vote. :lmao:

 
This voter suppression argument/excuse seems like a good one.  But in the case of Wisconsin the law was passed in 2011 and it was made really simple to get an ID.  If this law really was the cause of voter suppression, why did it not impact Obama in 2012?   An interesting excuse, but severely flawed.  The biggest difference between 2012 and 2016 was the candidate. 

 
tommyGunZ said:
Hillary's campaign included a bunch of Obama campaign veterans and all of the big data stuff they used in '08 and '12 to run what most analysts suggested were brilliant campaigns.  

And much of your post is just factually incorrect.  She did in fact campaign in states she was counting on to get to 270.  She won a lot of those states.  She lost others, like PA, where she campaigned and allocated lots of resources.

The reason she didn't campaign in Wisconsin is obvious - internal polling suggested she didn't need to campaign there.  In retrospect, that was obviously a mistake, and I'm sure Hillary and her campaign strategists would be the first to admit it.

But this "incompent" stuff is just plain lazy.  You're better than this IK.  Hillary and her staff are lots of things, but incompetent is not one of them.   
Click to expand...
This is the definition of incompetent.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MarvinTScamper
Hillary Clinton blames Comey, WikiLeaks and 'misogyny' for 2016 loss
2 3 4
Replies
151
Views
4K
Juxtatarot
Juxtatarot
cstu
Donald Trump Needs $10M to Debate Bernie - Where Do I Donate?
Replies
33
Views
1K
EYLive
EYLive
cstu
How Donald Trump Exploited the Media's Greed to Win the Nomination
Replies
17
Views
1K
The General
The General

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top