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!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sinn Fein said:
So, i was thinking this morning - all this Monday morning quarterbacking about why Clinton lost - but if the Clintons are being really introspective, Hillary lost this campaign 8 years ago when she negotiated to become Obama's Secretary of State.

Its easy to look back in retrospect, and I can understand why she pushed for the SOS job - she wanted to bolster her foreign policy credentials.  But, that one move cost her the presidency - and I think it was completely unnecessary.

If you look at the three things that really really hurt the campaign throughout the cycle - Benghazi, Email Server, and Clinton Foundation - none of those would have been an issue if Clinton was not Secretary of State.

If Clinton had remained in the Senate, she would have been a 3-term Senator from New York.  That is enough time to attach her name to enough stuff to look like she did something.  She would not have Benghazi, and all the hearing associated with that.  Nobody would even know how she had her emails set up.  And, as a Senator, the Foundation would not be an issue - in fact, she could have used the Foundation to boost her foreign policy chops - by meeting with foreign officials on behalf of the Foundation.  She probably would have been part of the Democratic Leadership in the Senate, and could easily have gotten herself on some choice committees - if she wanted to boost her foreign policy credentials.

At the same time, she could still have used the Clinton brand to remain a prolific fund-raiser for herself, and to gain political favors in Washington.  When she started this campaign, she would have had everything she needed to become president - minus all most of the baggage. 
Click to expand...
Obama reached out to her to take the job. From what I recall she had to be convinced. Obama wanted a cabinet of his adversaries and was even considering Republicans for key positions back then. Had she have remained senator she would have had other baggage in the form of votes that could be used against her and who knows what else.

She lost the election because she was a lousy candidate who ran a terrible campaign. The had a huge advantage in funds and it turned out to be meaningless. She was advised to ignore certain states because based on flawed polling models they were in the bag. Her and her advisors screwed up at every turn. She could have overcome the email issues, the wall street speeches, Benghazi and everything else if she received better counsel or if she had simply come off as in any way genuine or trustworthy. She missed a layup and it had little to do with her time as SoS.

 
Loan Sharks said:
Maybe but at least this trend have been acknowledged. Up until a week ago, this trend was met with America is already great shut up. 
Click to expand...
Calling them stupid and racist didn't help either.  I suspect that won't change though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Correlation does not imply causation.
Click to expand...
Sure...did Obama cause all the things that went well in the past 8 years? Probably not, yet he's been the "greatest" president we have seen.

or, reverse that...is he the cause of all that went wrong in the past 8 years?

credit good or bad goes with being the leader of the country, debate the cause of it all you wish

 
jerry jones said:
Sure...did Obama cause all the things that went well in the past 8 years? Probably not, yet he's been the "greatest" president we have seen.

or, reverse that...is he the cause of all that went wrong in the past 8 years?

credit good or bad goes with being the leader of the country, debate the cause of it all you wish
Click to expand...
Who thinks Obama is the greatest President ever? Pretty sure that I've never seen or heard anyone say that, ever.

 
jerry jones said:
Sure...did Obama cause all the things that went well in the past 8 years? Probably not, yet he's been the "greatest" president we have seen.

or, reverse that...is he the cause of all that went wrong in the past 8 years?

credit good or bad goes with being the leader of the country, debate the cause of it all you wish
Click to expand...
Yes, except that if HIllary had won the election, the jobless claims would probably be about the same and if her supporters had pointed to that as proof of anything, it would have been laughed at.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
So, i was thinking this morning - all this Monday morning quarterbacking about why Clinton lost - but if the Clintons are being really introspective, Hillary lost this campaign 8 years ago when she negotiated to become Obama's Secretary of State.

Its easy to look back in retrospect, and I can understand why she pushed for the SOS job - she wanted to bolster her foreign policy credentials.  But, that one move cost her the presidency - and I think it was completely unnecessary.

If you look at the three things that really really hurt the campaign throughout the cycle - Benghazi, Email Server, and Clinton Foundation - none of those would have been an issue if Clinton was not Secretary of State.

If Clinton had remained in the Senate, she would have been a 3-term Senator from New York.  That is enough time to attach her name to enough stuff to look like she did something.  She would not have Benghazi, and all the hearing associated with that.  Nobody would even know how she had her emails set up.  And, as a Senator, the Foundation would not be an issue - in fact, she could have used the Foundation to boost her foreign policy chops - by meeting with foreign officials on behalf of the Foundation.  She probably would have been part of the Democratic Leadership in the Senate, and could easily have gotten herself on some choice committees - if she wanted to boost her foreign policy credentials.

At the same time, she could still have used the Clinton brand to remain a prolific fund-raiser for herself, and to gain political favors in Washington.  When she started this campaign, she would have had everything she needed to become president - minus all most of the baggage. 
Click to expand...
People didn't vote for Clinton because hey didn't like her.  Becoming Secretary Of State or anything else that happened under her watch had nothing to do with that.  It's just the rhetoric that was chosen to rationalize not voting for her.  If people were really voting on how the Foundation in the candidate's name performed, Clinton would have won all 50 states.

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
People didn't vote for Clinton because hey didn't like her.  Becoming Secretary Of State or anything else that happened under her watch had nothing to do with that.  It's just the rhetoric that was chosen to rationalize not voting for her.  If people were really voting on how the Foundation in the candidate's name performed, Clinton would have won all 50 states.
Click to expand...
A pretty big part of the reason many people don't like her has to do with her actions while SOS and with the foundation.

 
humpback said:
A pretty big part of the reason many people don't like her has to do with her actions while SOS and with the foundation.
Click to expand...
I didn't like how she was always YELLING!!!! She came across on the campaign trail as very unlikable. Since the election, her appearance(s?) seemed genuine and she's finally coming across as likable. 

 
badmojo1006 said:
Well. then tell me, what is your reality? What are you basing the dispute?

Sure hope it isn't www.fury.news
Click to expand...
No idea what you're saying, but I'll respond- the reality is that millions of people around the country aren't feeling the benefits of the headline numbers that you guys highlight as evidence that the economy is doing great. It's been addressed over and over but I guess you'd rather put your head in the sand and say she lost because of some "ism".

 
humpback said:
No idea what you're saying, but I'll respond- the reality is that millions of people around the country aren't feeling the benefits of the headline numbers that you guys highlight as evidence that the economy is doing great. It's been addressed over and over but I guess you'd rather put your head in the sand and say she lost because of some "ism".
Click to expand...
Ah, the "let's dismiss hard data in favor of how people are feeing" approach.  

 
avoiding injuries said:
I didn't like how she was always YELLING!!!! She came across on the campaign trail as very unlikable. Since the election, her appearance(s?) seemed genuine and she's finally coming across as likable. 
Click to expand...
I felt the same after the last election with Romney. I felt like he was wound tighter than a drum during the campaign, then he goes on talk shows and is perfectly likable.

 
squistion said:
That figures...

Edward M. Davis‏@TeddyDavisCNN 2h2 hours ago

Bernie hammered Clinton on $15 min wage -

but said today he is willing to work w/ Trump on going from $7.25 to $10.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-allies/index.html
Click to expand...
I guess I should be upset that, despite everything we were told, Sanders actually does try to work pragmatically to make improvements once campaigning is over and it's time to actually govern. Right?

 
humpback said:
No, it's the "let's look behind the headline and actually analyze all of the data" approach.
Click to expand...
Analyze it all you want.  From a macro perspective, the country is doing fine and on the right track economically, especially considering the recent past.  But that would mean the brown guy actually did good, so feelings! 

 
tommyGunZ said:
Analyze it all you want.  From a macro perspective, the country is doing fine and on the right track economically, especially considering the recent past.  But that would mean the brown guy actually did good, so feelings! 
Click to expand...
Yeah that's why 60,000,000 people voted for Trump in spite of all the abuse, lies and the media almost 100% working for her.

You should at least dip the tip of your little finger in the reality pool.

 
GrandpaRox said:
Yeah that's why 60,000,000 people voted for Trump in spite of all the abuse, lies and the media almost 100% working for her.

You should at least dip the tip of your little finger in the reality pool.
Click to expand...
Are the approximately 75% of the U.S. population that did not vote for Trump included in that pool?

 
Great point. Way to emphasize that whatever happened in this election has absolutely no relevance to whether particular unemployment metrics are a good gauge of the macro economic situation in the U.S. Thanks.

 
Gr00vus said:
Great point. Way to emphasize that whatever happened in this election has absolutely no relevance to whether particular unemployment metrics are a good gauge of the macro economic situation in the U.S. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Just like the inflation numbers are just statistics they want to show yhat are meaningless because of what they do not show.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
Analyze it all you want.  From a macro perspective, the country is doing fine and on the right track economically, especially considering the recent past.  But that would mean the brown guy actually did good, so feelings! 
Click to expand...
By all means, keep "analyzing" it your way- just worked out great for your team, didn't it?

 
https://newrepublic.com/article/138830/democrats-over-learning-lessons-trumps-victory

Pretty good article that goes against the current tide. The conventional wisdom among Democrats is that a big part of the reason Hillary lost is that she was too pro-globalist and free trade. This argues that she wasn't pro-globalist and free trade enough. 

Hillary never made the anti-Bernie, anti-Trump argument that free trade and globalism benefits the American worker. That argument is a very real one; I happen to believe in it. So does Hillary but she never made it. Instead she tried to pretend she was against TPP, which nobody believed and just made her seem disingenuous. 

And now Dems aligned with Bernie want to attack trade in the future, supposedly to win back some of the Trump vote. I think this is a mistake, but I don't expect too many folks here will agree with me on that. 

 
timschochet said:
https://newrepublic.com/article/138830/democrats-over-learning-lessons-trumps-victory

Pretty good article that goes against the current tide. The conventional wisdom among Democrats is that a big part of the reason Hillary lost is that she was too pro-globalist and free trade. This argues that she wasn't pro-globalist and free trade enough. 

Hillary never made the anti-Bernie, anti-Trump argument that free trade and globalism benefits the American worker. That argument is a very real one; I happen to believe in it. So does Hillary but she never made it. Instead she tried to pretend she was against TPP, which nobody believed and just made her seem disingenuous. 

And now Dems aligned with Bernie want to attack trade in the future, supposedly to win back some of the Trump vote. I think this is a mistake, but I don't expect too many folks here will agree with me on that. 
Click to expand...
Hillary didn't lose because of her positions on trade, she didn't lose because of her positions on any issue.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
Hillary didn't lose because of her positions on trade, she didn't lose because of her positions on any issue.
Click to expand...
Listening to NPR this morning ... The Republicans have tried to repeal Obama care for quite some time, without any plan to replace it. Rates increased and folks like my sister voted for Trump because of the rate hike?. (Which makes no sense bc without Obama, she would be uninsured.) ftw, I have employer provided care and my rates increase every year.

Now, setting aside past attempts to repeal and campaign promises to repeal, the GOP wants to fix it. ? What happened to less government? I mean, isn't keeping any part of Obama care and renaming it Trump care, go against Republican principles of less government spending on social issues? We've heard that health care is not a right ... So why are we keeping any part of Obama care? True Repulicans would repeal and be done.

I also heard that the GOP wants to significantly increase spending on infrastructure. Obama also wanted to improve infrastructure, but the GOP obstructed this because it wasn't enough spending. 

What gives? 

As we continue to see stories like these, it becomes more apparent that one reason Hillary lost is because of a backlash against Obama. His smugness, his race, his refusal to cater to Christians (and therefore he must be Muslim), his refusal to label terrorism Islamic Terrorists, his refusal to denounce groups like BLM, etc. The GOP obstructed a lot of his proposals, even if they agreed with them. They refused to work with the black man who refused to pacify their constituents. The GOP set the stage for this election result. And, I expect nothing less than our democratic representives to do as much as possible to make Trumps next four years as obstructed as possible, including relentless investigations of every single possible mistake. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
253K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Back
Top