Is Hilary Clinton the weakest candidate of all time?

[Rational Poster]

First she shs lost to a junior senator who did nothing in congress...oh and he happened to be the first black guy too.

Next she managed to lose to the biggest moron to ever run for president. Dude was literally a bad reality show host.

But Hiliary still managed to be worse canadates than these two.

I honestly think she is the worse major candidate to run

Her favor polling numbers suggest otherwise.

She also got more votes than Obama, Bernie, and Trump in her campaigns, so her vote tally suggests otherwise too.

Love her or hate her, she's one of the most well known politicians currently alive.

What you're doing is right wing propaganda, demonizing your political opponent for the sake of it.

 

[Rational Poster]

I didn't vote for Trump or Hilary. Personally i would have voted for Bernie and think he would have won the presidency

The only reason people "think" Bernie would win is because they have this fantasy that if Bernie won the primary the rest of history would repeat itself exactly.

The only reason they "think" this is because they're making all these assumptions without right wing propaganda going after Bernie. They intentionally left him alone to give Hillary a hard time.

If he won the primary, or even just showed signs he might win the primary, he would have been brutalized with attack ads just like Hillary, or even worse. He self packages his attack ads by being a self identified socialist.

 

[MeatheadMike]

The race was very close, so its hard to make an argument for her as worst candidate in history.


If you go by a realistic measure, such as margin of victory, probably Mondale 1984 would be among the worst. He only was able to win one state (his home state) and DC:

 

[ultramanhyata]

Yes she was the worst candidate in presidential history. A lazy, entitled, unlikeable twat that can't even accept her flaws and so will never learn r improve.

 

[HereticBD]

Love her or hate her, she's one of the most well known politicians currently alive.

Well known for riding her husband's coattails, and being the worst Presidential candidate in history. A two time loser, who lost to an inexperienced politician, and a no-experience politician, who had far more obstacles in their way than Hillary Clinton.

Worst. Candidate. Ever.

 

[Dr J]

Worse than Mondale? Mondale had California and New York go red when he ran against Reagan.

True, but California going red wasn't as big of a shock as it is now. Nixon carried it twice, and NY at least once. Not to mention Reagan was a Cali governor.

Reagan mopped the floor with Mondale and Carter as did Nixon with McGovern, but Hillary lost to Donald freaking Trump.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The race was very close, so its hard to make an argument for her as worst candidate in history.


If you go by a realistic measure, such as margin of victory, probably Mondale 1984 would be among the worst. He only was able to win one state (his home state) and DC:

I think this is overly simplistic, too. A lot of what affects outcomes is beyond a candidate's control, and most people vote for a party rather than a candidate.

 

[Slippery Kantus]

I think this is overly simplistic, too. A lot of what affects outcomes is beyond a candidate's control, and most people vote for a party rather than a candidate.

Remember everyone, Jack is never wrong.

 

[ultramanhyata]

The only reason people "think" Bernie would win is because they have this fantasy that if Bernie won the primary the rest of history would repeat itself exactly.

The only reason they "think" this is because they're making all these assumptions without right wing propaganda going after Bernie. They intentionally left him alone to give Hillary a hard time.

If he won the primary, or even just showed signs he might win the primary, he would have been brutalized with attack ads just like Hillary, or even worse. He self packages his attack ads by being a self identified socialist.

The most accurate way to hypothesize about who might have won given a hypothetical head-to-head match up is to actually ask the voters.

And the most accurate way to ask the voters, barring an actual election, is through polling.

Multiple polls show your conjecture about Bernie's inability to beat Trump weak at best.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I think this is overly simplistic, too. A lot of what affects outcomes is beyond a candidate's control, and most people vote for a party rather than a candidate.

What do you consider to be Hillary's top three weaknesses as a candidate?

What do you consider to be her campaign's top three strategic errors?

 

[Dr J]

The race was very close, so its hard to make an argument for her as worst candidate in history.


If you go by a realistic measure, such as margin of victory, probably Mondale 1984 would be among the worst. He only was able to win one state (his home state) and DC:

Yeah, it all depends on how you look at it. From an Electoral College point of view, she's not close to being the worst. In terms of who she lost to, though--well there's a strong case for it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What do you consider to be Hillary's top three weaknesses as a candidate?

What do you consider to be her campaign's top three strategic errors?

Sex, party (asset in 2008, neutral in 2012, liability in 2016), longstanding bad relationship with the media/media relations skills. Having been around a long time as a national figure also really hurt, given the ideological shift over time in her coalition, and the changing facts on the ground.

Based on studies I've read, I have almost no confidence in any layperson's ability to comment on campaign strategy intelligently, and minimal confidence in experts' ability to do so beyond the basics. I'm a layperson myself so you'll see me criticize ideas put forth by others on this, but you won't see me put forth any of my own.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Sex, party (asset in 2008, neutral in 2012, liability in 2016), longstanding bad relationship with the media/media relations skills. Having been around a long time as a national figure also really hurt, given the ideological shift over time in her coalition, and the changing facts on the ground.

Is it fair to say you believe it was the media and the electorate's perception of who Hillary was that was the real problem? As opposed to who Hillary actually was?

 

[peytonlucy]

First she shs lost to a junior senator who did nothing in congress...oh and he happened to be the first black guy too.

Next she managed to lose to the biggest moron to ever run for president. Dude was literally a bad reality show host.

But Hiliary still managed to be worse canadates than these two.

I honestly think she is the worse major candidate to run

In my lifetime, probably George McGovern was the weakest.

 

[Swing]

He didn't win the popular vote. He won the electoral vote.

Something has to be said that that he got elected on the stupid idea that someone with no political or policy experience would know how to run the government better than people who have dedicated their lives to public service, very weak logic from a fairly large voting pool. Probably, the most illogical election in the last 100 years. I don't know if you can call him a strong candidate if the idea behind electing him was so weak.

My post was about Clinton, not Trump.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Is it fair to say you believe it was the media and the electorate's perception of who Hillary was that was the real problem? As opposed to who Hillary actually was?

Could be. The issue was raised by Politico way back in 2014 (obviously, her bad relationship with the media goes back even further).

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/hillary-clinton-media-105901_full.html#.WeOGp2hSzIU

Lots of the seeds of the issue were visible there (and I think that it's a problem on both ends--unfair coverage and poor attempts to manage it):

When asked why Clinton hasn’t done more to reach out to reporters over the years, one Clinton campaign veteran began to spin several theories. She was too busy, she was too prone to speaking her mind and the like—then abruptly cut to the chase:

“Look, she hates you. Period. That’s never going to change.”

For much of her career, she has remained publicly unwilling (and, former advisers say, at times even privately incapable) of differentiating between malicious, coordinated political attacks and the legitimate scouring of her record undertaken by responsible reporters. In 1996, she laid down this marker in a letter to her best friend, Diane Blair, according to recently released papers. “I’m not stupid; I know I should do more to suck up to the press, I know it confuses people when I change my hairdos,” Blair quoted Clinton as saying, after Blair suggested she “fake” a “friendly” attitude toward the media. “I know I should pretend not to have any opinions—but I’m just not going to. I’m used to winning and I intend to win on my own terms.”

Lots more good stuff in there. Actually co-written by Maggie Haberman, of all people.

 

[godking]

First she shs lost to a junior senator who did nothing in congress...oh and he happened to be the first black guy too.

Next she managed to lose to the biggest moron to ever run for president. Dude was literally a bad reality show host.

But Hiliary still managed to be worse canadates than these two.

I honestly think she is the worse major candidate to run

She failed twice having damn near every advantage going in and she still lost.

worst candidate ever.

 

[Prefect]

The race was very close, so its hard to make an argument for her as worst candidate in history.


If you go by a realistic measure, such as margin of victory, probably Mondale 1984 would be among the worst. He only was able to win one state (his home state) and DC:

Not that Mondale was a bad candidate but I think that it might be misleading as to how bad a candidate is if you are just using the electoral results. Each state is all or nothing. A better measure would be what would be the minimum number of extra votes you would need to win the election.

If you believe this link, (http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-e...isconsin-and-michigan-updated/article/2005323), Hillary was only 77,744 votes away from winning the election. 77,744/ (129,000,000 total voters) = 0.6%. That is a trivial number of votes in the grand scheme of things and I would not doubt 60 people out of 1000 where swung by the Hillary's emails even the republicians had their own servers and 22 million Bush emails just disappeared.

Nothing about this election was a blow out. In my opinion, the next election in 2020 is going to be an automatic loss for republicians. Too many democrats have been annoyed and pissed off that they will probably win just by finally just showing up to vote. The demographics are changing and things are already on a razors edge.

 

[kpt018]

By winning Trump is better than Hilary

Not true. After his term it will be nearly guaranteed that he was a worse president than she would have been.

In other words, the voters made a mistake/got conned. Lying can get you elected but it doesn’t make you the better candidate.

 

[Slippery Kantus]

Not true. After his term it will be nearly guaranteed that he was a worse president than she would have been.

In other words, the voters made a mistake/got conned. Lying can get you elected but it doesn’t make you the better candidate.