Is Hilary Clinton the weakest candidate of all time?

Prefect said:
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.
Click to expand...

The incumbent has the advantage. I think people thought that there was no way W would win again, but it happened. Plus, it might be Pence running as an incumbent. Not saying that 2020 is an automatic win for Republicans, or even that it's better than even, but it's close to even.
 
Jack V Savage said:
The incumbent has the advantage. I think people thought that there was no way W would win again, but it happened. Plus, it might be Pence running as an incumbent. Not saying that 2020 is an automatic win for Republicans, or even that it's better than even, but it's close to even.
Click to expand...

Well, Clinton left with a great economy and still Gore couldn't finish it against Bush. I think Trump's problems are more personal in nature with a lot of voters than Clinton's issues with being a dog. People beat up on Clinton's personal life but aside from Hillarycare, I don't think most voters had much policywise to hang their hat that they disagreed with strongly. I still occasionally hear from older coworkers how their stocks did during the Clinton years. In my opinion though, you insult someone personally, they likely will remember that for a long time and never come around. No matter how good the economy did or how many problems you fixed.
 
Prefect said:
Well, Clinton left with a great economy and still Gore couldn't finish it against Bush.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it hurts a party to be 22ed out. Fatigue or something. Plus, the short term change in the economy is a bigger factor than the absolute state.

Prefect said:
I think Trump's problems are more personal in nature with a lot of voters than Clinton's issues with being a dog. People beat up on Clinton's personal life but aside from Hillarycare, I don't think most voters had much policywise to hang their hat that they disagreed with strongly. I still occasionally hear from older coworkers how their stocks did during the Clinton years. In my opinion though, you insult someone personally, they likely will remember that for a long time and never come around. No matter how good the economy did or how many problems you fixed.
Click to expand...

We'll see. I think Trump is catastrophically unfit and incapable, and I hope you're right, but I see it as a tossup at this point.
 
Slippery Kantus said:
She lost the game of electoral points because nobody trusted her, not because she couldn't connect with them.
Click to expand...

No, she lost because the electoral college is only updated once every decade, the states she won are technically worth more and states Trump won are
HereticBD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you even have candidates in Canada or does the Queen pick your leader?
 
Slippery Kantus said:
Sometimes it is the perfect response to an idiotic post.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t idiotic at all. Trump winning says a lot about society, the gop, tribalism, etc but not that he’s automatically better than Hillary.

But of course that requires some observation and thought, so natuarally it went over your head.
 
Politically, no she wasn't the worst, by far.
But it's baffling that people still don't want to see that she was indeed a weak candidate.
She simply has no charisma and can't connect to people, she's not a motivator, she's not the person anybody is enthusiastic about, almost independent from one's political views. And of course that was part of the reason why she lost, Democratic turnout was a bit lower than expected despite Trump being as unpopular as he is and she lost 1/4 of Obama’s white working class supporters who got behind a somewhat similar platform 'only' 4 years ago.
That's not unrelated to her character and how people see her.
 
kpt018 said:
It wasn’t idiotic at all. Trump winning says a lot about society, the gop, tribalism, etc but not that he’s automatically better than Hillary.

But of course that requires some observation and thought, so natuarally it went over your head.
Click to expand...

Says more about how terrible Hillary was, you projecting your views onto America is idiotic and I don't expect you to comprehend that.
 
headkicktoleg said:
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
Click to expand...
No doubt, Hillary is the worst candidate ever. If you can't beat Trump.............
 
Slippery Kantus said:
Says more about how terrible Hillary was, you projecting your views onto America is idiotic and I don't expect you to comprehend that.
Click to expand...
What? I’m observing not projecting. And you don’t even know what my views are because instead of dialogue you post a dumb meme. Waste of time.
 
Beastman09 said:
Dude, she got 65 million votes, what are you talking about?
Click to expand...

It wasn't a contest to see who could get the most votes. A few cities voting overwhelmingly for her does not change the fact she lost to Donald fucking Trump by 70 points.
 
Jack V Savage said:
To hacks here, the most recent candidate from the other party is the Worst Ever.
Click to expand...

I think you can make a very credible argument that Clinton was the worst candidate of either major party in the modern era. She had to field an impromptu primary challenge from a 74 year old independent with no party support and a nonexistent national base, and then she lost to very definitively the biggest moron in the history of American presidential politics.

Pwent said:
if she was smarter and had a better platform then she wouldve won
Click to expand...

Her intelligence and "platform" had little to do with her loss.

Clinton is objectively a brilliant political mind. She just sucks as a person and has shit for charisma.
 
She was a horrific candidate but far from the worst..

Michelle Bachmann
Rick Perry
Jeb bush
Dennis Kucinich
Jesse Jackson
Pat Robertson

Were all worse..
 
Trotsky said:
I think you can make a very credible argument that Clinton was the worst candidate of either major party in the modern era. She had to field an impromptu primary challenge from a 74 year old independent with no party support and a nonexistent national base, and then she lost to very definitively the biggest moron in the history of American presidential politics.
Click to expand...

If you define the "modern era" as beginning in 2016, maybe. Republicans vote for the Republican candidate. The fact that Trump is grossly unqualified and obviously incapable doesn't do nearly as much to make him beatable as you might think. The most obvious counter point to your claim is the fact that she ran ahead of down-ballot Republicans. And, of course, it seems odd to say that someone who lost such a close race with all the odds stacked against her (Russian interference, FBI, media, the fact that a generic Republican had an edge in the race, electoral college working against her, etc.) is a worse candidate than the many candidates who have lost by much bigger margins, ran behind down-ballot members of their party, etc.
 
Trotsky said:
I think you can make a very credible argument that Clinton was the worst candidate of either major party in the modern era. She had to field an impromptu primary challenge from a 74 year old independent with no party support and a nonexistent national base, and then she lost to very definitively the biggest moron in the history of American presidential politics.
Click to expand...

I tried to explain this to @Jack V Savage but he just doesn't listen.
 
Jack V Savage said:
If you define the "modern era" as beginning in 2016, maybe. Republicans vote for the Republican candidate. The fact that Trump is grossly unqualified and obviously incapable doesn't do nearly as much to make him beatable as you might think. The most obvious counter point to your claim is the fact that she ran ahead of down-ballot Republicans. And, of course, it seems odd to say that someone who lost such a close race with all the odds stacked against her (Russian interference, FBI, media, the fact that a generic Republican had an edge in the race, electoral college working against her, etc.) is a worse candidate than the many candidates who have lost by much bigger margins, ran behind down-ballot members of their party, etc.
Click to expand...
She couldn't have lost the race without millions of rustbelt Obama voters deciding to vote for Trump. The fact that she neglected the rustbelt (0 visits to Wisconsin, only a late push in Michigan) is part of the reason she is classified as a poor candidate.

In order to win consistently, the Democrats need young, idealistic people to vote. As these people get older, they become wiser and more conservative. Failing to do more to appease the Crazy Bernie crowd, which consists largely of young people, was a big political failure. Clinton only won the under 30s in Wisconsin by 4%, while Obama won that group by 23% in 2012.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,980
Messages
55,459,122
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top