Your top reasons Hillary lost.

Shes unelectable period
Take any of a hundred flaws with donald and his campaign and any popular candidate clwould have walked to the whitehouse on a stupidly high margin of victory....robo hilary was just too fake and plastic to ever win what is partly now a popularity contest
 
HereticBD said:
Decades of pent up hate towards her.

Smug, phony persona.

Liberal media refusing to be honest about her(among other Liberal agendas).

Woman.

Unimaginably lazy campaign.

No clear message, other than "vote for me because I have a vagina".

Creepy Tim Kaine.

Very recent mass murderer's father in crowd at campaign rally.

People sick of Liberal bullshit(Transgender bathrooms/Downplaying Islamic terrorism/Open racism towards whites)

Exposing of DNC.

Liberal media trying to downplay/cover up DNC exposure.

Sandbagging Bernie Sanders/Making fun of Bernie supporters.

Fainting after months of calling reports on her failing health a "right wing conspiracy theory".

"Basket of deplorables"




LOL. I'm just joking guys. It was clearly all Russia's fault.
Click to expand...

I think this post touches on most of the reasons people disliked her.

Hilary had all these character flaws, but I thought she made her opponent look completely ignorant and uninformed at each debate. She was clearly better prepared for the job.

So it really just came down to people seeing a guy who made them feel empowered, in Donald Trump. He told them they were important and that he had their back against the establishment. He ran on emotion, and Americans are emotional people I guess. But if we're being honest, at no point did he ever seem prepared to actually accomplish the things he preached.

Donald Trump was more of a symbol than a candidate in a lot of ways. Oddly, a lot of people now admit they never really thought he'd accomplish much. But symbols are powerful in the short term.
 
Susan Sarandon's refusal to endorse. That was the death blow.
 
whougonnacall said:
Shes unelectable period
Take any of a hundred flaws with donald and his campaign and any popular candidate clwould have walked to the whitehouse on a stupidly high margin of victory....robo hilary was just too fake and plastic to ever win what is partly now a popularity contest
Click to expand...

This, she simply doesn't have what it takes to be president.
She would have been nowhere near the presidency if it weren't for her last name.
Besides her many many faults personal and professional she can't give a good speech if her life depended on it.
It's not presidential material. You need to be able to hold a speech and read a room to connect with your audience. But she had nothing in that regards worse than Jeb.
Trump was actually very good at that in his own way.
 
America was not ready for a strong woman in office.

donald-trump-troll-face-dan-nott.jpg
 
She is evil and corrupt, yet uncharismatic.
 
Cuauhtemoc said:
1-Bad campaign advisors. If Donna Brazile said was true she believed too much on statistics geeks instead of going out and doing field research.
Click to expand...

Stats geeks are the way to go. Don't know if they were right or not in this specific case or even if anyone really knows what their conclusions were, but in general politics analysis is like pre-Bill James baseball analysis. Obama had a top-notch operation there, and it appears that Clinton used kind of a mix of old-school bullshit (people like Brazile, for example) and a more-scientific approach. The reaction to her loss is a lot like the reaction to the A's losing in the ALDS. Defenders of bullshit are trying to use a fluke event to try to discredit science.

In general, any serious analysis of the question has to take into account that she likely wins by six points absent the Comey letter, that she outperformed downballot Democrats, that she was extremely popular when the campaign began, that fundamentals favored Republicans (that is, a generic Republican would have beaten a generic Democrat in 2016), and that the media was ridiculously biased against her. The analyses I've been seeing all get short-circuited by at least one of those facts.
 
BKMMAFAN said:
She didn't divorce Bill.
Click to expand...

honestly, bill-bro probably helped her more than hurt her in the grand scheme. It wasn't until Weinstein that bill really took on the effect of a liability. Ignoring age and electoral laws for sake of the hypothetical, if it were Bill Clinton running against Donald Trump, Bill would have won handily, in spite of everything known about him.
 
deltapapha said:
honestly, bill-bro probably helped her more than hurt her in the grand scheme. It wasn't until Weinstein that bill really took on the effect of a liability. Ignoring age and electoral laws for sake of the hypothetical, if it were Bill Clinton running against Donald Trump, Bill would have won handily, in spite of everything known about him.
Click to expand...

Highly doubt it. If Bill's faults impugned Hillary that much, they'd have doomed him
 
deltapapha said:
honestly, bill-bro probably helped her more than hurt her in the grand scheme.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Especially after the Access Hollywood tape came out, and the Hill Shills, and Clintons themselves, were pretending to be disturbed and shook to the core about it. Oddly enough, I think the reaction to the tape might've actually hurt Hillary, more than Trump. Trump masterfully took it, and used it to shine the spotlight back on the Clintons. People started remembering that the almighty champion of women's progress, once shamed all of Bill's accusers and stood by a man who cheated on her, and publicly humiliated her.

Just another slice of hypocrisy pie.
 
Mark Cutting said:
At least that Dj called her out on her glaring phoniness and pandering. Like that charlatan uses hot sauce like us peasants.
Click to expand...
The part that pissed me off the most is I'm as white as the driven snow, and I do carry hot sauce everywhere. There's a bottle in my lunch bag and one in my car.
 
Her last name.

Any other year, and i think she would have won. This time, you had some weirdo screaming about how much of an outsider he was, and people really were clamoring for something different. Then you have another Clinton, and one that has been down in the muck and mire her entire life.
 
She got fewer electoral votes than Trump.
 
Reason# 2314 :

Her last name is Clinton
 
Examining why Clinton lost should primarily focus on the rust belt states imo but there are oh so many factors.

The short version is 2 reasons:
1) Immigration
2) Trade

The Republican Party was heavily galvanized over immigration and had fought a civil war over it a few years earlier. In retrospect Eric Cantor losing to a no name he outspent considerably should’ve been a huge red flag to Trump’s rise.

Trade deals contributed to manufacturing jobs getting devastated in the Midwest and Clinton’s relationship to her husband that implemented them hurt her a lot in those states.

The third major reason is turnout.

Trump got less votes in Michigan than Romney did yet won the state while Romney lost it in 2012. This means the Obama coalition of Democrats did not show up for Clinton in 2016.

This was due to a lack of enthusiasm for Clinton within her own party. Donna Brazile was right...many were willing to vote for Clinton but not many were overly enthusiastic about it. If you combine this with polls that say she has a 99% chance of winning and Comey opening the investigation people can and will decide to stay home.

There is more of course but those are the 3 major reasons imo.
 
In such a close election there are many things that could potentially have produced a different election result.

But it seems to me that the base issues were that half of America hated Hillary and Hillary hated half of America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,669
Messages
55,508,315
Members
174,800
Latest member
kechan123

Share this page

Back
Top