Hillary Clinton: What Happened?

[slither]

You fucking blew it, that's what happened.

The coronation that was to be never came to pass, and now your unaccountability, megalomania and narcissism keep you afloat on the great metaphorical river.

If you had selected Bernie as your VP, you would be in the White House today, where your policy differences could have formed the basis of a meaningful dialogue in service of the broader and greater political interest. Instead, in your narrow, self-deluded continued quest to become the first female president, with your tone-deaf inability to connect with the broader electorate - not to mention your failure to campaign in those few key states - you yourself paved the way for President Shit-for-brains.

Please just STFU and go away.

'Have you no sense of decency, Madam? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

[Cujo04]

Took her 500 pages to cover all those she felt responsible for her loss yet her name is only on the cover

[nemesystem]

I really could give 2 shits as to why she thinks she lost.

Clinton being her last name is enough for me. Fuck all of the bs of her being corrupt. THEY ALL ARE

but for some of you (looking at you NY NY & Des lol ) as long as your side is the winner you don't care.

[Old Fart]

It's the first book to have the question and the answer on the cover.

[Dazzler]

However, people do tend to forget that she quite comfortably won by actual vote share and it was the electoral college that fucked her, and Trump's voters were on average better-off than Clinton's.

How often does that happen in US politics?

Edit: found it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ote_margin

It seems that it's very common (19/45 elections). I'd say that was a problem.

[Hammer]

I believe this is what you meant to show. Only 5 Presidential election winners have had fewer votes than the loser. Had Hillary won the electors and their votes, she would have been on Dazzler's list too. She also had less than a majority of total votes. She received 48.5 percent of "actual vote share." A minority. But all candidates campaign for electoral support, as that determines the winner. Hillary merely proved this with her foolish loss. The US is fucked in any case, and has been for quite some time. Garbage in....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... pular_vote

[Old Fart]

There's nothing wrong with the electoral college, it prevents New York and California from choosing the president every election cycle.

Hillary lost because she's Hillary.

[NewYork, New York]

I really could give 2 shits as to why she thinks she lost.

Clinton being her last name is enough for me. Fuck all of the bs of her being corrupt. THEY ALL ARE

but for some of you (looking at you NY NY & Des lol ) as long as your side is the winner you don't care.

WTF are you talking about?

[Dazzler]

There's nothing wrong with the electoral college, it prevents New York and California from choosing the president every election cycle.

Hillary lost because she's Hillary.

Why can't it be done by a majority of the popular vote?

It seems to me that Hillary was substantially more popular than Trump. I mean, the numbers bear it out, right?

[Generous_J]

English system probably needs to be looked at too, mind you. First past the post?

Nevermind offering a life changing referendum to the people without even a referendum commission to disseminate information. I dont think there was even a website.

[Old Fart]

There's nothing wrong with the electoral college, it prevents New York and California from choosing the president every election cycle.

Hillary lost because she's Hillary.

Why can't it be done by a majority of the popular vote?

It seems to me that Hillary was substantially more popular than Trump. I mean, the numbers bear it out, right?

Because the coasts are more heavily populated and don't represent the rest of America. As I already stated. It's a fair system. She won the popular vote by three million, not relevant. There is no mention of a popular vote in the Constitution and that will never change.

[Cujo04]

The signifucance of a 3 million vote difference in the combined 129 million cast for the two candidates is in the eye of the beholder. It was also likely skewed by a lopsided win in Cali

[Cali Guy]

It seems to me that Hillary was substantially more popular than Trump. I mean, the numbers bear it out, right?

If you go out with ₤1 in coin and lose 2p, is that a substantial loss?

[slither]

Hillary lost by a combined total of 80,000 votes in three states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
She has roots in Pennsylvania and never campaigned in Wisconsin. She could have won every vote cast in each state she carried, and it would not have made any difference.

She was unpopular in 2008. Even moreso in 2016.

Fuck the 'twelve steps' book tour.

Cry. Me. A. Fucking. River.

[Cujo04]

Don't go away mad....just go away

[slither]

She will, eventually.
Will you?

[Cujo04]

In due time

[Dazzler]

It seems to me that Hillary was substantially more popular than Trump. I mean, the numbers bear it out, right?

If you go out with ₤1 in coin and lose 2p, is that a substantial loss?

If you blunder into a thread with a poorly-chosen metaphor, does that mean you’re an idiot?

[Dazzler]

There's nothing wrong with the electoral college, it prevents New York and California from choosing the president every election cycle.

Hillary lost because she's Hillary.

Why can't it be done by a majority of the popular vote?

It seems to me that Hillary was substantially more popular than Trump. I mean, the numbers bear it out, right?

Because the coasts are more heavily populated and don't represent the rest of America. As I already stated. It's a fair system. She won the popular vote by three million, not relevant. There is no mention of a popular vote in the Constitution and that will never change.

But I’m not talking about the constitution, except to point out that the electoral procedures it sets out aren’t very good at expressing the majority opinion of the electorate.

What I’m saying is, Hillary was demonstrably more popular than Trump. I can’t see how else a three million vote lead can be interpreted. Three million more people thought Hillary would make a better president than Trump.

Regardless of reservations about the electoral college’s suitability (and I note that everyone here is well-trained to deflect that criticism) it can’t really be argued that Trump is more popular than Hillary, or ever has been.

[Old Fart]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/ ... inton-blo/

I don't think you understand just how hated she is. Even today as bad as Trump is, he's more popular than Hillary. There are many sourses available if you don't like this one. Wouldn't you have to be wildly unpopular to be beaten by such an asshole?

3 million votes is statistically irrelevant.

Tell me exactly how a popular vote would better represent all Americans when California and New York would be choosing the president every election cycle. I'm not deflecting, I'm fully supportive of the EC.

[Dazzler]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/18/donald-trump-more-popular-than-hillary-clinton-blo/

I don't think you understand just how hated she is. Even today as bad as Trump is, he's more popular than Hillary. There are many sourses available if you don't like this one. Wouldn't you have to be wildly unpopular to be beaten by such an asshole?

3 million votes is statistically irrelevant.

You'll have a hard job convincing me that a Bloomberg poll is a more accurate representation of the political opinions of voters than an actual election. How can a thing that predicts something be more accurate than the thing it predicts?

Tell me exactly how a popular vote would better represent all Americans when California and New York would be choosing the president every election cycle. I'm not deflecting, I'm fully supportive of the EC.

How is it fairer to disenfranchise people because they live in a city?

[Cali Guy]

How is it fairer to disenfranchise people because they live in a city?

Fortunately for city dwellers the EC isn't based on whether you live in a city or not.

[des]

Our system isn't much better! ... In theory, you could have 49.99% of the vote and have fuck all MPs!

Peace, Des.

[Cujo04]

I kind of understand Hillary's difficulty in grappling this. She had the benefit of a $$billion campaign warchest, an AG who might have obstructed justice to keep her campaign whole and a media who circled the wagons around her and yet she still lost to the worst candidate in US political history and now the $$millions that were being funneled through her laundering foundation by Wall St and shady foreign entities has likely dried up as well.

[Cali Guy]

Plus she is saddled with a house she brought next to her Chappaqua estate to house White House staff on her presidential vacations.

[Cujo04]

Plus she is saddled with a house she brought next to her Chappaqua estate to house White House staff on her presidential vacations.

That's probably where Bubba stays..

[Old Fart]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/18/donald-trump-more-popular-than-hillary-clinton-blo/

I don't think you understand just how hated she is. Even today as bad as Trump is, he's more popular than Hillary. There are many sourses available if you don't like this one. Wouldn't you have to be wildly unpopular to be beaten by such an asshole?

3 million votes is statistically irrelevant.

You'll have a hard job convincing me that a Bloomberg poll is a more accurate representation of the political opinions of voters than an actual election. How can a thing that predicts something be more accurate than the thing it predicts?

Tell me exactly how a popular vote would better represent all Americans when California and New York would be choosing the president every election cycle. I'm not deflecting, I'm fully supportive of the EC.

How is it fairer to disenfranchise people because they live in a city?

I used Bloomberg because it was the first to pop up in a Google search, there are plenty of others. If you lived here you'd understand.

Again...Wouldn't you have to be wildly unpopular to be beaten by such an asshole?

[slither]

But I’m not talking about the constitution, except to point out that the electoral procedures it sets out aren’t very good at expressing the majority opinion of the electorate.

Where, exactly, in the US Constitution do you find this? Are you talking about Article 2 - or the 12th Amendment?
The 'electoral procedures,' as you refer to them, are not designed to express the majority opinion of the electorate with regard to presidential elections. Our system is designed precisely to avoid such nonsense. The brilliance of this holds true even today.

OF quite correctly and succinctly explained this to you.



You're being intellectually dishonest, dazz.

[nemesystem]

Apparently the Dutch intelligence service infiltrated the Russian hacker group lmao

Hackers from the Dutch intelligence service AIVD have provided the FBI with crucial information about Russian interference with the American elections. For years, AIVD had access to the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear. That's what de Volkskrant and Nieuwsuur have uncovered in their investigation.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/media/dutch-a ... s~a4561913