Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max™]

The DNC kingmakers picked her, again, for god knows what reason.

I still believe that literally any other Democratic option could have beat Trump.

A chair full of mayo named Phil O. Sophy would have won.

[smjjames]

Democrat voters have been going "oh hell no" since before she ran against Obama, all the way back to her moving from First Lady to the Senate.

But they voted for her as a candidate did they not?

Perhaps aided by the heavy support from the DNC higher-ups, but still...

A good chunk of it was anti-Trump vote rather than pro-Hillary or just party-line vote.

[scriver]

If I remember correctly there was a historically low turnout this election, wasn't it? So it would seem a lot of democrats did in fact not vote for her.

[smjjames]

Turnout was pretty low, yeah. Also means that a whole lot of Republicans didn't vote for Trump either.

Both candidates were terrible, just in different ways.

[Reelya]

According to CNN the voter turnout was about the same as 2000 and greater than 1996. Voter turnout spiked up in 2004 peaked in 2008 then fell in 2012. But the 2016 turnout is actually better than the 1990s. So not really "historic" lows. Only low compared to the last few elections which had historically high turnout.

EDIT: although those figures were reported back in November. Since then, revised figures have shown turnout was quite a bit higher than first reported:

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/324206-new-report-finds-that-voter-turnout-in-2016-topped-2012

About 139 million Americans, or 60.2 percent of the voting-eligible population, cast a ballot in November’s elections, according to data compiled by the U.S. Elections Project. That compares with 58.6 percent of eligible voters who turned out in 2012, but it’s below the 62.2 percent who turned out to help elect Obama for the first time in 2008.

So yeah, if you blame low turnout for the result, you're working with old data, the latest data suggests there was no actual dip. The turnout rates were squarely half-way between the result in 2008 and 2012.

[smjjames]

Democrats didn't turn out in quite the numbers that the Democrats expected or otherwise thought would happen, which is the main story with the turnout.

[wierd]

*mutters bitterly about how he stated earlier, emphatically, that a Clinton/Trump ticket would be the worst possible ticket, and nobody listened.

[smjjames]

Well duh, of course it's the worst possible ticket, so bad that neither one would want to play second fiddle. Okay, maybe Clinton would play her cards and work in the background, silently plotting the exact moment to backstab Trump and appear on top at exactly the right moment, because she's that kind of politician.

[Descan]

iirc democrat numbers were about similar to obama in 2012?

[SalmonGod]

Hillary blames Sanders for her election loss.
Really, Hillary? Trump had to compete with like 50 other Republican candidates, and you're bitching about the one Democrat who ran against you? People don't hate you because of Sanders. This shit right here is why people hate you.

I like how the news person in the video clip points out how it would have been stupid for Bernie not to capitalize on her weaknesses, and uses her e-mails as an example... when I recall Bernie saying in on of their debates "I don't care about your e-mails.  We're all sick of hearing about it.  Republicans and the media need to get over it and move on.  I'm not going to talk about them."

[Reelya]

The rival not being a dick about all weaknesses doesn't fit the standard narrative ... benefit of the doubt, they're just remembering wrong: ironing out what actually happened to fit how we collectively think things work.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Let us not forget "the nominee can't be Sanders because he will confuse and infuriate black people, who will vote only for Clinton because of HER RECORD".

Spoiler: That isn't what happened on election night and black people aren't demographic automatons.

[Rolan7]

[Hey, you know your emails?  That big issue, which a whole lot of people care about?  Well, I'm going to be a bigger man about that.  And also point out that people are tired of that issue- as people get tired of every issue, after the first week.]
He was the epitome of passive-aggressiveness on that.  Bringing up the issue, then claiming not to care...  And even scoring "we're tired of that issue" points.

[EnigmaticHat]

If this is the same video I'm thinking of, it was during a debate and he was asked a question about the emails.  His response was pretty short, IIRC even Salmongod's short summary is longer than his actual response.  He really didn't give a shit about the emails.

Her and Bernie did have about the same platform.  For each issue they fell in about the same place on the political spectrum with Bernie being further left.  The big difference being attitude.  Most US politicians, Hillary included, speak like they're at a job interview.  Bernie gave each speech like he was in college and this was the one research project he really cared about.  To me and I presume others it felt like he was in touch with the core issues that were important to me, even tho Hillary was on the same side of those issues.  The irony of it all is that the differences between the two were things that would only matter to democrats.  Hillary wanted the government to provide a social safety net, Bernie wanted the same thing but was willing to change chunks of the government to reduce income inequality.  To the Democrats that's a major attitude difference; from a conservative perspective, those are functionally the same thing.  Yet independents and conservatives overwhelmingly preferred Bernie.  I guess he tapped into that same Trump "better to burn it all" mindset?

[Lord Shonus]

It was more his "not a politician" vibe. Your job interview analogy is an apt one - people who go through interview training, prepare canned answers to the expected questions, dress exactly as expected, and so on often have much less response (positive OR negative) from employers than people who wing it. This is because everybody does it that way, so such applicants merge into a faceless, sexless blur. Doing something different might not get you the job - but it makes you stand out.

In the 2016 election, people were so sick and tired of Washington's crap that "not a politician" trumped a hell of a lot of other factors.