Hillary graciously absolving herself of any responsibility

[Crandar]

What happened is that you were mediocre at your job, obviously disingenuous and unlike your populist opponent failed to recognize the need of America's lower classes for a change.

She's blaming basically anyone, Sanders for stealing her agenda, Comey for wanting to seduce right-wing commentators and even Biden for... not being sincere, when he supported her. That was awkward.

She even blamed the media for being unfair to her (allegedly ignoring the story about Trump's ties with Russia), despite the fact that virtually every major media outlet sided with her. She insists that we should focus on the messenger [Russian (?) hackers and sneaky Putler], instead of the message (juicy correspondence between naughty Democrats), while misogyny also undermined her revolutionary progressive campaign.

Essentially, pretty much every available nefarious power conspired against poor Hillary (including Obama, who didn't openly criticize Donald), who was like totally an outsider, fighting against stereotypes and the Big Bad Bear. Sob.

Even when she admitted responsibility, she used so ambiguous and abstract terms that gave me the impression of a spoiled child dishonestly and unwillingly recognizing its guilt, after being pressured by an adult. Hilariously enough, she implied that her campaign was so mature (I proposed solutions!") that the ignorant American audience got alienated, preferring good, old Trump and his picturesque rants.

Tip: Condescending remarks like these (together with laughing at death and dubious Wall Street statements) is why you were so unlikable, despite racing against a self-contradictory magnate gloating about his sexual exploits.

Funny interview, Hillary not very surprisingly repeats the same mantra all over again, but she also vividly describes how she handled the shock of getting crushed by a despicable amateur at politics.

[Montmorency]

"Blaming", or offering rational attribution?

You can disagree with her politics, but despite what one personally wishes she would believe, the main points described in the book are valid.

[Husar]

The really important point is that Clinton was responsible for Sanders not winning the elections anyway.

Certainly she was a better candidate than Trump, but not quite a good candidate IMO. When real change wasn't on the menu, people chose fake change instead.

[Fragony]

Just look at her eyes amd you know why she lost, she's a psychopath. I reckon she's everything Americans hate about politicians.

No it's not because you are a woman dear Hillary, would you like yourself?

[Crandar]

You can disagree with her politics, but despite what one personally wishes she would believe, the main points described in the book are valid.

Quite a biased interpretation, evident when the claim of Hillary not taking responsibility was casually dismissed, despite the obvious insincerity of her statements and her condescending remarks to the American voters.

The rest is two guys arbitrarily attributing random numbers to each potential factor, based solely on their opinion. They managed to include some data regarding the coverage each candidate gained from the media, but it actually disproved their point, in spite of their efforts to distort the meaning. Donald only received slightly more attention from the media.

They still continuously failed to prove her right, because you can't possibly measure the effect of how Bernie or Putler affected Hillary's chance to assume supreme power. It's just a matter of opinion. However, what is beyond any reasonable doubt is the fact that Hillary remains incapable of being an adult, because her apologies were so vague and borderline insulting to the public that anyone could understand the dishonesty behind them.

[Husar]

Or as Seth Meyers puts it, it wasn't Sanders who forced Clinton to ignore the states and people that lost her the election...
If anything, it was Sanders who kept talking about how those people were left behind. You might as well say even Trump in his ivory tower got the memo and used it while Hillary was trying to ride out the identity politics wave that just wasn't enough for the electoral college.

[Gilrandir]

Certainly she was a better candidate than Trump, but not quite a good candidate IMO. When real change wasn't on the menu, people chose fake change instead.

... due to the inadequate electoral system. More people voted for her.

[Husar]

... due to the inadequate electoral system. More people voted for her.

That's completely irrelevant, the people who decided the election didn't chose her. While I agree that the rules are bad, they were the rules of the game in 2016 and she failed to win according to those rules. That's the reason she's not in the White House now. If so many people in the US dislike the rules, they should start a movement to have them changed instead of only complaining when they don't work for them.

[Montmorency]

Quite a biased interpretation, evident when the claim of Hillary not taking responsibility was casually dismissed, despite the obvious insincerity of her statements and her condescending remarks to the American voters.

Yes. Bias.

The rest is two guys arbitrarily attributing random numbers to each potential factor, based solely on their opinion. They managed to include some data regarding the coverage each candidate gained from the media, but it actually disproved their point, in spite of their efforts to distort the meaning. Donald only received slightly more attention from the media.

Could you explain your interpretation of the data?

They still continuously failed to prove her right, because you can't possibly measure the effect of how Bernie or Putler affected Hillary's chance to assume supreme power. It's just a matter of opinion.

There's a tendency when dealing with people you feel very strongly about either way, to attribute powerful causal efficacy to any and all of their actions and beliefs, while ignoring the factors of the wider reality. Why should all emphasis for the election results go to the various things that Clinton did or did not say or do, while those of Trump, Putin, the media, and US government actors receive zero weight? Rome collapsed for many reasons, but the iniquity of its people before the eyes of God was not one of them.

It's possible for her to have made bad decisions without being the ultimate evil in the world, while running a standard campaign, and still losing in the end.

However, what is beyond any reasonable doubt is the fact that Hillary remains incapable of being an adult, because her apologies were so vague and borderline insulting to the public that anyone could understand the dishonesty behind them.

Why should she crucify herself for people who already hated her? The purpose of the book was to provide her own primary account, not apologize for others' perceptions of her.

Consider this from an abstract perspective so that the ideas don't get caught up with your pre-existing appraisal.

[drone]

The following are FiveThirtyEight's discussion points. I will be judging them on the Wah scale.

• Russian hacking of Podesta/DNC - The DNC security she has no control over, but with the collusion between her and the DNC through the primary she did. IT security really needs to be a key priority of any campaign these days, so on Podesta's pwnage: Waaaah! Which leads us to the next...
• Comey letter/emails - With as much experience with classified info as she had, all of this would have been avoided if she had just obeyed the law as SecState. Waaaaaaaah!
• Anger/resentment of the populace - As part of the establishment that had been screwing over working class Democrats for years, Waaaaaaaaaaaah!
• Trump's media coverage - He was entertaining, to say the least, but the GOP establishment has more of a beef with the media than her about this. Waaah!
• Faux News - Fox has been after her for years. She didn't expect this? Waaah!
• Sexism - Probably a somewhat viable excuse, but Obama faced a similar situation and prevailed. Waah!
• 3 consecutive terms - See anger/resentment above. It is expected to want change after 8 years, so maybe not run as "more of the same"? Waaaaaah!
• Too much Clinton - Not really seeing this one having much effect anyway. Meh.
• Bernie - Bernie was actually paying attention to the problems with anger/resentment from above, and was just pointing out what any opponent would. Waaaaaaaaah!
• The Midwest - See anger/resentment above. Waaaaaaah!

She expected herself to be anointed as the first female POTUS, regardless of her sleaze filled background, and got beat by the most disliked presidential candidate in history. She didn't put the work in to convince people to vote for her, she just expected people would over Trump. So she lost.

[Montmorency]

The following are FiveThirtyEight's discussion points. I will be judging them on the Wah scale.

• Russian hacking of Podesta/DNC - The DNC security she has no control over, but with the collusion between her and the DNC through the primary she did. IT security really needs to be a key priority of any campaign these days, so on Podesta's pwnage: Waaaah! Which leads us to the next...
• Comey letter/emails - With as much experience with classified info as she had, all of this would have been avoided if she had just obeyed the law as SecState. Waaaaaaaah!
• Anger/resentment of the populace - As part of the establishment that had been screwing over working class Democrats for years, Waaaaaaaaaaaah!
• Trump's media coverage - He was entertaining, to say the least, but the GOP establishment has more of a beef with the media than her about this. Waaah!
• Faux News - Fox has been after her for years. She didn't expect this? Waaah!
• Sexism - Probably a somewhat viable excuse, but Obama faced a similar situation and prevailed. Waah!
• 3 consecutive terms - See anger/resentment above. It is expected to want change after 8 years, so maybe not run as "more of the same"? Waaaaaah!
• Too much Clinton - Not really seeing this one having much effect anyway. Meh.
• Bernie - Bernie was actually paying attention to the problems with anger/resentment from above, and was just pointing out what any opponent would. Waaaaaaaaah!
• The Midwest - See anger/resentment above. Waaaaaaah!

She expected herself to be anointed as the first female POTUS, regardless of her sleaze filled background, and got beat by the most disliked presidential candidate in history. She didn't put the work in to convince people to vote for her, she just expected people would over Trump. So she lost.

I disagree with the sentiment in the way you evaluate her person, but the important thing is that we separate why we personally dislike Clinton with with why the elections results were what they were.

In practice what probably happened was: The environment was pretty neutral or maybe slightly negative for a Democratic candidate. Clinton was a below-average candidate, but not terrible. Trump was also a below-average candidate, but his weaknesses weren’t as much of a liability as the media assumed. All of those worked out to Clinton winning the popular vote, but only narrowly. And Trump benefited from the Electoral College, of course.

She ran a party-consensus campaign that garnered a party-line vote (as did Trump's) in the election. Setting aside external factors now, the primary difference in effectiveness between campaigns is arguably that Clinton inspired abstention, while Trump inspired traditional non-voters (i.e. elements of the white far-right) to come to the polls. This shadow demographic gave Trump the edge he needed. It's at that point where you can fairly argue on where she failed to boost overall turnout for her party or other minutiae.

[Sarmatian]

"Blaming", or offering rational attribution?

You can disagree with her politics, but despite what one personally wishes she would believe, the main points described in the book are valid.

I think that she asked and tried to answer the wrong question - why I lost?

She took winning as a given. Her perception is and was flawed. She didn't offer the voters the reason why they should vote for her. Her message was "I'm the best candidate"! Really? Why are you the best candidate?

The real reason why she lost (electoral college aside) is that she didn't have a clear and concise positive message, and easily understandable goals.

Saying "I have the best chances against any Republican candidate" during primaries and "I'm better than Donald Trump" during election campaign is not enough.

That's why she lost, and she managed not to see it. Again.

[Montmorency]

She didn't offer the voters the reason why they should vote for her. Her message was "I'm the best candidate"! Really? Why are you the best candidate?

The real reason why she lost (electoral college aside) is that she didn't have a clear and concise positive message, and easily understandable goals.

Saying "I have the best chances against any Republican candidate" during primaries and "I'm better than Donald Trump" during election campaign is not enough.

Alternatively, the perception of these problems demoralized the public. In tactical terms, we assume that Clinton cannot simply exchange herself for another person entirely, so the perception of "baggage" came to weigh her down regardless of the merit of the discourse. In the end, most people voted in apathy toward "status quo", not with a specific desire to up-end it.

I think that she asked and tried to answer the wrong question - why I lost?

What is the right question?

[Strike For The South]

Should have go on the offensive earlier. Should have played dirtier.

[Crandar]

The electoral system being responsible for her defeat is not an objective fact, like every other hypothetical scenario. Both candidates wold have launched completely different campaigns and many more voters would be encouraged to vote, from Republicans in California to Democrats in Texas.

Could you explain your interpretation of the data?

Trump's coverage was only marginally larger than Hillary's.

There's a tendency when dealing with people you feel very strongly about either way, to attribute powerful causal efficacy to any and all of their actions and beliefs, while ignoring the factors of the wider reality. Why should all emphasis for the election results go to the various things that Clinton did or did not say or do, while those of Trump, Putin, the media, and US government actors receive zero weight? Rome collapsed for many reasons, but the iniquity of its people before the eyes of God was not one of them.

I never claimed that all those factors had zero effect. Quite the contrary, I'm just laughing at Hillary's childish inability to assume responsibility.

Why should she crucify herself for people who already hated her? The purpose of the book was to provide her own primary account, not apologize for others' perceptions of her.

She's free to do whatever she wants. But if she fails to logically address the issues with her promises, capacities and campaign, then she should expect her book to be criticized. Nothing more.

[Sarmatian]

What is the right question?

Why should people vote for me, instead of why shouldn't people vote for me.

If she asked the first one she could have had an actual campaign, instead of spending millions persuading people she's not Donald Trump.

I will build the wall. I will defeat ISIS. I will provide jobs. - simple, effective, easy to understand.

I will provide free education, raise minimum wage, fight Wall Street and ensure all Americans have healthcare. - simple, effective, easy to understand.

I will ask Wall Street to be nicer, I will think strongly about pipelines and free trade deals, I will look at all possible options of dealing with ISIS and try to do something about lower/middle classes. - double speak, no substance, no point, no message. With her baggage, it was never gonna work. Barely at the end of one of the worst recessions in recent history and the sternest thing you can say about Wall Street is "basically, cut it out"??? And you want middle class votes?

Let's face it, if she was facing anyone other than Donald Trump, it would have been a landslide loss for her. She was overconfident and arrogant, more worried about not saying something wrong than saying something right. Her VP pick, for God's sake. No personality at all.

And she still doesn't understand, looking for reasons why didn't people vote for her. Because you didn't offer them a reason to, only a reason to vote against your opponents.

[Montmorency]

The electoral system being responsible for her defeat is not an objective fact, like every other hypothetical scenario. Both candidates wold have launched completely different campaigns and many more voters would be encouraged to vote, from Republicans in California to Democrats in Texas.

That's true, we would have to construct an entirely different American history and world history.

Trump's coverage was only marginally larger than Hillary's.

Like Clinton's coverage was only marginally more than Sanders'? I think we're using a different value of the word.

I never claimed that all those factors had zero effect. Quite the contrary, I'm just laughing at Hillary's childish inability to assume responsibility.

In the sense of identifying the "correct" factors, or in the sense that the virtuous thing to do would be to take all responsibility in the face of the public (i.e. crucify herself)? The former we're debating here, but the latter - why should she do that? Should anyone?

She's free to do whatever she wants. But if she fails to logically address the issues with her promises, capacities and campaign, then she should expect her book to be criticized. Nothing more.

I don't disagree. But many of the 'ancestral' criticisms have long seemed to be less to do with what Clinton does or says, but the idea, the icon, of Hillary Clinton. And that's unhealthy IMO.

Why should people vote for me, instead of why shouldn't people vote for me.

If she asked the first one she could have had an actual campaign, instead of spending millions persuading people she's not Donald Trump.

I will build the wall. I will defeat ISIS. I will provide jobs. - simple, effective, easy to understand.

I will provide free education, raise minimum wage, fight Wall Street and ensure all Americans have healthcare. - simple, effective, easy to understand.

I will ask Wall Street to be nicer, I will think strongly about pipelines and free trade deals, I will look at all possible options of dealing with ISIS and try to do something about lower/middle classes. - double speak, no substance, no point, no message. With her baggage, it was never gonna work. Barely at the end of one of the worst recessions in recent history and the sternest thing you can say about Wall Street is "basically, cut it out"??? And you want middle class votes?

Let's face it, if she was facing anyone other than Donald Trump, it would have been a landslide loss for her. She was overconfident and arrogant, more worried about not saying something wrong than saying something right. Her VP pick, for God's sake. No personality at all.

And she still doesn't understand, looking for reasons why didn't people vote for her. Because you didn't offer them a reason to, only a reason to vote against your opponents.

If people, especially conservatives, already hated Hillary Clinton, I don't think adopting more left-wing positions would have changed their minds.

You have to keep in mind that policies - specific policies - are largely irrelevant to campaigns. The image is what matters. And even with her poor image, Clinton pulled in at least an average result. To diminish this, you would have to argue that Trump was especially hurt by his own actions, rather than helped. The latter is less sanguine to imagine, but it's probably the case. Merely dismissing Trump as a "bad" candidate is to make a similar mistake as you accuse Clinton and the liberal establishment of making.

So while each of us might want to a various extent different, more left-wing policy prescriptions to have been incorporated into her platform, there's no reason to believe it would have helped rather than hindered her actual election performance.

She was overconfident and arrogant, more worried about not saying something wrong than saying something right. Her VP pick, for God's sake. No personality at all.

I agree, but I don't think she is arrogant, just too politically correct in her thinking. By politically correct, I mean that she didn't want to consider and vocalize the worst case that Trump was actually an electoral match for her, because if true (and the polls showed it to be true) it would oblige her to really examine and polemicize how we as a country have to measure and handle the "deplorable" element of the electorate. If the worst of America is a huge demographic and really really bad after all, it shatters American exceptionalism, which the Clintons are strong believers in.

Let's face it, if she was facing anyone other than Donald Trump, it would have been a landslide loss for her.

Definitely disagree. There were certainly no exciting contrasts between the generic Republican candidates and Clinton herself. Trump's advantage was motivating non-voters and conservative independents - the respective party bases fell in line otherwise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Should have go on the offensive earlier. Should have played dirtier.

Would that have won her Texas?

Clinton lost because she's Clinton, Americans were never going to vote for the wife of a former President. That sort of political Dynasty was never going to fly in the US, especially with it having previously happened in South America.

Now that Clinton is done there's a real chance America might actually elect a woman next time.

[Montmorency]

Clinton lost because she's Clinton, Americans were never going to vote for the wife of a former President. That sort of political Dynasty was never going to fly in the US, especially with it having previously happened in South America.

Doubtful. Leaving aside that most presidents are distant relations of one another or of the Founding Fathers (e.g. the Roosevelts), we've had the Adams, the Harrisons, and the Bushes, but a husband and a wife is a dynasty too far?

[drone]

If people, especially conservatives, already hated Hillary Clinton, I don't think adopting more left-wing positions would have changed their minds.

You have to keep in mind that policies - specific policies - are largely irrelevant to campaigns. The image is what matters. And even with her poor image, Clinton pulled in at least an average result. To diminish this, you would have to argue that Trump was especially hurt by his own actions, rather than helped. The latter is less sanguine to imagine, but it's probably the case. Merely dismissing Trump as a "bad" candidate is to make a similar mistake as you accuse Clinton and the liberal establishment of making.

So while each of us might want to a various extent different, more left-wing policy prescriptions to have been incorporated into her platform, there's no reason to believe it would have helped rather than hindered her actual election performance.

Definitely disagree. There were certainly no exciting contrasts between the generic Republican candidates and Clinton herself. Trump's advantage was motivating non-voters and conservative independents - the respective party bases fell in line otherwise.

She was not going to get conservative votes, she needed Bernie's voters. You are correct, there was not much difference between her and one of the generic GOP candidates. She was already center-right on many things, any left leaning views she had were window dressing/identity politics. When a large percentage of right/center-right already have no intention of voting for her, that puts her in a spot. Her big mistake was in thinking that voters had a binary decision, with a gun to their head and a Trump-Hillary ballot in front of them, the average voter would pick her. But the reality was many would vote Johnson/Stein/McMullin, others would vote change (Trump) for the hell of it, or (most damaging) not vote at all.

[HopAlongBunny]

From what I saw of election coverage her main message was "I'm not Trump"
The problem with the Democratic campaign seemed to be a complete lack of salesmanship.
The policies were there, but not highlighted; instead of yattering about "deplorables" where was the passion and fire about what the Dem's were going to do?
The Dem's might have better policies/ideas, that is meaningless if you can't get people motivated and excited about them.

One example: Das Capital might well be the best expression of what communism is all about, The Communist Manifesto is the one you use to sell the idea.

[Sarmatian]

If people, especially conservatives, already hated Hillary Clinton, I don't think adopting more left-wing positions would have changed their minds.

We're talking about liberals here.

You have to keep in mind that policies - specific policies - are largely irrelevant to campaigns. The image is what matters. And even with her poor image, Clinton pulled in at least an average result. To diminish this, you would have to argue that Trump was especially hurt by his own actions, rather than helped. The latter is less sanguine to imagine, but it's probably the case. Merely dismissing Trump as a "bad" candidate is to make a similar mistake as you accuse Clinton and the liberal establishment of making.

I have to strongly disagree. What was Trump's image before the campaign? What was Sander's?

Sanders was an unknown Mr. Burns look-alike, with no charisma and no influence outside Vermont. He had no image prior to the campaign.

What was Sanders going to do if he were elected? Everyone could answer in a single sentence.

Now give me an answer in a single sentence was Hilary going to do.

Surveys showed that Hillary would struggle against any Republican candidate.

So while each of us might want to a various extent different, more left-wing policy prescriptions to have been incorporated into her platform, there's no reason to believe it would have helped rather than hindered her actual election performance.

Hillary was more of a conservative than a liberal candidate. While I'm don't have the data to back up my claims, a gut feeling tells me she would have performed better if she were willing to adopt liberal issues sincerely, rather when presented with no other choice.

I agree, but I don't think she is arrogant, just too politically correct in her thinking. By politically correct, I mean that she didn't want to consider and vocalize the worst case that Trump was actually an electoral match for her, because if true (and the polls showed it to be true) it would oblige her to really examine and polemicize how we as a country have to measure and handle the "deplorable" element of the electorate. If the worst of America is a huge demographic and really really bad after all, it shatters American exceptionalism, which the Clintons are strong believers in.

Again we disagree, because that's exactly what the effect was. By presenting Trump as a worse candidate, instead of herself as a better candidate, she did just that.

Definitely disagree. There were certainly no exciting contrasts between the generic Republican candidates and Clinton herself. Trump's advantage was motivating non-voters and conservative independents - the respective party bases fell in line otherwise.

Again, look at the polls. Kasich was ahead, Paul Ryan was ahead, Cruz (a slime that he is) was close or ahead while he was in the race... She would have struggled in all those hypothetical match-ups. The only Republican candidate she was consistently beating was Trump.

[Montmorency]

She was not going to get conservative votes, she needed Bernie's voters. You are correct, there was not much difference between her and one of the generic GOP candidates. She was already center-right on many things, any left leaning views she had were window dressing/identity politics. When a large percentage of right/center-right already have no intention of voting for her, that puts her in a spot. Her big mistake was in thinking that voters had a binary decision, with a gun to their head and a Trump-Hillary ballot in front of them, the average voter would pick her. But the reality was many would vote Johnson/Stein/McMullin, others would vote change (Trump) for the hell of it, or (most damaging) not vote at all.

Third parties did better in 2016 than usual, but still insignificant overall; most of these went to the Libertarian party, which has more affinity to the Republican base than the Democratic. I would look at abstentions, which I believe have always handily outnumbered 3rd-party votes in our elections. The national turnout was actually not low, but given that Democrats habitually lose more votes than Republicans to abstention its plausible to look for a demoralizing effect (whereas Trump enervated some Republicans and conservatives for a net gain). October was a bad month for Clinton and not so for Trump, who unleashed a rousing Greatest Hits album that resonated with his base - and that's the final scene set for Election Day. I wonder what it would look like in the swing states.

We're talking about liberals here.


I have to strongly disagree. What was Trump's image before the campaign? What was Sander's?

Sanders was an unknown Mr. Burns look-alike, with no charisma and no influence outside Vermont. He had no image prior to the campaign.

What was Sanders going to do if he were elected? Everyone could answer in a single sentence.

Now give me an answer in a single sentence was Hilary going to do.

This is an important distinction between policy and image. Sanders and Trump had straightforward ideas and presentation, but this had nothing to do with policy. White grievance and taxing the rich are ideological positions, not policies, and only one of those men could even be expected to know the meaning of the word once in office. Before they reached national prominence and got a real campaign going, Sanders and Trump had to rely on word-of-mouth among committed admirers. Once they got over the hurdle, they came to represent a particular brand, e.g. "He tells it like it is", and carved out their respective bases. Clinton did have a base like that, but a much smaller one, largely people who were familiar with her political career and liked her for that already. Had she spoken on the same topics but in a different-enough way, she would have been able to reduce the impact of media coverage on 'scandals!'. By standing still on the same presentation she moved backward among those who didn't yet strongly approve of her.

Surveys showed that Hillary would struggle against any Republican candidate.

Again, look at the polls. Kasich was ahead, Paul Ryan was ahead, Cruz (a slime that he is) was close or ahead while he was in the race... She would have struggled in all those hypothetical match-ups. The only Republican candidate she was consistently beating was Trump.

I don't think you can extrapolate from surveys taken a year before the election, in a very different landscape for the country. You need to have the final nominees campaigning one-on-one.

[Strike For The South]

Would that have won her Texas?

Clinton lost because she's Clinton, Americans were never going to vote for the wife of a former President. That sort of political Dynasty was never going to fly in the US, especially with it having previously happened in South America.

Now that Clinton is done there's a real chance America might actually elect a woman next time.

No, but it may have won her Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, or North Carolina.

[Husar]

White grievance and taxing the rich are ideological positions, not policies, and only one of those men could even be expected to know the meaning of the word once in office.

What exactly would be a policy and why would anyone need it to win an election if Hillary had plenty and lost?
Does the average voter even care about the distinction?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Doubtful. Leaving aside that most presidents are distant relations of one another or of the Founding Fathers (e.g. the Roosevelts), we've had the Adams, the Harrisons, and the Bushes, but a husband and a wife is a dynasty too far?

Absolutely too far.

Hilary winning would have meant Billary in the White House again - there would have been photoes two two Presidents Clinton in the White House, an inevitable shot of Bill in The Chair (probably holding a cigar) at some point.

[Montmorency]

What exactly would be a policy and why would anyone need it to win an election if Hillary had plenty and lost?
Does the average voter even care about the distinction?

A policy is a defined set of rules or practices to achieve a goal or produce a result. Generally it's nice to have after the election is finished. "Cut taxes" is an ideology, but they get to have some of the simpler policies, e.g. cancel all existing personal taxes and all income has a flat 1% tax.

No, they don't. Voters care about the promised results. Voters care about how a candidate makes them (or their friends and family) feel. They don't sweat the details. Some say that's a good thing, others say it's a bad thing.

Absolutely too far.

Hilary winning would have meant Billary in the White House again - there would have been photoes two two Presidents Clinton in the White House, an inevitable shot of Bill in The Chair (probably holding a cigar) at some point.

So Hillary should assassinate Bill and try again?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Seems impossible to tie down Hillary's loss to a single category let alone a single item.

Many of the issues she raises in her book are (legitimate) external factors that fed into her own flawed internal choices which then generated further external factors that impacted her negatively.

I don't understand PVC's characterization of US voters. Dynasties and relational ties are not really considered; voters really focused on the personal images they present, e.g. 'legitimate', 'establishment', 'outsider'. Keep in mind establishment is not a condemnation of her familial ties to a former president, but a disgust to her presence inside government institutions for X number of years.

As far as Sarmatian's position: "And she still doesn't understand, looking for reasons why didn't people vote for her. Because you didn't offer them a reason to, only a reason to vote against your opponents."
Voting against your opponent is a legitimate position to make. Liberal voters need to play fucking ball and stop asking for a candidate that promises them all the candy and rainbows they want. If you don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils, you get the bigger evil. That's what happened in 2000 with Nader supporters and it happened again in 2016. Oh how history repeats itself.

[Montmorency]

nvm

[Montmorency]

Edit: Is video formatting not possible in certain subfora?