Most of the country certainly didn't like her. I voted for her and I didn't like her. **** I donated money to her and I didn't like her. Trump scares the ever living **** out of me.

I hate her guts now obviously. I hope that whatever it is she eventually dies from sucks really bad. Her ambition may have set the country back 10+ years on the impact of the supreme court picks alone.

BS's specific desire: stop losing!

claim stated: we got robbed and that should be factored in when we discuss what happened and what we might do about it
BS's interpretation: it's fine we got robbed

Because her opponent was Donald Trump? That is kind of why some people are pretty mad she lost the election and is not the president and stuff.

BS,

Wishing a painful death on someone is quite the take my man.

On behalf of people who agree with much of what your saying please stop cheapening your arguments with statements like the above.

Maybe step away from the keyboard and take a walk or something.

This is the new political meta I'm afraid. Our president is an orange man who brags about grabbing women by the pussy. I fully plan to take what can be learned from the Trumpists tactics and apply it myself. People apparently respond well to hyperbole. Point taken and accepted.

I feel like Democrats lukewarm incompetence deserves a little hyperbole at this point don't you?

Right, but I mean, comrade, it's 2p2. Hating on the Clinton campaign is not exactly a hard sell here.

are you six years old?
she had to rig a primary to win. most people are going to vote for one of the 2 main stream candidates when they vote. voting for 1 of those 2 doesn't mean you like them. it doesn't even mean you don't hate them.

she'd been groomed for the presidency for over a decade. she had every possible advantage in this election including running against an orange clown with zero political experience- and she failed miserably.

the people who keep pointing out she got 2.9 million more votes might as well be talking about the weather in china.trump strategically campaigned the most where votes mattered. she didn't. with a different voting system he would have campaigned differently. a dead cat would have won NY and Cali in a landslide if they ran democrat. but people can keep patting her on the back for that great accomplishment if they want.

LMAO. So true.

50000000 people live in NY or CA. Winning there in landslides goes a long way towards getting the most votes from Americans.

LOL @ people patting her on the back. The only time I see popular vote mentioned is when someone posits that Trump has some sort of mandate or that she was the historical nut low candidate or some equally ridiculous claim.

You're missing the scope of my hating. I'm hating on the entire Democratic Party. We can't blame even half of the dysfunction on just one person.

Obama was a great president but a very weak political leader it turned out. His party got absolutely ravaged during his term.

Yes.

These arguments are all over the place . This argument is really tedious because who gives a ****, but look a the needle the "Hillary NUT LOW WOAT" you guys have to thread.

The argument when laid out like an actual argument instead of people just yelling inchoate nonsense is something like:

- Hillary is obviously TERRIBLE, she lost to Trump!

From there we have posts like this one:

- well actually voting in big states like California and New York don't count and actually doesn't reveal any preferences at all
- when given the criticism that Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump: who cares, that's not the rules of the game, part of skill is knowing the rules and adjusting!
- When pointed out Trump won the primary in the GOP and therefore might not be the second worst politician of all time: we're told the number of candidates (you know, the context of the game that Trump successfully navigated) is UNPREDICTABLE and RANDOM and UNCONTROLLABLE so Trump gets no credit for that.
- When told there's political skill in grooming yourself to be President and building a political machine : rigging!
- When told Trump got the benefits of Comey and FBI: deal with it!

Guys, these aren't consistent or compelling arguments. Hillary sucks because Trump is bad, except when you look at the fact Trump did a lot more than simply beat Trump, that's just random. Hillary having built-in and circumstantial advantages are unfair. Trump having them are things you just deal with. Votes for Hillary Clinton don't count because you just charge that to the game. Everyone else, like the entire GOP, also failing to beat Trump -- well that's just the random rules of the game, can't be helped.

Trump being a winner in the Republican primary doesn't necessarily make him a strong candidate in the general election. That's a necessary but not sufficient qualification.

This poster gets it!

I agree that donald trump is a political genius and not a policy genius

the clintons are worthless pieces of ****. To think that clinton, "would have been just fine" is mind numbingly stupid.

But **** it, the next time some hideously corrupt neo-con in centrists' clothing comes along, and all of the clueless sheep are giddy at the prospect of making that person president, just **** it. Go ahead. Vote that vile piece of **** into the presidency and then do not expect any sympathy from those of us who warned you how horrid of a decision that would be.

2.4 billion dollars in donations to the clinton foundation and fees paid for personal appearances and speeches over an approximately 16 year period. Which is basically just bribes and a tax haven of kickbacks for the ultrawealthy. plus all the women bill has sexually assaulted.

it is hard to imagine a cantidate any more illegitimate or wrong the hillary was in 2016. I mean, how else could we end up with someone as silly as Trump? And yet, all the clinton nut huggers still don't get this. Incredible.

Of course but one of the handful of arguments that HRC is the WOAT is that, why, she's so bad she lost to Donald Trump!

I want to be entirely clear in the strongest sense possible that I am *not* arguing Awice style that Trump is a 3 sigma genius.

But we have to give him credit here for being an unorthodox and surprisingly tough opponent to play against. That he won the GOP primary is testament to that. Even if there were 16 candidates, the John Kasichs and Marco Rubios and Ted Cruzs all played by the same rules and were exposed to the same factors lost to Trump too. If you're arguing TRUMP is the absolute nut low then we need an explanation for that beyond "circumstances, rules, number of opponents, rules of the game as esoteric and weird" to explain Trump's success in the GOP primaries. Particularly since the actual Presidential general election with just two contenders had just as much circumstantial outside events (Russians, Comey) and 'rules of the game' type arguments (e.g., the actual election hinged on a margin of ~200k people in 3 states).

I admit I slip into "lol TRUMP, total ****ing clown top to bottom" a lot but if you examine it fairly and objectively, I think he has some very tangible and real skills, specifically in communication and attention seeking. That's a back-handed compliment for sure but give his schtick some credit for reaching middle class whites, older whites, downtrodden whites in a very specific and clever way. About gaming the media to cover him for free. About abuse and domination style politics that caused people to pull punches for fear of his lashing out at them. Of spending literally years building genuine personal admiration and devotion among angry mouthbreathers perpetuating Birther myths when mainstream GOPers played tongue-and-cheek with them. It's a horrible skill, objectively, but let's give him credit for having it the way you might admire a snake-oil salesman or a clever scam artist.

I think there remains, too, plenty of things to blame Clinton for but surely the worst candidates of all time are people who never get off the ground. Like Jim Gilmore. Or even, say, Joe Biden! Biden official ran twice and almost ran a third time and each time he never got any traction; we seem to want to say Hillary Clinton has all these built in advantages that made her a front-runner or 'anointed' her or whatever, as if that too is some separate random factor but not attributable to political skill. But it is; it's senseless to say HRC is qualitatively worse than someone like Biden.

Sayin HRC is the WOAT is like saying the Falcons are the WOAT. I can understand the argument that HRC is really bad at squandering some big advantages and resources. But having those built-in advantages and resources is a skill like getting to the Super Bowl and scoring 28 pts in the first 3 quarters of the SB is a skill. It's strange to say but there's definite and tangible skill to get into a position where you are seemingly a dominant favorite over people like Obama and Trump and ultimately lose in shocking fashion in the same way the Falcons aren't the worst team in the NFL by a long-shot. HRC is a politician I think with some very tangible and real deficiencies but it's preposterous to argue someone who almost won the nomination once and then won the popular vote for literally the most coveted and highest office in the profession by a decently large margin is actually, in fact, just the worst ever. I can allow it as internet hyperbole but it's not a credible actual argument.

You just compared the Trump campaign to the New England Patriots. I think that's a MASSIVE stretch. Actually it's a hilarious stretch. In political terms you just compared Trump to FDR. I'm sorry sir, but Trump is not FDR. He's not even Huey Long.

You're ignoring the fact that she ran against Trump in NY and CA to get her popular vote lead. In those two states Trump played as expected. It should have been the same in PA/WI/MI because we should have had an actual candidate capable of doing more than damaging herself every time she opened her mouth. The fact that she wasn't bad enough to make some far left wing states vote Republican isn't evidence in our favor. If anything winning the popular vote shows just how aggressively Clinton had to **** up to lose the electoral college.

You're trying very hard to not have this be the total and complete electoral collapse of the Democratic Party... But that's what this was.

Trump ran the most red meat aggro primary campaign anyone has ever seen. I've never seen anyone ever take it so far, so fast, and so often. This SHOULD have wrecked him in the general, and would have against anyone more palatable than HRC. He never pivoted, spent half as much money, and was probably as surprised as the rest of us when he won.

I haven't done any of that. I don't have a problem with any of the advantages HRC had going in. More power to her. Politics is a game you're supposed to play to win, so I have no problem with amassing as many advantages as possible.

Trump had VERY few advantages. The email leaks required Russian help, which would have been a good enough reason for people to vote for a better candidate. Similarly people wouldn't have paid much attention to the email thing if they actually liked Clinton and she seemed trustworthy.

Hell if she'd just have been good at explaining the email thing without sounding like a ****ing lawyer she'd probably have been fine.

The GOP is a huge mess too. They have spent years making unrealistic promises to a base full of fairly ignorant people (because they have been listening to Fox News all these years). Finally someone came along and exploited this massive opportunity they had created by going fully fact free. The fact that they couldn't stop him (in a MUCH less favorable environment made up entirely of Republican primary voters with the conventional 'lanes' clogged by about 2000 candidates) doesn't mean that HRC was supposed to be able to lose to him in the general.

Let's face facts though: the Republicans have an inferior product, fewer supporters, and both of these factors are getting worse by the day. And they beat the **** out of us these last few years. Time to figure out what went wrong and learn from it IMO. I'm not sure how this is controversial.

If I wanted to compare Trump to FDR I would.

The idea was that Clinton:Trump::Patriots:Falcons was that when you get this extremely surprising outcome in the final contest of a competition with multiple barriers and milestones that winnows the field to to get to the final then there's attributable, tangible skills on BOTH sides of the contest to get to the finals such that any argument which casts either participant as the worst of all time are clearly hyperbole and exaggeration. The worst Presidential candidates of all time never get anywhere close to the nomination. The worst nominees of all time get their doors blown off like Mondale or Alf Landon or something like that.

This feels again like a strawman where what I said (HRC is not the worst of all time) has been replaced with some generic argument she ran a perfect campaign or Democrats are just A-OK. Although obviously the more we say it was a 'complete electoral collapse of the Democratic Party' is even more reason to absolve HRC of blame since it's functionally an argument to say it was a wave election and constituted forces much larger than HRC. Yet again I'll point out these arguments are incoherent on their face; if the Democratic Party collapsed but HRC lost an extremely close election than she presumably did much better than the circumstances and environment would allow for an average candidate. I don't think it's true but it's the logical extent of your argument that there was a total collapse of the party.

But the incoherence doesn't even stop there! Yet again we get the well, NY and CA are just liberal so Clinton's margins there don't count (fwiw she had modern historical high vote percentage totals for a Democrat in other places too, like Texas). But then we get the well, Hillary Clinton should have just waltzed to victory in MI/PA/WI for the exact same reason! What, all the liberals? The baked in advantages? So she gets no credit for winning all the liberals in and exploiting the advantage in CA/NY but like, all the blame for being historically bad at losing them in MI/WI/PA or something? This is not coherent, I can't even restate your argument in its most charitable form because there's no there there. It's just babble. Next we go to: well, Trump played the game, Clinton didn't, clearly WOAT, know the rules! Oh, OK, well wait, what about the GOP primaries? And the Democratic primaries? Surely those people must suck to lose to a buffoon like Trump? Oh, Trump didn't do anything special, just the rules of the game, he won a random 16 player heat. Oh Clinton used all the rules and built-in advantages over Sanders? CHEATING.

And you're not alone. You have plenty of others saying the same stuff. Which I suppose is the ultimate proof of the point: Hillary Clinton sure is disliked, look at how much people want to re-litigate the election and get all frothily angry about it, over and over. She must really tilt people because these arguments are specifically tailored almost to make no sense, just to give people an opportunity to say HILLARY CLINTON TERRIBLE PERSON over and over. That's fine, it's an opinion, but don't waste people's time making hand-waving attempts to quantify it.

Hillary Clinton as the Atlanta Falcons! lol

Well-sourced evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the adversarial foreign state that was working to influence the election in Trump's favor.

Seems like IC is going to keep leaking info to connect the dots until those with the ability to do something actually do something.

I think the number of opponents in the primary actually helped Trump considerably. My comment about Andre the Giant wasn't 100% flippant --Trump's insult comedy style worked for him in a format where he only had like 30s to speak and a target-rich environment. You had a couple of Ben Carson-style stunt candidates who were trying to out-Trump Trump and a couple of NeverTrumper candidates who were splitting the opposition. He didn't do nearly as well in debates when the field was narrowed down, but by that point he had already built up a ton of support.

Agreed? Like who was the toughest opponent in that bunch? The cuck who got his mom to do campaign ads? The smarmy guy who's universally hated by his own party? The fat blowhard staring down federal charges was probably the best contender of the bunch. It was a whole field of clowny buffoons. Some of those guys would have been much better GE candidates, but in terms of winning the R primary, I'll agree that Trump was strong in that regard.

Also, I'm not sure Hillary winning the Dem primary is that much of an accomplishment. She was up against what, some crazy atheist socialist wingnut from Vermont? Who graciously refused to go after her on her email scandal? That should have been a 50-state blowout for an establishment candidate with name recognition instead of a drawn-out slugfest.

I do agree that Trump has an amazing ability to scam people and make rubes believe every fool thing that comes out of his mouth. He seems to inspire fanatical loyalty in the people around him. That probably counts for quite a lot in politics.

At the end of the day, scoreboard. Hillary lost to the most broadly disliked candidate in history. He had some people genuinely convinced he was trying to lose the election. She lost white women to a guy who raped his wife and casually bragged about sexual assault. His first week in office we're seeing the biggest protest movement since the 60's. Fewer people voted for him than McCain, FFS. I don't know how you look at all this and say she isn't a strong contender for WOAT.