Hillary Clinton reveals she still doesn't get why she lost

[TitanTiger 20,510]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-explains-why-she-really-lost-trump-n743581

 

All of the primary reasons she cites for losing could have been more succinctly said with "Not my fault."  And the fact that she, even with a few months to reflect and do some self-examination, still believes these are the reasons is why she lost.  She doesn't get it.  She has zero self-awareness.

I'm not saying these weren't some factors.  But she blew a huge opportunity here and that was all on her.  Probably for the first time since the late 70s, a segment of social conservatives were actually in play because of how repulsive Trump was.  People were wavering.  Some (such as me and many people I know) still chose not to vote for Trump at all.  But we couldn't cast a vote for Hillary instead because rather than see this opportunity and reach out to us, move to the middle a bit and seek some common ground on reducing abortions for instance, she lurched further left.  Even proposing to repeal the Hyde Amendment.  Multiple Christian outlets and publications reached out to her for interviews to give her an opportunity to speak to evangelicals - she ignored those requests unlike Obama when he was running.  Unlike Bernie Sanders who chose to speak at Liberty University and was frank, yet respectful about differences and sought to find areas of agreement with people who normally wouldn't vote Democrat.

Hillary chose poorly on strategy and telegraphed to anyone on the other side of the aisle looking for a reason to vote for her over some other option because of their misgivings with Trump that she didn't care about their votes.  It was a middle finger and a big "**** you" in a manner no Democrat I can remember has done before.  And unlike Obama and others, this cycle offered a much bigger chance of actually swaying some of those people.  Trump's odiousness gave her that opening that could have made the difference in a tight race.  

As long as she keeps pointing fingers at Comey, the Russians, misogynists...she'll just continue to reinforce one of the biggest reasons she's headed into retirement instead of sitting in the Oval Office.

[PUB78 1,362]

The election was hers to lose and she did. Numerous Christians prayed for a miracle and God provided one in the 2016 General Election.

[AUUSN 823]

1 minute ago, PUB78 said:

The election was hers to lose and she did. Numerous Christians prayed for a miracle and God provided one in the 2016 General Election.

Respectfully leave this Christian out of your calculus.

 

She lost because she was a horrible candidate. Full stop.

[homersapien 11,431]

First, let's not forget that hindsight is always 20/20.

She probably assumed that her major competition was coming from the left as Trump was incapable of winning.  Also, don't forget she won the popular vote by a healthy margin.  The electoral vote could very easily have been swayed by what Comey did, for example.

Having said that, Hillary was a weak candidate. She totally represented the establishment wing of the Democratic party and many, many people - both liberal and conservative - were anti-establishment for very good reasons.  The widening gap in wealth and the melting away of the middle class has been going on for decades with neither party doing much about it.

The "joke" on America is that while Trump has been very successful in defining himself as the anti-establishment candidate, his policies are anything but.  He's great on touching hot buttons but he has no intention of actually doing anything about them.  In fact, his positions will be counterproductive.

The pendulum is being pushed out by Trump and the swing back will be yuuuge.  As soon as the Republicans realize this, they will try to get him out of office.  That is, if he doesn't get himself out of office first.

 

[homersapien 11,431]

10 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

The election was hers to lose and she did. Numerous Christians prayed for a miracle and God provided one in the 2016 General Election.

That's just downright creepy.

[Strychnine 1,803]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's just downright creepy.

 

Creepy does not quite cover it.  Anyone that associates Trump with a miracle from God is flirting with Jim Jones levels of lunacy.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

First, let's not forget that hindsight is always 20/20.

She probably assumed that her major competition was coming from the left as Trump was incapable of winning.  Also, don't forget she won the popular vote by a healthy margin.  The electoral vote could very easily have been swayed by what Comey did, for example.

Having said that, Hillary was a weak candidate. She totally represented the establishment wing of the Democratic party and many, many people - both liberal and conservative - were anti-establishment for very good reasons.  The widening gap in wealth and the melting away of the middle class has been going on for decades with neither party doing much about it.

The "joke" on America is that while Trump has been very successful in defining himself as the anti-establishment candidate, his policies are anything but.  He's great on touching hot buttons but he has no intention of actually doing anything about them.  In fact, his positions will be counterproductive.

The pendulum is being pushed out by Trump and the swing back will be yuuuge.  As soon as the Republicans realize this, they will try to get him out of office.  That is, if he doesn't get himself out of office first.

 

After she won the nomination and Trump was the GOP nominee, who on the left was a danger to her?

I'll agree she was a weak candidate, but this lack of self-awareness is one of her biggest weaknesses.  And yes, hindsight is 20/20...but this entire talk by her is supposed to be her showing what she's learned in hindsight!  And yet, she still doesn't see it.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

29 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

The election was hers to lose and she did. Numerous Christians prayed for a miracle and God provided one in the 2016 General Election.

Trump was no answer to prayer.  Or if it was, it might well be filed under, "Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers..."

[RunInRed 16,481]

32 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

The election was hers to lose and she did. Numerous Christians prayed for a miracle and God provided one in the 2016 General Election.

G_d provided Trump?  I've heard it all now ...

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, RunInRed said:

G_d provided Trump?  I've heard it all now ...

He provided King Saul too, but He tried to warn Israel...

[homersapien 11,431]

25 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

After she won the nomination and Trump was the GOP nominee, who on the left was a danger to her?

I'll agree she was a weak candidate, but this lack of self-awareness is one of her biggest weaknesses.  And yes, hindsight is 20/20...but this entire talk by her is supposed to be her showing what she's learned in hindsight!  And yet, she still doesn't see it.

All the people who supported Sanders and others to her left who may or may not decide to vote for her in the general election.

Again, if you consider how few votes swung the electoral vote, the reasons she stated were valid.

But the larger problem is she was a weak candidate to begin with, for the reasons I mentioned.  That's why is was so close in the first place.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, homersapien said:

All the people who supported Sanders and others to her left who may or may not decide to vote for her in the general election.

Again, if you consider how few votes swung the electoral vote, the reasons she stated were valid.

But the larger problem is she was a weak candidate to begin with, for the reasons I mentioned.  That's why is was so close in the first place.

She wasn't in any serious danger.  People on the left were more scared of Trump than any GOP nominee in my lifetime.  If Obama could survive making some overtures to Christians and religious conservatives...if the aforementioned Sanders could "risk" speaking at Liberty University, I think Hillary could have reached out to disaffected GOP voters with little risk.

[alexava 6,973]

48 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

Creepy does not quite cover it.  Anyone that associates Trump with a miracle from God is flirting with Jim Jones levels of lunacy.

I can't even.......I just can't 

[Strychnine 1,803]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

She wasn't in any serious danger.  People on the left were more scared of Trump than any GOP nominee in my lifetime.  If Obama could survive making some overtures to Christians and religious conservatives...if the aforementioned Sanders could "risk" speaking at Liberty University, I think Hillary could have reached out to disaffected GOP voters with little risk.

 

I agree that she could have with little risk, but I doubt it would have helped her.  Anyone in the Fox News target demographic was unapproachable for her.  Years of daily coverage of Benghazi investigations and hearings, followed by more of the same relative to e-mails ensured that.  Her husband's Presidency was plagued with scandal, and so was she, before the primary even started.  A charismatic person could have possibly survived that, especially against a ridiculous embarrassment like Trump.

The votes of religious conservatives were indeed up for grabs, but I do not think she could have done anything to secure them.  The right was aligned against her long before Trump won the nomination.  I think she knew that, and saw no point in making an effort to try.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

20 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

I agree that she could have with little risk, but I doubt it would have helped her.  Anyone in the Fox News target demographic was unapproachable for her.  Years of daily coverage of Benghazi investigations and hearings, followed by more of the same relative to e-mails ensured that.  Her husband's Presidency was plagued with scandal, and so was she, before the primary even started.  A charismatic person could have possibly survived that, especially against a ridiculous embarrassment like Trump.

The votes of religious conservatives were indeed up for grabs, but I do not think she could have done anything to secure them.  The right was aligned against her long before Trump won the nomination.  I think she knew that, and saw no point in making an effort to try.

The Fox demographic wasn't really what I was thinking of.  I was thinking of people who normally vote Republican (partly because the Democrats don't bother reaching out to therm at all), aren't into Fox, but were repulsed by Trump enough to abstain from voting or voted third party.  If I knew of such folks in a deeply red state like Alabama, you don't think there were even more such people in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and Pennsylvania?

And even if she didn't make direct overtures in terms of policy adjustments, why blow them off completely?  Why not follow the same pattern as Obama did in speaking and granting interviews?  Why not do as Bernie did speaking to Liberty U.?  Why lurch left on the Hyde Amendment?   Those actions did nothing to improve her votes on the left, but slammed the door on any GOP defectors.

[TexasTiger 13,005]

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

The election was hers to lose and she did. Numerous Christians prayed for a miracle and God provided one in the 2016 General Election.

That's prevented and insane. Don't blame God for this.

[TexasTiger 13,005]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-explains-why-she-really-lost-trump-n743581

 

All of the primary reasons she cites for losing could have been more succinctly said with "Not my fault."  And the fact that she, even with a few months to reflect and do some self-examination, still believes these are the reasons is why she lost.  She doesn't get it.  She has zero self-awareness.

I'm not saying these weren't some factors.  But she blew a huge opportunity here and that was all on her.  Probably for the first time since the late 70s, a segment of social conservatives were actually in play because of how repulsive Trump was.  People were wavering.  Some (such as me and many people I know) still chose not to vote for Trump at all.  But we couldn't cast a vote for Hillary instead because rather than see this opportunity and reach out to us, move to the middle a bit and seek some common ground on reducing abortions for instance, she lurched further left.  Even proposing to repeal the Hyde Amendment.  Multiple Christian outlets and publications reached out to her for interviews to give her an opportunity to speak to evangelicals - she ignored those requests unlike Obama when he was running.  Unlike Bernie Sanders who chose to speak at Liberty University and was frank, yet respectful about differences and sought to find areas of agreement with people who normally wouldn't vote Democrat.

Hillary chose poorly on strategy and telegraphed to anyone on the other side of the aisle looking for a reason to vote for her over some other option because of their misgivings with Trump that she didn't care about their votes.  It was a middle finger and a big "**** you" in a manner no Democrat I can remember has done before.  And unlike Obama and others, this cycle offered a much bigger chance of actually swaying some of those people.  Trump's odiousness gave her that opening that could have made the difference in a tight race.  

As long as she keeps pointing fingers at Comey, the Russians, misogynists...she'll just continue to reinforce one of the biggest reasons she's headed into retirement instead of sitting in the Oval Office.

She really needs to shut up and go away.

[Strychnine 1,803]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The Fox demographic wasn't really what I was thinking of.  I was thinking of people who normally vote Republican (partly because the Democrats don't bother reaching out to therm at all), aren't into Fox, but were repulsed by Trump enough to abstain from voting or voted third party.  If I knew of such folks in a deeply red state like Alabama, you don't think there were even more such people in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and Pennsylvania?

And even if she didn't make direct overtures in terms of policy adjustments, why blow them off completely?  Why not follow the same pattern as Obama did in speaking and granting interviews?  Why not do as Bernie did speaking to Liberty U.?  Why lurch left on the Hyde Amendment.  Those actions did nothing to improve her votes on the left, but slammed the door on any GOP defectors.

 

I agree with you, and I know there was no shortage of GOP defectors wanting to be picked up.  I also agree that it was foolish to not attempt to court them.  She may have indeed obtained enough to make the difference, but I doubt it.  More importantly, I think she also believed that she could not, or that they were unnecessary.  That it was not a landslide victory for her, against a ridiculous candidate like Trump, is a testament to just how bad of a candidate she really was.

If there ever was a Presidential election in our lifetime that was ripe to be picked up by a third party, or a Republican/Democrat defector, 2016 was it.

[homersapien 11,431]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

She wasn't in any serious danger.  People on the left were more scared of Trump than any GOP nominee in my lifetime.  If Obama could survive making some overtures to Christians and religious conservatives...if the aforementioned Sanders could "risk" speaking at Liberty University, I think Hillary could have reached out to disaffected GOP voters with little risk.

You are kidding yourself if you think any right wing evangelical voters would ever have voted for Clinton, regardless of what she might have done.

Hating Hillary Clinton was and always will be an integral part of their core belief system.  It was never negotiable. To suggest her failure to "reach out" to right wing Christians cost her the election is nonsense.  

[icanthearyou 4,463]

She is right.  It's not her fault.  Blame the people who voted for her in the primaries.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

 

I agree with you, and I know there was no shortage of GOP defectors wanting to be picked up.  I also agree that it was foolish to not attempt to court them.  She may have indeed obtained enough to make the difference, but I doubt it.  More importantly, I think she also believed that she could not, or that they were unnecessary.  That it was not a landslide victory for her, against a ridiculous candidate like Trump, is a testament to just how bad of a candidate she really was.

If there ever was a Presidential election in our lifetime that was ripe to be picked up by a third party, or a Republican/Democrat defector, 2016 was it.

I think the bolded part is the reason.  There's no reason to veer the way she did on controversial issues unless you think you don't need them.  Such was her arrogance.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You are kidding yourself if you think any right wing evangelical voters would ever have voted for Clinton, regardless of what she might have done.

Hating Hillary Clinton was and always will be an integral part of their core belief system.  It was never negotiable. To suggest her failure to "reach out" to right wing Christians cost her the election is nonsense.  

Being that I am actually one of those evangelical voters, and know many more, and that many of us not just here but nationwide were having none of voting for Trump, I'll just nicely say that you're exaggerating.

But even beyond evangelicals, her numbers dropped significantly among Catholics from Obama's numbers.  You don't think that perhaps reaching out to them (and certainly not flipping them the bird with stuff like repealing the Hyde Amendment) could have made a difference?

And overall, I'm not saying specifically reaching out to just one group like evangelicals.  I'm saying, there were a lot of regular Republican voters who did not want to vote for Trump.  And many didn't.  But she didn't even attempt to even be civil, much less reach out.  She sent the message loud and clear that they weren't needed nor wanted.  They voted accordingly.

[AUDub 11,181]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the SCOTUS pick had a lot to do with it.

EDIT: Regarding the Evangelical vote. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Being that I am actually one of those evangelical voters, and know many more, and that many of us not just here but nationwide were having none of voting for Trump, I'll just nicely say that you're exaggerating.

But even beyond evangelicals, her numbers dropped significantly among Catholics from Obama's numbers.  You don't think that perhaps reaching out to them (and certainly not flipping them the bird with stuff like repealing the Hyde Amendment) could have made a difference?

And overall, I'm not saying specifically reaching out to just one group like evangelicals.  I'm saying, there were a lot of regular Republican voters who did not want to vote for Trump.  And many didn't.  But she didn't even attempt to even be civil, much less reach out.  She sent the message loud and clear that they weren't needed nor wanted.  They voted accordingly.

Easy to say if,,,your state is not in doubt.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

Easy to say if,,,your state is not in doubt.

Sure, it is easier.  But others who didn't live in such states did the same.  And I encouraged many more, no matter where they lived, to vote by their true convictions.  Can't help where I live.