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

[TitanTiger 20,510]

2 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

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. 

Definitely.  Another reason she missed.  But that points to her policy positions and political commitments, which could be construed to have been an issue with her, rather than nefarious forces like the Russians or sexism.  So it wouldn't do as an excuse.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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.

That's pretty funny.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

That's pretty funny.

Why funny?  I refused to vote for Trump and in talking with people all over the country with similar misgivings/disgust, I encouraged them to withhold their votes from him as well.  I live where I live.  I can't help what everyone else does.  I voted third party, encouraged others to check out third party candidates in their states and to send the GOP a message.  I don't have a huge platform so I don't know what else I could have done with limited time and resources.

[homersapien 11,439]

23 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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.

More like her common sense in recognizing absolute futility.

Hillary winning Christian right votes is about as plausable as Obama winning white nationalists votes.

[homersapien 11,439]

26 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.

First, I am surprised to hear you consider yourself one of those evangelical voters.

But if so, what could she have possibly said or done to right wing evangelicals that would have garnered their votes?  

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, homersapien said:

More like her common sense in recognizing absolute futility.

Hillary winning Christian right votes is about as plausable as Obama winning white nationalists votes.

Was Bernie Sanders a fool for speaking to Liberty University students?  Was Obama a fool to grant interviews with religious news outlets?

She lost significant ground among Catholic voters compared to Obama - 5 points lower than 2012 and 9 points lower than 2008.  She also garnered 3 points less than Obama did in 2012 and 6 points lower than he did in 2008 amongst Protestant voters.

It wasn't common sense, it was stupidity.  She not only didn't even attempt to court them, she showed contempt for them.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

First, I am surprised to hear you consider yourself one of those evangelical voters.

But if so, what could she have possibly said or done to right wing evangelicals that would have garnered their votes?  

Well, I'm evangelical.  And I vote.  And many of the issues that matter to them matter to me.  Not sure what else you'd call me.

 

Two things that would have helped, in my opinion:

1.  Play on the fact that Trump's record on abortion suggests he's faking a pro-life stance rather than sincere about it.  Then propose some concrete plans aimed at reducing abortions.  Talk with groups like Feminists for Life, Secular Pro-Life and Democrats for Life to see how she could help promote their initiatives for practical approaches to reducing the demand side for abortions.  It can't be just pass out more condoms and oral contraceptives.  Express some openness to granting the unborn human their proper rights at the point of viability.  Something along these lines.  The last point might be tricky.  But engage the subject and do so in a way that isn't just a pep rally for Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

2.  Express some willingness to carve out some tailored, but robust religious conscience exceptions for people on morally controversial issues.  A lot of the SCOTUS pick motive for voting against her came from this.  It might not be everything some folks push for, but show that you are willing to broker a compromise between the two competing interests that seeks to keep everyone's rights of conscience and freedom intact rather that choosing one side to bulldoze the other.

Instead, she did the opposite.  She not only offered no olive branches; indicated no willingness to listen to the other side, she actively veered even further left than her predecessor.  She refused to even speak to religious news outlets and turned down opportunities to speak to their forums.  She doubled down on anything that concerned social conservatives and showed to them not mere disinterest, but active contempt.

 

[homersapien 11,439]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Why funny?  I refused to vote for Trump and in talking with people all over the country with similar misgivings/disgust, I encouraged them to withhold their votes from him as well.  I live where I live.  I can't help what everyone else does.  I voted third party, encouraged others to check out third party candidates in their states and to send the GOP a message.  I don't have a huge platform so I don't know what else I could have done with limited time and resources.

The (self-defined) "Christian" right I refer to casts their votes on abortion alone.  Here is Trump's official campaign position on abortion:

Trump has expressed a strong opposition to abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's health is endangered.

At a Republican presidential debate in February, Trump acknowledged that Planned Parenthood "helps millions and millions of women" who go for services like breast and cervical-cancer screenings. However, he also said that he would defund it because a portion of its services go toward providing abortions.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-abortion-womens-health-platforms-positions-2016-11

 

In other words, Trump was telling them exactly what they wanted to hear about their primary issue. (Well except maybe for the rape, incest and mother's health.) 

Nothing else really matters to them.  The fact that Trump lies whenever his lips are moving doesn't matter either.  And certainly nothing Hillary could have said - other than doubling down on Trump's position - would have mattered.  

It's delusional to insist Hillary would have had a chance if only she had catered more to evangelicals.  

[homersapien 11,439]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Was Bernie Sanders a fool for speaking to Liberty University students?  Was Obama a fool to grant interviews with religious news outlets?

She lost significant ground among Catholic voters compared to Obama - 5 points lower than 2012 and 9 points lower than 2008.  She also garnered 3 points less than Obama did in 2012 and 6 points lower than he did in 2008 amongst Protestant voters.

It wasn't common sense, it was stupidity.  She not only didn't even attempt to court them, she showed contempt for them.

Bernie Sanders is not Hillary Clinton.  Bernie Sanders could theoretically appeal to Liberty University. Clinton had no chance of getting their votes.  None.

I can't explain the Catholic vote discrepency, but I don't think it tells us anything about Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy or lack of "targeting" Catholics.  It probably has more to do with the years of demonization of her, justified or not.  

The "showing contempt" remark seems highly subjective.  Do you have an example?

[homersapien 11,439]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Two things that would have helped, in my opinion:

1.  Play on the fact that Trump's record on abortion suggests he's faking a pro-life stance rather than sincere about it.  Then propose some concrete plans aimed at reducing abortions.  Talk with groups like Feminists for Life, Secular Pro-Life and Democrats for Life to see how she could help promote their initiatives for practical approaches to reducing the demand side for abortions.  It can't be just pass out more condoms and oral contraceptives.  Express some openness to granting the unborn human their proper rights at the point of viability.  Something along these lines.  The last point might be tricky.  But engage the subject and do so in a way that isn't just a pep rally for Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

2.  Express some willingness to carve out some tailored, but robust religious conscience exceptions for people on morally controversial issues.  A lot of the SCOTUS pick motive for voting against her came from this.  It might not be everything some folks push for, but show that you are willing to broker a compromise between the two competing interests that seeks to keep everyone's rights of conscience and freedom intact rather that choosing one side to bulldoze the other.

Instead, she did the opposite.  She not only offered no olive branches; indicated no willingness to listen to the other side, she actively veered even further left than her predecessor.  She refused to even speak to religious news outlets and turned down opportunities to speak to their forums.  She doubled down on anything that concerned social conservatives and showed to them not mere disinterest, but active contempt.

 

That's pretty weak tea compared to Trump's positions.  I think they would have laughed at her.

And from what I have observed, without a stated commitment to outlaw abortions, policies designed to reduce the number of abortions are not taken seriously.  Most "pro lifers" are more interested in making abortions unobtainable than limiting them.  The opposition to Planned Parenthood illustrates that.

Likewise, the "religious conscience exceptions" you mention are hopelessly nuanced and vague when held up against a position that would allow for legal abortions.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The (self-defined) "Christian" right I refer to casts their votes on abortion alone.  Here is Trump's official campaign position on abortion:

It's delusional to insist Hillary would have had a chance if only she had catered more to evangelicals.  

Well of course, if your definition of evangelical is that narrow, I suppose you're right.  But that's not the definition typically given by pollsters and news outlets discussing the matter, nor how many evangelicals define themselves.

And I didn't say that she should have "catered" to evangelicals.  I said she should have reached out to disaffected Republicans turned off by Trump - many of whom were social conservatives, or certainly more socially conservative than she is.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

27 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Bernie Sanders is not Hillary Clinton.  Bernie Sanders could theoretically appeal to Liberty University. Clinton had no chance of getting their votes.  None.

I can't explain the Catholic vote discrepency, but I don't think it tells us anything about Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy or lack of "targeting" Catholics.  It probably has more to do with the years of demonization of her, justified or not.  

The "showing contempt" remark seems highly subjective.  Do you have an example?

How would Bernie Sanders, who is even more liberal than Hillary in most ways, appeal to Liberty University in ways Hillary could not?  

 

As far as showing contempt, a few examples:

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/hacked-emails-show-level-of-contempt-for-deeply-religious/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438911/hillary-clinton-opposes-religious-liberty

Refusing to even speak with various religious media outlets, unlike every previous Democratic nominee since I can remember.

Going beyond a mere pro-choice stance to declaring war on the Hyde Amendment

 

These are the kinds of things that Obama, Kerry, Gore and Bill Clinton did not do.  She telegraphed to anyone of that leaning "I don't care what you think enough to even acknowledge your existence in this election - unless it's to put you down privately."  For someone who touted her ability to reach across the aisle, she demonstrated zero inclination toward actually doing that.

[PUB78 1,362]

5 hours ago, AUUSN said:

Respectfully leave this Christian out of your calculus.

 

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

You don't believe in the power of prayer or the power of God?

[PUB78 1,362]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

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

Wow! Really have you Liberals all upset by just mentioning God. Christians  couldn't tolerate HC and her ink, her beliefs and her lack of concern for the average American.

[homersapien 11,439]

25 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well of course, if your definition of evangelical is that narrow, I suppose you're right.  But that's not the definition typically given by pollsters and news outlets discussing the matter, nor how many evangelicals define themselves.

And I didn't say that she should have "catered" to evangelicals.  I said she should have reached out to disaffected Republicans turned off by Trump - many of whom were social conservatives, or certainly more socially conservative than she is.

Do you think any "evangelical voter" - by any definition - would ever vote for a candidate who ultimately supports legal abortion over one who (implies) he supports banning abortions?

[PUB78 1,362]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am going to pray that God makes you leave this forum.

At least you are praying! Might ask for some other things while you are at it.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

10 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Wow! Really have you Liberals all upset by just mentioning God. Christians  couldn't tolerate HC and her ink, her beliefs and her lack of concern for the average American.

You defamed God. Took his name in vain. Your arrogant blasphemy offends me.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

Do you think any "evangelical voter" - by any definition - would ever vote for a candidate who ultimately supports legal abortion over one who (implies) he supports banning abortions?

First, stop narrowly defining my point as being ONLY about evangelical voters.  I said social conservatives.  That includes a lot of different people - some self-described evangelicals, some mainline Protestants, some secular pro-lifers, some Catholics.

But to answer your question, yes.  Because I did it.  Not for president, but for senator.  Back in 2006 I voted for Harold Ford, Jr. in the Tennessee Senate race over Bob Corker.  I felt Corker was merely using abortion and other issues of concern for Christians to get elected.  Ford discussed the issue (and others) and offered that though he was pro-choice he believed abortion was a tragic decision and put forth some good ideas for working with pro-life people to reduce abortions that were more than "free birth control!"  In the end I thought his ideas were better and showed genuine attempts at tackling the problem and not just lip service.  It was to no avail.  He lost a tight race by less than three points.  And I'm far from the only person who has thought this way amongst Christians.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

6 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.

Makes me even more convinced she would have been a disaster as POTUS

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

At least you are praying! Might ask for some other things while you are at it.

LMAO

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

You don't believe in the power of prayer or the power of God?

Thank you PUB78. I stand with you. I prayed not for a given candidate but that He would give us the best leader for our country. At this point I think He answered my prayers.

I would add that some posters here need to look in the mirror before they judge you or anyone else.

 

[AUUSN 823]

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

You don't believe in the power of prayer or the power of God?

Yes.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,368]

9 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Thank you PUB78. I stand with you. I prayed not for a given candidate but that He would give us the best leader for our country. At this point I think He answered my prayers.

I would add that some posters here need to look in the mirror before they judge you or anyone else.

 

So you agree with him that it was a biblical miracle that Trump was elected? Doesn't that sound a little 'off' to you?

[PUB78 1,362]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You defamed God. Took his name in vain. Your arrogant blasphemy offends me.

Hardly.

[PUB78 1,362]

2 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Thank you PUB78. I stand with you. I prayed not for a given candidate but that He would give us the best leader for our country. At this point I think He answered my prayers.

I would add that some posters here need to look in the mirror before they judge you or anyone else.

 

And so did the Baptist and Presbyterians PCA that I know and associate with,