Hillary Clinton and her presidential-loss, blame game of excluding herself

[Julian89]

^So nobody wants to entertain the idea that a major portion of those votes are against the Deplorable-in-Chief rather than a vote for Hillary Clinton and worse not enough to defeat him. But hey if that makes you feel better, keep repeating. Who knows the outcome may be different. For someone who is sane and qualified who is only ahead of 2.1% against someone who is crazy and fringe, even she ponders why isn't she 50 points ahead?

 

[kallipolis]

^Not many of us wish to speculate beyond the thought that your political prejudice is providing nothing more than...your political prejudice...to read into the election result, all that your prejudice wishes to invent.

Having said that, all opinions are welcome here.

 

[Julian89]

So now, verifiable information such as poll results on honesty and trustworthiness and election results are now political prejudice. And one wonders why establishment Democrats keep on losing.

 

[kallipolis]

Speculative political analysis is always welcomed here.

Most of us posting here are also aware that deception is an important element in the art of propaganda.

“And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”
― William Shakespeare, Richard III

 

[Julian89]

And now, numbers are speculative political analysis, deception and propaganda. This is pointlessly getting nowhere. Well, if living in your own facts will make you feel better, please indulge yourself while I and other Progressives will work on the lessons learned based from the data that are available and verifiable.

 

[TX-Beau]

And now, numbers are speculative political analysis, deception and propaganda. This is pointlessly getting nowhere. Well, if living in your own facts will make you feel better, please indulge yourself while I and other Progressives will work on the lessons learned based from the data that are available and verifiable.

Political analysis is always speculative, and Kalliopolis is Greek so American political labels aren't going to apply to him. Lets indulge ourselves with one thought shall we, Hilary is gone, she's utterly irrelevant to anything else, there is no point in talking about her anymore.

Adios Hilary, it's into the sunset for you!

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

Whereas I did not vote for Trump or Hillary, don't blame us for wanting to see corruption weeded out of the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz were the worst of the worst and this was a referendum on the desired reform of the party.

Those that do nothing and continue to tolerate (in some cases encourage) the status-quo are viewed as the problem from our side.

...I DID NOTHING!!!!!!! It's all your fault...

Yeah you did nothing to advance any cause you pretended to believe in.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

In Medic's defence, there has been a lot of mention of 'wasted votes' in this forum. Anyone who voted for someone other than Trump or Clinton were said to have wasted their vote instead of passing on the message that neither Trump nor Clinton deserved their votes.

As outsiders, we can sit back and see the whole picture - something most Americans are unable to do.

EDIT: By the way, Trump has yet to shoulder the blame for his shameful blunders and failures and incompetence. It is always someone else's fault.

This is a systemic problem with our system. It's not a parliamentary system with governments formed by compromise between factions, its bipartite and the winner gets to dictate (usually.)

So yeah you can't vote Green nationally (which is far more in line with me philosophically) without helping the right. They can't vote Libertarian without helping the Left. Actually most Americans are't far left or right, and Bernie only sounded "Progressive" because he's here, while if he was in other places he'd sound downright centrist.

There is nowhere for the center to go without helping the guy they DON'T want, and all the people calling themselves Progressives need to stand up and pay attention, because until this changes, until we can threaten the DNC with votes from actual people who agree with us, nothing will change for them.

That means outreach it means school boards and state houses, and all the rest and all the work that comes with it - the same work I might point out that Republicans have been putting in for decades.

The DNC's true crime, was that it abandoned large swathes of America to the right. Here in Texas if I want to go vote for a Democrat, I generally can't find one. I pulled the straight ticket Democrat lever in the booth (well pushed the button at the stand) and half HALF the contests on the ticket had no vote, because there were no Democrats OR PROGRESSIVES running.

 

[swerve]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

Hillary???

 

[TickTockMan]

Who care that Hillary "won" the popular vote. We know she cheated in the primary. Why should believe she didn't cheat in the general as well, but didn't cheat enough to win what what mattered. Hell we all know she is arrogant.


Also it is pretty damn funny of posters talking about other posters having "political prejudice" as if they don't. More so when said posters completely dismiss fact findings that go against their political prejudice.

 

[frankfrank]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

1) No vote is wasted. Just because someone votes for someone other than you like doesn't mean it is wasted.

In this country, which has an almost purely binary political system, any vote that isn't D or R is, indeed, WASTED and irrelevant. There have been exceptions, but on a national level, generally, any third-party candidates have been nothing more than a negligible ripple. In an election cycle, IT'S EASY TO TELL if there's any exception happening or not. There's been no real challenge to the steadfast D-R duopoly since 1992, with Ross Perot, and in that election cycle it was easy to see that all those who might have wanted to vote for him may not have been wasting votes after all.

Before that, it was 1968 and George Wallace, who was supported largely by extreme racist bigots, some of whom probably waxed nostalgic for those wonderful public lynchings that helped them get their rocks off while cheering-on the slow death of that n***** tied to the stake and writhing in horrific pain while being burned to death. How can humans be so sick? Wallace actually won something like 3 or 5 southern states in the Electoral College. Ross Perot won...NOTHING.

It was clear to see that voting Libertarian or Green for President in 2016 was, indeed, an utter and total waste of a vote. We don't have a parliamentary system which has proportionate representation. Also, having a Libertarian or Green president does little good when virtually 100% of Congress is Democrats and Republicans. L's and G's do not believe in running downballot candidates. Where I live, other than for President/VP, I don't believe I have EVER seen a Libertarian or Green candidate for...ANYTHING.

And, as for those who didn't even bother to vote at all, you have NO RIGHT to bitch about anything that happens politically...EVER...if you couldn't even be bothered to get off your ass to do what was legally allowed to you to change things. (And, no, TickTockMan did *NOT* say he didn't vote - he only said he didn't vote for D or R. Wasted vote or not, at least he made the effort, I give credit for that, and he fully earned the right to complain.)

Sad that one can always safely assume that "complaining" is going to be the most appropriate thing politically, isn't it?

In my case, I voted for Hillary (eagerly! - despite her shortcomings), because I KNEW that she would not appoint people **who**want**me**DEAD** - like Jeff Sessions does.

This is a systemic problem with our system. It's not a parliamentary system with governments formed by compromise between factions, its bipartite and the winner gets to dictate (usually.)

You kind of beat me to it, too. Our system is uncompromisingly binary.

It would have not been Trump if Hillary and The DNC didn't show Trump off to the public.

No, don't blame the DNC. Blame the Press-titutes of the Lame-Stream Media. No matter what was being covered, even if live coverage of a flood or earthquake or something, they had to break away at the exact microsecond that Agent Orange was going to speak in Paducah or something. They would even break away from important live stuff and have their cameras trained on the mikes at the Trump location waiting for somebody to come up and start talking, and just talk about TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP. CBS admitted that their 24/7/365 Trump coverage may not be good for America, but it was surely good for their profits.

 

[rareboy]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

Some people still fixated on Hillary I see.

As though she is relevant at all to the current mess that the US is in.

But I guess deflection and diversion will be a welcome distraction.

 

[frankfrank]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

^ No, CBS didn't cover Dump 24/7/365; they're an entertainment network with programming of course. But they were certainly all about him on their news stuff.

Now, MSNBC, Fox, CNN...All Trump, All The Time, All Of 2016.

 

[TickTockMan]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

In this country, which has an almost purely binary political system, any vote that isn't D or R is, indeed, WASTED and irrelevant. There have been exceptions, but on a national level, generally, any third-party candidates have been nothing more than a negligible ripple. In an election cycle, IT'S EASY TO TELL if there's any exception happening or not. There's been no real challenge to the steadfast D-R duopoly since 1992, with Ross Perot, and in that election cycle it was easy to see that all those who might have wanted to vote for him may not have been wasting votes after all.

Before that, it was 1968 and George Wallace, who was supported largely by extreme racist bigots, some of whom probably waxed nostalgic for those wonderful public lynchings that helped them get their rocks off while cheering-on the slow death of that n***** tied to the stake and writhing in horrific pain while being burned to death. How can humans be so sick? Wallace actually won something like 3 or 5 southern states in the Electoral College. Ross Perot won...NOTHING.

It was clear to see that voting Libertarian or Green for President in 2016 was, indeed, an utter and total waste of a vote. We don't have a parliamentary system which has proportionate representation. Also, having a Libertarian or Green president does little good when virtually 100% of Congress is Democrats and Republicans. L's and G's do not believe in running downballot candidates. Where I live, other than for President/VP, I don't believe I have EVER seen a Libertarian or Green candidate for...ANYTHING.

And, as for those who didn't even bother to vote at all, you have NO RIGHT to bitch about anything that happens politically...EVER...if you couldn't even be bothered to get off your ass to do what was legally allowed to you to change things. (And, no, TickTockMan did *NOT* say he didn't vote - he only said he didn't vote for D or R. Wasted vote or not, at least he made the effort, I give credit for that, and he fully earned the right to complain.)

Sad that one can always safely assume that "complaining" is going to be the most appropriate thing politically, isn't it?

In my case, I voted for Hillary (eagerly! - despite her shortcomings), because I KNEW that she would not appoint people **who**want**me**DEAD** - like Jeff Sessions does.


You kind of beat me to it, too. Our system is uncompromisingly binary.


No, don't blame the DNC. Blame the Press-titutes of the Lame-Stream Media. No matter what was being covered, even if live coverage of a flood or earthquake or something, they had to break away at the exact microsecond that Agent Orange was going to speak in Paducah or something. They would even break away from important live stuff and have their cameras trained on the mikes at the Trump location waiting for somebody to come up and start talking, and just talk about TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP. CBS admitted that their 24/7/365 Trump coverage may not be good for America, but it was surely good for their profits.

There are more than one way votes matter.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

There are more than one way votes matter.

It matters only if you can get enough people to vote one way, otherwise the constituents will ignore it because it's statistically worthless. It's part of how we got to this issue of the representatives ignoring public opinion in the first place.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

It was clear to see that voting Libertarian or Green for President in 2016 was, indeed, an utter and total waste of a vote.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, don't blame the DNC. Blame the Press-titutes of the Lame-Stream Media. No matter what was being covered, even if live coverage of a flood or earthquake or something, they had to break away at the exact microsecond that Agent Orange was going to speak in Paducah or something. They would even break away from important live stuff and have their cameras trained on the mikes at the Trump location waiting for somebody to come up and start talking, and just talk about TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP. CBS admitted that their 24/7/365 Trump coverage may not be good for America, but it was surely good for their profits.

I meant to vote for a green candidate for one of the smaller offices here but the button never lit, ended up voting for a Democrat.

Seconded, thirded and fourth'd the culpability of the media in this mess we're in. Greedy little bastards.

 

[TickTockMan]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

It matters only if you can get enough people to vote one way, otherwise the constituents will ignore it because it's statistically worthless. It's part of how we got to this issue of the representatives ignoring public opinion in the first place.

I agree, but I think it says more than that as well. The dems may be publicly ignoring us, but if it keeps up and it looks like it will, they will have to listen to us. Most of you all seem to think this is just a short term thing, but this is a long term fight if it needs to be. If this keeps up there will be a a third party or more. The democrats and republicans know that. If enough people resist them, they will have to give in and do some thing for the people and not just their own pocket books. They are hoping people stay complacent.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

I agree, but I think it says more than that as well. The dems may be publicly ignoring us, but if it keeps up and it looks like it will, they will have to listen to us.

...That's, historically speaking, not how change tends to occur.

You really think policies change because people do the equivalent of "Please, Sir, I'd like some more?" while hoping for a different outcome? The tip of the heap don't currently need us. At best people either have to sneakily 'work from within', which tends to have a pretty good fail-rate from where I'm sitting, or bits get scrapped/mended for a slightly-less-awful replacement, which is incredibly difficult to do. There's also whole cloth creation, which I'd think is slightly simpler, but we're not there yet. And those are the more pleasant possibilities. The last, however, doesn't seem to happen much unless there's a disaster that said Rich & Mightily Political can't hide from.

 

[TickTockMan]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

...That's, historically speaking, not how change tends to occur.

You really thing policies change because people do the equivalent of "Please, Sir, I'd like some more?" while hoping for a different outcome? The tip of the heap don't currently need us. At best people either have to sneakily 'work from within', which tends to have a pretty good fail-rate from where I'm sitting, or bits get scraped to start anew which is incredibly difficult to do. There's also whole cloth creation, which I'd think is slightly simpler, but we're not there yet. And those are the more pleasant possibilities.

How do you figure? Things will change because they want to keep their jobs and power. It will still be more for them than others. Even when people work from within, there are outside forces putting pressure on things. This is not a one prong approach.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

I mean, it's a nice thought. But I think there's considerably too many people to get a successful effort going to dislodge the current political party strangleholds with enough concentric votes when most people get distracted in about five seconds by a half-assed bit of skullduggery in an ill-fitted suit topped by a dieing tribble as a pièce de résistance.

Need a hell of a lot more than mere voting. If someone is voting on opinion instead of fact, "Global warming vs "God Will Provide So Lets Line Us Some Pockets!"" as an example, they'll leave the logical position because the other sounds simpler. Easier. Much less work. That's true whether it's facts against opinion or opinion against opinion. In order to get the votes to back up the difficult jobs there needs to be some sort of either mass catastrophe or mass educational effort. Need good basic education in state/gov matters for the public along with squishing gerrymandering. Decent science classes wouldn't go amiss, either, for what I'd hope were obvious reasons. Oooooh, and research. Everyone should know how to at least do basic research.

There's a grain or two of truth to the "All publicity is good publicity", fortunately all FDR had to deal with was the radio and some public appearances. Try getting a guy in a wheelchair elected these days.