Clinton blames Russia, FBI chief for 2016 election loss - Polidicks

Can anyone blame her? Who wouldn't be absolutely mortified and in denial that they lost what should have been an incredibly easy win and in the process only made our entire nation out to be an enormous joke to the rest of the world?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52178112]She did win the popular vote by a gigantic margin. The majority of voters preferred Clinton. Trump only won because of our horribly broken system.[/QUOTE] its put to a popular vote in each state, states are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the federal government. dont start with the whole "well a vote in a smaller state is worth more than a voter in a bigger state" thing. the federal government should not have as much reach as it does and the electoral college is one of the remaining checks on its power. by letting each individual STATE decide which candidate it would prefer instead of putting it to a national popular vote, state sovereignty is at least somewhat preserved. please enlighten me as to why you think otherwise with no snark, thanks.

I'll be honest, would it be nice for her to acknowledge the plight of the working class and their concerns? Yeah, but I hope I can just give her the benefit of the doubt for now when it comes to making amends. To be honest though it would probably be best if she stayed as far away from the american progressive movement as possible. [editline]2nd May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mitchd247;52178245]its put to a popular vote in each state, states are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the federal government. dont start with the whole "well a vote in a smaller state is worth more than a voter in a bigger state" thing. the federal government should not have as much reach as it does and the electoral college is one of the remaining checks on its power. by letting each individual STATE decide which candidate it would prefer instead of putting it to a national popular vote, state sovereignty is at least somewhat preserved. please enlighten me as to why you think otherwise with no snark, thanks.[/QUOTE] Why don't we start with the whole "a vote in a smaller state is worth more than a vote in a bigger state" thing? It's a real concern. Why should people like me, who live in large metropolitan areas, be penalized and have less of a voice for living in a more populated area? Shouldn't more populated areas have a voice proportional to how many people live there? The US electoral system is bunk in more ways than one, and I'd say that no matter who won the election. States rights are indeed important on a number of issues but the federal government is still something that should have significant reach in a day and age where states still discriminate on the basis of sexuality and were reluctant to give basic marriage rights to LGBT individuals until they were literally forced to by the feds.

she was a horrible candidate who should have noticed her abysmal appeal.

[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52178245]its put to a popular vote in each state, states are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the federal government. dont start with the whole "well a vote in a smaller state is worth more than a voter in a bigger state" thing. the federal government should not have as much reach as it does and the electoral college is one of the remaining checks on its power. by letting each individual STATE decide which candidate it would prefer instead of putting it to a national popular vote, state sovereignty is at least somewhat preserved. please enlighten me as to why you think otherwise with no snark, thanks.[/QUOTE] States maintain their soverignty and their voice in government already via elected Representatives and Senators. You know, the people in the House and the Senate? The people who REALLY pass laws, manage the budget, and decide who we are/are not currently at war with? Allowing "po-dunk" states to have more power in deciding who represents the country as a whole is a bit of a stretch when you consider that. [editline]2nd May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;52178307]she was a horrible candidate who should have noticed her abysmal appeal.[/QUOTE] She noticed, alright. Remember when Bernie started surging ahead and was beating her in some states, toe-to-toe in others? She started harping on about the same issues Bernie was all of a sudden. She didn't care enough to continue, though, for as soon as she was the decided candidate she reverted to smear attacks against her opponent and self-congratulatory bullshit.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52177690]Besides Fox, who in the MSM really laid it on her over her emails? And how's it "unfair treatment" when a major news network was feeding her debate questions?[/QUOTE] MSNBC, CNN, CBS, CNBC. The only person who leaked debate questions was a CNN employee who was let go after it came out. Nothing shows that CNN had anything to do with it. [QUOTE=General J;52177703]Lmao she had CNN in her pocket the entire fucking way and ends up blaming them for her loss.[/QUOTE] She didn't blame CNN. She blamed unfair media treatment. Which I can kind of see. I don't think any news networks except maybe Fox went out of their way to mistreat her but I think media as a whole simply held her to a higher standard. Which is fair, she was a public servant years before running for president, but it still creates an unbalanced news focus. [QUOTE=-nesto-;52177719]An additional note: I wonder why everyone keeps blaming Comey. He sent a [B]private[/B] letter to the Senate to inform them about the investigation, like he said he would. It was Chaffetz that ran to the media with the letter yet no one ever brings that up when taking about the situation. Instead Comey gets thrown under the bus by the right for not pursuing charges and thrown under the bus by the left for the letter.[/QUOTE] Well he shouldn't have sent the letter knowing it would have been leaked by Chaffetz, but he can't really charge Clinton with anything if the case wasn't viable. You really can't equivocate those two things. [QUOTE=-nesto-;52178205]she did not assign any blame to her strategy or staff. Nor did she point to her own weaknesses as a candidate or the struggles by her and her team to understand the angry mood of key parts of the electorate. doesn't seem that way champ. If she were to admit that she's to blame this article would be about her realizing that ignoring the Rust belt and running a campaign on shit flinging wasn't gonna take her down the path of victory. Instead its about waa waa news media waa waa misogyny waa waa Comey waa waa Russia.[/QUOTE] It would have been nice to see her eat crow about campaign strategy but not throwing her staff under the bus is noble and I can't possibly see how you think that would make her look better. But we wouldn't even be having this discussion if you didn't editorialize the headline, [B][I]which is against the rules[/I][/B] [QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52177817]Update: Someone Kinda leaked their PAC Autopsy for democrats to WAPO, It's bad, Especially the Obama=>Trump Voters, [URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b5e9ed4fcfb3[/URL] Bernie might have had a chance, But Clinton's policies were viewed as Benefiting the Rich only.[/QUOTE] I hope they got what they paid for.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;52178249] Why don't we start with the whole "a vote in a smaller state is worth more than a vote in a bigger state" thing? It's a real concern. Why should people like me, who live in large metropolitan areas, be penalized and have less of a voice for living in a more populated area? Shouldn't more populated areas have a voice proportional to how many people live there? The US electoral system is bunk in more ways than one, and I'd say that no matter who won the election. States rights are indeed important on a number of issues but the federal government is still something that should have significant reach in a day and age where states still discriminate on the basis of sexuality and were reluctant to give basic marriage rights to LGBT individuals until [b]they were literally forced to by the feds.[/b][/QUOTE] im so sick of this argument which is basically one step below an outright lie. the federal government had their nuts put in a vice by residents of states and the states themselves. do you think it would have even gotten to the supreme court in the first place without the action of the citizenry suing the state? the best part is barack obama and the dems at the time love to take credit for something they basically did nothing to make happen. and if you want to say "well people within the democratic party really pushed for it!!!" we can talk about how the libertarian party has been pushing for it since the 70s, but i hardly see any talk of that here. interesting to me really, it really seems people are so entrenched in their party fandom that they refuse to give any conservative credit for anything even if it aligns with their personal beliefs.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52178307]she was a horrible candidate who should have noticed her abysmal appeal.[/QUOTE] In fairness to her approval ratings, they were quite high, into the 60's in some polls. Even during the Benghazi witch trial she was over 50%. They didn't start dropping like a rock until her emails became compromised, by which time she was already campaigning. As others have noted you can't really claim that the reason Clinton lost was because she was less popular than Trump. She won by 3 million popular votes. She just didn't win the right amount of votes in the right states. Because, as far as we know, they didn't even bother campaigning there, assuming that because they went blue twice for Obama they would go blue again for her. Which is definitely the fault of her campaign.

Her campaign was shit where it mattered. There was outside influence like Comey's letter and the Russia spambots, but I'd wager never stepping foot in Wisconsin or barely Michigan and rural PA had more to do with it.

[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52178245]its put to a popular vote in each state, states are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the federal government. dont start with the whole "well a vote in a smaller state is worth more than a voter in a bigger state" thing. the federal government should not have as much reach as it does and the electoral college is one of the remaining checks on its power. by letting each individual STATE decide which candidate it would prefer instead of putting it to a national popular vote, state sovereignty is at least somewhat preserved. please enlighten me as to why you think otherwise with no snark, thanks.[/QUOTE] ~State sovereignty~ is a fallacy. It's a national election, not a state-by-state one. That means that the popular vote-- "one person, one vote" method-- makes more sense to use than this obtuse system we currently have where Candidate X can win more votes and clearly be the preferred candidate nationally than Candidate Y, but Candidate Y can still become president anyway because the Electoral College has the power to step in and basically say to Candidate X, "Nope lol." Citizens vote as individuals for who they want to lead the country as president, not states. The "get out and vote" rhetoric also falls flat on its face under the Electoral College because of this. Again, Clinton defeated Trump by a decisive margin: more than 2.9 million votes. The Americans who voted clearly preferred her over him, and that's why this margin existed in the first place. But their votes meant nothing in the end because the Electoral College had the power to step in and hand the election over to Trump anyway. What's worse in Trump's case is the fact that, theoretically, the Electoral College is also supposed to serve as a barrier against candidates who are unqualified for the presidency... yet it failed miserably to stop him or to legitimately criticize him in any significant way. It's a hilariously broken system that only continues to exist because the Republicans benefit from it and don't want to see it be gotten rid of (which is all the more reason to eradicate it). Trump lost to Clinton in 2016, Bush lost to Gore in 2000. Yet both men still managed to become president because of it (and ONLY because of it). Even more ridiculously, Trump accused it of being a "disaster for democracy" in 2012 after Obama defeated Romney (neglecting to mention that Obama defeated Romney decisively in the popular vote as well); after 2016, he hailed it as being "genius" lol. This sort of duplicity is exactly the kind that the Republican Party and conservatives in general in this country harbor with regards to it, and you will note it clearly occurring again and again in their sympathizers.

Relooking over matters, Hilary and Trump are a lot closer alike than people like to admit.

Imagine growing and working your whole life to be the first female president and you lose to the donald Really must sting tbh

[QUOTE=Duck M.;52178013]:thinking:[/QUOTE] but also Article title: [QUOTE]‘I would be your president’: Clinton blames Russia, FBI chief for 2016 election loss[/QUOTE] Thread title: [QUOTE]Hillary Clinton blames everyone but herself for election defeat[/QUOTE] :thinking:

They changed the Wapo title, you can see it in the url still. [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-blames-russian-hackers-and-comey-for-2016-election-loss/"]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-blames-russian-hackers-and-comey-for-2016-election-loss/2017/05/02/e62fef72-2f60-11e7-8674-437ddb6e813e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_clinton-250pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory[/URL] :thinking:

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52179651]They changed the Wapo title, you can see it in the url still. [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-blames-russian-hackers-and-comey-for-2016-election-loss/"]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-blames-russian-hackers-and-comey-for-2016-election-loss/2017/05/02/e62fef72-2f60-11e7-8674-437ddb6e813e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_clinton-250pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory[/URL] :thinking:[/QUOTE] That's still pretty different from "Hilary Clinton blames everyone but herself" though. Editorialization seems a wee bit blatant.

Not really. She blamed everyone but herself in her interview. If you have an issue take it to a mod and stop derailing.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52179651]They changed the Wapo title, you can see it in the url still. [/QUOTE] Than why isn't it "Hillary Clinton Blames Russian hackers and Comey for 2016 election loss" Why did you feel the need to change it?

[QUOTE=General J;52177703]Lmao she had CNN in her pocket the entire fucking way and ends up blaming them for her loss.[/QUOTE] ehh I think CNN did whatever would give them better ratings so they pushed the horse race narrative. [editline]2nd May 2017[/editline] and for CNN being in clinton's pocket they sure spent a lot of air time on her emails! [editline]2nd May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=-nesto-;52177690]Besides Fox, who in the MSM really laid it on her over her emails? And how's it "unfair treatment" when a major news network was feeding her debate questions?[/QUOTE] Wasn't that Donna Brazile who was the DNC chairperson at the time? Which is bad but has nothing to do with CNN? edit:[QUOTE=-nesto-;52179720]You had CNN telling people not to look at the wikileaks because theyre illegal and a CNN employee slipping her debate questions. Cmon now.[/QUOTE] Oh Brazile was working at CNN too I get you, I was mistaken.

You had CNN telling people not to look at the wikileaks because theyre illegal and a CNN employee slipping her debate questions. Cmon now.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52179720]You had CNN telling people not to look at the wikileaks because theyre illegal and a CNN employee slipping her debate questions. Cmon now.[/QUOTE] You had an anchor on CNN say that you can't read them [URL="https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/788138765558611968"]who later said he was wrong[/URL], and a CNN contributor who leaked questions that was later fired, with no proof that the questions or orders to leak the questions came from CNN itself. Cmon now. [editline]3rd May 2017[/editline] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/01/how-much-coverage-did-cnn-actually-devote-to-clintons-emails-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.6e619b304238"]I found this[/URL] when looking up how much CNN covered her emails. I don't have time to go through all the data but if the graph is to be believed then every network covered he emails at about the same rate and across partisan lines except Fox News which is double anyone else :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

The thread title is very misleading, the full quote from the article says this: "Clinton stated broadly that she takes “absolute personal responsibility” for her failure to win the White House. Yet the Democratic nominee declined to fault her strategy or message, nor did she acknowledge her own weaknesses as a campaigner or the struggles by her and her advisers to at first comprehend and then respond to the angry mood of broad swaths of the electorate." This seems to translate to "I blame myself, but not for the reasons stated by my detractors". This is later clarified in the article: "'I take absolute personal responsibility,' Clinton said. 'I was the candidate. I was the person who was on the ballot.'" and "Clinton added that she would detail her mistakes in her forthcoming book. “You’ll read my confession and my request for absolution,” she said with a touch of sarcasm." Finally, the article gets into the matter of what is to blame for the campaign's failure: "Robert Shrum, a Democratic strategist who advised two losing presidential nominees, Al Gore and John F. Kerry, said Clinton is not applying enough weight to her own failures, especially her economic message, in analyzing her loss." All in all, I think the article itself is very balanced and well constructed, but the editorialized title is misleading and makes it out to be a hit piece rather than an analysis of the faults of a presidential campaign. The article does not suggest that "Clinton is blaming everyone but herself" but is rather instead discussing the nuances of [i]why[/i] she is to blame. Clinton herself believes that her failure to respond to outside forces lead to her downfall, while Shrum, the campaign strategist, posits that her internal decisions, namely when it comes to her political campaign messages, are at fault. By peering into the results of the election, we can begin to figure out which of these two answers are more correct. In particular, we can see that the electoral votes which switched from democrat to republican seemed to consist of Midwestern states that were part of the small coalition of significantly rural states that maintained a tenuous foothold for the democrats in the area. Many of these places are affected by the negative aspects of globalization, including loss of jobs related to factory production and coal mining. As part of his electoral promises, Trump advertised the return of coal mining and factory production to the country, while Clinton was notoriously absent in promoting her economic policy. This may have lead to the inhabitants of Midwestern states to be less than enthused by the prospect of a Clinton presidency, which they perceived as a continuation of the existing establishment policy. [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1561620&p=52151121#post52151121]A reminder that the perception that internet communities may not be representative of the views of the entire US population is not necessarily justified, and the biggest cause of the rise of reactionary right wing politics is probably due to economic factors rather than internet memes.[/url]

This lady needs a break from politics for the sake of her own mental health if nothing else.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52179672]Not really. She blamed everyone but herself in her interview. If you have an issue take it to a mod and stop derailing.[/QUOTE] Because this is relevant to the discussion, actually. Part of what fed people's distaste for Clinton is the exact thing that you're trying to tap with your disingenuous title. The perception of Clinton is that she just likes to blame everyone else (and that by extension she's a poor leader). You have an article that [b]explicitly[/b] mentions that she takes personal responsibility, she says her strategy wasnt perfect, and twist it to sound as if she only blames others. This is demonstrably not the case. You're doing the same shit with your title that Trump does on the daily. I'm no fan of Clinton but it's time to stop looking for points and start looking at people honestly in our society. You deliberately ignored her words and misrepresented her in your title. Kinda shitty mate.

Clinton gets such a bad rep but I think she would have been great. Honestly the shit Americans let Trump get away with they would have never let Hilary hear the end of. She's a woman who speaks like an academic rather than a politician, which many people may find jarring.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52180592]This lady needs a break from politics for the sake of her own mental health if nothing else.[/QUOTE] More like permanently. She needs to fuck off.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52177766]It's her own fault. The witch hunt on the email shit may have been massively overblown, but her campaign strategy was dogshit. She completely phoned in that election based on the assumption that America couldn't [I]possibly[/I] be [B]so[/B] fuckin' stupid as to [u]actually[/u] vote for Trump. As a result, she failed to convince anybody of her authenticity. Despite the fact that Trump is every bit the corrupt pawn that everybody accused her of being, at least he was actually talking about how he was going to help America. While the rhetoric about his plans was absurd, ill defined, and largely unconstitutional, he at least actually took the time to [I]talk[/I] about them on the campaign trail. While he may have rallied a base of ugly-minded degenerates behind him, Clinton failed to rally anybody behind her. He only appeal was that she [I]wasn't[/I] Trump. No sympathy for Clinton. She lost to a narcissistic daddy's boy who never worked a day in his life, a spray-tanned clown who couldn't open his mouth without saying something shockingly stupid, a textbook misogynist, a self-admitted rapist, and an old-fashioned racist. The most frustrating thing of all is that this "strategy" of simply [I]not being Donald Trump[/I] was [I]almost[/I] enough. After all, she crushed him in the popular vote. If she had [B]just[/B] spent some fucking time on the campaign trail telling people why they [I]should[/I] vote for her, instead of why they [I]shouldn't[/I] vote for Trump, she likely would have had a landslide victory. So, to reiterate: you can kindly get lost Hillary. You have already shattered what credibility you may have once had, and this childish finger pointing is only reaffirming that. You lost because you [I]sucked[/I], not because America hates women.[/QUOTE] Even after the 'grab her by the pussy' tape got leaked, she still lost. I thought that was possible to sway voters to her side, since it was so well timed after all.

so i see hillary hasn't learned a thing and the majority of democratic would-be party leaders will be parroting her to save any face they might actually have left.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52178112]She did win the popular vote by a gigantic margin. The majority of voters preferred Clinton. Trump only won because of our horribly broken system.[/QUOTE] Our horribly broken system meant to keep cities from determining every election. Not that it matters because our politicians don't give a fuck about us anyway. [editline]3rd May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;52178249]Why don't we start with the whole "a vote in a smaller state is worth more than a vote in a bigger state" thing? It's a real concern. Why should people like me, who live in large metropolitan areas, be penalized and have less of a voice for living in a more populated area? Shouldn't more populated areas have a voice proportional to how many people live there?[/QUOTE] The system was created because the founding fathers had concerns that cities like Philadelphia or Boston would be the voice of the country and every other town and farm would have no voice at all.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52182012]Our horribly broken system meant to keep cities from determining every election. Not that it matters because our politicians don't give a fuck about us anyway. [editline]3rd May 2017[/editline] The system was created because the founding fathers had concerns that cities like Philadelphia or Boston would be the voice of the country and every other town and farm would have no voice at all.[/QUOTE] But that's a non-issue. I hate to reference the CGP grey video yet again as it's become somewhat of a tired mainstay in these discussions, but it really does illustrate the fact that indeed, if a more logical, representative system of voting were implemented that were non-winner takes all and non-FPTP, cities still wouldn't have a monopoly on the decision. All it would do is smooth over the arbitrary emphasis placed on certain swing-states that decide the election rather than the popular vote of the people. Between the previously mentioned issues and the rampant gerrymandering throughout the 50 states, we find ourselves at the whims of an incredibly arbitrary system that is largely non-representative of the will of the people. And really, if a large metropolitan area contains more people than a small town, then shouldn't it naturally have more of a say? This rapid urbanization has been a trend of not just the US but of the world's demographics, so shouldn't our electoral process reflect that? More people live there, and thus it should be given more votes proportional to its population. This seems like common sense, but under our current system it's a major issue.

Purely blaming a loss on Comey's letter is kinda stupid, because it really isn't an isolated factor - if Clinton wasn't Clinton, she wouldn't have had that issue. If Trump had lost, maybe people would've talked about "grab her by the pussy" as the deciding factor (Trump was already behind at that point, but still), but really it would've still been because Trump was a shit candidate. [I]However[/I], I think it's definitely possible that the letter could've been the straw that broke the camel's back. In some states (Florida for example) margins were down to around 1% on election day - who says a week's worth of coverage of a Clinton scandal couldn't have pushed those undecided voters to the other side? 538 just ran an article about this (kinda in pundit territory, but I don't think Nate's analysis is out there), but I remember writing basically the same thing back in November or whatever: [url]https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/[/url] It's not like it matters now, though.