On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 3:16:48 AM UTC+10, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying SissyOn Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 1:32:15 PM UTC+10, a425couple
Post by Quadibloc-> >
https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary
-cl inton-why
-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/
Post by Quadibloc-> > which contradicts some statements about Hillary Clinton
that have be
en
Post by Quadibloc-> > made in this newsgroup.
-> > John Savard
Post by a425coupleSheesh!!
Do you agree with Susan Bardos?
"The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, makes a striking
argument about th
e
Post by QuadiblocPost by a425couplecause of Clintonâs loss: She had no control of her
narrative" What a steaming pile of distortions! ----
- Oh bullshit.
So you really want to claim, that with all the news and
other free coverage, plus having 1.2 Billion $ to spend,
Hillary Clinton had "no control of her narrative".
She could have sent out any narrative or message she wanted to.
The news media decides what they run with.
So do bloggers, facebook posters etc.
Now you're talking about so many people that isn't a
consp[iracy so much as it is public opinion. Which was not
favorable to Hillary.
A breakdown of how much coverage announcements got would be
interesting, I think the campaign probably became a bit
negative with an emphasis on Trump is bad but I also don't
know how much of that view is created by people choosing what
to run with from everything she said.
Both candidates tried to play the press like a fiddle. The
press cheerfully let them, becauase it sold adverisging (which
is the _only_ thing they care about). Trump had more experience
at it, and thus more skill, and had the advantage of not giving
a shit what anybody thinks about him (making him the maverick
underdog, which Americans love).
More people voted against Clinton than against Trump. Few
people voted *for* either one.
Considering the actual vote count you're wrong on at least one
of those claims.
As is typical for the hallucination liberal, while trying to figure
out a reason why Clinton lost other than "nobody likes her," you
confuse those who voted *for* each candidate (who are, for the most
part, the die hard base of each party) with those who vote
*against* each candidate. All elections in the US are decided by
the middle, who aren't committed to either party. And they
generally dislike both candidates. In this case, more voted against
Clinton than against Trump. (As I predicted: Some Democrats who
refused to vote for Clinton voted for Trump. Republicans who
refused to vote for Trump would vote for Satan before they voted
for Hillary Clinton.)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying SissyPost by Quadibloc->> Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate who
-> > couldn't win three states that Obama won handily in
-> > the two prior elections. Clinton did not lose because
she's a woman. -> > She lost because she was a shitty
candidate who inspired no one.
-Yeah, there's no way that sexism could possibly have an
impact on -how easy it is for people to get votes...
-Or how much people will believe bullshit stories because
they want -a reason not to vote for a woman.
-Or how much they'll forgive a man because the alternative
is a woman.
A good female candidate can win election just about
anywhere.
Nikki Haley, a female (also an Indian American, and a Sikh)
won a seat in South Carolina House of Representatives 3
times against male opponents.
That's a significantly different situation from winning the
presidency, or an entire state in a presidential campaign.
There is, expecially in the south. In the south, it's even more
difficult for a woman to prevail over a man. So apparently,
there are other factors that are far more important.
When one of the states mentioned has only ever had a handful of
democratic presidential candidates get electoral college votes
it suggests pretty strongly that it's a tough place for a
democratic candidate in a federal election.
In this case the more important factor appears to be a 20 year
slander campaign and completely ignoring all the wrongdoings of
Trump...
That's the drugs talkign to you, and you're hallucinating that
Clinton did not illegally run her own mail server, resulting in the
compromise of quite a lot of classified information, and the
resulting coverup of *hundreds* of felonies by Obama, the FBI, and
without question, Clinton.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying SissyRomney beat Obama 54% to 44% McCain beat Obama 53.9% to
44.9%. Trump beat Hillary 54% to 40.9%
So "winning" the popular vote while losing the election is
politics as usual.
Individual states Terry
And? Trump still won the election. Because more people voted
against Clinton than against Trump. Your hallucinations
notwithstanding.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying SissyPost by QuadiblocIn 2010 she won the Governorship over a male 51% to 47%.
In 2014 she won the Governorship over a male 56% to 41%.
But Hillary Clinton only got 41% of the vote in that state, S.C.
Hoorah, how much weight was the GOP putting into hit
campaigns on Nikki Haley? How many millions did the GOP spend
on investigations into attacks on an embassy where the GOP
had reduced security funding?
If you're claiming that the GOP didn't care enough about
winning the governoship in _South Carolina_, you're making an
extraordinary claim, and need some extraordinary evidence to
support it.
Fortunately if makes that conditional so it can be ignored.
In other words, you got nothing. As expected.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying SissyOtherwise, you just look like a whiny liberal who needs his
diaper changed.
Post by QuadiblocHeidi Heitkamp, a female, and a Democrat, had won election
as a state Attorney General and state tax commisioner.
In 2011 she won the North Dakota seat for Senator against a
male. But Hillary Clinton only got 27% of the vote in that
state, N.D.
According to Wikipedia the following is the list of Democrat
candidates who have got electoral college votes from North
Dakota
Grover Cleveland (1892, one of three votes), Woodrow Wilson
(1912 and 1916), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932 and 1936), and
Lyndon B. Johnson (1964)
McCain got 53% versus Obama, Rommney got 58% (Obama 38%)
Making Heitkamp even more extraordinary, and providing even
stronger counterevidence to your claim that women have a
disadvantage in elections.
No, showing that the presidential and senate votes are
different.
Only in your mind, pookie. But then, so is the rest of the world,
in your mind.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying SissyPost by Quadibloc- > Please do recall what John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Krystal
Ball & Obama - > had to say about her in 2008.
- > MSNBC Host & Top Democrats Turn On Hillary Clinton
- > http://youtu.be/zZ0PtdXr238
- > "They are not going to vote for her. I'm not saying
anything - > we don't know already."
- and you don't think they were considering sexism as part
of that assessment?
Are you really believing, that no female can win the POTUS?
They're certainly starting at a major disadvantage.
But not nearly as big a disadvantage as being Hillary Clinton.
Remember at the time Hillary had over a 60% approval rating
as Secretary of State,
That'd be the same polls that showed her willing the election
in a landslide? yeah, that's convincing.
Polls which had her in front until the FBI announcement of
reopening the investigation on her emails just before the
election.
Polls that had her winning by a landslide _on election day_.
Polls which gave her a touch over an 80% chance of
winning, which means about a 1 in 5 chance of Trump winning...
And which were not only wrong, but complete bullshit.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissyby the election campaign she was being
bagged hugely over it. There's a lot of studies which show
that any woman running for a higher position or promotion is
judged harshly, she's either too soft to do the job or a
bitch.
And yet, women win national level elections on a regular basis.
and yet do you think a woman who'd had 5 kids with 3 different
fathers could have become president? Do you think a woman with
the same personality as Trump could have become president?
It's not like Trump wasn't exoriated over those very things. But
none of those things involve illegal mail servers and massive
coverups of the felonies that resulted, or criminal pay-for-play
allegations at the State Department, or giving large quantities of
uranium to Russia, or massive payments by Russia to a foundation,
or any of the other *many* criminal allegations that Clinton still
can't shake.
But, hey, by all means, I encourage you and other liberals to
continue to live in your comfortable fantasy world. You've already
guaranteed that Trump will get reelected if he wants it, and are
very, very close to guaranteeing that the Democrats won't see the
inside of the White House or a majority in either house of Congress
for at least a generation. More, if you keep up.
Trump ran as a Republican because Clinton was the only candidate he
could beat. And he beat her like a runaway step child.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.