• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another reason Clinton lost....

The Don said:
A natural conservatism of outlook ?

Even with abortion issue off the table then the Republican Party's attitude to equality especially as it pertains to allowing Christians to discriminate against, say, gay people on religious grounds is attractive. Indeed the GOP's stance, resisting the forces of liberalism (or at least paying lip service towards it) aligns nicely with the religious right who at the minimum want no more progress and ideally would like a return to an idealised version of the 1950s.
Click to expand...
That is something the left could go with, not accepting the gay lifestyle could be forced upon us.

1950's not so much. Although we did seem to have many intact families. Now we have intact gay families.

Anyone can make it in America!
 
Last edited:
I was watching the bit about the 2000's last night, and they brought something up. The 2000 election was decided in Florida. Very, very close. It was said that what tipped the scales toward Bush was the treatment of Elian Gonzalez by the Clinton Administration. Despite Al Gore's public support of keeping Gonzalez here in America, it wasn't enough to sway Cubans away from voting against that Administration.

Could it be that 16 years later Cubans in Florida showed a long memory and wanted nothing to do with a Clinton in office, no matter how clearly retarded the alternative was? What I recall was a very emotional situation down there.
 
logger said:
That is something the left could go with, not accepting the gay lifestyle could be forced upon us.

1950's not so much. Although we did seem to have many intact families. Now we have intact gay families.

Anyone can make it in America!
Click to expand...

Nobody's forcing you to be gay. If you are - good on you.
 
NoahFence said:
I was watching the bit about the 2000's last night, and they brought something up. The 2000 election was decided in Florida. Very, very close. It was said that what tipped the scales toward Bush was the treatment of Elian Gonzalez by the Clinton Administration. Despite Al Gore's public support of keeping Gonzalez here in America, it wasn't enough to sway Cubans away from voting against that Administration.

Could it be that 16 years later Cubans in Florida showed a long memory and wanted nothing to do with a Clinton in office, no matter how clearly retarded the alternative was? What I recall was a very emotional situation down there.
Click to expand...

Or they knew AlGore was full of it and was just pandering.
 
Clinton lost because she's a terrible campaigner. She would have made a great president, but it wasn't the year for level-headed policy wonks.
 
NoahFence said:
I was watching the bit about the 2000's last night, and they brought something up. The 2000 election was decided in Florida. Very, very close. It was said that what tipped the scales toward Bush was the treatment of Elian Gonzalez by the Clinton Administration. Despite Al Gore's public support of keeping Gonzalez here in America, it wasn't enough to sway Cubans away from voting against that Administration.

Could it be that 16 years later Cubans in Florida showed a long memory and wanted nothing to do with a Clinton in office, no matter how clearly retarded the alternative was? What I recall was a very emotional situation down there.
Click to expand...

In 2000 there were multiple issues. Ralph Nader drew thousands of votes from people who almost certainly would have voted for Gore, not Bush. The butterfly ballot caused thousands of people to vote for Buchanan thinking they were voting for Gore. (Even Buchanan acknowledged that.) There were allegations of voter "discouragement" if not intimidation at polling places in Democratic neighborhoods. I don't recall a lot of talk about Elian Gonzalez. Even then, a substantial percentage of observers across the spectrum thought that the little boy should be returned to his loving father, not captured as some kind of political pawn.

And 16 years later, there was/is speculation that the first generation Cuban refugees, who still seem to think they're gonna go home and get their plantations and casinos back, resented the Democrats for opening relations with Cuba. There's also speculation that many traditional Hispanics couldn't envision a woman President. And of course, a lot of people just don't like Clinton. Again, I don't recall anybody talking about Elian Gonzalez.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
Clinton lost because she's a terrible campaigner. She would have made a great president, but it wasn't the year for level-headed policy wonks.
Click to expand...

Just to note, part of being a terrible campaigner is that she surrounded herself with a small group of advisers who were basically like herself and saw the world the same way, and had no real understanding of the lives of the ordinary Americans she needed to connect with. (Her "basket of deplorables" gave it away, like Romney's "47%"). There were even reports that President Bill himself complained about the tone and direction of her campaign and was shut out. Somebody should have slapped Clinton upside the head (figuratively, of course) and said "You're not running for Queen!"
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Just to note, part of being a terrible campaigner is that she surrounded herself with a small group of advisers who were basically like herself and saw the world the same way, and had no real understanding of the lives of the ordinary Americans she needed to connect with. (Her "basket of deplorables" gave it away, like Romney's "47%"). There were even reports that President Bill himself complained about the tone and direction of her campaign and was shut out. Somebody should have slapped Clinton upside the head (figuratively, of course) and said "You're not running for Queen!"
Click to expand...

Clinton didn't need to, and shouldn't connect to those people, and "basket of deplorables" is an apt description for them. What she needed to do was not be a woman, and not have a 30 year smear campaign centered on her person. Too bad those were out of her control.
 
uke2se said:
Clinton didn't need to, and shouldn't connect to those people, and "basket of deplorables" is an apt description for them. What she needed to do was not be a woman, and not have a 30 year smear campaign centered on her person. Too bad those were out of her control.
Click to expand...

"Those people" were the people who had the power to vote for her or against her, and who, not coincidentally, voted overwhelmingly to elect Barack Obama president in 2008 and 2012. If she didn't see herself as running to serve all Americans -- including the people who felt left behind in part because of trade deals that Clinton advocated -- she didn't deserve to win.
 
Bob001 said:
Just to note, part of being a terrible campaigner is that she surrounded herself with a small group of advisers who were basically like herself and saw the world the same way, and had no real understanding of the lives of the ordinary Americans she needed to connect with. (Her "basket of deplorables" gave it away, like Romney's "47%"). There were even reports that President Bill himself complained about the tone and direction of her campaign and was shut out. Somebody should have slapped Clinton upside the head (figuratively, of course) and said "You're not running for Queen!"
Click to expand...

Trump;'s side was going to vote for him no matter what. If the Access Hollywood tapes didn't sink him, nothing would. All Clinton had to do was turn out the Dems to the same extent Obama did. Dems stayed home, Trump is president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom