Hillary Clinton is Done: part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
trustbutverify said:
Trump told a very large segment of the US population exactly what they wanted to hear, in exactly the way they wanted to hear it.

In addition, he benefitted greatly from a highly coordinated attack on Clinton's campaign from her enemies in Russia and Wikileaks and the FBI.
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
The Big Dog said:
False dichotomy
Click to expand...

Do you even know what that means? That has nothing to do with my argument.

further you did not "point out" anything you made it up.
Click to expand...

As much as you did. You said she lost because she ran a bad campaign. No evidence, no proof, just a declaration. I countered that Trump ran a worse one and still won. What have you got? Nothing.

Oh well, here I am using critical thinking
Click to expand...

:dl:

Oh, dear. That's priceless. You? Critical thinking? I've rarely seen a more partisan poster anywhere.
 
The Big Dog said:
you did not look very hard did you?
Click to expand...

Not yet. But I'll be getting into granular detail of actual cast votes later. Someone PMed me that Oklamoma apparently went 100% red, and rather than no-true-scotsmanning Oklamoma I'll look into actual numbers underneath the red or blue result, with trends.


I'm sorry if you were expecting a knee-jerk reactionary response.
 
Argumemnon said:
No evidence, no proof, just a declaration. I countered that Trump ran a worse one and still won. What have you got? Nothing.
Click to expand...

well except the article I just posted the fact is that she was an overwhelming favorite and lost, could not get out the black vote, she blew off Wisconsin and her campaign was mired in controversy and the fact he won.

But you have a laughing dog!

LOLZ!

Fantastic. Is this where I start pointing out that everything I have posted about Hillary has been proven correct?
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Not yet. But I'll be getting into granular detail of actual cast votes later. Someone PMed me that Oklamoma apparently went 100% red, and rather than no-true-scotsmanning Oklamoma I'll look into actual numbers underneath the red or blue result, with trends.


I'm sorry if you were expecting a knee-jerk reactionary response.
Click to expand...

actually I was not expecting such an obviously wrong sweeping statement in the first place, but there you go.
 
The Big Dog said:
well except the article I just posted the fact is that she was an overwhelming favorite and lost
Click to expand...

And?

could not get out the black vote, she blew off Wisconsin and her campaign was mired in controversy and the fact he won.
Click to expand...

You're failing to connect the facts to your theory.

But you have a laughing dog!
Click to expand...

You don't get to complain about other people's use of pre-digested responses, mister "'k" and "oh, dear".
 
Argumemnon said:
And?
.
Click to expand...

You lied that I have not posted anything to support the fact that Hillary was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign.

Say, "skeptic" you got through an entire post without a laughing dog!

Tells us again how Clinton was upset by someone who ran a "terrible campaign."
 
The Big Dog said:
You lied that I have not posted anything to support the fact that Hillary was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign.
Click to expand...

You still haven't.

And you're not one to talk about lying. Your entire posting history is a constructed, fictional character pretending to believe the things they post.

Say, "skeptic" you got through an entire post without a laughing dog!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a great statistic you got there. I can scarsely go a whole post without doing that. I'm sure you'll be posting the percentage of my posts containing a laughing dog anytime soon.

Tells us again how Clinton was upset by someone who ran a "terrible campaign."
Click to expand...

She was upset by Trump, so there.
 
The Big Dog said:
You lied that I have not posted anything to support the fact that Hillary was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign.

Say, "skeptic" you got through an entire post without a laughing dog!

Tells us again how Clinton was upset by someone who ran a "terrible campaign."
Click to expand...

If a democrat ran the campaign Trump just did they would be put in stocks by one party and lit on fire by the other.

The republicans hold Hillary's husband's decades old behaviour against her, while Trump bragged on camera about serially groping women then lied through his teeth denying it when confronted by women verifying his previous assertion.

Meanwhile, people freaked the **** out over a *********** spot of specular reflection of a Frenel in Hillary's ear.
 
The Big Dog said:
It is Sander's fault now?
Click to expand...

As I am the one who brought up Sanders, I should respond to this.

Yes, Sanders bears a lot to blame, but no I am not just now saying that it is Sanders fault - I have said it for 8 months. In mid-March I said that Trump would be the next President and that Sanders - both the viciousness of his campaign against HC and the length of time of that vicious campaign as I knew that Sanders would not drop out until the end - would leave HC with lasting damage.

Trump was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign. He spoke to an audience of rural voters and conspiracy nuts who felt (correctly) that they were neglected by the elites of both parties. The conspiracy nuts were neglected because what is believe is insane and at odds with reality. The rural voters were neglected because the solutions to their problems are inherently difficult to solve. Trump spoke of simple solutions. He will disappoint his followers.

For HC to lose to such a terrible candidate took several reasons:

1) Sanders long and vicious campaign against her tanked her favourability rating and made people weary that she could be trusted (again from generally a net +20s to a net -15ish and she never recovered from that).

2) Wikileaks and the FBI hit her where she was most vulnerable. Trust. They didn't have much and if her favorability rating had not tanked earlier it would not have been as damaging.

3) She couldn't hit Trump with what would have been fatal to him. Nailing him on his constant lies and boorish behavior did nothing because that was what was expected of him. If a recent tax return could have been released showing that he was not the massively successful businessman he claims to be that would have been fatal.

4) The polls were underestimating Trump. Some sites were giving HC a 99% chance of winning which was clearly insane, and even 538s prediction of around 65% for HC seemed over-confident to me at the time. This allowed some voters who really did not want Trump to win and were planning on holding their noses to vote for Clinton (who they did not trust) to feel confident enough that it would not matter if they either did not vote or voted 3rd party.

5) Based on internal and public polls Clinton became over-confident in her chances of winning and shifted her campaign funds and events both to help the down-ballot races and to States which were not generally in the running for Democrats. She thought she had the possibility of a massive win instead of just concentrating on the safe win. The result is that she did better in those solidly Republican states like Georgia and Texas etc and ended up losing Wisconsin etc. She and her campaign realized they were over-confident in the last day or two and tried to scramble to save what they had previously considered safe seats. HC generally ran a good campaign, but trying for the big win, to give her a big mandate, was a massive mistake.
 
Last edited:
Wayward son said:
As I am the one who brought up Sanders, I should respond to this.

Yes, Sanders bears a lot to blame, but no I am not just now saying that it is Sanders fault - I have said it for 8 months. In mid-March I said that Trump would be the next President and that Sanders - both the viciousness of his campaign against HC and the length of time of that vicious campaign as I knew that Sanders would not drop out until the end - would leave HC with lasting damage.
Click to expand...

That is utterly preposterous, and the contention that all the democrats should have bowed down before Miss Inevitable for her coronation is ludicrous.

Sanders did not run a vicious campaign by any stretch of the imagination.

Eight months, huh?

I have been showing that Hillary is a garbage candidate for four years.

One of us was right.

:thumbsup:Who has two thumbs and was absolutely right?:thumbsup:

This Guy!
 
The Big Dog said:
That is utterly preposterous, and the contention that all the democrats should have bowed down before Miss Inevitable for her coronation is ludicrous.

Sanders did not run a vicious campaign by any stretch of the imagination.

Eight months, huh?

I have been showing that Hillary is a garbage candidate for four years.

One of us was right.

:thumbsup:Who has two thumbs and was absolutely right?:thumbsup:

This Guy!
Click to expand...

:dqueen
 
Hillary ran a great campaign and is a great candidate!

Tump 279.

Clinton acknowledged, "This is painful — and it will be for a long time."

The Big Dog laughs, high fives and spikes the ball in the god damn endzone.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
A potentially excellent president but terrible candidate ran a mediocre campaign.

Does that level of nuance bother your binary thinking filter?
Click to expand...

No, I think it is awesome.

Now I have to get used to saying Madame President, just like all her supporters kept saying over and over and over and over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom