It’s that she set up a secret deal during the primary where her campain funded thebDNC and in exchange she got final authority on anything the DNC said…
But the real problem was 2009 when Obama ignored the DNC instead of naming a progressive chair. Dude just didn’t do anything with the DNC because he was mad they were biased against him. Despite the fact that he could have handed anyone he wanted the keys.
Trump would have won comfortably against Sanders, who was polling poorly with several key demographics and Republicans had easy avenues of attack lined up, such as the rape essay and just repeating “socialist!” What rape essay, you might ask? If he’d been nominated, you’d know.
Clinton was a Comey letter away from the presidency, though in that scenario Trump would’ve likely won the 2020 election.
Clinton had no possible chance at the presidency. She was political poison and has been since the 1990s when she declared all black and brown children were super predators. This would be fine if she was running as republican, but after 3 decades of Third Way politics and her racist past comments and policies, why the fuck would any one left of the Orphan Crushing Alliance vote for her?
And yes the “rape essay” was slightly problematic… in an election against… George W Bush? Was that the last republican that didn’t have rape allegations? I would say McCain but I’m pretty sure he did as well.
Sanders, being a populist that at the very least acknowledged that life was still shit under Obama, was infinitely more popular than Clinton and had a better chance. And more importantly didn’t have an extensive history of outright government corruption that could be used against him, so no ‘Comey’ letter was possible. Him being an independent most of his career also distanced himself from the democrats, which were objectively unelectable in 2016 after 8 years of Obama’s failures.
How does it make sense to have “no possible chance” in an election she lost extremely narrowly? Again, without the Comey letter, she’d have been president. You can dislike her (as I do), but that’s no reason to deny reality and/or ignore post-election analyses. Clinton was polling 10 points better than Trump before the e-mail “scandal” broke. Obviously Clinton had every chance to capture those voters that at some point did say they intended to vote for her, but later changed their mind.
Was that the last republican that didn’t have rape allegations?
That’s not the point. There’s a double standard. Obviously actual rapist Trump is worse than rape essay-writing Sanders (and Sanders disowned the essay anyway). The question is: how would voters respond, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of them consists of easily manipulated imbeciles?
[Sanders] was infinitely more popular than Clinton and had a better chance.
But what is this assessment based on? Seemingly not actual polling of real voters.
Youre right, Hillary. Just like you cost us in 2016 with your run. It should have been Bernie.
It wasn’t just “her run”…
It’s that she set up a secret deal during the primary where her campain funded thebDNC and in exchange she got final authority on anything the DNC said…
But the real problem was 2009 when Obama ignored the DNC instead of naming a progressive chair. Dude just didn’t do anything with the DNC because he was mad they were biased against him. Despite the fact that he could have handed anyone he wanted the keys.
She speaks from experience.
Trump would have won comfortably against Sanders, who was polling poorly with several key demographics and Republicans had easy avenues of attack lined up, such as the rape essay and just repeating “socialist!” What rape essay, you might ask? If he’d been nominated, you’d know.
Clinton was a Comey letter away from the presidency, though in that scenario Trump would’ve likely won the 2020 election.
Clinton had no possible chance at the presidency. She was political poison and has been since the 1990s when she declared all black and brown children were super predators. This would be fine if she was running as republican, but after 3 decades of Third Way politics and her racist past comments and policies, why the fuck would any one left of the Orphan Crushing Alliance vote for her?
And yes the “rape essay” was slightly problematic… in an election against… George W Bush? Was that the last republican that didn’t have rape allegations? I would say McCain but I’m pretty sure he did as well.
Sanders, being a populist that at the very least acknowledged that life was still shit under Obama, was infinitely more popular than Clinton and had a better chance. And more importantly didn’t have an extensive history of outright government corruption that could be used against him, so no ‘Comey’ letter was possible. Him being an independent most of his career also distanced himself from the democrats, which were objectively unelectable in 2016 after 8 years of Obama’s failures.
How does it make sense to have “no possible chance” in an election she lost extremely narrowly? Again, without the Comey letter, she’d have been president. You can dislike her (as I do), but that’s no reason to deny reality and/or ignore post-election analyses. Clinton was polling 10 points better than Trump before the e-mail “scandal” broke. Obviously Clinton had every chance to capture those voters that at some point did say they intended to vote for her, but later changed their mind.
That’s not the point. There’s a double standard. Obviously actual rapist Trump is worse than rape essay-writing Sanders (and Sanders disowned the essay anyway). The question is: how would voters respond, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of them consists of easily manipulated imbeciles?
But what is this assessment based on? Seemingly not actual polling of real voters.