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.
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.