 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> In the News
Clinton loss- More Comey's fault or poor campaign strategy?
|
| Its more Comey's actions that caused Hillary's loss. |
|
10% |
[ 8 ] |
| Its more poor campaign strategy that caused Hillary's loss. |
|
42% |
[ 33 ] |
| Other, and please offer your reasoning. |
|
46% |
[ 36 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 77 |
|
Mevater
|
 Wed, Nov 16 2016, 1:11 am
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro.....9037/
In the waning days of the presidential campaign, Bill and Hillary Clinton had a knock-down, drag-out fight about her effort to blame FBI Director James Comey for her slump in the polls and looming danger of defeat.
"I was with Bill in Little Rock when he had this shouting match with Hillary on the phone and she accused Comey for reviving the investigation into her use of a private email server and reversing her campaign's momentum," said one of Bill Clinton's closest advisers.
"Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election," said the source. "As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
"Bill was so red in the face during his conversation with Hillary that I worried he was going to have a heart attack. He got so angry that he threw his phone off the roof of his penthouse apartment and toward the Arkansas River."
During the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary's top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign. He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization.
"Bill said that constantly attacking Trump for his defects made Hillary's staff and the media happy, but that it wasn't a message that resonated with voters, especially in the rust belt," the source explained. "Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class."
According to the source, Bill was severely critical of Hillary's decision to reject an invitation to address a St. Patrick's Day event at the University of Notre Dame. Hillary's campaign advisers nixed the idea on the ground that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to reach.
"Bill also said that many African Americans were deeply disappointed with the results of eight years of Obama," the source continued. "Despite more and more government assistance, blacks weren't economically any better off, and black-on-black crime was destroying their communities. He said Hillary should have gone into the South Side of Chicago and condemned the out-of-control violence."
Though Bill conceded that FBI Director Comey's decision to revive Hillary's email scandal created a problem for her campaign, he believed the issue had little impact on the outcome because it had already been baked into the decisions of most voters.
"A big part of Bill's anger toward Hillary was that he was sidelined during the entire campaign by her advisers," said the source. "He can't be effective if he sees himself as just another hired hand. He wasn't listened to and that infuriated him. After all, he knows something about campaigns, and he told me in early October that Hillary and her advisers were blowing it.
"Hillary wouldn't listen. She told Bill that his ideas were old and that he was out of touch. In the end, there was nothing he could do about it because Hillary and her people weren't listening to anything he said."
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
 3
|
mom2six
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 4:57 am
|
Neither. Hillary's loss is her own fault. She was the one who used a private server for her emails, and Comey has nothing to do with that. She's the one who's being accused of pay for play, not Comey or her campaign managers. People don't trust her because of her own actions - nobody else has anything to do with that but her.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
31
|
aquad
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 5:21 am
I think the greatest leaders are the ones who take responsibility for the results, even if it wasn't 'their fault.' You are in charge, it doesn't matter if it was your underlings, or factors beyond your control- the buck stops with you.
I don't think Winston Churchill complained about the Nazi's blitzkreig and blitzing and how it was all Hitler's fault that Britain was sustaining heavy losses in WWII.
It doesn't matter whose fault it is- as a leader, it's Hillary's responsibility to take responsibility.
Blaming the loss of the election on Comey shows poor leadership, in my opinion.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
12
|
shoshanim999
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 6:15 am
|
Hard to say forsure. Did Comey cost Hillary votes? Probably some. The results of this election are far more anti Hillary than pro Trump. In winning, Trump had fewer votes than the last 3 losers. Hillary, Mitt Romney, and John McCain all had more votes in a losing effort than Trump in a winning effort. This comes down to Hillary being arguably the worst candidate of all time. She was so completely unlikable to so many people that many felt that even an inexperienced lowlife was the better choice.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
14
|
esther09
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 6:48 am
I think it's very complicated but can be summed up in a two ways IMHO:
1) White working class people in middle America feel "forgotten." They are sick of the intellectuals in the coastal states looking down on them and caring more about immigrant, lgbt etc. rights than white people's rights. Clinton represented the entire political establishment that created that sense of "forgottenness" and it lost her the election. The middle class didn't feel like she could make their lives better (though it's laughable that they think trump will but that's a whole other story).
2) America is not ready for a female president. Whether it's underemployed white working class men in middle America who are threatened by the change in the social structure or just... plain ol' subconscious or outright sexism, I truly believe her being a woman was a huge issue.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
7
|
5*Mom
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 8:07 am
|
I agree with aquad. Out of all her faults, and there are way too many, the overarching problem is Hillary's inability to accept responsibility, ever. And here she goes again, looking to place blame outward. She still doesn't have a clue. (I'm not saying Trump has this ability, just addressing Hillary.)
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
9
|
leah233
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 9:24 am
| Mevater wrote: | http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ed-klein-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-james-comey/2016/11/15/id/759037/
"Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election," said the source. "As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
"Bill said that constantly attacking Trump for his defects made Hillary's staff and the media happy, but that it wasn't a message that resonated with voters, especially in the rust belt," the source explained. "Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class."
According to the source, Bill was severely critical of Hillary's decision to reject an invitation to address a St. Patrick's Day event at the University of Notre Dame. Hillary's campaign advisers nixed the idea on the ground that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to reach.
"Bill also said that many African Americans were deeply disappointed with the results of eight years of Obama," the source continued. "Despite more and more government assistance, blacks weren't economically any better off, and black-on-black crime was destroying their communities. He said Hillary should have gone into the South Side of Chicago and condemned the out-of-control violence."
"Hillary wouldn't listen. She told Bill that his ideas were old and that he was out of touch. In the end, there was nothing he could do about it because Hillary and her people weren't listening to anything he said." |
I strongly agree with Bill Clinton about this. But this isn't a campaign issue. This is an intrinsic ideology that the Democratic party has been acting on for quite some time.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
14
|
gold21
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 9:33 am
It's not what Clinton didn't do
It's what Trump did do
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
rfeig613
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 9:38 am
I think this wasn't an election as much about ideology as it is about persoanlity and likeability.
I think the evangelicals were brought out in droves because they were really put off by when HRC said that abortion should be legal until the 9th month in the debate, so that's pretty ideological or moral .
Really, it came down to the fact that they found HRC untrustworthy, based on a lifetime of scandals, corruption, controversies, and shadiness. She came across as elitist, smug, arrogant, and more in line with the wine and cheese crowd than Joe six pack.
Trump said in the 80s something that helped him win in 2016. He said in an interview that the rich hate him, and that he has more in common with the deplorables than the elitists. He's a man who relates to the cab drivers, the doormen, and the construction workers.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
7
|
MagentaYenta
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 4:45 pm
| gold21 wrote: | It's not what Clinton didn't do
It's what Trump did do |
I heard a great NPR interview on this subject lately. Unfortunately I cannot remember who was being interviewed but alas I did agree with them. I think that the Dems were in their own echo chamber. They never noticed that the were no longer the the party of the working folks, or that the working folks and some of the marginalized caucasians were truly experienced deep angst. (Regardless of the the process that produced that angst).
I believe Comey had some impact but how much? I don't have the knowledge, skills or ability to measure that impact. I think that the Dems didn't allocate their BOTG resources wisely. Lot's of money spent on TV but no one knocking on doors in the red midwest. Bernies organizing strategy for the midwest, should he have gotten the nomination, put money into local BOTG in those states with lead (experienced, paid) organizers guiding 3 or 5 local geopolitical units.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
agreer
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 5:59 pm
| gold21 wrote: | It's not what Clinton didn't do
It's what Trump did do |
No, no, no... it's what Clinton did:
deleted 30,000+ emails
used a private server, jeopardizing national security
pay-for-play via Clinton foundation
lying about Benghazi
calling 25% of Americans "a basket of deplorables"
cheating Bernie in the primaries
cheating by getting debate questions in advance
not to mention her generally unfavorable policies of raising taxes, increasing the welfare state, wanting to subsidize college, continue the policies of Barack Obama, etc
And don't forget her winning personality... you know, staged, stoic, robotic
Literally, my husband and I were watching a split screen of a debate, and Trump was talking. he came into the room and asked "why is she frozen?"... and she wasn't!
Sorry, but she was terrrrrrrible candidate with so much baggage. She was allowed to be the nominee because she's a woman.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
21
|
agreer
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 6:21 pm
| esther09 wrote: |
2) America is not ready for a female president. Whether it's underemployed white working class men in middle America who are threatened by the change in the social structure or just... plain ol' subconscious or outright sexism, I truly believe her being a woman was a huge issue. |
I don't think this is true.
But speaking of which, did you see that the Clinton campaign is saying that women have "internalized misogyny" which is why they didn't vote for her?
http://www.theamericanmirror.c.....gyny/
Give me a break.
Another reason she's a real winner.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
11
|
youngishbear
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 8:08 pm
| agreer wrote: | I don't think this is true.
But speaking of which, did you see that the Clinton campaign is saying that women have "internalized misogyny" which is why they didn't vote for her?
http://www.theamericanmirror.c.....gyny/
Give me a break.
Another reason she's a real winner. |
I agree that it is highly doubtful this was a decisive factor in the election.
I can't speak for the majority of America but this attitude is very common in my corner of the universe. The things women have said to me about her ability to govern because she is a woman are infuriating and sad at the same time.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
5
|
tryinghard
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 8:20 pm
| youngishbear wrote: | I agree that it is highly doubtful this was a decisive factor in the election.
I can't speak for the majority of America but this attitude is very common in my corner of the universe. The things women have said to me about her ability to govern because she is a woman are infuriating and sad at the same time. |
To me, this is even more infuriating because there is this superior attitude of "I am so much more of an evolved human being than you, I know why you did what you did, and even YOU don't understand your motivations". 
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
7
|
youngishbear
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 8:42 pm
| tryinghard wrote: | | To me, this is even more infuriating because there is this superior attitude of "I am so much more of an evolved human being than you, I know why you did what you did, and even YOU don't understand your motivations". |
I hear that.
What I meant (in this post) was the outright "I'm okay with being invisible - and all women should be invisible" attitude. "Women can't run a country!" and "my husband said he couldn't bring himself to vote for a woman."
In another thread I was talking about the narrative that was sold by Republicans about Clinton, a depiction that I chose to take with a grain of salt. I believe the hatred for her began in misogyny, and that many people who believe their narrative today don't make the connection between the story today and its sexist origins.
But we've exhausted each other on that thread already. Time to move on, huh? 
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
gold21
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 9:06 pm
| agreer wrote: | No, no, no... it's what Clinton did:
deleted 30,000+ emails
used a private server, jeopardizing national security
pay-for-play via Clinton foundation
lying about Benghazi
calling 25% of Americans "a basket of deplorables"
cheating Bernie in the primaries
cheating by getting debate questions in advance
not to mention her generally unfavorable policies of raising taxes, increasing the welfare state, wanting to subsidize college, continue the policies of Barack Obama, etc
And don't forget her winning personality... you know, staged, stoic, robotic
Literally, my husband and I were watching a split screen of a debate, and Trump was talking. he came into the room and asked "why is she frozen?"... and she wasn't!
Sorry, but she was terrrrrrrible candidate with so much baggage. She was allowed to be the nominee because she's a woman. |
What did Ryan Lochte do wrong that allowed Michael Phelps to win Olympic Gold?
Was it perhaps a lack of training... or maybe it was that he prioritized his girlfriend over swimming lessons?... No... He did everything right. Phelps won because he is a better swimmer.
Take this same theory and apply it to politics. Would Bernie Sanders have won against Trump? No, I don't think so. Would Clinton have won if she "visited every fish fry" during her campaign as Obama did when he was campaigning? No, I don't think so. I think Trump bested Clinton because, quite simply, he bested her.
Would the media be asking "what did Trump do wrong" if Clinton had won? Not really. The fact that the question is asked about Clinton infers that she "should have" won but she messed up and therefore lost. No, she should not have won. Trump should have won, because he connected with voters in a totally fresh, new, and unexpected way.
That's my take.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
8
|
tryinghard
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 9:48 pm
| youngishbear wrote: | I hear that.
But we've exhausted each other on that thread already. Time to move on, huh? |
True that 
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
agreer
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 10:37 pm
| gold21 wrote: | What did Ryan Lochte do wrong that allowed Michael Phelps to win Olympic Gold?
Was it perhaps a lack of training... or maybe it was that he prioritized his girlfriend over swimming lessons?... No... He did everything right. Phelps won because he is a better swimmer.
Take this same theory and apply it to politics. Would Bernie Sanders have won against Trump? |
You can't take the same theory and apply it to politics because the logic is flawed. The gold medal race is not chosen by others. It is completely objective: the faster swimmer wins.
In politics, you need to appeal to the voters. It is utterly subjective, which is why it's rather pointless to argue about these things.
Would Bernie have won against Trump? Probably not.
But could Bernie have done better in keeping areas of WI, MI and NC blue than Hillary? Quite possibly.
Would Bernie have been a better nominee than Hillary? Yes and no.
See how different this is than the absoluteness of a timed race?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
gold21
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 10:46 pm
| agreer wrote: | You can't take the same theory and apply it to politics because the logic is flawed. The gold medal race is not chosen by others. It is completely objective: the faster swimmer wins.
In politics, you need to appeal to the voters. It is utterly subjective, which is why it's rather pointless to argue about these things.
Would Bernie have won against Trump? Probably not.
But could Bernie have done better in keeping areas of WI, MI and NC blue than Hillary? Quite possibly.
Would Bernie have been a better nominee than Hillary? Yes and no.
See how different this is than the absoluteness of a timed race? |
I think that whether objective or subjective, the better man- or woman- wins. Ok, assuming you don't like Hilary Clinton, let's work with the Republican candidates.... Where did Ted Cruz go wrong? Where did Marco Rubio go wrong? They didn't go wrong.... its just that Trump went right.
I think Bernie would have done worse than Clinton. That's my opinion. He would have alienated the moderate voters because he has very extreme viewpoints. Clinton took many moderates and she naturally snatched up the liberals and progressives too, since they felt that a vote for Clinton was better than a vote for Trump. Listen, she won the popular vote. She didn't do so badly.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
Mevater
|
Wed, Nov 16 2016, 11:05 pm
| esther09 wrote: | I think it's very complicated but can be summed up in a two ways IMHO:
1) White working class people in middle America feel "forgotten." They are sick of the intellectuals in the coastal states looking down on them and caring more about immigrant, lgbt etc. rights than white people's rights. Clinton represented the entire political establishment that created that sense of "forgottenness" and it lost her the election. The middle class didn't feel like she could make their lives better (though it's laughable that they think trump will but that's a whole other story).
2) America is not ready for a female president. Whether it's underemployed white working class men in middle America who are threatened by the change in the social structure or just... plain ol' subconscious or outright sexism, I truly believe her being a woman was a huge issue. |
I think her being a woman had nothing to do with her loss. Had she been both admired and had a plan to improve the economy and lessen terrorism, shed have won easily.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
10
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
