At any point does Hillary say "some of my decisions were bad and I take responsibility" or is it all "Donald stood too close to me on stage" and "but muh bernies"?
At any point does Hillary say "some of my decisions were bad and I take responsibility" or is it all "Donald stood too close to me on stage" and "but muh bernies"?
Just wait for the book 'If I wanted to win this is how I would've done it'
Because, and I know this will shock many, there were many factors, including all the ones that you just mentioned.
Should the election have been as close as it was? No. Was the campaign she ran to blame for that? Yes, in many ways. In all ways? No, because there were extenuating circumstances beyond even their control.
It's almost like there's nuance to elections, especially ones with wide scale foreign interference. As for when she took responsibility for what she could, and not what she wasn't responsible for, here:
"Of course. I take absolute personal responsibility. I was the candidate, I was the person who was on the ballot, and I am very aware of the challenges, the problems, the shortfalls that we had."
There's a lot of nuance in being the most qualified candidate running against a sexual predator game show host and losing several of the "democratic Wall" states.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, who can forget that sign on Harry Truman's desk, "The buck stops here, unless it also stops at one of the many other factors".
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary...g-jane-pauley/
If there's anything that sums Hillary's shortcomings up in a single sentence, it's that.Originally Posted by Hillary
Not what she's saying, but the seemingly permanent blindness to why "but her emailz" became a rallying cry.
I think there are two main problems with Hillary's loss - her lack of connection with the population and instead, relying on the DNC to "win the election for her", AND her overconfidence that the American population wouldn't elect such an obviously terrible candidate.
The fact that she keeps blaming Bernie, Trump, or whomever else, is just icing on the shit-cake. I don't think she really understands why she lost, and I doubt she ever will. It's not a Hillary thing. It's a Democrat Party thing (It's a Jersey thing).
People in MA saw this result coming from a mile away because we lived it before. In the Coakley / Scott Senator race, Coakley was acting just like Clinton did in this last election during her Senate bid in 2010. During that race, she went of vacation and even scoffed at the notion of going to Fenway to talk up sports fans. Both her and Clinton acted like they had it in the bag and lost to T.E.A. Party candidates.
Her e-mails really stopped her from campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan.
Disagree. There was massive complacency everywhere thinking Hillary had this thing in the bag, since many assumed she was running a competent campaign.
Brown's ads went out of their way to hide he was a republican, and portrayed him as the natural successor to Ted Kennedy (lawl). He ran a generally positive campaign while hiding the fact that he was going to be as awful and destructive as humanly possible (mistah numbah 41).
MA republicans also campaigned at churches in conservative areas stating Brown's right to life position (which was a lie), to help drive up republican turn out. The MA republicans were playing incredibly dirty, as is their nature. There were warning signs for Coakley in the polls that showed it going back and forth, and Coakley did nothing to change it.
As in vogue as Democratic party bashing is, I couldn't disagree more. Voters are idiots and want to like their candidates personally. Call it the beer test or whatever you want.
People slamming her policies for not being left enough forget that they are significantly left of two-term president Obama, and people slamming her for not campaigning in Wisconsin forget that Wisconsin and Michigan weren't sufficient for victory.
People didn't like her. Sometimes for decent reasons (although most are in retrospect honestly) and often for really bad reasons (or for no particular named reason at all) but that was pretty baked in with her. Most 69 year old women aren't able to pull off a personality makeover. It took a ton of things to go wrong for her to not overcome Trump's insane unpopularity, but we got the perfect storm.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Was just listening to this week's Pod Save America and their guest had an apt analogy for Hillary releasing this book. She likened it to someone hitting your dog with their car and then showing up and telling you that they were rear-ended and couldn't help it. You may be right, but my dog is still dead and I don't want to hear from you.
Which is a bullshit stance that hasn't been taken against any failed candidate of either party ever.
Last time I checked, there wasn't a mandatory call for John Kerry, Al Gore, Mitt Romney, or John McCain to retire from public life and never be seen or heard from again.
If you can't see the same misogyny at work here that was at work during the election itself, I'm not sure what to tell you.
And if you can't see the difference between losing to Bush or Obama and losing to Trump, then I don't know what to tell you.
Also, there absolutely were calls for each of those people to go away after their losses.
They also, y'know, actually went away.
Remind me, did Russia swing any of those elections?
Oh, wait, it was Al Gore's incompetence and lack of challenging the results that got is into the Iraq War, this Climate Change disaster, etc?
Wow! Everyone's sure holding him accountable, like ole Hilldawg.
Like, Romney fucked back off to Bain Capital or whatever. McCain and Kerry went back into the senate and shut their yaps. Al Gore took up Climate Change as a pet cause.
Hillary's MO seems to be regurgitating the 2016 election so she can stay in the spotlight and sell books forever.
Yes. They did.