2016 Postmortem

GoCubsGo

(32,966 posts)

92. No. It doesn't matter what she focused on.

Reply to La Lioness Priyanka (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2016, 08:43 PM

Dec 2016

Putin didn't want her in, and he found useful idiots in Comrade Trump and his large faction of the GOP. Not sure what Comey and the letters had to do with her focus. I think it was an event separate from anything Putin wanted. That was just a plain ol' republican fuck-over. The republicans and Putin just so happened to have the same goal.

As for why Hillary lost, a lot of that can be laid on Democrats who couldn't be bothered to go out and vote in 2010. It allowed MASSIVE GOP take-overs of state legislatures. That's what allowed the widespread gerrymandering, the voter suppression laws in many states, the voter roll purges, the insistence on paperless voting machines in so many places...

I still can't believe that with all the revelations that have come up, that there are still people obsessing with trying to place this whole debacle on Hillary's shoulders. Useful idiots, all of them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

105 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you think if HRC had just focused more on economic justice and not on social justice [View all] La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 OP

As a person who adores Hillary I admit Hillary and her staff made some campaign mistakes but... hrmjustin Dec 2016 #1

they made some mistakes, but those who say she ignored economic justice are lying/wrong La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #2

You put it better than I could. hrmjustin Dec 2016 #5

The media and America let Hillary down. Simple as that. And I listened to many riversedge Dec 2016 #9

Never underestimate the shallowness and ignorance of the voting masses. dionysus Dec 2016 #66

Seems media was coordinating with the Russians and Comey triron Dec 2016 #81

She did NOT ignore it. The voters just judged her not credible on the issue. hollowdweller Dec 2016 #96

really? then why do exit polls all show that those who prioritized the economy voted for her? La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #97

Let's take a look at those exit polls. YoungDemCA Dec 2016 #105

She did ignore important economic related facts loyalsister Dec 2016 #100

It's hard to say ... ZoomBubba Dec 2016 #3

LOL DURHAM D Dec 2016 #4

my friend is deadly serious about this question La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #6

We could drive ourselves crazy sweetroxie Dec 2016 #7

I'm sure those Rust Belt voters who gave this election away... yallerdawg Dec 2016 #8

WRONG. A better and clearer economic message and campaigning there would have helped. She spent RBInMaine Dec 2016 #19

I basically said the same thing in another thread and got shredded for it. SlimJimmy Dec 2016 #23

No. She had a message metroins Dec 2016 #29

Her basic message played over and over was that Trump was bad. SlimJimmy Dec 2016 #39

You weren't listening very closely, then. I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment ehrnst Dec 2016 #40

The below was part of the problem with her candidacy. She might have had SlimJimmy Dec 2016 #43

Yes, that was a gaffe, and I think that there was no way she was going to win ANY coal country votes ehrnst Dec 2016 #44

I'm not saying that it didn't stand, it does. But she had a number of "gaffes" SlimJimmy Dec 2016 #72

Her being a woman was a 'gaffe' for many. (nt) ehrnst Dec 2016 #76

I suppose. But her politcal gaffes didn't help her candidacy. SlimJimmy Dec 2016 #94

No candidate is without gaffes. Certainly none of the 'Democrat' candidates. (nt) ehrnst Dec 2016 #95

That's true. I guess I keep having to go back to her economic messaging. SlimJimmy Dec 2016 #98

What statistics do you base claim on? (nt) ehrnst Dec 2016 #99

She lost Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. SlimJimmy Dec 2016 #102

I asked for the statistics that showed she lost because of specific messaging in those states. ehrnst Dec 2016 #103

I know we've already covered this, but I'll try again. SlimJimmy Dec 2016 #104

His airplane couldn't land in small town America. yallerdawg Dec 2016 #24

Yep, she won the voters who were concerned with econ, but lost those who ehrnst Dec 2016 #41

WRONG. She said a LOT about economics, and got the voters who were voting on that issue. ehrnst Dec 2016 #42

No. hamsterjill Dec 2016 #10

I think Russia wanted Trump get the red out Dec 2016 #11

Russia would of intervened anyway. They didn't want Clinton in period. TrekLuver Dec 2016 #12

Putin didn't want her in because she stood up to him. duffyduff Dec 2016 #15

Yes he is...I just wonder how far is Putin up his ass and how many entanglements they TrekLuver Dec 2016 #25

I'm going to keep posting this and continue to be ignored, I think uniformly... JCanete Dec 2016 #13

i completely agree with you. just so you know. as does president obama La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #14

Thanks for saying so! I'm going to have to look that interview up! nt JCanete Dec 2016 #16

he said something to the effect of, how weak is our democracy when something La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #17

yeah, no kidding. Hopefully the party will come to life on this issue. nt JCanete Dec 2016 #18

While of course some of Trashpot voters because of the economy...and for some reason they think he TrekLuver Dec 2016 #28

She did. There were releases of DNC emails timed to distract from many of her message speeches. ehrnst Dec 2016 #45

if you think our media got "drawn in" you still don't really get it. Our media has been delivering JCanete Dec 2016 #52

They jump at the shiny object, no matter who. (nt) ehrnst Dec 2016 #54

no way...esoteric email noise isn't shiny. They could have made a shit load of hay out of Trump JCanete Dec 2016 #56

It's not about choosing BETWEEN social justice and economic justice Ken Burch Dec 2016 #20

for you to stop pretending that she didn't emphasize economic justice La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #21

It's not about Hillary as a person or as a candidate. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #38

There was carefully timed releases of hacked information to detract from her message ehrnst Dec 2016 #46

I'm not arguing that we should have nominated Bernie. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #59

Sadly, if it gets ignored or isn't heard, it migjt as well never happened... dionysus Dec 2016 #67

Sure. But that's a different problem La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #69

I don't understand why it's an either/or issue as well. jalan48 Dec 2016 #22

Bernie think that continuing to talk 'identity politics' instead of wages for the white middle class ehrnst Dec 2016 #47

Well, we have Trump now so we will see how the identity politics works for us. jalan48 Dec 2016 #51

Than who? (nt) ehrnst Dec 2016 #62

Good question. I realized my statement is confusing. jalan48 Dec 2016 #63

BLM has ally groups, if that is what you mean. ehrnst Dec 2016 #64

Yes, I was thinking more within the Democratic Party---like coalitions. jalan48 Dec 2016 #65

I think it's good to acknowledge them, stay in communication and take cues from them ehrnst Dec 2016 #68

Thanks-How is power then shared between various groups? Who decides? jalan48 Dec 2016 #70

I don't see why BLM and labor would be at odds or competitors within the party ehrnst Dec 2016 #73

Thanks again for responding to my second response/post. Working together is the way to go. jalan48 Dec 2016 #74

I think that most Democrats are progressive, so I think it will happen. (nt) ehrnst Dec 2016 #75

No Freethinker65 Dec 2016 #26

Trump is more easily manipulated. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #27

I think that this who voted for MFM008 Dec 2016 #30

The media covers what it wants to cover. LisaM Dec 2016 #31

$igh Jean-Jacques Roussea Dec 2016 #32

i loved that segment. i posted this thread to point to our craziness about ignoring what happened La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #33

Exactly mcar Dec 2016 #34

That her email would not have been an issue? sfwriter Dec 2016 #35

If only she learned to juggle while riding a unicycle... lame54 Dec 2016 #36

When referring to "social justice" the problem wasn't necessarily her message Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2016 #37

great point. Never thought of it that way. /nt JHan Dec 2016 #101

I think it would have made her lead insurmountable Arazi Dec 2016 #48

she's ahead 2.8 million votes La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #49

She lost the Rust Belt states where the economy is hurting Arazi Dec 2016 #50

The rust belt also has some very strong racism as well as xenophobia and terrorism fears ehrnst Dec 2016 #53

I don't think it would matter that much. kentuck Dec 2016 #55

Again, nobody is saying Hillary SHOULDN'T have talked about social justice Ken Burch Dec 2016 #57

i like that you think your answer to the same thread is worth repeating twice. nt La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #58

You've repeated the strawman that there's a widespread call for the party to stop fighting bigotry Ken Burch Dec 2016 #60

+1 hellofromreddit Dec 2016 #78

i have not repeated any strawman. just because you want to accuse me of something La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #87

There might be a tiny, tiny minority of people saying social justice should be "downplayed" Ken Burch Dec 2016 #89

why are you intent on convincing me of something? can you not for a minute think that you might be La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #90

First Post! I say no - this election, more than any HeartachesNhangovers Dec 2016 #61

Welcome to DU!! (eom) StevieM Dec 2016 #71

I love this question lol JHan Dec 2016 #77

thanks! i have my moments. La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #86

NO Me. Dec 2016 #79

Ha ha that is a good one triron Dec 2016 #80

i know. i am running around clutching my pearls about it! La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #85

Hillary did not neglect economic justice. raging moderate Dec 2016 #82

i completely agree. my post was completely in sarcasm to these baseless allegations La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #84

Yes, I know. raging moderate Dec 2016 #93

I honestly don't recall her harping on social justice... vi5 Dec 2016 #83

yes. in no way am i saying she made no mistakes. i think she followed the data La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #88

Hillary would have won if Exilednight Dec 2016 #91

No. It doesn't matter what she focused on. GoCubsGo Dec 2016 #92