jump to navigation

The Post-Election Ruminations Continue May 1, 2017

Posted by geoff in News.
trackback

Democratic strategists are still flailing away at figuring out what happened in the election last November. I think they’re getting a little closer to the truth:

A select group of top Democratic Party strategists have used new data about last year’s presidential election to reach a startling conclusion about why Hillary Clinton lost. Now they just need to persuade the rest of the party they’re right.

Many Democrats have a shorthand explanation for Clinton’s defeat: Her base didn’t turn out, Donald Trump’s did and the difference was too much to overcome.

The conservative pundits noted all along that Hillary! was an uninspiring and uninspired candidate. The Dems are finally taking notice.

Because if the implication isn’t that the candidate was flawed, then the only other cause would have to be her misogynistic base.

Why so sexist, Dems?

Comments»

1. retiredgeezer - May 1, 2017

geoff = keeper of the flame

Someday soon, I should try to figure out why I can’t post at IB anymore since I updated Firefox.

Because someone needs to post more YT vids.

2. geoff - May 1, 2017

I just checked the admin page, and you’re listed as an administrator for the site.

3. retiredgeezer - May 1, 2017

Yeah, it’s something with my computer, it forgot me when I reinstalled Firefox. I’ll work it out, thanks geoff.

4. lauraw - May 1, 2017

Hillary Clinton stole furniture from the White House and was forced to return some and pay for the rest. She’s a classless, grasping piece of crap and even half the Dem party could perceive it.

5. Jimbro - May 1, 2017

I’ve been reading excerpts from “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign” here and there and, though I don’t tend to read books of that nature (not enough pictures), I may make an exception.

6. Mark in NJ - May 2, 2017

Hey, and what about Benghazi, man!

7. skinbad - May 2, 2017

So many racists who voted for Obama wouldn’t vote for Hillary. Keep f***ing that chicken, dems.

8. geoff - May 2, 2017

Hey, and what about Benghazi, man!

Honestly I find your blithe dismissal of the Benghazi tragedy both ignorant and insensitive.

9. Mark in NJ - May 2, 2017

Geoff, please.

I’m not trivializing Benghazi, which no one disagrees was a tragic event.

My scorn is aimed at opportunistic republicans who, by the umpteenth investigation, were shamelessly using the tragedy as a political tool to clobber Hilary Clinton. They had nothing and they were like a broken record.

10. lauraw - May 2, 2017

I bet when Clinton and Obama were saying the attack was caused by a youtube video, you believed them, and ‘scorned’ anyone who said that was an obvious and dumb lie.

11. geoff - May 2, 2017

…and that the injuries and deaths caused by worldwide rioting due to Clinton’s & Rice’s dissembling are unimportant.

They had nothing and they were like a broken record.

She was guilty of both criminally poor leadership and a coverup that continues to this day. Pretty much everything she did in Libya was a disaster.

The Republicans “had nothing” because they couldn’t break through the Obama administration’s wall of lies.

You may regard this as simple political maneuvering, but I can tell you that the ground-level conservatives are plenty pissed about Benghazi. We will never forget it and we will never forgive her.

12. Tushar - May 3, 2017

Russians did Benghazi, to make Hillary look bad.

13. veeshir - May 3, 2017

Who exactly is her “base”?

I’d say most of the political types in DC and financial types in NYC turned out for her.
She doesn’t seem to like anyone else, she certainly didn’t give anybody else any reason to vote for her except her plumbing.

14. Mark in NJ - May 4, 2017

(Never forget/forgive – reminds me of how a lot of people I know feel about the Iraq invasion.)

I think it’s a mistake to conflate the Benghazi debacle and the endless investigations that followed. If Clinton had been forced to resign immediately after the attacks, that would’ve been fine with me (I don’t know enough to be as certain about the “criminality” aspects as conservatives are).

But the subsequent GOP-led investigations were all about political maneuvering — do you really think those would’ve happened the same if the Secretary of State hadn’t been HC and the presumed democrat presidential candidate?

15. lauraw - May 5, 2017

Yeah, coverups have a way of dragging out investigations. If you already believe she’s innocent, or if you’re hoping a crime will get swept under a rug, surely investigations will feel “endless.”

Resign? Oh hah. We all saw repeatedly that nothing will happen to the Clintons. To be a fly on the wall in Loretta and Bill’s clandestine meeting on the tarmac, eh? Wouldn’t you like to know what that was all about? Any curiosity at all?

How come all the huge foreign donations to Clintons’ “charity” dried up so fast when she lost? Don’t the donors still care about the important charitable causes they previously pledged to support? Curiouser and curiouser.

What’s funny is that when a lefty in my own family was trying to choose between Bernie and Hillary, and I mentioned that Hillary is a criminal, she agreed. We talked about how she was peddling influence around the world through her position as SoS. But when Hill became the nominee, none of that mattered anymore. What this family member previously knew, that was obvious to anybody who wasn’t a shill, she no longer knew. It is interesting.

16. Mark in NJ - May 5, 2017

Laura’s False Assumption #1: All “lefties” think Hilary Clinton is a flawless person and was a flawless candidate.

Reality: Do you want me to admit Clintons do lots of sh&tty stuff? OK: Clintons do lots of sh&tty stuff. And I didn’t think she was a very good candidate. I voted for Bernie in the NJ primary.

False Assumption #2: The Benghazi investigations weren’t politically motivated and would have played out the same even if the SoS wasn’t Hilary.

Reality: I don’t actually believe you and Geoff believe this. The question is, why does admitting what’s obvious in this case seem to pose such an existential threat to the conservative mindset?

False Assumption #3: By voting for Hilary, your lefty relative has conveniently forgotten how she once felt about HC.

Reality: After Bernie was no longer a candidate, what was she supposed to do? Just go ahead and vote for Trump? It’s not a glorification or forgiveness of Clinton to say that Trump should never, ever be president.

And finally: you do realize Hilary lost the election and is politically dead, right? Not trying to be armchair psychologist here but I have the feeling all of this retroactive Obama/Hilary bashing is just enabling intelligent conservatives to avoid facing the Big Orange Baby they’ve installed in the WH.

17. lauraw - May 5, 2017

As far as things playing out the same, well. If any other person were SoS then instead of Hillary, the SoS would be in jail. That’s the problem, and I’m glad we got here.

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

She shouted this during a hearing where she was being forced to keep circling back to her lie about the anti-muslim film causing a protest that never happened.

If someone said this about you to investigators after you were murdered, wouldn’t you think it odd? Actually declaring out loud that the circumstances of your death don’t matter? After having previously been shown to be a liar regarding the context of the matter? Something is very wrong here. You don’t have to be a conservative to see it, but it helps.

Injustice is appalling to the spirit. That’s why we’re still pissed at her. That’s why we couldn’t let it go. She should be in jail. She got people killed. She brazenly peddled influence as SoS to enrich her family. She covered it up, too, and destroyed evidence. Then she lied about destroying evidence, after she was caught red-handed. Prison is where she belongs. She did things that anyone else would be doing time for. And she got away with it.

False Assumption #2: The Benghazi investigations weren’t politically motivated and would have played out the same even if the SoS wasn’t Hilary.

Ok, now here’s where you win. My admission. If you say ‘politically motivated’ as in, they were trying to keep putting her on stage, let people see what she was up to, raise a stink about statements such as that one up above, and prevent her from being eligible to run for president, then absolutely 100% yes.

Sometimes it takes more than one whack to kill a really big spider. Too bad they failed to stop her campaign (if you preferred Bernie you should be sorry about this too), but I’m grateful they tried and I’m happy she lost. Anybody is better than Hillary. Even the doofus cheeto!

OK: Clintons do lots of sh&tty stuff

Thank you for this. I guess ‘shitty stuff’ is as close as you can come to saying that they are grifters and criminals, but thanks for treading as closely as is comfortable to you.

18. Car in - May 5, 2017

Heh. I heart lauraw.

19. Mrs. Peel - May 6, 2017

Mark, I work for the federal government. If I set up a private email server to conduct official government business, then regardless of the content of the emails, I would be in federal prison. Why isn’t Hillary?

Also, while I don’t have a security clearance myself, I do handle data that is controlled under SBU, EAR, and ITAR regulations. This type of data can’t be exported without permission and must be strictly controlled – I can’t even put it on a flash drive unless it is an approved government device that will never be connected to a non-government computer and is locked in controlled storage when not in use. If you truly believe that Hillary didn’t know better – that the SoS does not receive adequate training for handling national secrets – you should be up in arms insisting that be rectified.

20. Mark in NJ - May 6, 2017

Laura – thanks for not summarily clobbering me with one of those big “FUs!” – those are always particularly painful.

Your reasoning and passion have convinced me that even in the cohort of corrupt politicians, Hilary is a standout.

I’m still not there on the notion that Trump’s a better president than Clinton would’ve been, but I was also consistently wrong about what he could accomplish throughout the election so I’m trying to develop a longer-term view.

21. Sobek - May 6, 2017

I think Mark’s comments are very instructive for anyone who wants to understand what happened last November. Not every Hilary voter was a Hilary fan, but maybe she looked way better than the alternative. The same is true of Trump and conservative voters, of course.

I suspect, without really knowing, that the number of conservatives who hate Hilary on a visceral level is larger than the number of liberals who hate Trump. The reason I say this is because the liberals who hate Trump with blinding rage would have easily transferred that rage to anyone else who had been nominated – Trump only got the gut-level hate because he got the nod. Whereas I don’t think conservatives could loathe Sanders as whole-heartedly as they do Hilary, and that’s for the reasons Mrs Peel and Laura mentioned: the brazen criminality and utter disdain for the law, combined with never paying a price for same (until last November, that is).

I also suspect that the number of liberals willing to destroy stuff or injure people as a result of their Trump-hate is larger than the number of conservatives willing to destroy stuff or injure people as a result of Hilary hate.

My auto-correct thinks her name only has one L, so that’s what you guys are going to get.

22. Sobek - May 6, 2017

Oh, I also think the jury is still out on whether Trump will be a successful president. The people who freak out about everyfreakingthing that Literally Hitler does are not reliable indicators.

23. retiredgeezer - May 6, 2017

My auto-correct thinks her name only has one L, so that’s what you guys are going to get.

Your racist auto-correct probably never heard of her namesake, Sir Edmund Hillary.

24. retiredgeezer - May 6, 2017

wait, that came out wrong.
NVM

25. lauraw - May 6, 2017

Mark, you are gracious. And yes, Giant Cheeto remains a wild card for pretty much everybody.

26. Mrs. Peel - May 7, 2017

Yes, thanks for listening to us, Mark. Trust me, I was not happy about pulling that lever for Trump – I stood there in the voting booth for some time debating whether to vote in the presidential race at all – but ultimately, not voting was too close to voting for Hillary, and I could not stomach the thought of working for someone who is getting away scot free for something that, as I said, would put me in prison even without the state secrets aspect. That was the criterion on which I based my final decision (although I couldn’t look at the screen as I pushed “cast ballot” and walked away shaking my head).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: