2017 impeachment - because it's never too early

[Barrister]

it means hillary truly ran a terrible campaign

I don't think she ran a terrible campaign. 

I thought her campaign was just fine.  I mean, I wish she would have tacked more to the centre rather than running to the left, but running to the left isn't an objectively horrible strategy either.

She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.

[CountDeMoney]

My move to the "right" was largely caused by me being repelled by the mainstream left adopting the "alt left" positions on things such as safe spaces, trigger warnings, language policing and general hostility they seem to hold against various views informed by liberty.

You way overshot your target then.

Does that stuff even happen in Poland?

Quite frankly, one would think one would worry more about one's own faggot ass in the politically hostile environment of one's own faggot-hating country than what one reads about happening at, say, UCLA, on the internet.  If one were so inclined.

[derspiess]

She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.

Bingo.  Although one thing I'll say is that her campaign probably invested too much time going negative on Teh Donald (PBUH) and too little time talking about actual issues.

[CountDeMoney]

Her campaign was fine.  For 1996.

[LaCroix]

it means hillary truly ran a terrible campaign

I don't think she ran a terrible campaign. 

I thought her campaign was just fine.  I mean, I wish she would have tacked more to the centre rather than running to the left, but running to the left isn't an objectively horrible strategy either.

She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.

one example of her terrible campaigning is her mishandling of the entire email affair. this greatly contributed to peoples' negative impression of her. I don't think she was doomed as a candidate, but the way she ran her campaign doomed her.

[Barrister]

There was an interesting article in NRO that argues CLinton's win in the popular vote is (mostly) meaningless.

The point was that both candidates knew that the election was going to be won in the Electoral College, and both candidates tailored their campaigns accordingly.  There was a reason they spent so much time in places like Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania - these were swing states, where just a relative handful of votes could make a massive difference.

If the election was held purely by popular vote though, the campaigns would be very different.  It would be about maximizing turnout no matter where.  No one is going to bother with New Hampshire, for example.  Instead CLinton will do event after event on the west coast, trying to drive up turnout.  Trump would do event after event in Texas trying to do the same.

It would be a very different kind of election, and nobody could say for sure what the outcome would have been.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442170/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory-meaningless

[Barrister]

She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.

Bingo.  Although one thing I'll say is that her campaign probably invested too much time going negative on Teh Donald (PBUH) and too little time talking about actual issues.

I thought there was an odd tension in how she campaigned.  She spent a lot of time talking about how uniquely unqualified Trump was (which I agree with).  But by saying that you seem to be making an appeal to moderate Republican voters to switch to the democrats.  But then her campaign platform (influenced by the Primary race) was pretty hard-left, with things like free tuition.  And that would likely repel moderate Republican voters.

She never fully committed to "turn out the Obama base" versus "play for the middle".

[garbon]

There was an interesting article in NRO that argues CLinton's win in the popular vote is (mostly) meaningless.

The point was that both candidates knew that the election was going to be won in the Electoral College, and both candidates tailored their campaigns accordingly.  There was a reason they spent so much time in places like Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania - these were swing states, where just a relative handful of votes could make a massive difference.

If the election was held purely by popular vote though, the campaigns would be very different.  It would be about maximizing turnout no matter where.  No one is going to bother with New Hampshire, for example.  Instead CLinton will do event after event on the west coast, trying to drive up turnout.  Trump would do event after event in Texas trying to do the same.

It would be a very different kind of election, and nobody could say for sure what the outcome would have been.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442170/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory-meaningless

Yep I think that's true. Same with Dem primary in 08

Though I'm not sure here if Trump would have done much differently. His ca.painting was erratic at best.

[garbon]

it means hillary truly ran a terrible campaign

I don't think she ran a terrible campaign. 

I thought her campaign was just fine.  I mean, I wish she would have tacked more to the centre rather than running to the left, but running to the left isn't an objectively horrible strategy either.

She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.

one example of her terrible campaigning is her mishandling of the entire email affair. this greatly contributed to peoples' negative impression of her. I don't think she was doomed as a candidate, but the way she ran her campaign doomed her.

You are being naive. Do I think she could have handle that issue better? Sure. Do I think that would have made a difference? No. The narrative about lying Hillary Clinton has existed for over 2 decades. Different handling of the email issue (beyond not doing it in the first place) wouldn't have made any difference. It isn't what suddenly made people think she is untrustworthy.

Just look at Benghazi and how much time and money was spent investigating that and though nothing was ever uncovered she's still tarred by many has having behaved shiftily and did the wrong thing.

[Barrister]

There was an interesting article in NRO that argues CLinton's win in the popular vote is (mostly) meaningless.

The point was that both candidates knew that the election was going to be won in the Electoral College, and both candidates tailored their campaigns accordingly.  There was a reason they spent so much time in places like Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania - these were swing states, where just a relative handful of votes could make a massive difference.

If the election was held purely by popular vote though, the campaigns would be very different.  It would be about maximizing turnout no matter where.  No one is going to bother with New Hampshire, for example.  Instead CLinton will do event after event on the west coast, trying to drive up turnout.  Trump would do event after event in Texas trying to do the same.

It would be a very different kind of election, and nobody could say for sure what the outcome would have been.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442170/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory-meaningless

Yep I think that's true. Same with Dem primary in 08

Though I'm not sure here if Trump would have done much differently. His ca.painting was erratic at best.

His campaigning in Michigan and Wisconsin apparently paid off though.

[garbon]

There was an interesting article in NRO that argues CLinton's win in the popular vote is (mostly) meaningless.

The point was that both candidates knew that the election was going to be won in the Electoral College, and both candidates tailored their campaigns accordingly.  There was a reason they spent so much time in places like Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania - these were swing states, where just a relative handful of votes could make a massive difference.

If the election was held purely by popular vote though, the campaigns would be very different.  It would be about maximizing turnout no matter where.  No one is going to bother with New Hampshire, for example.  Instead CLinton will do event after event on the west coast, trying to drive up turnout.  Trump would do event after event in Texas trying to do the same.

It would be a very different kind of election, and nobody could say for sure what the outcome would have been.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442170/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory-meaningless

Yep I think that's true. Same with Dem primary in 08

Though I'm not sure here if Trump would have done much differently. His ca.painting was erratic at best.

His campaigning in Michigan and Wisconsin apparently paid off though.

Not sure how you can draw that to any clear extent.

[Barrister]

You are being naive. Do I think she could have handle that issue better? Sure. Do I think that would have made a difference? No. The narrative about lying Hillary Clinton has existed for over 2 decades. Different handling of the email issue (beyond not doing it in the first place) wouldn't have made any difference. It isn't what suddenly made people think she is untrustworthy.

Just look at Benghazi and how much time and money was spent investigating that and though nothing was ever uncovered she's still tarred by many has having behaved shiftily and did the wrong thing.

Well, she could have in the summer of 2015 given a full apology and, what's more, released very lightly redacted copies of every single email sent and received.  It would have eliminated the steady drip-drip-drip from both Russia/Wikileaks, and from Comey's investigation.

[garbon]

You are being naive. Do I think she could have handle that issue better? Sure. Do I think that would have made a difference? No. The narrative about lying Hillary Clinton has existed for over 2 decades. Different handling of the email issue (beyond not doing it in the first place) wouldn't have made any difference. It isn't what suddenly made people think she is untrustworthy.

Just look at Benghazi and how much time and money was spent investigating that and though nothing was ever uncovered she's still tarred by many has having behaved shiftily and did the wrong thing.

Well, she could have in the summer of 2015 given a full apology and, what's more, released very lightly redacted copies of every single email sent and received.  It would have eliminated the steady drip-drip-drip from both Russia/Wikileaks, and from Comey's investigation.

Or we would have had months of pouring over the emails with analysis and rumors about how she still had unreleased emails then had the FBI investigation and drip by drip the full emails leaked.

[Caliga]

Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate.  I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit.  The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her.  Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.

[LaCroix]

it means hillary truly ran a terrible campaign

I don't think she ran a terrible campaign. 

I thought her campaign was just fine.  I mean, I wish she would have tacked more to the centre rather than running to the left, but running to the left isn't an objectively horrible strategy either.

She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.

one example of her terrible campaigning is her mishandling of the entire email affair. this greatly contributed to peoples' negative impression of her. I don't think she was doomed as a candidate, but the way she ran her campaign doomed her.

You are being naive. Do I think she could have handle that issue better? Sure. Do I think that would have made a difference? No. The narrative about lying Hillary Clinton has existed for over 2 decades. Different handling of the email issue (beyond not doing it in the first place) wouldn't have made any difference. It isn't what suddenly made people think she is untrustworthy.

Just look at Benghazi and how much time and money was spent investigating that and though nothing was ever uncovered she's still tarred by many has having behaved shiftily and did the wrong thing.

she had weaknesses and her campaign failed to overcome those weaknesses. I don't think her campaign adequately fit what she needed to do. I'm not calling the overall message of the campaign  terrible, I'm saying she ran a terrible campaign for her particular circumstances. as another example, she didn't hit WI, MI, and PA enough when she should have known she was weak there.