Was Hillary Clinton a lousy candidate?

[roughdraft274]

I have been hearing since the election that democrats/liberals just can't admit reality... that Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate. I don't think this is true at all so I wanted to do a poll on it.

When I ask "is she a lousy candidate", I take that specifically to mean is she a likable person that can sway voters to her side? Is she charismatic? Does she inspire people? The typical qualities you'd want for any general politician regardless of political ideologies. The kind of person that builds momentum and can draw a crowd. That to me would make someone a great candidate. Therefor when I ask was she a lousy candidate I'm basically asking was she incapable of all those things?

I'd also like to point out that this isn't a question of "why did Hillary lose?". Because a question like that is complicated. Literally dozens of factors could go in to why someone, whether they are lousy or not, won or lost an election. You change a few variables and even a lousy candidate might end up winning. So ignore all of the "is this why she lost" stuff. I'm asking specifically, do you think she was a lousy candidate or not and why.

I'm more interested in democrats/liberals responses, but I am including a spot for conservatives and independents to vote. For the sake of simplicity I am asking everyone to just click on the group that you most consistently align with even if it's not perfect.

Thanks for voting and any input that people provide.

 

[Ikari]

She was a terrible candidate. I had stated before the election that the only person that could lose to Trump was Clinton and the only person who could lose to Clinton was Trump. That was how lowest-common-denominator we got this election cycle.

Hillary is not Bill. She is not likable in the least, she never comes off as sincere, she is not likable in the least. That being said, she could have won had she played a better game, she was running against Trump. But she flubbed it up. She doesn't inspire people, she isn't charismatic, she cannot shake controversy like her husband can. She certainly comes off as an Ice Queen sort of person, and even when she'd doing her publicity stunts of drinking a beer with folk, you never buy it. You never buy that she's the kind of person you could have a beer with in a bar.

DNC shouldn't have rigged their elections, I firmly believe Sanders would have won.

 

[jamesrage]

I have been hearing since the election that democrats/liberals just can't admit reality... that Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate. I don't think this is true at all so I wanted to do a poll on it.

When I ask "is she a lousy candidate", I take that specifically to mean is she a likable person that can sway voters to her side? Is she charismatic? Does she inspire people? The typical qualities you'd want for any general politician regardless of political ideologies. The kind of person that builds momentum and can draw a crowd. That to me would make someone a great candidate. Therefor when I ask was she a lousy candidate I'm basically asking was she incapable of all those things?

I'd also like to point out that this isn't a question of "why did Hillary lose?". Because a question like that is complicated. Literally dozens of factors could go in to why someone, whether they are lousy or not, won or lost an election. You change a few variables and even a lousy candidate might end up winning. So ignore all of the "is this why she lost" stuff. I'm asking specifically, do you think she was a lousy candidate or not and why.

I'm more interested in democrats/liberals responses, but I am including a spot for conservatives and independents to vote. For the sake of simplicity I am asking everyone to just click on the group that you most consistently align with even if it's not perfect.

Thanks for voting and any input that people provide.

Yes she was a lousy candidate. Trump is a corrupt flip flopping lying sack of ****.But so it Clinton.But only one of them served in public office and the DNC screwed another democrat candidate which contributed to her loss.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

She was a terrible candidate. I had stated before the election that the only person that could lose to Trump was Clinton and the only person who could lose to Clinton was Trump. That was how lowest-common-denominator we got this election cycle.

Hillary is not Bill. She is not likable in the least, she never comes off as sincere, she is not likable in the least. That being said, she could have won had she played a better game, she was running against Trump. But she flubbed it up. She doesn't inspire people, she isn't charismatic, she cannot shake controversy like her husband can. She certainly comes off as an Ice Queen sort of person, and even when she'd doing her publicity stunts of drinking a beer with folk, you never buy it. You never buy that she's the kind of person you could have a beer with in a bar.

DNC shouldn't have rigged their elections, I firmly believe Sanders would have won.

"Hot sauce!" :liar2

 

[roughdraft274]

She was a terrible candidate. I had stated before the election that the only person that could lose to Trump was Clinton and the only person who could lose to Clinton was Trump. That was how lowest-common-denominator we got this election cycle.

Hillary is not Bill. She is not likable in the least, she never comes off as sincere, she is not likable in the least. That being said, she could have won had she played a better game, she was running against Trump. But she flubbed it up. She doesn't inspire people, she isn't charismatic, she cannot shake controversy like her husband can. She certainly comes off as an Ice Queen sort of person, and even when she'd doing her publicity stunts of drinking a beer with folk, you never buy it. You never buy that she's the kind of person you could have a beer with in a bar.

DNC shouldn't have rigged their elections, I firmly believe Sanders would have won.

I disagree that they rigged their election, but agree very much with bolded above. From the beginning, I said loudly that I thought she was very bad and that any decently likable republican would have crushed her.

 

[Ikari]

I disagree that they rigged their election, but agree very much with bolded above. From the beginning, I said loudly that I thought she was very bad and that any decently likable republican would have crushed her.

I firmly believe that the DNC had it in for Sanders from the get go. This was to be Hillary's year, and I think they did everything they could, from restricting access to voter rolls to making sure "super delegates" went the right way, etc. to make sure that Clinton won. It was her year.

And she got the nomination, and ****ed up the general so badly she actually lost to Trump.

 

[blueliner7]

I couldn't vote in your poll.

I'm a FORMER Democrat and Hillary is a good example of why I'm a former Democrat.

 

[TheGoverness]

Yes. She was a horrible candidate.

I feel like I've set that 1000 times by now.

 

[jamesrage]

She was a terrible candidate. I had stated before the election that the only person that could lose to Trump was Clinton and the only person who could lose to Clinton was Trump. That was how lowest-common-denominator we got this election cycle.

Hillary is not Bill. She is not likable in the least, she never comes off as sincere, she is not likable in the least. That being said, she could have won had she played a better game, she was running against Trump. But she flubbed it up. She doesn't inspire people, she isn't charismatic, she cannot shake controversy like her husband can. She certainly comes off as an Ice Queen sort of person, and even when she'd doing her publicity stunts of drinking a beer with folk, you never buy it. You never buy that she's the kind of person you could have a beer with in a bar.

DNC shouldn't have rigged their elections, I firmly believe Sanders would have won.

I agree with everything you said but that last statement. Sanders was only there to make Clinton look sane by comparison. Its like when you look at a regular fat person who is probably 40 or 50 pounds overweight..Most people would agree that person is a fat ass. But if you stick that regular fat person next to some extreme morbidly obese lard ass in a cripple scooter who is probably a 150 or 250 pounds overweight.Then suddenly that regular fat person doesn't look that fat ass anymore. Sanders is a crazy left wing socialist by American standards.Going by I sidewith.com Clinton shares most of Sanders views or at least campaigned on them, but she never ran as a democrat socialist. Sure liberal college kids with no real life or job experience will vote for Sanders because they love he idea of free ****. But normal Americans on the other hand prefer to earn their things. Sanders might have tested well in the online polls but so did Ron Paul.

 

[Nilly]

She was a terrible candidate. I had stated before the election that the only person that could lose to Trump was Clinton and the only person who could lose to Clinton was Trump. That was how lowest-common-denominator we got this election cycle.

Hillary is not Bill. She is not likable in the least, she never comes off as sincere, she is not likable in the least. That being said, she could have won had she played a better game, she was running against Trump. But she flubbed it up. She doesn't inspire people, she isn't charismatic, she cannot shake controversy like her husband can. She certainly comes off as an Ice Queen sort of person, and even when she'd doing her publicity stunts of drinking a beer with folk, you never buy it. You never buy that she's the kind of person you could have a beer with in a bar.

DNC shouldn't have rigged their elections, I firmly believe Sanders would have won.

How can the only person who could lose to Clinton be Trump when Sanders lost to Clinton?

 

[OlNate]

Yup, she was horrible...

 

[Nilly]

I have been hearing since the election that democrats/liberals just can't admit reality... that Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate. I don't think this is true at all so I wanted to do a poll on it.

When I ask "is she a lousy candidate", I take that specifically to mean is she a likable person that can sway voters to her side? Is she charismatic? Does she inspire people? The typical qualities you'd want for any general politician regardless of political ideologies. The kind of person that builds momentum and can draw a crowd. That to me would make someone a great candidate. Therefor when I ask was she a lousy candidate I'm basically asking was she incapable of all those things?

I'd also like to point out that this isn't a question of "why did Hillary lose?". Because a question like that is complicated. Literally dozens of factors could go in to why someone, whether they are lousy or not, won or lost an election. You change a few variables and even a lousy candidate might end up winning. So ignore all of the "is this why she lost" stuff. I'm asking specifically, do you think she was a lousy candidate or not and why.

I'm more interested in democrats/liberals responses, but I am including a spot for conservatives and independents to vote. For the sake of simplicity I am asking everyone to just click on the group that you most consistently align with even if it's not perfect.

Thanks for voting and any input that people provide.

I think Hillary was a good well qualified candidate who would have made a fine president. Yes she did have her flaws, she did not have the charisma of many of those that came before, but she won the popular vote, smacked Donald around in the debates and had policy substance. Unlike either Trump or Sanders.

e.g. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...ces-new-details-of-middle-class-tax-cut-plan/

She was the only candidate who really had a plan, and that ultimately was her downfall. Which I think is a reflection on the mood of the American people more than anything.

I very much hope that Sanders supporters can get behind the next democrat candidate, whether it's a Booker or Harris or Warren. I do want the democratic party to move left, but it's important to note that much of the democratic base is central.

 

[Peter King]

she was between a louse and average candidate, still light years ahead in quality than the idiot who is now president, but she lost nevertheless for reasons other than qualification or honest comparison between the 2 candidates.

 

[Ikari]

How can the only person who could lose to Clinton be Trump when Sanders lost to Clinton?

Because Sanders, unlike Clinton, IS charismatic, likable, and can draw voters. He wouldn't have lost the traditionally Democratic mid-West states that Hillary lost that ultimately lost her the election.

What he wasn't was a status-quo Corporate Republocrat like Hillary and the Party didn't want someone that wasn't a Party Player through and through.

Everything in the Primaries was set to favor Clinton. She was supposed to come out on top, smelling of roses, being able to take the General no problem. But she couldn't hold it together, on the national stage she couldn't hold states against Trump of all people. She should have easily been able to win, but the People didn't really like her, and she was too arrogant and distant and cold to get people to support her. So in the end, she lost states which had traditionally been won by the DNC and in that process lost the election.

I do not believe Sanders would have lost those states.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I firmly believe that the DNC had it in for Sanders from the get go. This was to be Hillary's year, and I think they did everything they could, from restricting access to voter rolls to making sure "super delegates" went the right way, etc. to make sure that Clinton won. It was her year.

And she got the nomination, and ****ed up the general so badly she actually lost to Trump.

An alternative is to look at the aggregate popular vote, which makes for easier comparisons to past elections. According to The Green Papers, Clinton won 16.8 million votes to 13.2 million for Sanders, or about 55 percent of the vote to his 43 percent, a 12 percentage point gap.

 

[Linc]

I think Hillary was a good well qualified candidate who would have made a fine president. Yes she did have her flaws, she did not have the charisma of many of those that came before, but she won the popular vote, smacked Donald around in the debates and had policy substance. Unlike either Trump or Sanders.

I very much hope that Sanders supporters can get behind the next democrat candidate, whether it's a Booker or Harris or Warren. I do want the democratic party to move left, but it's important to note that much of the democratic base is central.

A Sen. Klobuchar/Sen. S. Brown ticket is my favorite right now against trump in 2020.

If GOPs go with a Gov. Baker/Gov. Sandoval ticket in 2020, they'll win in a landslide over any DEM ticket ...

 

[Ikari]

A Sen. Klobuchar/Sen. S. Brown ticket is my favorite right now against trump in 2020.

If GOPs go with a Gov. Baker/Gov. Sandoval ticket in 2020, they'll win in a landslide over any DEM ticket ...

The DNC will need to run a good shake for their primaries and let the chips fall as they might. I think that so long as they get Not Clinton, they should have a good chance of beating Trump. But they'd better take stock as to how they lost this time around and learn from their mistakes.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Because Sanders, unlike Clinton, IS charismatic, likable, and can draw voters. He wouldn't have lost the traditionally Democratic mid-West states that Hillary lost that ultimately lost her the election. .

He was clobbered in Ohio, and again in Florida, which were decisive for Cheeto.

 

[Linc]

Sanders would have been another McGovern, the Senator from South Dakota who got my first POTUS vote against the corrupt, treasonous Nixon in 1972.

Sanders would have easily been tarred and feathered over his 'socialist' moniker and even more easily lost a greater portion of the DEM base than Clinton did ...

 

[Ikari]

He was clobbered in Ohio, and again in Florida, which were decisive for Cheeto.

But not against Trump, against Clinton and in a primary set up for her win. Against Trump, I don't think Sanders would have lost those states. There were plenty of people who had been just voting against Hillary and that wouldn't exist with Sanders. Against Trump, I do firmly believe Sanders would have won.

 

[Linc]

An alternative is to look at the aggregate popular vote, which makes for easier comparisons to past elections. According to The Green Papers, Clinton won 16.8 million votes to 13.2 million for Sanders, or about 55 percent of the vote to his 43 percent, a 12 percentage point gap.

The Green Papers: United States Off Year Election 2017 are one of the best sources I have; with continued updates during the week on new candidates ;;;

 

[roughdraft274]

I firmly believe that the DNC had it in for Sanders from the get go. This was to be Hillary's year, and I think they did everything they could, from restricting access to voter rolls to making sure "super delegates" went the right way, etc. to make sure that Clinton won. It was her year.

And she got the nomination, and ****ed up the general so badly she actually lost to Trump.

Super delegates have been in the process for decades, and they switched to Obama in 2008 even though people were making the same complaints. You might not like the system, but it was not put in place just so Hillary would win. Can you give me a link for the voter rolls thing? First time I''ve heard of such a thing.

 

[Nilly]

But not against Trump, against Clinton and in a primary set up for her win. Against Trump, I don't think Sanders would have lost those states. There were plenty of people who had been just voting against Hillary and that wouldn't exist with Sanders. Against Trump, I do firmly believe Sanders would have won.

But I also think that many people who came out for Clinton (remember there were 63 million of them) wouldn't have come out for Sanders. Particularly POC.

 

[MaggieD]

I have been hearing since the election that democrats/liberals just can't admit reality... that Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate. I don't think this is true at all so I wanted to do a poll on it.

When I ask "is she a lousy candidate", I take that specifically to mean is she a likable person that can sway voters to her side? Is she charismatic? Does she inspire people? The typical qualities you'd want for any general politician regardless of political ideologies. The kind of person that builds momentum and can draw a crowd. That to me would make someone a great candidate. Therefor when I ask was she a lousy candidate I'm basically asking was she incapable of all those things?

I'd also like to point out that this isn't a question of "why did Hillary lose?". Because a question like that is complicated. Literally dozens of factors could go in to why someone, whether they are lousy or not, won or lost an election. You change a few variables and even a lousy candidate might end up winning. So ignore all of the "is this why she lost" stuff. I'm asking specifically, do you think she was a lousy candidate or not and why.

I'm more interested in democrats/liberals responses, but I am including a spot for conservatives and independents to vote. For the sake of simplicity I am asking everyone to just click on the group that you most consistently align with even if it's not perfect.

Thanks for voting and any input that people provide.

Well, your description of likable certainly does not represent the man who eventually won...:lol:

I think she was a HORRIBLE candidate. I see her as a liar, a poor excuse for a powerful woman (even though she was). Further, I see her run as political payback for the Clinton years. That election was pivotal in our history because of the SCOTUS make-up. The Dem Party exhibited a cockiness that lost them the biggest election in recent history. And judging by the rancor out there FOR that YUGE mistake, I suspect they'll lose in 2020 as well.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

But not against Trump

Again, you can speculate all you like, she did beat him soundly in those 2 states. You can't prove in any manner that BS would have beaten Cheeto in Ohio or FL...the logic doesnt hold.

, against Clinton and in a primary set up for her win.

This is non-sense, this was the popular vote, not delegates.

Against Trump, I don't think Sanders would have lost those states.

You have no basis, but go on...

There were plenty of people who had been just voting against Hillary and that wouldn't exist with Sanders.

Nonsense, they had a chance to vote for BS in the primaries, he lost soundly.

Against Trump, I do firmly believe Sanders would have won.

Show yer math.