What’s The Matter With Hillary Clinton?

Brandon Allen

Brandon Allen

Brandon Allen is an attorney in Charlotte who writes and tweets about polls and elections.

Related Post Roulette

177 Responses

  1. Avatar Stephanie says:

    Her popularity ratings were very high after she left her post as Secretary of State. It could be argued that she was the target of an intensive smear campaign by Republicans in the House and right wing media, with the result that average Americans who tend to be poorly informed and most of whom never read any of her biographies, actually know very little about Hillary Clinton.

    The endless and expensive Benghazi investigations were a lot of smoke with no fire, but people only remember the smoke. Right wing hit jobs like “Clinton Cash” which were not well fact checked, and a slew of anti-Clinton books that all seemed to make the best-seller lists, pretty much sealed her fate. By the time the Republicans were done with her, her reputation was permanently tarnished–by slander & innuendo alone.

    And of course, she committed the ultimate unforgivable sin of being a woman who presumed to think she could be President.

    I think her only role from now forward would be to be a power behind the scenes. The “most unpopular” mantle is also worn by Donald Trump–just to put things into perspective. At this point, it seems there’s nothing he could do to rehabilitate his image with more than half the country, as he’s provided so much evidence of his being “temperamentally unsuitable.”

    It’s completely possible for Republicans to do the same to ANY Democratic candidate who starts to be popular, and threatens their hegemony. You can see them homing in on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It’ll be interesting to watch the lies and innuendo to come. I understand they’ve already circulated fake nude photos of her online.Report

    • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to Stephanie says:

      If you can call it a “nude photo” at all, yes. It’s a photo someone took of their own feet on the edge of the tub while they had a bath. So even if it had been a photo of AOC it would have been about 0% scandalous to me.

      But I guess if the scandal, fundamentally, is that AOC dares to think she can influence the laws of the country from within a female body, then it might have highlighted that message to those already receptive to it.Report

    • Avatar North in reply to Stephanie says:

      While you do have a point and a solid one I don’t think the HRC phenomena is replicable. The GOP had 30 years to brand Hillary* and on top of that Hillary was pretty much the face of the end times in the mind of the social conservative right. She was pretty centric in both the news and right wing “news” throughout their precipitous decline. Neither of those factors are replicable for the GOP with a new candidate.
      The Republicans, for instance, tried mightily to make Barak Obama into their new devil of the decade and failed entirely outside of their own unswerving base.

      *Which certainly isn’t to say HRC never made errors of her own. At some point it’s clear that the Clintons decided that roughly 40% of the voting electorate was flat out lost and moved appearances of propriety a number of ticks down their priority list below raking in cash and influence.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

        A lot of people our age and younger inadvertently picked up Hillary hate from the news and right-wing before they were too old to process it and realize it was a smear job.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          I’d love to hear more about the indoctrination you’ve received.

          How much more do you think you know that you haven’t even questioned?Report

          • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

            The Bernie or Busters I’ve known basically began sprouting talking points about HRC from the 1990s. Probably stuff they overheard when they were pre-puberty. It wasn’t quite Vince Forster or Whitewater but it was close.

            I’ve said this below but everything about 2016 screams Murc’s law and mainly from a bunch of middle-aged white guys who were never that keen on Democrats in the first place. So we have to deal with George’s racist arguments against California and topsy-turvey logic on the popular vote we can’t call them racist just like NBC told their correspondents not to call Steve King’s remarks racist. We have people doing quadruple mental backflips (while blindfolded!!!) to avoid dealing with Sam’s arguments against the electoral college because pushing for constitutional reform is the long and slow-boring of hardwood that could take decades (or might never happen). Instead we just get “Bernie coulda won” arguments which are cheap, unprovable one way or the other, and easy.

            I can’t prove or unprove whether Bernie would have beaten Trump in 2016. No one can. I suspect he would have lost and possibly lost the popular vote too. I suspect the campaign against Bernie’s Jewishness would have made the campaign against Al Smith’s Catholicness in 1928 look like a pillow fight. But we don’t have a hypothetical machine that we can plug these things into.

            But this doesn’t make Bernie would have won a great argument, it makes it a petulant argument from diehard cultists.

            Jesse is right. Pillsy is right. North is right. Richard is right.

            I can’t prove whether Bernie would have won or not. I suspect not. I suspect the campaign against BernieReport

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

              Saul, I submit to you: you have inadvertently picked up a *LOT* of very bad information from news and the right-wing before you were too old to process it and realize it was bad information.

              You don’t even have the tools to be able to tell that it’s bad information.Report

            • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

              Another way that 2016 is a great example of Murc’s Law, which to recap is that only Democrats have agency, is that it was apparently the responsibility of the Democratic Party to take Clinton’s unfavorability into account despite the fact that Democratic Party members wanted Clinton to get. Yet, the Republican Party had no similar responsibility in regards to Trump even though Trump was obviously going to be a malicious boob wanna be dictator of a President.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to LeeEsq says:

                Are you really saying a national political party shouldn’t consider candidate favorability? It seems like one of the most basic functions.

                I actually see this as the opposite of what people call ‘Murc’s law,’ with her progressive supporters disclaiming any agency of their own. The only reason it might look like anything else here is that OT in its current iteration is mostly a debate between broadly progressive and broadly liberaltarian voices. With very few exceptions most of us could be in the same big tent coalition under the right circumstances.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to LeeEsq says:

                I got the impression that the Republican Party *did* keep putting forth alternatives to Trump, but nobody wanted to talk about them because talking about the latest rotten thing Trump said felt so good. And besides, everyone else had something wrong with them. Cruz was a horrible business-sucker, Rubio was a dope, Carson was a religious nut, Walker was , and so there just wasn’t anyone.

                So if whoever shows up will be Obviously Just The Worst no matter who they are, then why not go whole-hog?Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Stephanie says:

      Regarding your last point, I agree that the right will relentlessly attack AOC. I’m more interested in seeing who from the left attacks her, myself. If/when she gains enough political capital to threaten some entrenched Dem interests I fully expect to see smears coming from her supposed allies as well.Report

      • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater says:

        I’m still waiting for some reporter to find out what Harvey got out of his relationship with HRC, and how many people told her that he was a rapist (I think we’re at “at least two”).Report

  2. Avatar InMD says:

    The answer to your question is at the end of your third paragraph. She’s been in public life at the national level for approaching 30 years. It’s not that she’s particularly unpopular for a defeated candidate its that she’s never been consistently popular at any time going back to when she was first lady. Blips here and there but that’s it. I guess we can debate how much of it is fair. Some of it certainly comes with the baggage of being in the fray so long. But then, none of that is really the kind of talk you hear from a winner.

    She also just lost a very winnable election to the stupidest Republican nominee in the modern era, and I would venture a strong candidate for the stupidest Republican nominee of all time.

    Only in the bluest of the blue bubbles is it surprising that she isn’t exactly loved.Report

    • Avatar North in reply to InMD says:

      Yeah, this, she was never really adored on the left side of the political spectrum and losing to fishing Trump pushed that down even lower. HRC got the 2016 nomination by logistics, deal making and cashing in a lifetime of IOU’s with the party actors. Now she is a not enormously popular former political actor with few favors left to call on and absolutely no sense that she’s owed anything. I have no doubt her political career at the national level is pretty much over.Report

    • Avatar Sam Wilkinson in reply to InMD says:

      It is important here to note that her loss involved winning actual voters by three million(ish) votes, a fact that is always dropped out of discussions about her, which imply that the country really liked Trump. It didn’t. The country’s remarkably conservative and remarkably anachronistic method of choosing presidents doomed her. That is, predictably, held up as something was entirely her fault, rather than being rightly identified as a horrendous way to choose presidents.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Sam Wilkinson says:

        The country’s remarkably conservative

        From Wikipedia:

        Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic party has had control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress for 35 years, compared to 16 years for the Republican party over the last 100 years

        The country is *recently* remarkably conservative, a fact about which Democrats have some splainin to do.Report

      • Avatar InMD in reply to Sam Wilkinson says:

        You aren’t wrong but this is precisely why the loss reflects so poorly on her. The system is what it is and Democrats haven’t been helped by the great sort but they can and do win in it. She had every advantage to do just that and blew it by what? Something like 200k votes around the great lakes? And to an ignoramus regional real estate oligarch turned reality tv star with no political experience. There’s no way to pretty that up. The substantial popular vote win makes it arguably look worse because it shows how badly she miscalculated where she needed the votes.Report

        • Avatar Stillwater in reply to InMD says:

          I always go back to the book Shattered when this topic comes up. Hillary’s political team determined that actively campaigning in Michigan would *cost her votes*. Yikes, what a candidate.Report

          • Avatar InMD in reply to Stillwater says:

            Yup. And this is why the nominee IMO should not be from the NE or Left Coast. Republicans can win by firing up base turnout in their strongholds but Dems need to edge narrow wins in the upper Mid-West and purple-ish Southern states (basically what Obama did). Running up the score in urbanized/cultural safe zones doesn’t work. It’s a different game and takes a different sort of approach.Report

            • Avatar Stillwater in reply to InMD says:

              Zackly right. The obvious problem confronting the Dems as a party is that Dem primary voters will most likely nominate someone who can’t win marginal votes in those marginal states. Klobuchar seems to me the person most likely to so, but she lacks the sex-appeal of candidates trying to grift cash-in take advantage of the current moment by combining anti-Trumpism with identity politics while still servicing the big Dem Party donors/stake-holders.Report

        • Avatar Sam Wilkinson in reply to InMD says:

          @inmd Which gets back to the fundamental failure of the presidential selection mechanism.Report

      • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Sam Wilkinson says:

        Oh those pesky rules which handed the victory to the group which had studied them.

        The weird part is that’s exactly what happened to HRC when she went up against Obama. His people had studied the rules more and did what it took to win.

        Maybe she should have spent less time in California and more in Michigan/Ohio/Florida? She would have still taken California even if she had spent a lot less time there, and part of why she was there was to plump up her victory.Report

    • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to InMD says:

      When I looked at historic Gallup polling a few years ago, opinions of Hillary Clinton going back to the 1992 could be more negative than positive at times.(*) At least up until Bengalli, she had favorable views at State, but that was at a traditionally non-partisan job. I was looking this up, because Paul Krugman had warned that Republicans were trying to do her, what they did to Gore. To my surprise, the same polling failed to show Gore being viewed more unfavorably than favorably until December after the election. The SNL ridicule Gore received may not have been that significant.

      (*) For instance, in April of 1992, 38% had a favorable and 40% unfavorable view of her. Granted a lot of people had no opinion, but I wonder if a major party ever nominated any candidate that had ever had net unfavorabilities prior to the last election.Report

      • Avatar InMD in reply to PD Shaw says:

        I’d be surprised if it had. But that also goes to the unique challenges she had. She wasn’t a normal candidate and no amount of ear covering, eye closing, and yelling could make it so.Report

        • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to InMD says:

          I was wondering about Nixon, but didn’t find any pre-1960 or pre-1968 polling with a quick search and probably they weren’t doing that much ‘favorability’ polling back then.Report

          • Brandon Allen Brandon Allen in reply to PD Shaw says:

            They definitely weren’t. The only favorability polling I could find for Nixon post 1960 election was:

            Gallup, May 2-7, 1963: 42% favorable, 37% unfavorable.
            Gallup, Jul 26-31, 1962: 45% favorable, 30% unfavorable

            …and that was using Roper’s iPoll database.Report

            • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to Brandon Allen says:

              Thank’s for looking into that.

              I looked back to see why Hillary Clinton’s net favoribility would plummet btw/ March 20-22 and April 20-22 (net +13 to net -2) The shift appears to have entirely came from people who previously told the pollster they had “never heard of” her before.

              On April 5, 1992, she did an interview claiming the existence of rumors of George HW Bush’s marital infidelities that the media is refusing to cover. The media coverage sees her acting as an attack dog for the campaign.

              Otherwise, before the first poll, the first part of March had whitewater coverage, Jerry Brown’s accusation at a primary debated that the Governor corruptly funneled money to the Rose law firm, and Hillary Clinton’s disparaging remark that she “could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas.” Still, these don’t appear to have impacted the polls, other than Gallup started polling opinions about Hillary Clinton that month.Report

              • Avatar Iron Tum in reply to PD Shaw says:

                Jerry Brown’s accusation at a primary debated that the Governor corruptly funneled money to the Rose law firm

                Remember when she swore under oath that those records had been destroyed, she didn’t know where they were and they ABSOLUTELY weren’t in her possession? Good times.

                Her reputation for being a lying shitweasel probably stems from decades of her being a lying shitweasel. I mean how bad do you have to be for other democrats to decide that your hands are too dirty to go after Richard Millhouse “I am not a crook” Nixon?

                Or maybe it’s all a vast right-wing conspiracy. The evidence supports either version/Report

  3. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    Hillary Clinton was subjected to a rightist smear campaign since she became part of national life during the 1992 Presidential campaign. As the first Baby Boomer First Lady with a career on her own, combined with the Republican decision to wage war against Bill Clinton, rightists were bound to hate her. Many young people absorbed this inchoate hatred from their childhoods and therefore have feelings towards Clinton that they don’t understand.Report

  4. Avatar Richard Hershberger says:

    The Right is very good at the Grand Smear, and at keeping it up decade after decade. Democrats have not had a counter to this, though there are early signs that Ocasio-Cortez might have cracked that code. The result of the Grand Smear is a public perception that is unrelated to the actual person. How many people panicking over Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker have the least bit of actual information about her? The thing is, the Right is so good at this that the smears filter into Democrats’ heads. Hence the hand-wringing about Pelosi coming from the Democratic side. One advantage Obama had in 2008 was that he was a newcomer on the national stage, and the smear machine didn’t have time to work its magic. Hillary Clinton has been in the gun sites since the 1992 election. No additional explanation is really necessary.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

      I’ve never been persuaded by the argument that Dem voters views of Hillary are corrupted by the GOP smear machine since the main left/center-left criticisms of her are free standing. Personally, I think folks who puzzle over why she’s so disliked have a very simplistic (ie., Cillizza-esque) view of politics.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Stillwater says:

        Ummm maybe not Dem voters but some non aligned voters have gone hook line and sinker for some of the crazier theories about her. And some just have a free floating hate that is hard to explain outside of the crazy R smears and fears of strong women. Heck i’m seeing a bit of that with AOC. One of my conservative cousins regularly post dipshit facebook memes of her. They are an angry pic of her with some made up and very stupid thing for her to be saying. From scrolling through the responses to his memes half the people enjoy a good guffaw at her and they buy the swill. The other half so seem to be pointing out that he may have an unhealthy obsession with her. But there is a strong hate on for her that is disconnected from anything other then some mortal terror she strikes in them.Report

  5. Avatar Stillwater says:

    On the plus side for Hillary, her image still has time to improve, at least in comparison to the last two years.

    Third time’s the charm?Report

    • Avatar North in reply to Stillwater says:

      Nope, she’s done.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to North says:

        I’d love to believe you North. I really would ….Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Stillwater says:

          Then believe your own eyes. What has she done to suggest she’s running again? The invisible primary is happening right fishing now. She won the previous nomination by a logistical and favor cashing in feat that had foundations stretching all the way back to her loss in 2008. That avenue to the nomination is utterly gone; those favors are spent; the goodwill is spent and she lost to Donald Fishing Trump. The Party doesn’t owe her anything and she has no passionate constituency in her corner that belongs to her alone. Any characteristic she could run on has an alternative candidate younger and without her baggage and, again, she isn’t running in the invisible primary that is happening right fishing now.

          So outside the sweaty dreams of her detractors what on earth is there suggesting that Hillary Rodham Clinton is trying for the presidential nomination for 2020?

          Short of the Democratic National Convention collectively losing their minds and nominating her out of the blue I see absolutely no path from here to the nomination for her. And based on what HRC is doing currently and has been doing (and most importantly not doing)? Neither does she.Report

  6. Avatar Kolohe says:

    What’s the matter with Hillary Clinton? She is bad at this

    She never won a pitched electoral battle. Plus, and more importantly, she’s managed to make a decision on the record on the wrong side of a lot of big issues five minutes before that decision went from popular to unpopular. And this is despite taking the Senate path, instead of the Executive (i.e. Governor) path, where ‘hard choices’ are much more a feature of the job.Report

  7. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Personally, I think that if she does exactly what she did last time, she’ll get a similar result to what she did last time.

    Perhaps even a worse one.

    That said, I say this as someone who kept criticizing her last time and not as someone who supported her, so everything I say about how she shouldn’t run again should probably be assumed to be done in service to getting Gary Johnson elected.

    Did you know he didn’t even know where places in the Middle East were? Places that we should oppose Trump pulling out of?Report

  8. Avatar Jesse says:

    How much time did Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, or even Barack Obama spend attacking their opponents after they’d beaten them? I mean, Obama kept some blame on Dubya for the economy, but aside from that, it’s not as if House Democrat’s were bringing up John McCain as the reason why everything was bad in 2010.Report

  9. This is about the 10th Hillary redemption posts I’ve read in a week. How very strange. I can’t decide if it’s that D’s still don’t want to face the fact that they ran a really weak candidate or if this is really a very very misguided attempt at rehabbing her reputation for a future run. (no. just no)

    From where I sit, Hillary Clinton is grossly unlikeable as are many of her closest supporters/confidantes. IMO not only did this suppress turnout hugely, the only reason she got as many votes as she did was because Trump is also grossly unlikeable. I despise her, have always despised her, was thrilled when Obama beat her and was happy to vote for Obama in 2008. I would not have voted for her in 2008 (even if I would have had to vote McCain, of whom I was not a fan) and I would never vote for her EVER.

    I find any confusion regarding the reasons behind her unpopularity completely baffling. There are hundreds, if not thousands of things that she’s done – really, really done, not a vast right wing conspiracy, but actual events that really transpired – that are appalling by any metric and the continued blind-bordering-on-worshipful support for her from some quarters has really, really harmed the overall reputation of the Democrats (at least for me).

    She has serious racial issues and feminism issues. She has a Bill issue. She’s a corporate shill. She’s a warmonger. She’s power hungry. She clearly believes she is entitled to the presidency. SHE CHEATED TO WIN THE NOMINATION. She left the Democratic Party in tatters and in debt to its eyeballs. She spent a billion dollars and she had the full support of the media and Hollywood and she still didn’t win. Saying “Beyonce and Jay Z support me” is NOT a viable election strategy.

    And beyond her overall public reputation, her behavior since the election has seemed petty, ungracious, small minded, divisive, mean spirited, bitter, egomaniacal, and quite frankly weird. She and her supporters ignore all the real live weaknesses she had as a candidate and make all these stupid excuses for her absolute ineptitude. She had the chance to show to the world what a big person she was, how much better she was than Trump, how she was much more mature and would have been a much better leader, and she’s blown every opportunity she had to do that. That’s why her approval rating is in the toilet. It’s her behavior since the election that’s done it and all the stuff that’s come out since then.

    I would run from her as far and fast as you can, guys.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Kristin Devine says:

      Cosign. Especially that last sentence.Report

    • Avatar Maribou in reply to Kristin Devine says:

      I don’t think this is a Hillary redemption post.

      I think it’s trying to take a balanced look at the situation and the future. Looking at the numbers, without getting personal.

      And I say this as someone who pretty much agrees with everything else you say here starting with “I find any confusion…” My gut agrees with you entirely on everything from that point forward.

      I just think it’s misaimed at this writer, whom I do not believe has any interest in rehabbing her; he seems to want to look at what *else* is going on.

      I mean, I feel the same way about Bill Clinton (different reasons, but same total ugggggggggh reaction), and a majority of people still love him….Report

      • Avatar Slade the Leveller in reply to Maribou says:

        Hillary was the one American, out of 350 million, the Dems could have run against Donald Trump that could have made 2016 a contest. Just a spectacularly bad choice.

        I agree with you re: Bill Clinton, but he is a likeable man, so his shenanigans are often brushed aside as being non-fatal flaws.Report

        • Then we’re in a place where the Party Leadership did not know that they were running the one freakin’ guy who would lose to Trump.

          Maybe they figured that they’d be running against Jeb! and figured that the same gameplan would work against Trump.

          For what it’s worth, I think that Ms. Clinton would have beaten the tar out of Bushitler V3.0.Report

          • Avatar Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird says:

            I really don’t know how to explain the national party’s blindness to how bad a candidate she’d be. Maybe it was the whole first woman to head a major party ticket thing. The fact that Trump was always hanging around in the polls, never really ahead, but never out of reach either, should have tipped them off.

            @sam-wilkinson , inter alia, makes the great point re: how the Electoral College can change elections, negating the popular will. This, however, is what it was designed to do. What the framers may not have foretold was candidates playing to win the electoral vote at the expense of the popular. As long as you can convince poor white folks that the ones shafting them are poor black and brown folks the an electoral win will always be in play.Report

            • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

              I really don’t know how to explain the national party’s blindness to how bad a candidate she’d be.

              Seems to me the answer is pretty obvious. The National Party was comprised of individuals with a set of priorities and interests and they thought Hillary was the best person to promote and protect them. That the electorate didn’t share their views of her, or more precisely, that it didn’t share the same set of priorities and interests, was beyond their decision-making ability.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Stillwater says:

                I hate to beat this horse again but can we please dispense with this idea that the party sat down sometime in 2014 or 2015 in a cigar smoke filled room and said “Yep… Hillary’ll do the trick.” Likewise can we please dispense with this idea that her nomination represented some indication of a profound structural problem with how the Democratic party apparatus works?

                Hillary didn’t steal the nod, and she wasn’t given it. She very methodologically and relentlessly built up to it over the course of eight bloody years. She swallowed her pride in 2008, accepted defeat graciously and told the PUMA crowd to get with the program. The party exhaled in relief and made note. Obama took note. In 2012 Bill set the convention on fire for Obama’s reelection while over in the GOP convention Clint Eastwood bellowed at an empty chair like a patient with Alzheimer’s. The party actors and Obama were grateful. The Clintons racked up money and influence and they doled both out to political candidates across the country earning gratitude every step of the way through Obama’s terms. Then, finally, when the run up to 2016 was happening all those potential candidates looked at the history and the favors and the money HRC had accumulated and said either “Ya know what? I like Hillary and she’s ready for this. I’ll sit this run out.” Or they said “Ya know what? Hillary is going to cream anyone who runs against her. I’ll sit this one out.” And she ran virtually unopposed except for good ol’ Uncle Bernie.

                There’s nothing nefarious about that; there’s no norm busting to it (quite the opposite really) nor is there anything crazy or irrational about it. Just a really long game and a lot of individual actors making very rational self-interested decisions all along the way. If you wanted to go back in time and stop Hillary’s 2016 run you’d probably have to start almost a decade earlier. This isn’t some hack or some flaw in the decision making process; it was just a very unique person using her unique history to logistic her way to the nomination. It isn’t repeatable. She’s finished now that she’s lost. And it’s not replicatable (not even remotely easily at least).Report

              • Avatar Pinky in reply to North says:

                There’s also the matter of the Democrats having a very weak bench. They’d been losing state offices for six years, and President Obama made the mistake (unfortunately very common, at least recently) of failing to develop the bench with his appointments. Those few who could have stood a chance in the primaries didn’t try. I’m sure the national party wouldn’t have welcomed them, but still, they didn’t take the chance. Fortune favors the brave.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Pinky says:

                Agreed but the brave in this case either liked Hillary or calculated that she’d flatten them.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to North says:

                I disagree. There’s simply no way serious candidates looked at her polling and favorables and electoral history and thought “hmmm, she’s a juggernaut”. The more likely reason they didn’t throw their hats in the ring is because the big establishment interests had already decided to back her come what may and that hill was too steep to climb.

                This goes back to the institutional critique I offered above: Dem power was (and still is) overly concentrated in a few king-maker’s hands to the detriment and health of the party. And at the risk of affirming the consequent here, the evidence supporting that view is that Hillary lost an election just about anyone else would have won.Report

              • Avatar Pinky in reply to Stillwater says:

                If we’re running scenarios, we should consider whether Trump would have gotten the R nomination if Clinton didn’t get the D. It was easy to look at Clinton and say, the system’s broken anyway, let’s throw a wrench. If some fresh-faced liberal with a reputation for honesty was making strides toward the nomination, the Republicans might have chosen differently. The Sanders phenomenon was largely a response to Clinton’s cynical institutionalism. A younger candidate could have possibly taken her down. Then, would the Republicans have chosen Trump? It’s not obvious. A Rubio runs better in that scenario. And parties do step back from the brink – recall the shift from firebrand Dean to safe choice Kerry starting just before the Iowa caucus.

                Anyway, my point is that your assertion that “Hillary lost an election just about anyone else would have won” makes a questionable assumption. (I’m not saying that she was a great candidate or that your scenario is wrong, of course, just that the assumption of Other D vs. Trump isn’t a gimme.)

                I guess the question I’d have to answer is, who would be the fresh-faced liberal who could have taken the nomination from Clinton? It happened once before, but I can’t think of an obvious candidate in 2016, and I think you’re right that Clinton did everything she could through the institutions to prevent that from happening.Report

              • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Pinky says:

                Warren was the one who could have. She is a little long in the tooth, but fairly fresh on the political scene. Not saying she would have, but she could have.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Pinky says:

                I guess the question I’d have to answer is, who would be the fresh-faced liberal who could have taken the nomination from Clinton? It happened once before

                Correction on “it happened once before. It happened *every time*. 🙂

                If the nomination process were truly open to all comers, the evidence supports the conclusion that she would have lost. (Which might be why the Dem field was so, uhh, narrow.) It’s impossible to say who would have thrown their hat in the ring in those circumstances, so impossible to say who would have won.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Stillwater says:

                There were two groups of potential candidates as I said before. Those who didn’t run against her because they liked her/supported her or owed her and were happy to let her take the nod and those who didn’t run against her because they feared her or calculated that they would either fail to get the win or worse yet damage her so badly that they could be blamed for a loss and become the Ralph Nader of the two thousand and teens.

                That’s the core of our disagreement. You look at the Dem institution and say it’s got some broad reaching dysfunction that allowed Hillary to get the nod. I look at the Dem institution and say that Hillary was uniquely tailor made to win the nod and since a phenomena like her candidacy is not probably possible for another few decades then it doesn’t suggest any significant institutional problem.

                Happily we’ll both find out who’s right over the next year. The Dems will have to choose a new nominee with a crowded fractious field. We’ll see how they do.Report

        • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

          It is rather telling that Bernie lost the 2016 primary very quickly. He was never able to crack a serious base of the Democratic Party, older African-American women or older women in general. Bernie had nothing to offer them.

          And the problem with “Bernie would won” is that it can’t be unproven. I don’t think it is true. But in the United States, if you can’t unprove something and someone wants it to be true, it is true.

          No one wants to deal with the electoral college being fucked up because it is nearly impossible to reform. So we look for blame in other places.Report

    • I’m a little baffled as to how this piece could be read as a “Hillary redemption post.” I mean, the primary point that I make in the article is that she’s the most unpopular failed presidential candidate in modern polling. I see nothing redemptive in that, and am not sure how anyone else could.Report

      • Avatar Jesse in reply to Brandon Allen says:

        To certain people, if you don’t treat Hillary as the worst person in history who obviously blew an unloseable election and as a result, everything happening now is Her Fault (since we can’t dare ever to make actual Trump voters responsible for their choices), you’re a shill for her.Report

    • Avatar Jesse in reply to Kristin Devine says:

      ” SHE CHEATED TO WIN THE NOMINATION”

      Putting aside everything else, this is simply 100% false.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jesse says:

        Seems to me she cheated to win the nomination in the same way McConnell cheated to prevent Garland from being seated: breaking norms rather than rules or laws.Report

        • Avatar Jesse in reply to Stillwater says:

          What Hillary did as a front runner was no different than what any number of front runners have done for literal centuries in political all around the world.

          I mean, just for instance, why if your Cory Booker should you run in 2016 when you basically agree with Hillary on 95% of issues and realize she’s more well known, have more connections with various sections of the primary electorate, etc.

          Do you not think the same thing happened in 2000 when the 2000 Democratic Primary race was Al Gore and Bill Bradley?

          I mean, if anything Hillary treated the whole Bernie campaign with kid gloves and people outside of the Left and Right and this weird place on the Internet that continues to treat Hillary as Machiavelli in a pantsuit realize that.

          I swear to God, people for the next 50 years are going to take the wrong lessons from the these two primaries in 2016. Spoiler Alert – Cory Booker and Liz Warren running wouldn’t have changed the election results.Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jesse says:

            In 2008 Hillary was the front runner … until Obama ran right by her.

            My view of things is a bit different than yours in this way: if Booker ran on a platform indistinguishable from Clinton’s he likely would have won the primary, primarily because he isn’t so universally disliked.

            Also, the suggestion that other candidates didn’t run (ie., challenge Clinton) because they shared all her policy positions makes the decision to run *only her* even more tragicomedic.Report

            • Avatar North in reply to Stillwater says:

              Perhaps, but there’s no cheating to win the nomination in any of that.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to North says:

                You guys are amazing.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                Dems that haven’t learned their lesson:

                Report

              • Avatar Jesse in reply to Stillwater says:

                I’m sorry we don’t agree with you that the Democratic nomination should be closed off from 80% of the actual Democratic electorate and unless you’re a True American Non-Elitist from the Middle of the Country, we should just sit down and shut up.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jesse says:

                I know that this sort of thing shouldn’t make me want Clinton to run for the nomination again and win it…

                But this sort of thing makes me want Clinton to run for the nomination again and win it.Report

              • Avatar Jesse in reply to Jaybird says:

                Nah, it’ll be much better when President Gillibrand or Harris names Hillary to one of the 20 new Supreme Court seats we’ll be creating.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Well she’s not running but perhaps if you register Dem you could arrange an insurrection floor vote at the convention for her?Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Mark fishing Penn*?!?!? Dude! Now you KNOW she isn’t running.

                Also, slightly more seriously if she is running then she is running really really late. The silent primary is well under way.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to North says:

                Since her favorables drop over time in every election she’s ever been in, getting in late may be Mark Penn at his savviest.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Stillwater says:

                I guess I don’t get it. Kristin made the common Hillary hater allegation that HRC cheated to get the nomination; Jesse stated that the allegation is entirely false; you say something to effect that in your heart of hearts you feel she cheated even though she didn’t actually cheat then when I observe that doesn’t really count as cheating this is counted as some kind of repeating of history or failure to learn lessons? Ballot box stuffing? Breaking kneecaps? Extortion? Saying she stole the nomination is a strong allegation. What. Was. The. Cheating?Report

              • Avatar Jesse in reply to North says:

                The cheating seems to have been, being famous for the past 25 years, thus forcing out any possible competition who agreed with her on 95% of policy and whom personally thought she’d be a good candidate.Report

              • Avatar Jesse in reply to North says:

                It’s weird how Hillary is the Devil for being around politics for a long time and having connections as a result, yet Dubya’s primary campaign, who basically OK’d a smear campaign against John McCain for adopting a black baby is A-OK in the minds of people, including those upthread who seem really upset about Hillary’s continued existence.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Jesse says:

                I doubt Stillwater or Jaybird have carry water for anything Republican much less George W. Bush Republican.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jesse says:

                Well, there was also how Bernie was treated…Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird says:

                As I recall there were some emails hacked from the DNC suggesting that staffers internally didn’t like Bernie and pondered arguments against him that never were acted on. Also an allegation that one of the debate moderators snuck questions for one of the later debates to HRC’s people maybe? That’s what springs to mind for cheating and that’s damn weak tea as cheating allegations go.
                The common Bernie fanatic and/or right wing swamp allegation is that she rigged the elections and balloting process which is a very strong allegation undermined only by the utter and complete absence of evidence that any of it occurred.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to North says:

                How Bernie supporters were treated, then?Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Yup, lotta people said bad stuff about em on the internet I hear.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to North says:

                Not only there, but at the whole convention.

                (Which, even at the time, I said was a bad indicator…)

                Maybe there was too much of an emphasis on “feelings” but the Republicans abandoned the pretense of caring about feelings when they nominated Trump (they didn’t abandon the actuality of it, of course… but they did abandon the pretense).Report

              • Avatar Jesse in reply to Jaybird says:

                Considering less of them voted for Trump than Hillary voters for McCain in 2008, pretty well obviously!Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jesse says:

                Yeah, she really hit it out of the park.Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to North says:

                “Also an allegation that one of the debate moderators snuck questions for one of the later debates to HRC’s people maybe?”

                Well, it was Donna Brazile in March 2016 while she was working for CNN and Vice-Chair of the DNC… who was subsequently promoted to Interim DNC Chair in July 2016… and eventually fired by CNN in October 2016 for indeed sharing questions with a candidate (after the Oct wikileaks dump)… and which she confirmed in March 2017 (according to wikipedia).

                As put by the Washington Post at the time:

                Now for another instance of Brazile’s journo-politicking. In a March 5, 2016, email, Brazile told two Clinton aides the following in the windup for a Democratic presidential debate between Clinton and Bernie Sanders in Flint, Michigan, on March 6, 2016:

                [Brazile:] One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash

                Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/31/with-question-leaking-cnn-has-a-scandal-on-its-hands/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1a7867e034f6

                Which indeed is weak-sauce for “Stealing an Election” but mild-sauce for making one wonder if your first choice candidate (in or out of the race) was getting a fair shake… whether or not *that* October surprise cost her any votes in any important districts, I couldn’t possibly say.

                But that’s kinda what “calling in political favors” [to quote you from above] looks like… it looks like if you try to go up against a Clinton, you’ll get creamed.

                March 12, subsequent additional questions leaked:
                https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57027Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Marchmaine says:

                So then you’re saying Kristine’s comment should have been that Hillary cheated to steal a debate all in caps then? I think a good argument can be made for that.Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to North says:

                I guess I’m not really in the HRC stole anything crowd… she peddled her influence and favors fair-n-square(tm).

                It turns out it was a bad election to have an influence peddler on the top of the ticket. An influence peddler with historically bad favorables and messaging that suggested that it was *her* time rather than a messaging that suggested it was *your* time.

                But yes, I agree with your lucid assessment a few comments up… she did everything right to work the machine from 2008 onwards… a case study, really.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Yeah if she was half as good at working the general electorate as she was at working the party she’d have won in a landslide and I still think those skills would have served her very well as President. Ah well, ’tis not to be and won’t be. The past is past.Report

              • Avatar Jesse in reply to Jaybird says:

                With kid gloves and much better than Hillary treated Obama or vice versa in 2008? Or hell, better than how Kerry, Dean, and Gephardt treated each other in Iowa in 2004?

                I’m sorry, some of us actually remember how cutthroat the arguments were during those primaries as well and realize how Bernie was treated was nothing special.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jesse says:

                She worked the superdelegates when Bernie did a *LOT* better in caucus states. The non-transparency really didn’t help how she was seen.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                In general caucus’s are worse then primaries. Caucus favor pols with highly motivated followers who can spend all day at a caucus. Lots of people don’t have that time, they do have the time to vote in a primary though. Caucuses favor smaller louder groups over larger more representative samples.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                I went to the Colorado Caucus. It didn’t take all day. Not even close. An hour and that includes the speeches.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                Caucuses in some places, like Iowa i believe, are all day affairs. Caucuses also have much lower participation then primaries. Primaries are more reflective of a wider variety and greater number of people. They are a better way of choosing a candidate. Yes i’m aware of the Ban Primaries argument but i’m not getting to that here. Doing better in caucuses then primaries is not a sign of strength.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                I can’t speak to what you believe.

                I can only speak to what I have seen with my own eyes when I did the thing we’re discussing.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                My beliefs…oh i didn’t realize caucuses were a religious thing.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                “Caucuses in some places, like Iowa i believe, are all day affairs.”Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

                “She worked the superdelegates when Bernie did a *LOT* better in caucus states. The non-transparency really didn’t help how she was seen.”

                Which is really amusing when you consider the number of people saying that the non-democratic, politically-appointed Electoral College ought to be dissolved because it doesn’t represent the true will of the actual voters, etc.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to DensityDuck says:

                And caucuses are biased toward the politically engaged, don’t you know.Report

              • Avatar bookdragon in reply to Jaybird says:

                The caucus states? Given that caucuses are *terrible* in terms of representing actual voters in a state, that’s not much of a recommendation. I mean, if you work, have children, have health issues, etc., etc., you are pretty much left out of caucuses. Which leaves them mostly open to the type of bros who throw fits (and sometimes chairs) if they don’t like the way things are going.

                I’m so, so very glad my state doesn’t do a caucus for the primary. I’d never be able to participate.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to bookdragon says:

                I work, though I don’t have children. I *DID* see children at the caucus. I even saw a couple of people in wheelchairs!

                While it’s true that caucuses do ask that you show up in person, it wasn’t until very, very recently that every single criticism you’re giving caucuses could be directed at voting in the primary.

                (Can you vote absentee for the Primary? My research doesn’t say one way or the other. If you can’t, all of your criticisms apply to voting in the primary.)Report

              • Avatar Iron Tum in reply to bookdragon says:

                Elections are terrible at getting representatives who represent the voters, because the candidates are a self-selected sample.Report

            • Avatar Jesse in reply to Stillwater says:

              Remember Obama barely beat Hillary, and he was a once in a generational political talent, had actual policy differences with Hillary, and most importantly, had a message beyond “I’m not Hillary.” Cory Booker was Diet Obama.

              Booker would be dead meat in South Carolina in 2016 for the same reason that Bernie was – because Hillary could go to every African American pastor in the state she’d spent the last 25 years building up a relations with that community.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jesse says:

                because Hillary could go to every African American pastor in the state she’d spent the last 25 years building up a relations with that community.

                Is this a good thing?Report

              • Avatar Jesse in reply to Stillwater says:

                Why would it be a bad thing?

                Because it’s “cheating” to not be a blank slate nobody knows before a primary? How dare Hillary Clinton know people and not spend the last 20 years of her career in Vermont!Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jesse says:

                Because she had the highest unfavorables of any candidate in US history except for Trump. And still lost.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                Did she lose though? Did she *REALLY*?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater says:

                The 2017 New England Patriots were the worst team in the AFC.

                Yes, they beat all the other AFC teams to win the conference, but still, it should be obvious that they were absolutely a rotten team, because they lost to the Philadelphia Eagles.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I still can’t figure out what’s being argued here. Instead of saying that the Dem field was restricted to fluff a bad candidate the argument seems to be that she was the best the Dems had to offer. Which strikes me as a self-own, to be honest.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater says:

                Who is this mystery candidate who would have beat Trump?
                Would this mystery candidate increased Dem turnout? Suppressed GOP turnout? Flipped GOP to Dem voters?

                No one ever addresses these questions. Its always just assumed that the above things would have happened, without bothering to demonstrate why.

                Oh, and:
                Why does anyone think Trump was bad candidate?

                Shouldn’t we admit the fact that Trump truly represents the desires of about 40% of Americans?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Who is this mystery candidate who would have beat Trump?

                Maybe Biden?

                Would this mystery candidate increased Dem turnout?

                Sure, if Obama had ridden hard for him.

                Suppressed GOP turnout?

                Which GOP turnout? The Jebsters? Probably not really.

                Flipped GOP to Dem voters?

                Some of the Trumpsters? Yeah. I think that they would have been impressed by Biden’s candor.

                Why does anyone think Trump was bad candidate?

                I think it has to do with signaling strong tribal membership. You have to not think that Trump is good at anything where he might have been better than Hillary at it unless the thing is a bad thing.

                Since “being a candidate” is a good thing, you can’t admit that Trump was a better candidate than Clinton if you don’t want to be seen as a closet MAGAroni.

                Shouldn’t we admit the fact that Trump truly represents the desires of about 40% of Americans?

                So run a candidate that addresses those desires. Maybe Bernie?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                I don’t know why anyone should think that there is anything good or bad about being a candidate.

                Trump was a great candidate. He accurately tapped into the main burning desire of his base to express white supremacy. No one else in the GOP had the brass to do that openly.

                Maybe Biden could have juiced Dem turnout, we will never know.

                But one thing we do know for a certainty. About 40% of Americans have taken a long deep look at Donald Trump, and decided they really, really like him and everything he represents, no matter who he is compared to.

                So whether against Hillary or Biden, Trump was going to get 60 million votes. And may again.

                We need to face that, and not daydream about mystery unicorn candidates.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I don’t know why anyone should think that there is anything good or bad about being a candidate.

                Under some virtue ethics theories, the whole idea of being good at what you’re trying to do is considered virtuous in itself (if the thing is not, like, being a brigand or something).

                If you are a blacksmith, it is good to be a good blacksmith. That sort of thing.

                Trump was a great candidate. He accurately tapped into the main burning desire of his base to express white supremacy. No one else in the GOP had the brass to do that openly.

                That’s certainly one interpretation.

                Maybe Biden could have juiced Dem turnout, we will never know.

                Finding yourself saying that, do you have a better insight into why “No one ever addresses these questions”?

                But one thing we do know for a certainty. About 40% of Americans have taken a long deep look at Donald Trump, and decided they really, really like him and everything he represents, no matter who he is compared to.

                I think you’re reading more into the question (and the answer) than is actually there.

                So whether against Hillary or Biden, Trump was going to get 60 million votes. And may again.

                If the question is about the ~200,000 in the Midwest, I’d sincerely explore what’s going on rather than retreat into some weird fantasy that involves a moral fight.

                We need to face that, and not daydream about mystery unicorn candidates.

                Ah. Now I know you know why “No one ever addresses these questions”.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Ok I think some climbing down is required. Trump wasn’t an amazing candidate, he didn’t perform astonishingly well over all but he performed decently in some specific and important voting areas; specifically the Midwest; where other candidates like, for instance, vulture capitalist Mitt Romneys ilk would have had no hope in hell.

                Hillary lost- she did- based on the rules of the election which aren’t rigged, they just are what they are. She lost for many reasons which lump into two categories- errors she and her campaign made and unusual choices by outside actors (Comney chiefly, also the media’s blind spots regarding Trump and outside interference by foreign actors). Hillary lost because of BOTH those categories of reasons. If HRC and her campaign hadn’t made a series of bad choices campaign wise then Comney’s letter, Russian interference, the medias unbalanced covered etc wouldn’t have tipped the scales to trump. If the outside actors hadn’t done what they’d done then HRC would have eked out a narrow win over Trump.

                That is just the reality. Pointing out she won the popular vote is a time honored tradition and historically suggests the President should behave modestly because the electorate didn’t give them much of a mandate (but Presidents usually don’t pay attention to this).
                What is pointless is being one sided about this. I see my own tribe trying to ignore HRC’s own failings and errors and point at the outside actors intervention. They are right but incomplete when they do this. I see HRC’s detractors and the right wingers trying to ignore the outside actors intervention and focusing only on HRC’s own failings and errors. They are also right and also incomplete.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to North says:

                And all the focus on HRC (and the structure of the Electoral College or whatever) allows everyone to ignore the uncomfortable fact that still, to this very day, about a third of Americans like Trump.

                They like him. They like what he says, they like what he does, they support and share his opinions about their fellow Americans.

                Even if Mystery Candidate had won, this would still be true. There is no plausible scenario of a Democratic landslide in 2016.

                It will still be true in November 2020.

                Maybe we can boost Dem turnout, and maybe peel off a few votes and precincts here and there, but we have to admit that Donald Trump is the embodiment of a lot of Americans political preferences.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                That is a true and fair statement I would say. I also say it nervously since a wild cat nomination fight is coming for my own tribe this year (and is under way already really) and I wonder who shall emerge as the nominee.

                I think the party and the liberals are not as decayed as the Republicans and the right. But then I thought HRC would flatten Trump. The God(ess?)’s laugh at our hopes and predictions sometimes.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                allows everyone to ignore the uncomfortable fact that still, to this very day, about a third of Americans like Trump.

                While I would agree with this fact, I’m not seeing it as morally compromising.

                I’m kinda in a place where seeing it as morally compromising is one of the things that got us to the place where we are right now, actually.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Why does anyone think Trump was bad candidate?

                Moving Goal Post Alert! “Look, Hillary was a great candidate, and all you folks who say otherwise are either misogynists, right wing propaganda drinkers, angry aging Berniebros, or delusional about what a great candidate she was up against.”

                Chip, this is tiresome for both of us, I’m sure, so I’ll say it one last time, clearly, and maybe that will be the end of this phase of our dispute. The claim that Hillary was the best the Dems could do is *itself* an indictment of the institutional structure and functioning of the Democratic party. Everything else, in my view, is an argument in defense of the above claim. Eg., if no one thought they could beat her in the primary, then there’s something wrong with the Democratic Party. If the big donors and king-makers supported her exclusively, there’s something wrong with the Dem party. If prospective candidates didn’t run because they didn’t have a competing platform to run on*, there’s something wrong with the party. You’re response seems to be that HRC was a great candidate, so there’s nothing wrong with the Dem party. Everything’s WAI! (Reminder: she had the highest disapprovals of any candidate in history until Trump won his primary; she lost a previous primary where she was front runner; in every campaign she’s been in her approvals go down over time. As Tod Kelly said so eloquently long ago, “People don’t like her”.) What exactly is wrong with the party, seems to me, is the subject of the dispute, at least insofar as *any* of the above (and others I didn’t list) are regarded as evidence of dysfunction.

                *This one always makes me laugh when liberals toss it out. “Hillary already had a platform they agreed with!” Politicians are, if anything, ambitious and (almost always) put their own personal interests above The Party’s interests.Report

  10. Avatar JoeSal says:

    Ohhh mannnn, just don’t do this again:

    Report

  11. As satisfying as the usual cries of sexism! and Republican smear machine! might be, I think the answer is pretty straight-forward. After her spell as SoS, people regarded Clinton as retired and everyone’s popular when they’re retired. Her return to the public sphere reminded of everyone of how corrupt, incompetent, duplicitous and establishment she was and how she regarded the Presidency as something she was owed. And her continued unpopularity is, at least in part, because she managed to blow the easiest election in history through sheer incompetence and is still trying to blame everyone else for it.

    I voted for Clinton because Trump was worse and I would still rather she be President (modulo having a Republican Congress). But I do so with open eyes, knowing what I was voting for (much a my parents voted for Nixon, who was awful but better that McGovern).Report

  12. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    Nothing like a post about HRC to bring out the right-wing slobbers and the Bernie Woulda Won cogntive dissonance diehards!! All fully on display here!Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *