Democrats Still Can't Get Over Loss

[extragreen]

I'm not arguing you, I'm arguing history. Hillary is guilty of nearly every accusation you mentioned. Why would you ever defend a person like that?

How about some instances of hillary being guilty of nearly every accusation I made about cheetos.

 

[WV-FAN]

at the end of the day, at the end of all arguments regarding the election, at the end of what if this, what if that, donald fvcking trump is, and will be for the next 3+ years, possible 7+ years, extragreen's president. let that soak in for a minute. breath it in, mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!

 

[ARandomHerdFan]

Wrong. As I said, she received almost exactly the same number of votes that obama did in the previous election and won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes

She won the popular vote? That's neat. However, that's not how elections work in this country.

If she ran a good campaign, why was there a lack of engagement in Michigan? It's a swing state, and she didn't even win its primary in 2016.

Furthermore, what about the lack of attention the campaign gave to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (another state she lost in the primary)?

Politifact has hillary's statements rated at 74% at half true or better while cheetos is rated at 32% at half true or better.

This has nothing to do with how Clinton ran her campaign.

She had 8 years of experience as a U S senator and 4 years as Sec of State, cheetos experience none.

If you change "She" to "McCain" and "Cheetos" to "Obama" and you'd fit in well with Republicans in 2008.

She gave obama a tough run in 2008 in the primaries with the vote within 1%.

A tough run?

She still lost.

So no, I will continue to defend her as a capable candidate and I will continue to declare that the problem was the degenerate voters who voted for the liar in chief. No one gets to blame hillary for their voting for cheetos.

What about the Democrat/liberal voters that stayed home due to Clinton being the candidate? Are you going to assign them any of the blame?

What about Clinton's decision to use personal e-mail? Regardless of how you feel about the situation as a whole, the optics were horrible.

What about the "deplorables" comment? For being a member of a party that pounced on Romney's "47%" comment, she should have known how something like that would have played.

 

[extragreen]

She won the popular vote? That's neat. However, that's not how elections work in this country.

No one suggested it was.

If she ran a good campaign, why was there a lack of engagement in Michigan? It's a swing state, and she didn't even win its primary in 2016.

Data said she was up 5 points on the day of election.

Furthermore, what about the lack of attention the campaign gave to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (another state she lost in the primary)?

Data showed she was up by 6 points in Wisconsin and 4 points in Pennsylvania.

A tough run?

She still lost.

So did both republican candidates in 08 and 12.

What about the Democrat/liberal voters that stayed home due to Clinton being the candidate? Are you going to assign them any of the blame?

Sure am. Have stated that on this board in the past.

What about Clinton's decision to use personal e-mail? Regardless of how you feel about the situation as a whole, the optics were horrible.

Optics were horrible.

What about the "deplorables" comment? For being a member of a party that pounced on Romney's "47%" comment, she should have known how something like that would have played.

Silly thing to say. Yet people voted for the lying buffoon. I'll say it again. The degenerates voting for cheetos is why he won. hillary can be imperfect without being a "terrible" candidate.