The Trump/Russia Hearing Puts An End To The Allegation That Clinton Ran A Terrible Campaign

[NastyRiffraff]

From Politicususa

The following is an editorial by PoliticusUSA’s co-publisher and managing editor Sarah Jones.

Sounding a lot like many smug conservatives and some smug liberals, President Trump issued a hopeful, preemptive tweet that the Democrats made up the Russian interference story to cover for their “terrible campaign.”

Right. It couldn’t possibly be as all 18 intelligence agencies have repeatedly said: Russia interfered in the 2016 election for the purpose of electing Donald Trump, politically harming Hillary Clinton, and ultimately undermining western democracy.

All of the pundits who keep going on and on about Hillary Clinton’s horrible campaign, the conservatives who keep saying that Democrats need to get it together because they had a horrible message, and the liberals who claim Clinton would have won if only she talked about the economy (having covered Clinton’s 2016 campaign, I just want to ask if these people ever listened to Clinton speak because she talked pretty much nonstop about economic issues) should be praised for repeating Donald Trump’s talking points.

And here is what will make many so-called liberals chew nails. The metal ones, not the ones on their fingers, from the same article:

I live among Trump voters and can assure these alleged strategists that I haven’t met one yet who cares about “economic issues,” unless that is a disguise for other feelings. Suffice it to say, whitelash is a thing and Clinton suffered because of it. Even the educated and very nice Trump voters have an insular (and very white) vision of the old fashioned America of their dreams.

Sorry, there goes the very familiar "we should talk more about economic issues because white people care about them."

If we learned anything from Monday's hearing, we should have learned the enormity of the Russian interference in our election. As the writer says, none of the pundits and others who claimed Hillary Clinton ran a "terrible campaign" (yes, they even quote Trump!!) had to run against the Russian government, hell bent on destroying our democracy through an important election.

[mcar]

1. It was sexism and racism

Coupled with stupidity.

[NastyRiffraff]

3. Definitely all of those

and when combined with Russian interference it all led to the Disaster of November 8. NO campaign could win against that combination, including the stupidity of the so-called sane Trump voters who believed that a man who bragged about how rich he was and who promised to destroy all the programs that were helping them was on their side.

[George II]

7. And Russian interference.

[mcar]

11. And Comey

[George II]

12. And........................oh forget it!

[mcar]

13. But, but, the poor, misunderstood WWC!!11

[bettyellen]

55. I think Comey gets that he and othe GOPers were manipulated by Russia too....

When he talked about the hacking of the DNC and what he learned since- I really thinks he sees he was duped.
Only in that he was doing partisan favors but now realizes it was all at Putin's behest.

[BainsBane]

2. Did you see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017430056

It supports the idea that voters aren't making decisions based on policy.

[NastyRiffraff]

4. I hadn't seen it

but I have now! Unsurprising, really. Not all voters are that stupid of course, but many are. Which gave us the monster occupying our house.

[NurseJackie]

5. Of course Hillary ran an outstanding campaign. She hit all the right notes.

The grumpy old finger-wagging and scolding critics and celebs (with their woulda-coulda-shoulda's, and their pouting, and their obsession with things that the voters clearly had no interest in) simply had personal issues and their criticism was totally off the mark. I've always believed that these people just had a bundle of sticks up their collective butts, and because they were obsessed with the wrong things, and because their butts were hurting (duh!) they refused to see or acknowledge reality.

I often wonder if these "liberals" exist in some alternate reality, or if they were paying attention at all. Or, were they simply on autopilot (auto-NAG, auto-GRIPE, auto-COMPLAIN, auto-SMEAR).

People like Susan Sarandon (and other "liberals" like the self-promoting ones who appeared on shows like "Real Time" for example) never truly got on board and they all continued their sniping all through the general election. Basically ignoring the facts and accusing Hillary of having no economic message, stoking the hatred of Hillary and heaping praise on Trump.

They had one obsessive thought in their heads, to the exclusion of all other evidence and facts. I'll never forgive them for what the did then, or for what they still do now in their continuing efforts to smear and divide and WEAKEN the party. (And it's clear to me that that obsession continues, the same old blaming finger-wagging and scolding continue... and their ability to ignore reality and evidence and facts is one of the defining traits.)

Suffice it to say, whitelash is a thing and Clinton suffered because of it. Even the educated and very nice Trump voters have an insular (and very white) vision of the old fashioned America of their dreams.

I'd never heard or read that term before. The writer lays it out very well, and I believe that has a lot to do with it. Those who opposed Hillary throughout the entire campaign did their best to feed and stoke those feelings... it's clear to me now. Very clear. And that's very disappointing... and maddening.

What's really heartbreaking to me is that it continues still. Even now. Even as we see the cost of their selfishness and hatred, they're doubling-down and they intensify their smears and lies.

[NastyRiffraff]

21. Cognitive dissonance is powerful

It often makes people mentally twist themselves into pretzels trying to live with conflicting ideas. In this case, reality vs what they've bought into and can't let go.

[George II]

6. She ran a WINNING campaign, and in any other Presidential election...

...she would have won with 350 or more Electoral Votes.

The fact that she was campaigning against trump AND Vladimir Putin and still only "lost" by 77 Electoral Votes is phenomenal.

Anyone around here who claims she ran a "bad" campaign is one of two things - either grossly uninformed or not a Democrat in the first place.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. This is what I posted here on September 30th 2016

It was after the Access America tape came out with Trump's pussy grabbing boasts, but before Comey revealed the FBI was searching through Clinton emails again. Hillary was opening up a gap over Trump when I wrote this. Note I did not say then, now, or at any other time that Hilary was running "a terrible campaign". But I did feel then, and still feel now, that there was real room for improvement:

"Beware of Overconfidence

Trump is having a melt down this week, he's had them before. Any breaking frightening hard news could wipe the slate clean and trigger another reset. Hillary has been smart to focus on what a disaster Trump is, but she needs to keep broadcasting a strong message of change also. This is a restless public election year.

In a nut shell, give Obama credit for rescuing our economy from the chasm and restoring us to growth - but stress that the mission now is making sure our economy works for all of us. Argue that the failed Bush economy set us back a decade. Now though we finally have the chance to do what Democrats historically do best - fight for and deliver economic well being for all Americans - not just the well connected. That is the change most urgently needed. We crawled our way back out of the pit - it's time to start building our future again."

There is a reason why Football Coaches are paid to be Monday morning Quarterbacks. Areas of weakness are easier to see in hindsight. And it is always important to note them when seen to better prepare for the next game up.

I believe Hillary would have won without Russian interference, and she would have won without FBI interference. I do not think she ran a bad campaign. The final results however were still close, and Trump was highly unpopular. I think Clinton still would have won had she run a better campaign than the one she did run. Yes, it's a matter of opinion, and I respect that others hold a different view. But I am not trashing her in suggesting that it is always wise to attempt to learn what one can from any shortfalls that fell within your capacity to change.

[NastyRiffraff]

10. There is ALWAYS "real room for improvement"

in ANY campaign; indeed in any endeavor. You apparently never said Hillary was running a terrible campaign, and I never said you did. However plenty of people, including here on DU, HAVE said it, and said it frequently.

Of course it's wise to learn from what was and was not done in the past. It's also wise to be clear-eyed about what actually happened in the past.

[George II]

14. Unless she won every state and every Electoral Vote, there's room for improvement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I let it pass with the first comment

I thought I made it clear that I believe there was enough room for improvement that Hillary could have won without having to run a near perfect campaign to do so. I disagree that she ran a terrible campaign, but I don't think that she ran an excellent one either. That's all.

[randome]

9. She ran an insufficient campaign, not a terrible one.

She should have been able to overcome the 'annoyance' of The Doltish One. Everyone else thought she had it in the bag but miscalculations were made.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[George II]

15. And of course she should have known about and overcome the interference of the Russia "fake news"...

.....campaign, correct? That was not merely an "annoyance".

[pnwmom]

31. She couldn't have anticipated or overcome Comey's 11th hour interference in the election,

sticking his fist on the scale while early voting was already going on.

[randome]

41. It should never have been even a close contest. I've said the same about the Gore campaign.

Clearly it was an insufficient campaign since she did not win. The GOP gets away with cheating at the margins because it's too close a contest and it should never have been close.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[pnwmom]

42. That position lacks any historical or current context. Our country is now sharply polarized.

Very few party members will even consider voting for the other side. And the combination of the Russian interference and Comey's last minute action dragged down her numbers among independents.

She shouldn't be blamed because she wasn't just running against DT but against Putin and the FBI.

[randome]

44. I'm not 'blaming' her so much as pointing out the obvious: she didn't win.

Same with Gore, why was either of these elections so close? Gore's mistakes were in distancing himself from Bill Clinton (imo). Hillary Clinton's mistakes were in not responding quickly or forcefully enough about the fake scandals.

In both cases, these elections 'allowed' external cheating to make the difference.

In both cases, a candidate should expect the unexpected. We should EXPECT Republican cheating at the margins from now on. In Clinton's case, it was Republican cheating by way of Wikileaks and Comey.

We should expect more of the same in 2020.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[pnwmom]

45. Gore won by 500K votes. Hillary won by 2.9 million votes -- only 70,000 fewer than Obama in 2012.

(Coincidentally, a similar number to the margin she lost by in the 3 states.)

The Rethugs didn't just cheat at the margins, though, in this election. With Putin's and Comey's unprecedented interference, they cut into the meat and the bone.

[Jamaal510]

17. K&R

[Igel]

18. It shouldn't be confusing.

1. The fake news had nearly no effect. Few ran into it and those that did were seldom affected by it.

2. The DNC leaks weren't fake news. They were irrelevant news deemed important by those who like outrage.

3. The servergate issue kept surfacing for the same reason. Yes, bits pushed it. But they pushed lots of unread stories, to. It's like somebody trying to sell me a really nice spiral-cut ham. No matter how great they make it sound I'm not interested in it. But again, not fake news.

The Russians led horses--American voters and reporters--but they did the drinking on their own. A good con relies on flaws in the mark, but the mark can't admit it. That makes him a greater mark for the next con.

[NastyRiffraff]

22. Fake news had nearly no effect??!

You're kidding, right? If by fake news you mean Hillary's emails, Benghazi, and all the other so-called "scandals" that plagued her campaign constantly, they certainly DID have a very strong effect.

I agree that the DNC leaks weren't fake news, but it's silly to deny that the constant push by the media had no effect. Of course it did.

"Bits" pushed severgate? What does that even mean? If by "bits" you mean most of the mainstream media plus of course right wing radio and web sites, that most definitely had an effect. No it wasn't fake news, but according to most of the media it was NOT "irrelevant."

"The Russians led horses--American voters and reporters--but they did the drinking on their own. A good con relies on flaws in the mark, but the mark can't admit it. That makes him a greater mark for the next con."

And? AND? The Russians affected the vote; that's not in question. It doesn't MATTER that no Russian forced people to vote for Trump at gunpoint. What they did AFFECTED THE VOTE.

[Cha]

19. "I just want to ask if these people ever listened to Clinton speak because she talked pretty much

nonstop about economic issues"

Thank you, Sarah Jones!

yeah, poor widdle trump is backed in a corner and has nothing but ".. Hillary ran a terrible campaign".. bullshit.

Thank you for this, Riff!

[NastyRiffraff]

23. That struck me, too

It angered me throughout the campaign when people whined, right here on DU, that she didn't talk about he economic issues that white people cared about. She constantly talked about economic issues that ALL Americans care about. Let's face it, they were angry because she had the AAs, the LGBTs, and women, always large parts of the Democratic Party's base. No, she didn't focus on white people's economic issues; she made no mention of race or class when she talked about it except to make a point of inclusion.

Heya, Cha!

[Cha]

29. Right.. Hillary talked about everybody's economic issues..

Thanks again, Riff

[brer cat]

20. K&R

[aikoaiko]

24. Sarah Jones isn't listening because lots of Trumpsters were and are talking economics

It's really more complicated than simply "talking economics" or not.

The issue was whether voters perceived that candidates were talking about their groups' economic interests. And this is where HRC was weak with some white lower middle or middle class voters. And of course DT was horrible with lots of POC.

[DesertRat]

25. k&r!

[Warpy]

26. It wasn't a bad campaign and she had a great message

but couldn't catch a break from a corrupt corporate mass media obsessed with Dolt45.

[NastyRiffraff]

28. "Colt45"!

I love that

[KittyWampus]

27. She didn't campaign ONCE in Wisconsin. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I wouldn't say her campaign was terrible. But there were attempts to "expand the map" while not ensuring the must have states were nailed down.

This is not debatable.

[Jim Lane]

30. That's a very good example.

The problem with this thread is the oversimplification. Campaigns don't come in only two types, great and terrible. Any significant campaign, for any office, does some things right and some things wrong. Complaining about the Russians or whatever shouldn't be a basis for dismissing all criticism of Clinton's campaign. If every criticism is met only with a litany of excuses, then -- even if the excuses are valid -- we will have lost an opportunity to learn.

[NastyRiffraff]

33. NO ONE said that the campaign couldn't be improved

or that we shouldn't learn from both the plusses and minuses. That's a strawman that was never in question. It is a FACT that Hillary's campaign has been called "terrible," and that's what the article in the OP was about. Of COURSE, like any campaign (including Dump's, BTW), there were things that could have been done better.

It's very clear that Hillary Clinton was up against tremendous odds that would have leveled most campaigns. Yes, it was a loss, and a tragic one. But the fact that she won the popular vote by almost 3 million gives lie to those who say that she lost because of all the mistakes she made. That's bullshit, and I'm calling it.

[Jim Lane]

34. Still too simplistic

I don't think I made myself clear. Contrary to many of those posting in this thread, I just don't think that either "great campaign" or "terrible campaign" is a particularly useful concept.

You write:

But the fact that she won the popular vote by almost 3 million gives lie to those who say that she lost because of all the mistakes she made. That's bullshit, and I'm calling it.

I don't think that follows at all.

First, and most obviously, not a campaign mistake but a mistake: her damn emails. I haven't paid attention to all the details but, IIRC, her practices violated State Department policies; she didn't insist that her top people take the standard training; a lower-ranking officer who objected to what was going on was told not to discuss the subject again; and she herself has acknowledged that she shouldn't have handled emails the way she did as SoS. It was a completely unforced error on her part, unrelated to the Russians or the Kochs or suspect voting machines or anything else of that sort. Correct that one mistake and she'd be President today.

Moving on to the campaign, everyone knows -- and Al Gore could have reminded her -- that the White House doesn't go to the person with the most votes, but to the one with a majority of the electoral votes. It would be perfectly consistent for someone to say that she ran a great campaign to get popular votes but a terrible campaign to get electoral votes. I personally wouldn't agree with either half of that statement, but her popular-vote margin can't possibly give the lie to the criticisms of her electoral-vote strategy.

[arthritisR_US]

38. That which you are citing Hillary for, none in the tangerine shitgibbon's

cabinet are doing any differently and what do we hear about it? ...crickets...

[Jim Lane]

40. Um... so what?

I was making the point that Clinton's own mistakes re emails probably cost her the Presidency. What's happened after the election isn't relevant to that conclusion.

Incidentally, it's not true that we hear nothing about it. I've seen posts right here on DU about Pence's use of private email when he was Governor. I think I've seen similar stuff about Tillerson and Pruitt, but I'm not sure. There are no circumstances under which I'd vote for any of those people for anything, so I don't really need to know the details about their emails.

Yes, the subject shows that leading Republicans are hypocrites. In other news, water is wet.

[NastyRiffraff]

48. So what?? So you're saying

Russian interference had NO effect? Republican never-ending LIES about her record had NO effect? (Benghazi, anyone?) Comey's unprecedented and protocol-busting trumpeting of a (non-existent, as it turned out) new investigation had NO effect? The blatant misogyny had NO effect?

Much of the Republican lies had been ongoing for YEARS, starting when she was First Lady. It's amazing, truly amazing, that she won the popular vote by so much, given what she had to contend with including some on the left parroting right-wing talking points.

[Jim Lane]

51. I'm saying that a Presidential election involves a huge number of factors

I didn't really think this was controversial. I can identify one factor without denying the existence of all the others.

For example, you imply (correctly, IMO) that Comey's conduct had an effect on the election. If I were to ask, "So you're saying Russian interference had NO effect?" that would be downright stupid of me.

Is it "truly amazing" that Clinton "won the popular vote by so much, given what she had to contend with"? Only if you focus exclusively on her problems. Someone else could find it truly amazing that Trump came as close as he did, given his total lack of governmental experience, his manifest temperamental unsuitability that had many Republicans denouncing him with unusual vigor during the primaries, the Billy Bush tape, etc.

As for the left-wing parroting of right-wing talking points, I don't see it. To take one example, the left has for years been raising concerns about income inequality. Trump adroitly capitalized on that with his faux populism, and picked up some votes from people who saw him as a change agent, but that doesn't transform income inequality into a right-wing talking point. In that vein, Trump also benefited from his opposition to the TPP, but you can't dismiss such opposition as a right-wing talking point, given the number of longtime progressives who opposed TPP when Trump was only a cloud on the horizon.

[NastyRiffraff]

54. It does indeed involve a "huge number of factors"

When did I, or anyone, say anything different? Another strawman.

As for repeating RW talking points, including here on DU, I could do a search and turn up MANY using Fox, talk radio, and Breitbart--Breitbart! as sources, but I really don't have time right now. I think everyone has seen them, and they were sickening.

[Jim Lane]

59. It's not a strawman in light of your #48

Your questions clearly sought to impute to me the view that the other factors you listed were inconsequential. Therefore, I disclaimed that view.

If you weren't imputing that view to me, but just asking questions in an honest search for truth, fine, I answered your questions.

There's a distinction between talking points and sources. A statement isn't false just because it appears in a right-wing source. National Review did a whole issue slamming Trump. Obviously, any sensible person would exercise extreme caution in relying on the likes of Breitbart for a factual assertion (although quoting Breitbart's wilder flights of fancy for their amusement value is certainly acceptable).

[arthritisR_US]

49. My point is that we've all heard about their emails tangentially

but not on a day in day out basis like the media did with Hillary. I don't think Hillary ran a poor campaign but there was an extremely high bar set for her and a pathetically low bar set for the other. That low bar still continues today as people are accepting and normalizing this current administrations behaviours. The double standard is sickening.

[Jim Lane]

61. About the discrepant treatment

Part of what goes on is that the Republicans seem, over the years, to be generally more skilled at manipulating the media. That's aside from the advantage they start out with when the media are overwhelmingly dominated by a handful of large, for-profit corporations.

Another factor, though, is the passage of time. The whole Clinton email thing developed over a period of years. Right now, we're still less than five months past the election. I'll optimistically predict that, as the Trump administration goes on, there will be more and more media attention paid to its various problems. (The use of email might not make the cut very often, just because there are so many juicier targets.)

Anyway, the point of my post wasn't to say that the media are always fair; it was to say that Clinton's decisions about handling her emails caused her some problems. I think there's enough "there" there that the issue would have cost her some votes even with completely fair media.

[arthritisR_US]

64. Those are excellent points and I think the way the Russians played

the Bernie supporters also drove the numbers up for third party voters.

[Jim Lane]

65. I doubt that the Russians influenced any significant number of Bernie supporters

The single most important factor in persuading Bernie voters not to vote for Clinton was that Clinton was, on substantive policy grounds, to the right of Bernie. Obviously, most of Bernie's voters focused instead on how much better than Trump she was, but a minority couldn't get over her conservatism. The Russians had nothing to do with her voting for the IWR or touting the TPP as "the gold standard".

The second most important factor was anger at the way the nomination fight went. It started with Clinton having an enormous delegate lead before a single vote had even been cast. There are pros and cons to the superdelegate system but in the 2016 cycle it caused enormous resentment among Bernie's supporters. We then had Wasserman-Schultz's restriction on the number of debates. (I know, she couldn't outlaw additional debates, but her unilateral action had the same effect.) There were several other process-related reasons, of varying validity, for the decision by some Bernie supporters to reject Bernie's call for a vote for Clinton.

The most that could possibly be said about the Russians is that they played a role in the release of private emails that showed favoritism by some DNC people, in violation of Democratic Party rules. Even assuming that to be the case, the emails were only one more log thrown on a bonfire that was already burning brightly. Bernie supporters were outraged at the DNC's actions well before the emails were released.

[betsuni]

32. K&R

[Hekate]

35. Kick

[BlueStater]

36. Not terrible, but could have been better.

She ran against the most unqualified, embarrassing, and despicable presidential nominee of all time. The fact that it was even close is appalling.

[lunamagica]

63. It wasn't close. She received more votes than any othe president, except for Obama

[arthritisR_US]

37. Thank you for stating this! Between the MSM's nonstop shitgibbon coverage,

their constant email BS and the Russians cyber warfare, democracy took a back seat.

[JCanete]

39. Sometimes people don't know what they need or want until they really see it and understand it.

We have not done a great job of doing that. We haven't done a good job of showing them what is possible and we haven't done a good job of convincing them to fight for things that should be rights.

We need to talk about the economic issues because continued policies..even the relatively "benign" ones compared to what we are seeing now... are actually crushing the American citizenry, and it is still the case that people of color get even more screwed than the white poor and middle class when that happens. This is not a matter of saving the white middle class or making their lives better, especially to the detriment of people who have always been underserved by this government. This is a matter of getting that white middle class, who is screwing us all, to stop doing it by getting them to realize just what it is they are doing. Making pie in the sky real for them is smart. It isn't about the wonkish things our politicians are going to do in the back room with business leaders that are going to help these people in some way they don't fully understand. It is about presenting big things on a silver platter to them and saying...."don't you want this. Help us make it happen."

To be fair, there are things the ACA did that kind of do that...the problem was our weak promotion of the plan, OUR leaders walking away from it and Obama during midterms and allowing the Republicans to paint it however they want to. That of course went hand in hand with the plan being a mixed bag that actually hurt some people in the pocket that weren't the rich 1 percent. We're seeing now that there are a lot of people who are glad to have Obamacare, and I don't question whether more benefited or were on the losing end, but if we didn't have shits like Lieberman(who the party leadership went to bat for against his democratic challenger), we could have gotten something better. And even when we didn't have congress, our people should have been out there saying, "it IS good but this is how we are going to make it better and work for you". What was our next step with it?

As to Clinton's campaign, it was alright, and in my opinion got better in the final stretch. I don't think it is why she lost. I mean, she lost to Trump and I will say, the people I agree with a lot on, the TYT included, do not need to take that opportunity to pile on to her for that, because clearly something else was in the water.

I agree with their assessment that her angle wasn't particularly populist. They think that would have got her votes but I'm not entirely sure, even if that's the way I want my politicians to talk. Maybe she could have suddenly changed her approach this late in her political career, but I doubt that would have been effective.

I still don't think the issue is Russia. I'm not saying its not possible, and I'm certainly not saying that Trump didn't commit treason or that Putin didn't' intend to influence our elections. But unless they actually hacked, I don't give their fake news a weight class compared to our heavyweight corporate media that delivered this one to the idiot. The problem is we have a whole population that has been made stupid and stupider, and we had a candidate that has been assailed by republicans and that same media for the last 15 or 20 years. People who don't know anything about her think she's literally the devil.

That's the work they put in. That inured too many "middle of the road" republicans to the idiocies, absurdities and viciousness of Trump.Not that I don't think the media is capable of doing that in a shorter run-up, but damn...15 years of painting her as an uber liberal(absurd, but that was the kind of pressure intended to move us right), and corrupt as shit(also ridiculous, particularly when you look at the Republicans who were entirely given a pass for their dirtiness throughout.)

[Paladin]

43. K&R. Back the fuck off, resident Hillary haters. (nt)

[mopinko]

46. dang. some people here are never going to regain consciousness.

good thread to update my ignore list.

[karynnj]

47. Nothing EVER puts an end to the claim that anyone ran a poor campaign -

Oddly, that argument is made most when campaigns are close. In a close campaign, the differences are small enough that there are always a myriad of things you could point to that were the "reason he/she lost" and there is the additional bitterness that, at some point, it really seemed we would win. For Democrats, 2016 always looked like an easy win for President, a good shot at winning back the Senate and even some hope for the House.

Some campaigns are seen early on as unlikely to be won by one side or the other. 2008 was an example where it was unlikely the Republicans could win. I would argue that in 2003, 2004 looked like a year that Democrats did not have a chance with Bush at 60%. I would argue that there were fewer attacks by Republicans that McCain ran a bad campaign - though there were many many things they could have pointed to - than there were Democratic attacks on Kerry, whose campaign was solid enough to make a win possible. I know how completely optimistic Democrats were on the afternoon of the election in 2004.

I also think many attacks on Kerry were because he was signalling he might run again and in 2005/2006, he had placed himself almost perfectly on various issues. (Likewise, the threads that most critise the Clinton campaign are those where it is suggested that she could run again.) It should be noted the strongest attack against Kerry - spoken even by Bill Clinton - was that neither he or Gore could fight back like the Clintons did. It is possible that had he shown no signs of being open to running again, his campaign might have been seen - for what it was - a strong, high road campaign - that exceeded the results that generic models predicted for that tough year.

I looked back to see if pollingreport.com had any generic - Democratic vs Republican for President - as sometimes is polled 2 or 3 years out. There were none, so this was likely not polled - maybe because it was so clear that HRC was an overwhelming favorite.. What I did see was that in 2013, Clinton dominated everyone - Democratic and Republican. However, by 2015, she sometimes lost to people like Kasich and Rubio. Now, I suspect the number of people who could list anything about Kasich at that point - or could have picked him out of a lineup - were few. I contend that in these polls, he was a stand in for generic Republican. Both of these men did better than Trump or Cruz - the two strongest in the primaries. Likewise, Biden and Sanders when polled in 2015 beat both of them.

This leads to confusion as to whether by 2015 it was a Democratic or a Republican year. I would suggest that by 2015, it might have become an election that would be close. Note this is BEFORE Comey, BEFORE the Russian hacks. One observation is that in the general election both primary winners were not as strong as others in their party. Which brings me back to wishing there were a 2015 poll asking if you preferred a Democratic or Republican President. (I realize that even if that were polled, many would have answered based on specific people likely to win.) I would also argue that the exit poll that showed people who disliked both mostly went to Trump and that late deciders went to Trump is consistent with him being the LESS acceptable nominee to his party. It is possible that Democrats had come home to Clinton (or at minimum were absolutely against Trump) earlier and the bulk of the rather large undecided were Republicans who reluctantly went to Trump in the end.

Back to the quality of the campaign Clinton ran, I would suggest that she was a better potential President than she was a candidate. I would also fault her campaign. It was asinine to spend last minute candidate time and ads in Arizona, while not going at all to WI. Many also said that it was the campaign who gave HRC the wording that seemed to call about a quarter of the country "deplorables". I agree with some who have written that that was her "47%" comment. I think her handling of the email issue was terrible. Starting with the fact, that she KNEW the email was sought before she left the State Department and she and her team left leaving the next team to figure out how to respond - leading them to privately demand she return theemails. When the story became public in 2015, she did not forthrightly explain the entire story - leading to months of negative stories, destroying her polling on trustworthiness.

Imagine that we never heard anything about email, that she never said "deplorables", that like previous nominees, she would have concentrated on the "blue wall". (ie - I wonder how many of people who voted early in Madison WI in 2004, following Bruce Springsteen from a Kerry rally to the campus polling place, might not otherwise have voted. ) What we heard in the aftermath was that many of the formerly Democratic Trump voters felt like their problems were ignored. Judging from things said about the campaign startegy -- they were!

In ANY campaign, the story of the campaign is rewritten depending on whether they won or lost. For a losing campaign, ALL the worst moments are brought forward - and the good ones minimized or forgotten. Many on the campiagn, partly to correct the record to what they saw and partly to defend themselves as part of the team try to counter the criticism. That is what this article tries to do - with a strawman that outside factors like the hacking and Comey (denying any HRC error on emails) as why she lost. Obviously these things hurt and they MIGHT have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but that does not mean she ran a great - or even good - campaign.

There is ususally an effort to show that the winner SHOULD have won and that in retrospect it makes sense. Note that NO ONE has done this with Trump. I think it is possible that he needed these interferences and a mediocre Clinton campaign to win.

[Grizzled Ol Granddad]

50. She Didn't Run a Terrible Campaign

And if Comey keeps his mouth shut in October, she's our President today. But it wasn't a perfect campaign, either. I'd give it a solid B

[NastyRiffraff]

52. Nobody said it was a "perfect campaign"

especially since there's no such thing, by any candidate. But you're right about Comey's October surprise; it was a MAJOR factor.

[bettyellen]

56. Will you hold your breath waiting for perfection? Or snap out of it and realize that's a non starter

[gopiscrap]

53. inspite of all of this

she still could have run a better campaign, but that's not why she lost....add to that cheating, Russian interference, 30 years of bullshit lies about her and apathy on the part of Dems and Indies who just plain couldn't have been bothered to get off of their lazy asses and go and vote

[democratisphere]

58. Always could have been better.

[JHan]

60. very difficult to counter a relentless disinformation campaign that's well funded..

and strategic.

on top of dealing from shit from the right ( and left)

[lunamagica]

62. You are correct. Hillary won both the popular vote AND the EC

I just replied to a post that said that the race was "too close" and about "her flaws"

TOO CLOSE?!?!?!?! In what universe?

Three million+ more votes than trump. Only Obama '08 received more.

Who in their right mind can believe that someone who won the popular vote with such a HUGE margin then loses the EC?

Who can believe that each and every poll was wrong?

Ridiculous