Hillary is now blaming the married women

[LordKiran]

Why shouldn't she talk? People want to hear what she has to say. They want to understand how this country could elect an obvious unqualified liar as President.

Because all she does is sound petty and unwilling to take accountability. Every time she makes a public statement it always seems to be related to her bid for the presidency. Like lady the election was over a year ago. It happened. How is she not over this yet?

Many of us aren't "over this yet" because its effects are still being felt. For me, not so much that she lost, but that Trump won. There is the Russian investigation and the fallout from this election. It's still all very topical. She was involved from the inside and she may just have a different perspective on what happened. I notice that people love to accuse her of having no accountability and attempting to explain away her loss. Personally, I don't see it that way. It seems pretty obvious there are multiple reasons for her loss, some of which were direct results of decisions she's made. Some of which she's admitted to...like her "deplorables" remark. However, her loss was under remarkable circumstances. Politicians have lost elections before, but not under the cloud of these types of events, so of course, that is mostly what she's going to be asked about. I'm not even a Hillary fan. I've never voted for her until this last election, and in truth, I would have voted for whomever Trumps opponent was, probably. I just find it interesting that people are always putting words into her mouth or assigning her motives...and most of them have to do with shutting her up.

Most of us "Not over it yet" are people more concerned with what to do about it and how to confront the problems presented. HRC seems more concerned with mitigating her accountability for the loss and why its everyone else's fault but hers.

Do you really think that plays well to the electorate? Do you think it does anything other than put them on the defensive and make them unwilling to hear anything else?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why shouldn't she talk? People want to hear what she has to say. They want to understand how this country could elect an obvious unqualified liar as President.

Because all she does is sound petty and unwilling to take accountability. Every time she makes a public statement it always seems to be related to her bid for the presidency. Like lady the election was over a year ago. It happened. How is she not over this yet?

You have to realize that this is propaganda. It's a sentence and a half without proper context. She may have been asked a question about identity politics or something similar. Moreover, the interpretation of exactly what she said is exaggerated. If you look at the words, it says women are "pressured." Is that true? Yes, of course it is. I even posted (post#33 above) an example of the mechanism by which pressure is exerted --> through conservative religious teachings. Let's be honest there are many fundamentalists who believe that the man is the head of the house--the smart, uncorrupted one. Eve was the one who grabbed the apple-remember? And while this notion appears ancient to us, right-wingedness is a spectrum, with a lingering idea of men being in charge all the way from 0 to 10. So of course there's pressure on married conservative and moderate women. It's just true. What we're going to hear though is an echo chamber of this exaggerated interpretation of what Clinton said over and over. History is written by the Victors. And also the Williams, Georges, and Donalds.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Originally posted by LordKiran

Most of us "Not over it yet" are people more concerned with what to do about it and how to confront the problems presented.

That's mostly why I'm interested as well.

HRC seems more concerned with mitigating her accountability for the loss and why its everyone else's fault but hers.

Again, this is your perception of her motives, and it's fine for you to have that opinion, but you keep presenting as if it's an obvious fact. It is not.

Do you really think that plays well to the electorate?

No, I do not.

Do you think it does anything other than put them on the defensive and make them unwilling to hear anything else?

I think it has a negative view on the electorate, so, what shall we do? Should we limit Hillary's freedom of speech or the media insistence on covering her in order to have the electorate react more favorably? Now this sounds like something Trump would say.

 

[Elixir]

... this sounds like something Trump would say.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Just kidding, but damn - that woman grates on me.

 

[LordKiran]

Why shouldn't she talk? People want to hear what she has to say. They want to understand how this country could elect an obvious unqualified liar as President.

Because all she does is sound petty and unwilling to take accountability. Every time she makes a public statement it always seems to be related to her bid for the presidency. Like lady the election was over a year ago. It happened. How is she not over this yet?

You have to realize that this is propaganda. It's a sentence and a half without proper context. She may have been asked a question about identity politics or something similar. Moreover, the interpretation of exactly what she said is exaggerated. If you look at the words, it says women are "pressured." Is that true? Yes, of course it is. I even posted (post#33 above) an example of the mechanism by which pressure is exerted --> through conservative religious teachings. Let's be honest there are many fundamentalists who believe that the man is the head of the house--the smart, uncorrupted one. Eve was the one who grabbed the apple-remember? And while this notion appears ancient to us, right-wingedness is a spectrum, with a lingering idea of men being in charge all the way from 0 to 10. So of course there's pressure on married conservative and moderate women. It's just true. What we're going to hear though is an echo chamber of this exaggerated interpretation of what Clinton said over and over. History is written by the Victors. And also the Williams, Georges, and Donalds.

Pressure is a fact of life for social animals. You think that pressure doesn't work both ways? Power and influence are almost never one-way.

Now you might make the case that due to the environment such women are brought up in they might have certain religious and cultural beliefs that predispose them to not like HRC very much but that's a very different argument from "Women cave to social pressures and don't vote for the person they would have voted for otherwise. It presupposes that these women without outside pressures secretly would have voted for her all along and in that respect is rather terrible. Who's to say these women just wouldn't have voted at all?

So while I think your assertion might be reasonable, I only think that because of my own experiences and prejudices against the religiously inclined.

 

[braces_for_impact]

... this sounds like something Trump would say.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Just kidding, but damn - that woman grates on me.

I think she effects many that way, me too in fact. I just consider that separate from her being told to shut up. Also, I'd gladly take 4 years of her over Trump. I find myself unable to find a single redeeming feature in that man. I hate him as much as any public figure... scratch that. I have never hated on a public figure, but I despise him.

 

[Bloodnf]

Why shouldn't she talk? People want to hear what she has to say. They want to understand how this country could elect an obvious unqualified liar as President.

Because all she does is sound petty and unwilling to take accountability. Every time she makes a public statement it always seems to be related to her bid for the presidency. Like lady the election was over a year ago. It happened. How is she not over this yet?

That's just your view. She is being asked to review the election by people who are interested in hearing her take. And I find her answers to be accurate. Some people have Hillary derangement syndrome and read into her statements their biases.

 

[prideandfall]

Most of us "Not over it yet" are people more concerned with what to do about it and how to confront the problems presented. HRC seems more concerned with mitigating her accountability for the loss and why its everyone else's fault but hers.

but here's the thing... it wasn't her fault, and there's no reasonable metric that holds up to scrutiny which you can employ to successfully argue that it was her fault.
no democrat could have won in 2016, it would be utterly impossible, for reasons that had nothing to do with the candidates. and even if the candidates were relevant (which ultimately they aren't excepting in a cult of personality way) clinton was a pretty damn good democratic candidate, and any attempt to refute that is fantasy.

Do you really think that plays well to the electorate?

do you think anything "plays well" to the electorate? the electorate are a teeming mass of barely functional sub-humans that don't have two functioning neurons and a piece of lint to rub together... why do people insist on acting like the US voting population at large is anything more than a couple dozen million 6 year olds with head injuries? you keep acting like any sort of intelligence or rational cognition can be expected of them, when history clearly demonstrates otherwise.

Do you think it does anything other than put them on the defensive and make them unwilling to hear anything else?

does that even matter?
US presidential elections, and politics in general when you come down to it, is a very simple war between unrealistic idealism and unwavering faith.
one side bogs itself down in idealistic fantasies about a perfect candidate that makes them excited, and the other side unthinkingly votes for whatever has an (R) in front of it because jesus.

elections are not decided by candidates or policy, elections are decided by who's turn it is... and who's turn it is comes down to which side is more pissed off, which pretty much invariably is the result of which side had the presidency last.
if you capture a decent percentage of the political zeitgeist of your party, you get to be president for two terms. and then when you're done, the other party's base will be so pissed off about having 8 years of your policies they get fired up enough to vote... and usually, your side will be complacent and ridiculously entitled to being "inspired" the same way they were by the last guy, and not bother voting.
and thus the pendulum swings back and forth and it's a machine that operates the same way it has for decades, and no amount of whinging before or after the fact will change this.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Pressure is a fact of life for social animals. You think that pressure doesn't work both ways? Power and influence are almost never one-way.

Sure, but in a world where the man is in charge he has more ability to pressure. And she is supposed to take it because that is what the religion says.

Now you might make the case that due to the environment such women are brought up in they might have certain religious and cultural beliefs that predispose them to not like HRC very much but that's a very different argument from "Women cave to social pressures and don't vote for the person they would have voted for otherwise. It presupposes that these women without outside pressures secretly would have voted for her all along and in that respect is rather terrible. Who's to say these women just wouldn't have voted at all?

It doesn't say anything about the women other than that they are normal human beings. Every human has pressure exerted. Pressure is a spectrum. Some people give into it more than others as an average and some don't and that is a spectrum and variable as well. So, therefore, ALL PEOPLE are influenced by pressures from time to time. We should not treat married white conservative women with kid gloves by saying they are somehow different from other groups in that they can never feel pressure and never let it influence their decisions.

The fact of the pressure that they feel is just different from the pressure that a single white liberal woman or an X woman will have (on average). It's not like conservative white married men don't feel pressure, too, it's just different. They may decide to hide in the closet, for example, but generally they're not being told their wives are in charge of the home and life decisions.

So while I think your assertion might be reasonable, I only think that because of my own experiences and prejudices against the religiously inclined.

Religious conservatism is part of the patriarchy.

 

[funinspace]

... this sounds like something Trump would say.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Not a broken military clock

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why shouldn't she talk? People want to hear what she has to say. They want to understand how this country could elect an obvious unqualified liar as President.

And what qualifies her to answer that question? She has a built in motive to point fingers away from herself. A more objective observer can point to the bigger picture. She's using the attention from being one of the biggest election disappointments in US history to create little but but her own profit and ego massage. Al Gore, who actually WAS screwed over, used similar attention after his failed bid to focus attention on climate change.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You have to realize that this is propaganda. It's a sentence and a half without proper context.

Could be there was some context that fixes this, but this is the same woman who wrote a book and then went on a non-apology tour to point that same finger at a myriad of others. i can't remember anybody else doing that. Gore didn't. Bush Senior didn't. Romney didn't. McCain didn't either.

 

[funinspace]

but here's the thing... it wasn't her fault, and there's no reasonable metric that holds up to scrutiny which you can employ to successfully argue that it was her fault.
no democrat could have won in 2016, it would be utterly impossible, for reasons that had nothing to do with the candidates.

I'd say without the scandal relative HRC's ridiculous use of a private email server while Sec. of State; and better HRC campaign team recognition of why "I'm with her" is such a stupid slogan, HRC would have won the election.

and even if the candidates were relevant (which ultimately they aren't excepting in a cult of personality way) clinton was a pretty damn good democratic candidate, and any attempt to refute that is fantasy.

HRC is a good candidate on paper. However, like it or not, charisma is a trait that has a big impact on voter choices. HRC is not good at charisma. Maybe if she was running against Jeb Bush, that wouldn't have mattered. Sure the Repugs, right wing media, and alt-reality crowd have vilified her. However, HRC's hasn't polled well in likability in like forever. This is true even outside of the right wing. And FWIW, yes I held my nose and voted for her.

 

[Bloodnf]

Why shouldn't she talk? People want to hear what she has to say. They want to understand how this country could elect an obvious unqualified liar as President.

And what qualifies her to answer that question? She has a built in motive to point fingers away from herself. A more objective observer can point to the bigger picture. She's using the attention from being one of the biggest election disappointments in US history to create little but but her own profit and ego massage. Al Gore, who actually WAS screwed over, used similar attention after his failed bid to focus attention on climate change.

The fact that she was asked qualifies her. Everyone has a motive. So what? You don't want to hear her answers but many people do.

 

[whollygoats]

... this sounds like something Trump would say.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Just kidding, but damn - that woman grates on me.

I think she effects many that way, me too in fact. I just consider that separate from her being told to shut up. Also, I'd gladly take 4 years of her over Trump. I find myself unable to find a single redeeming feature in that man. I hate him as much as any public figure... scratch that. I have never hated on a public figure, but I despise him.

Really?

You must be a youngster.

I have a list that goes back to LBJ and George Wallace and runs through the whole ongoing clusterfuck of the GOP (Nixon, Reagan, Bushette, and now the Cheeto Benito).

Henry Kissinger got a Nobel Peace Prize, FFS.

 

[Elixir]

but here's the thing... it wasn't her fault, and there's no reasonable metric that holds up to scrutiny which you can employ to successfully argue that it was her fault..

So what? It's detrimental to efforts to effect cultura/policyl changes nonetheless, for her to keep thrusting her name into current news. She either doesn't know, or doesn't care that she is like a poison pill to progressive politics.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

like it or not, charisma is a trait that has a big impact on voter choices.

Which would explain why she beat Trump by almost three million votes, garnering the second largest turn-out in US history—second only to the record holder, Obama—beating every single white male candidate before her, in spite of the enormous challenges against her (a Dem running after a two-term Dem; first female candidate; first female candidate running after the first black POTUS; over three decades of nonstop Republican saturation attacks against her; millions of Dem votes disenfranchised or othwerwise suppressed through various election fraud tactics, including gerrymandering, changes in voting schedules and closing of strategic voting stations in Dem-centric districts; a massive, concentrated Russian cyberwar for the express purpose of denying her electoral votes; the Comey effect; overcoming sexism and racism; etc.).

Not that you were necessarily arguing against any of that; just felt it necessary to keep proper perspective. She won, but was denied the presidency in spite of that fact and due to a .02% differential in only three states. Had Sanders simply bowed out of the race when it was impossible for him to win (i.e., in March), none of this would be an issue and she would have easily overcome all of the negatives that have been hurled her way.

Take for example the accusation that she had no platform or the “I’m with her” just because she has a vagina bullshit. Because Sanders was an outlier—and because he simply refused to quit in spite of the fact that he could not possibly win—his entire strategy was the Price is Right approach. If Hillary bid $100, all he had to do was bid $101. He could say anything—promise anything (and did without ever being able to justify how it could possibly be accomplished)—just to position himself slightly to the left. His rhetoric was more radical; but his actual policies were nearly identical to Hillary’s, but just slightly farther left (she wanted to raise the minimum wage to $12 initially, so Sanders said $15, kind of thing).

This, of course, had the effect of making it look like Hillary was dead center (and/or to the right), which in turn fueled the equivocation fallacies and made it seem as if Hillary had no position and/or was just a Republican in Dem clothing, which is not just ridiculously false, but demonstrably false. The fact was that Sanders was the one moving right of where he started decades ago.

So, again, had Sanders left when he should have (and by that I mean, again, when any rational, professional candidate would have based on the math and the allegiance to the real cause—beating the Republicans), then Hillary’s position would have become stark relief against Trump’s and we would have some six months of concentrated focus on countering everything Trump was saying/doing on his campaign trail.

As it was, Trump was given free reign to go unfettered throughout the hatred and the sexism and the racism trail, while WE had nothing but an increasingly bitter civil war (also fueled by the Russians, which Sanders evidently knew about, but STILL stayed in a race he could not win), that kept going beyond the primary elections and deep into the general.

It is not possible to win the popular vote (by millions in a record breaking bid and in spite of everything loaded against her) and it not be as a result of charisma and policy positions.

While some people may have been put off by her personally, many many millions more were not, so it is simply false to argue that she isn’t President because of her lack of charisma. She was the clear positive choice for the majority of Americans (yes, that includes the tens of millions of votes we now know were denied her through various nefarious means as well as the untold millions of votes she would have received had idiots in blue states in particular bothered to vote for her as they intended, but thought, “Why bother, she’s winning in all the polls, I live in a blue state, Trump can’t possibly win” etc).

None of this was a loss for either Hillary or the Democrats (as has been borne out repeatedly in the various local and State elections we’ve seen so far); it was stolen by Trump, the Republicans and the Russians with considerable help from Sanders (inadvertently) and a large enough—but still statistically anomolous—combination of sexism and racism.

On the list of what went wrong, however, people disliking Hillary personally is at the very very bottom according to the actual facts and numbers. Again, not that you were necessarily making that argument, just to keep things in proper perspective. There was no sea change to the right (as has been often alleged by Republicans and certain Dems). Appearances do not necessarily belay the underlying facts. America remains a predominantly Democrat/Left leaning country as a whole. The only issues are in certain counties within certain states and that only because of Republican election fraud strategies.

Iow, the only way Republicans can win is to cheat. That alone proves that the majority is against them and in favor of more progressive/liberal policies.

 

[funinspace]

like it or not, charisma is a trait that has a big impact on voter choices.

Which would explain why she beat Trump by almost three million votes, garnering the second largest turn-out in US history—second only to the record holder, Obama—beating every single white male candidate before her,

Well, seeing how our population continues to grow year after year, ‘the second largest turn-out in US history’ is kind of vacuous. As a percent of eligible voters, the 2016 55.5% turn-out was much more pedestrian, and about the same as 2004’s election cycle. And I have to assume that HRC understood that the important game was in the Electoral College count. Hell, FFvC seemed to even understand that...

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter...tes_presidential_elections#Turnout_statistics

in spite of the enormous challenges against her (a Dem running after a two-term Dem; first female candidate; first female candidate running after the first black POTUS; over three decades of nonstop Republican saturation attacks against her; millions of Dem votes disenfranchised or othwerwise suppressed through various election fraud tactics, including gerrymandering, changes in voting schedules and closing of strategic voting stations in Dem-centric districts; a massive, concentrated Russian cyberwar for the express purpose of denying her electoral votes; the Comey effect; overcoming sexism and racism; etc.).

Not that you were necessarily arguing against any of that; just felt it necessary to keep proper perspective. She won, but was denied the presidency in spite of that fact and due to a .02% differential in only three states. Had Sanders simply bowed out of the race when it was impossible for him to win (i.e., in March), none of this would be an issue and she would have easily overcome all of the negatives that have been hurled her way.

Yes, she actually did relatively well considering that it is rare for the same party to retain the Presidency after an 8 year run. And even though Pres. Obama didn’t have anything significant to do with the root causes of financial crisis, he and HRC certainly had political headwinds due to the slow recovery over the preceeding 8 years. At the same time, she was battling against a buffoon who had to claw his way thru the Repug primary.

Take for example the accusation that she had no platform or the “I’m with her” just because she has a vagina bullshit…

“I’m with her” was a stupid slogan simply because the slogan makes it about HRC. And of course she had a platform, as I wasn't discussing the opinions of those living in alt-reality.

Bill understood the game much better…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_campaign_slogans#1992

"For People, for a Change" – 1992 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Bill Clinton
"It's Time to Change America" – a theme of the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton
"Putting People First" – 1992 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Bill Clinton
"It's the economy, stupid" – originally intended for an internal audience it became the de facto slogan for the Bill Clinton campaign

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, seeing how our population continues to grow year after year, ‘the second largest turn-out in US history’ is kind of vacuous.

No, it isn’t in the slightest. Population growth does not correlate to voter enthusiasm or turnout. People actually get off their asses to go vote for specific reasons, not just because they were born. Primary among those reasons are charisma of the candidate and their policy positions.

And I have to assume that HRC understood that the important game was in the Electoral College count.

Of course, which has absolutely nothing to do with the .02% voting differential that caused her to lose the EC.

Yes, she actually did relatively well

That’s a radical understatement. She won. By millions of votes in a record setting turnout. Being denied the Presidency, however, due to the particulars of the EC is a different matter and far more complex, having little to nothing to do with what winning the popular vote entails (i.e., the political pulse of the nation as a whole).

considering that it is rare for the same party to retain the Presidency after an 8 year run. And even though Pres. Obama didn’t have anything significant to do with the root causes of financial crisis, he and HRC certainly had political headwinds due to the slow recovery over the preceeding 8 years. At the same time, she was battling against a buffoon who had to claw his way thru the Repug primary.

It is a grave mistake to dismiss Trump as a “buffoon” and frankly intellectually lazy. I don’t mean that as a slight; he IS a buffoon. To us. We see through him. But a very very very tiny percentage of primarily white voters in targeted blue counties did not, but that tiny .02% of America—and the roughly 25% of Americans as a whole—that actively voted for Trump does not in any way equate to a sea change in America’s ideological stance. Which is my point.

He is President due to a failing of the EC, in fact; a failing that was caused by 48 states castrating the EC’s actual mandate—to prevent someone like Trump from becoming President—by ironically requiring their electors to NOT vote their conscience (as was intended by the FF), but instead vote according to the outcome of the popular vote. The difference being, of course, that it was the popular vote of the State. So the popular vote is actually the only vote there is, it’s just anachronistically carved up for no legitimate reason.

But the fact that it happened—and the EC did not act as it was mandated to act—does not mean that America (as a whole) suddenly is right wing and we all support Trump and Hillary lost, etc., etc., etc.

These terms just aren’t applicable in the very complicated—and, pardon the pun, unprecedented—situation that was the 2016 bloodless coup.

Take for example the accusation that she had no platform or the “I’m with her” just because she has a vagina bullshit…

“I’m with her” was a stupid slogan simply because the slogan makes it about HRC.

You may feel that way (as may others), but, again, the numbers demonstrate that the slogan worked. Again, there is a different matter with what happened in regard to the EC, so that must be separated out when discussing any kind of post-mortem on Hillary’s campaign slogans or tactics or what she was up against.

Racism, for a prime example, as Sanders’ own quote (that I posted previously) affirms couldn’t be overcome by ANY slogan, so to point to her slogan as any kind of mitigating factor is just not justified. Hell, a candidate catching a cold at the wrong time could easily result in losing a .02% differential in key counties and thus losing the EC.

Bill understood the game much better…

Agreed (though, technically, you mean Carville did, because he’s the one who came up with the slogans).

 

[Elixir]

like it or not, charisma is a trait that has a big impact on voter choices.

Which would explain why she beat Trump by almost three million votes, garnering the second largest turn-out in US history—second only to the record holder, Obama—beating every single white male candidate before her, in spite of the enormous challenges against her (a Dem running after a two-term Dem; first female candidate; first female candidate running after the first black POTUS; over three decades of nonstop Republican saturation attacks against her; millions of Dem votes disenfranchised or othwerwise suppressed through various election fraud tactics, including gerrymandering, changes in voting schedules and closing of strategic voting stations in Dem-centric districts; a massive, concentrated Russian cyberwar for the express purpose of denying her electoral votes; the Comey effect; overcoming sexism and racism; etc.).

Not that you were necessarily arguing against any of that; just felt it necessary to keep proper perspective. She won, but was denied the presidency in spite of that fact and due to a .02% differential in only three states. Had Sanders simply bowed out of the race when it was impossible for him to win (i.e., in March), none of this would be an issue and she would have easily overcome all of the negatives that have been hurled her way.

Take for example the accusation that she had no platform or the “I’m with her” just because she has a vagina bullshit. Because Sanders was an outlier—and because he simply refused to quit in spite of the fact that he could not possibly win—his entire strategy was the Price is Right approach. If Hillary bid $100, all he had to do was bid $101. He could say anything—promise anything (and did without ever being able to justify how it could possibly be accomplished)—just to position himself slightly to the left. His rhetoric was more radical; but his actual policies were nearly identical to Hillary’s, but just slightly farther left (she wanted to raise the minimum wage to $12 initially, so Sanders said $15, kind of thing).

This, of course, had the effect of making it look like Hillary was dead center (and/or to the right), which in turn fueled the equivocation fallacies and made it seem as if Hillary had no position and/or was just a Republican in Dem clothing, which is not just ridiculously false, but demonstrably false. The fact was that Sanders was the one moving right of where he started decades ago.

So, again, had Sanders left when he should have (and by that I mean, again, when any rational, professional candidate would have based on the math and the allegiance to the real cause—beating the Republicans), then Hillary’s position would have become stark relief against Trump’s and we would have some six months of concentrated focus on countering everything Trump was saying/doing on his campaign trail.

As it was, Trump was given free reign to go unfettered throughout the hatred and the sexism and the racism trail, while WE had nothing but an increasingly bitter civil war (also fueled by the Russians, which Sanders evidently knew about, but STILL stayed in a race he could not win), that kept going beyond the primary elections and deep into the general.

It is not possible to win the popular vote (by millions in a record breaking bid and in spite of everything loaded against her) and it not be as a result of charisma and policy positions.

While some people may have been put off by her personally, many many millions more were not, so it is simply false to argue that she isn’t President because of her lack of charisma. She was the clear positive choice for the majority of Americans (yes, that includes the tens of millions of votes we now know were denied her through various nefarious means as well as the untold millions of votes she would have received had idiots in blue states in particular bothered to vote for her as they intended, but thought, “Why bother, she’s winning in all the polls, I live in a blue state, Trump can’t possibly win” etc).

None of this was a loss for either Hillary or the Democrats (as has been borne out repeatedly in the various local and State elections we’ve seen so far); it was stolen by Trump, the Republicans and the Russians with considerable help from Sanders (inadvertently) and a large enough—but still statistically anomolous—combination of sexism and racism.

On the list of what went wrong, however, people disliking Hillary personally is at the very very bottom according to the actual facts and numbers. Again, not that you were necessarily making that argument, just to keep things in proper perspective. There was no sea change to the right (as has been often alleged by Republicans and certain Dems). Appearances do not necessarily belay the underlying facts. America remains a predominantly Democrat/Left leaning country as a whole. The only issues are in certain counties within certain states and that only because of Republican election fraud strategies.

Iow, the only way Republicans can win is to cheat. That alone proves that the majority is against them and in favor of more progressive/liberal policies.

Good post, covers a lot of ground. But (here's my "everything would be fine if everyone was like me" screed) glosses over a huge number of people who voted for her despite a personal revulsion, because ... Trump. I am astounded to this day that there are more than a half dozen people on this continent who can't look at and listen to that orange moron for 30 seconds, and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he'd be the worst president in American history by a YUUUUGE margin. It's like 100+ million Americans suddenly went fully autistic. WTF.