fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3777 ]

[ SECRET POST #3777 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3777 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

Notes:

Early for once!

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 44 secrets from Secret Submission Post #541.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Thank fuck. Did she lose soft or hard? I mean, how bad is it still?

Last numbers I saw were something like 64% to 35%

That is pretty good. I mean France still doesn't get a good President, Macron is a Male Hillary Clinton as far as his politics go, but at least it is no Trump in tights.

Whatever issues there are with Hillary, I would rather have her a million times over Trump. I suspect she'd have put in qualified officials instead of businessmen and had a sensible environmental policy, as well as protected the ACA.

I get that to some people Trump is worth it to try and shock the Dems out of running increasingly centrist candidates when the center is always tracking right, but she'd be better. A good candidate would have been better than both of them though. Here's hoping next time the DNC decline to run a least worst choice candidate (also known as a "suck it, whatcha going to do; vote Republican?" candidate) and run a good choice candidate like Sherrod Brown instead.

I really don't think Hillary was a bad candidate policy-wise (Trump had no real concrete policies at all besides The Wall and vague isolationism) - clearly there were mistakes made in the campaign, but I think there were other factors feeding into Trump getting elected and his devout following besides Democratic incompetence.

NAYRT

In terms of why people support Trump, I agree that there are reasons for that besides Democratic incompetence.

In terms of why Trump won the election, there are a bunch of different reasons (5 or 6) but I'm convinced Hillary's flaws as a candidate played a significant role - both in terms of who she was as a candidate (her complete lack of credibility with regards to banking and financial policy) and in terms of specific tactical decisions (making dumb choices about where to focus effort/investment). None of those things was sufficient for her to lose but they did play a significant role.

How predictable those things were, I'm not sure.

Those white noise machines she brought in to make super-duper sure that nobody could hear her secret speeches to Wall Street firms were pretty much the reason she crashed and burned. It wasn't just the machines themselves, which was a bad idea, but the way in which it was emblematic of the whole veil of secrecy she was casting over her connections. Combine that with that now infamous email thing and it created the image of a candidate who wanted to ensure she had no public scrutiny and would go the extra mile to avoid it. That was just antithetical to most Democrat voters, who tend to want more open and transparent government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-static-noise-speech_us_570930dae4b0836057a16748

Not that there is just one single thing Hillary did that doomed them in a silver bullet moment, but it was death by a thousand cuts. There was just too many minor incompetencies all piled on each other, but actively hiding her donor speeches with noice cancellation devices was a biggie.

It wasn't the reason she crashed and burned. It was one of a bunch of different problems, but I don't believe it would have been sufficient in and of itself to cause her to lose. Maybe it would have been sufficient for her to lose your personal vote, but that's not what we're talking about here.

I'm sorry, but if you point to Hillary's "complete lack of credibility with regards to banking and financial policy" as a reason why someone would vote for Donald Trump instead, I call bullshit. You might as well say, "Well, this nurse shark looks too bitey, so I'm going to swim with this school of hungry piranhas instead."

I think Hillary Clinton was a better candidate on those issues. I think she was an almost unimaginably better candidate on almost every issue. That's why I voted for her. None of this is an argument about my personal preferences for a candidate. I think these are things that were true in the campaign with the electorate, and I think one of those things is that a significant enough portion of voters saw Hillary as being tied to Wall Street and big money, in a way that they did not see Trump. You can go on all night listing reasons people shouldn't have thought that, and I'd agree. But I believe they did think that.

I can see an argument that Trump's voters thought he cared about their problems - he put on an act. His actual ideas and policies (his planned budget, extreme deregulation, selling off federal lands, Reaganomics 2.0, TrumpCare) will hurt more people than they help, including many of the rural people who voted for him.

I mean, Trump had such strong credibility with regard to banking and financial policy and tactical decisions! In comparison, Hilary just didn't stand a chance!

I'm not saying it made sense, I just think people believed it.

not to be cynical, but I very much doubt that Trump getting elected will at all steer Democrats away from their fatal centrist thinking– especially because as soon as the election happened, all Dems could talk about was courting the racist Trump voters and sucking up to people who would rather die in a coal mine than learn a new skill.

The best most recent example of why Hillary lost was she gave an interview where she stressed the need to invest in communications infrastructure because many rural areas were without cellphone service or internet access.

And it was spun as "Hilary called Trump supporters dumb technophobic hicks"

But Trump supporters are...

I was going to say...

IIRC, Macron got 65.8% or 65.9% last time I checked. So I guess it's good enough; not all French people are racist assholes. Well, only 11 millions of them.

Honestly, I wish I hadn't been forced to vote for Macron but given the choice we were given, it could have been way worse. Like, for instance, the communist guy (Mélanchon) who might have been even worse than Marine Le Pen. And I would argue than Macron is a little bit more socialist than Hillary Clinton ever was.

it's not good at all

35% is double what her dad managed

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3777 ]

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election

Re: French presidential election