I wouldn't blame Hillary if she moved to Canada.

[pnwmom]

Last edited Sat Dec 31, 2016, 05:24 AM - Edit history (2)

No one here has any right to demand that she join the strident opposition (as an OP was demanding today) -- especially those who gave her lukewarm support, at best.

In Canada, where she is very popular -- as she is in much of the world -- she'd be living among friends. And in Canada she wouldn't have to be worried about being jailed for political crimes.

That's still out there, people. DT could follow the practices of dictators everywhere and jail his political opponents. He's already promised to send her to prison and gotten millions of his followers to scream that she should be jailed. He's even convinced half of them that she's been running a pedophile sex ring.

Comey was a big help in the election but he probably wouldn't go this far, since he's already said she did nothing criminal. But DT could dump Comey and install someone willing to do his bidding.

So, if anyone has earned a right to take a break from two years of constant campaigning, it's Hillary. At least till the relevant statute of limitations has expired -- though the statute could be extended, if the Rethug Congress wanted it to be.

[Chevy]

1. She could run for Prime Misister if she became a citizen n/t

[guillaumeb]

2. Liberal or NDP? eom

[Chevy]

38. I'm guessing Liberal

however she could just as easily fit in the Blue Conservatives they are like Moderate Dems anyways.

[George II]

45. Certainly not the NDP.

[guillaumeb]

59. Agreed. The Liberal party would be the best fit. eom

[DURHAM D]

3. If she did start appearing on the tv the

very same people who are complaining about her not being on the tv 24/7 would complain that she is speaking out.

some old stuff

As soon as Obama leaves office he won't be able to get it right either.

Same song 2nd verse, ought to get better but its going to get worse.

[lapucelle]

37. Obama is already being criticized from the "left" by Taibbi and Greenwald.

Useless tools.

[sarah FAILIN]

4. agreed.

If there is any sanity left in Washington right before the end, Obama will give her a blanket pardon for her safety. If it could be done, but kept secret till Trump came after her that would be even better. Only a fool would trust Comrade Trump now.

[Raine]

5. If she did she'd be accused of being unAmerican for deserting her country

anyway that something she wouldn't do.

[pnwmom]

6. Yeah, by idiots. In other countries people like her have been considered heroes.

Sometimes the only way to speak out is from the safe distance of another country -- and we've harbored political refugees ourselves before.

[leftofcool]

23. I believed it was Ireland that asked Bill Clinton to be their President after he left office

There are a ton of countries that would love for the Clintons to move there and be in politics.

[blue cat]

30. What a nice thought

It made me smile. I love all our former first couples.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. All? I wouldn't go that far... Rethuglians too? If, by "our," you mean Dems, yes.

[Generator]

7. She won't

She's a believer. That's the irony she's actually probably more trustworthy than most Americans-they are the shifty liars. Like pretending they aren't racist. And sexist (I forgot sexist but not like Bush forgot Poland-Sexism is probably stronger than racism)

[Fast Walker 52]

36. yes, she is a believer

[Iggo]

8. I don't care where she retires to.

She wants out, that's fine.

[Maru Kitteh]

34. Hillary Clinton named Most Admired Woman 20th year in a row by Americans

Americans again name Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama the woman and man living anywhere in the world they admire most.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx

Both Clinton and Obama won by large margins over their respective runners up.

Prolly bugs you.

[Iggo]

41. Not at all.

She gave it her best shot. She came up short. She doesn't owe me or you a goddam thing. If she wants to pack it in and call it a day, I'm okay with that.

[pnwmom]

10. You're not accounting for the voter suppression allowed by the dismantling

of the voting rights act in 2013.

There was also a surge in 3rd party voting. People who voted 3rd party because they didn't like either major candidate were shooting themselves in the foot.

Even so, Hillary was behind Obama in 2012 by only 70,000 votes.

And Perez is a strong progressive. It's nuts to pretend that he isn't.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/12/29/2016-vs-2012-how-trumps-win-and-clintons-votes-stack-up-to-obama-and-romney/#5f7813367033

[pnwmom]

15. Wrong. There is a great deal of analysis that says voter suppression

hurt Hillary's turnout in the election.

The voter suppression was designed to reduce the vote count of minority communities, and that's where Hillary had her strongest support.

http://www.mtv.com/news/2963739/voter-suppression-russian-election-hack/

And as we focus on Putin’s efforts to steer our election, let’s also look at Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts, a believer in a colorblind America and a longtime opponent of the VRA. The damage he did is even more quantifiable.

Roberts led the majority decision in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder, nullifying the VRA’s Section 5. This had required 16 states with especially awful legacies of racial discrimination to have any new voting laws approved by the federal government. In getting rid of this section, Roberts effectively neutered the entire law; voter suppression was still illegal, but the main tool for policing it was gone. A National Commission on Voting Rights report released last year indicated that more than 3,000 changes to state voting laws were blocked between the Act’s inception in 1965 and 2013. That’s more than 3,000 changes that didn’t pass muster with the feds. But this year, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, 14 states had new restrictions in place.

In the first presidential election in half a century without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, the effects were obvious. There were at least 868 fewer polling places across the nation in 2016, leading to long lines at those that still existed. Voters were recklessly, and perhaps illegally, purged from the rolls. Even if courts had stepped in to invalidate new state voting restrictions, there were reports that election workers were enforcing them anyway. Frivolous voter-ID laws, dependent upon the fiction of a voter-fraud epidemic, kept citizens from being able to vote. Republicans often dismiss the difficulty many face when trying to obtain proper identification, ignoring that the requirement itself is like a 21st-century poll tax. But there are real obstacles, most of which affect communities of color.

Even for those with IDs, confusing laws can create unnecessary hurdles. Shortly after the election, I was a guest on a Wisconsin public radio show when a white woman called to say that she was turned away at the polls for not having a driver’s license — despite having other forms of identification and mail on her. Since she’d had several surgeries and used a walker, it wasn’t practical for her to go home and then return to wait in line again.

Wisconsin was only one of several key states that went for Obama in 2012, then saw voter participation drop in 2016 — and, not incidentally, went for Trump. While acknowledging Hillary Clinton’s failure to attract and turn out black voters in urban strongholds like Milwaukee, ascribing all the blame for her loss to poor campaign strategy is incomplete. Wisconsin’s strict voter-ID law was allowed to proceed in 2016 despite earlier court rulings that softened it. Jill Stein’s recount showed that Trump won the state by 22,748 votes, a little less than the average attendance at a Milwaukee Brewers game. Yet as many as 300,000 Wisconsin voters in 2014 lacked the proper identification under the discriminatory and unnecessary law. No one knows how many of them got that ID before November’s election, or how many of those 300,000 would’ve voted for Clinton. The point is that the law made it harder for Wisconsin residents to vote, and it could have very well made a difference in the state’s voting results.

[pnwmom]

17. You keep saying that without a bit of evidence.

And your comment blaming the Dems for not eliminating the Electoral College after Bush's election is similarly uninformed. An amendment to the constitution requires an approval by 3/4 of the states. That was not something the Democrats could have accomplished.

http://pasadenajournal.com/what-surely-tainted-our-election-voter-suppression/

The steps taken to suppress the vote aren’t secret: new requirements of voter ID that discriminate against the poor, the elderly and disproportionately people of color; restrictions on use of college ID to impede student voting; closing registration weeks before Election Day; limiting early voting days, closing on Sundays; holding Election Day on a workday with limited hours for voting, making it difficult for those with inflexible hours to get to the polls; shutting down or moving polling places to confuse voters and force them to wait in long lines; purging voters from the polling lists, leaving them to cast provisional ballots at best; prohibiting felons who have paid their debt to society from ever recovering the right to vote, disproportionately impacting African-American men.

There is little doubt that these measures worked, and cost Clinton the election. In Wisconsin, for example, Trump’s margin of victory was 27,000. A record 300,000 registered voters lacked the newly required ID, contributing to the lowest turnout in 20 years. Turnout was down by more than 50,000 in Milwaukee where 70 percent of the state’s African-American population lives.

In North Carolina, black turnout was down 16 percent in the first week of early voting, in part because there were 158 fewer polling places in the 40 counties with large numbers of black voters. The targeting was intentional, with Republican officials celebrating the effects. The decision by the right-wing gang of five on the Supreme Court in the Shelby case effectively subverted the victory of the civil rights movement at Selma.

If Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee’s and the Clinton campaign’s emails to influence the election, it should be investigated. In an election decided by 80,000 votes in three states, it might have made a difference (as almost anything could in an election that close). But what is clear is that Russian hacking was not nearly as effective as the partisan systematic suppression of the vote. And that effort is continuing. Republicans in Missouri took control and moved to institute new voting ID restrictions for the next election. In Wisconsin, Republicans announced plans for new restrictions on early voting.

[pnwmom]

24. Yes, I am. You're not bothering to read the articles.

http://pasadenajournal.com/what-surely-tainted-our-election-voter-suppression/

The steps taken to suppress the vote aren’t secret: new requirements of voter ID that discriminate against the poor, the elderly and disproportionately people of color; restrictions on use of college ID to impede student voting; closing registration weeks before Election Day; limiting early voting days, closing on Sundays; holding Election Day on a workday with limited hours for voting, making it difficult for those with inflexible hours to get to the polls; shutting down or moving polling places to confuse voters and force them to wait in long lines; purging voters from the polling lists, leaving them to cast provisional ballots at best; prohibiting felons who have paid their debt to society from ever recovering the right to vote, disproportionately impacting African-American men.

There is little doubt that these measures worked, and cost Clinton the election. In Wisconsin, for example, Trump’s margin of victory was 27,000. A record 300,000 registered voters lacked the newly required ID, contributing to the lowest turnout in 20 years. Turnout was down by more than 50,000 in Milwaukee where 70 percent of the state’s African-American population lives.

In North Carolina, black turnout was down 16 percent in the first week of early voting, in part because there were 158 fewer polling places in the 40 counties with large numbers of black voters. The targeting was intentional, with Republican officials celebrating the effects. The decision by the right-wing gang of five on the Supreme Court in the Shelby case effectively subverted the victory of the civil rights movement at Selma.

If Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee’s and the Clinton campaign’s emails to influence the election, it should be investigated. In an election decided by 80,000 votes in three states, it might have made a difference (as almost anything could in an election that close). But what is clear is that Russian hacking was not nearly as effective as the partisan systematic suppression of the vote. And that effort is continuing. Republicans in Missouri took control and moved to institute new voting ID restrictions for the next election. In Wisconsin, Republicans announced plans for new restrictions on early voting.


http://www.mtv.com/news/2963739/voter-suppression-russian-election-hack/

And as we focus on Putin’s efforts to steer our election, let’s also look at Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts, a believer in a colorblind America and a longtime opponent of the VRA. The damage he did is even more quantifiable.

Roberts led the majority decision in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder, nullifying the VRA’s Section 5. This had required 16 states with especially awful legacies of racial discrimination to have any new voting laws approved by the federal government. In getting rid of this section, Roberts effectively neutered the entire law; voter suppression was still illegal, but the main tool for policing it was gone. A National Commission on Voting Rights report released last year indicated that more than 3,000 changes to state voting laws were blocked between the Act’s inception in 1965 and 2013. That’s more than 3,000 changes that didn’t pass muster with the feds. But this year, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, 14 states had new restrictions in place.

In the first presidential election in half a century without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, the effects were obvious. There were at least 868 fewer polling places across the nation in 2016, leading to long lines at those that still existed. Voters were recklessly, and perhaps illegally, purged from the rolls. Even if courts had stepped in to invalidate new state voting restrictions, there were reports that election workers were enforcing them anyway. Frivolous voter-ID laws, dependent upon the fiction of a voter-fraud epidemic, kept citizens from being able to vote. Republicans often dismiss the difficulty many face when trying to obtain proper identification, ignoring that the requirement itself is like a 21st-century poll tax. But there are real obstacles, most of which affect communities of color.

https://trofire.com/2016/12/19/voter-suppression-handed-trump-presidency-will-dems-act/

Think about this. State of Wisconsin, 41,000 people removed from the voting rolls, because of GOP voter suppression. Donald Trump won the state of Wisconsin by 18,000 votes. Had those 41,000 people been allowed to vote, Wisconsin would very likely be a blue state, and it happened elsewhere. North Carolina, the state of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania. All those states kind of ring a bell with their significance in this Presidential election? Voter suppression is what ultimately cost Hillary Clinton the election.

[pnwmom]

32. It's more evidence than you've bothered to provide. All you do is assert things,

without a bit of evidence other than your claims.

And since you ALSO claimed that the Democrats could have ended the Electoral College after Bush, your knowledge has some obvious gaps.

[George II]

46. Lots of "name removed" here, that tells us quite a bit!!!

[pnwmom]

48. If this thread did nothing else

it outed someone who admitted to not belonging here.

[StevieM]

28. And in spite of all that, Hillary had higher turnout from African-Americans than John Kerry did.

And Latino turnout was up from 2012.

HRC also appears to have done better with Latino voters than Obama did in 2012, the flawed exit polls not withstanding.

And the whole reason why Hillary beat Bernie for then nomination is that she clobbered him among minority voters.

[JHan]

18. So..

"It was Hillary's obligation to go to the correct states and counties and to offer policy that helped all, not just particular demographics."

So you picked up policy favoritism towards certain groups ?

[JHan]

25. Well you're wrong:

It was a simple sincere question because I honestly wondered what it is you saw in her policies to make such a claim.

"Right wing economic policy like continuing to promote for private profit health care insurance, school privatization, and exclusionary "free" higher ed policies all favored the rich and ensured that any programs created would instantly have constituencies that oppose them due to the fact that they would be paying into the programs but unable to partake from them. Counter productive and idiotic. "

If you mean her attempts to fix the ACA - that is not a "right wing" position. If you have an issue with the involvement of private insurers as a principle, I'd suggest you look to France where they've found a good model that is a public/private hybrid. Premiums are an issue and needs to be fixed, and Hillary always wanted to expand insurance for Americans.

Otherwise you aren't making sense.

She advocated for paid family and medical leave for both parents, increasing the min. wage, pushing for equal pay for women, college debt reduction options ( with free college for those in lower income brackets), infrastructure investment, clear and clinical steps to tackle wall street, increased investment in STEM, a tech innovation plan ( while bare at least she had one, Trump didn't ) , a phase out period for fossil fuel industries, so jobs aren't significantly impacted while continuing to invest in green energy/renewables, retraining with emphasis on providing alternative pathways to wealth creation for those without degrees.... *etc etc etc etc ..

[JHan]

39. lol..

"but you've always been someone who attempts to instigate division whenever possible. This just an observation from an outsider. "

Considering I've only been here since like September, I'm flattered I'm so memorable I guess.

"She did not call for an entire end to the carbon energy economy, she wanted to continue to allow fracking in red states (where the most public lands and most beautiful ones are anyway), and her infrastructure/jobs policy was a joke. "

Her position on fracking isn't simplistic, that's for sure. And she wants to impose greater regulations. "no to fracking" sounds great if you want to ignore the economic realities

Ohio and PA are major natural gas producers, both use fracking as their primary means of extracting natural gas. PA is a MAJOR natural gas producer because of it..

Fracking is also responsible for the uptick in our production of crude oil Like it or not , Fracking is also why we're on our way to energy sufficiency and why gas prices have fallen.

Also, this should be of interest to you: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=21392

do I like the idea of fracking and fossil fuel extraction? No I don't. I can't wait for renewables to set off, but I won't ignore the effects of hitting an industry where hundreds of thousands of jobs are on the line. So I'm gonna side with Clinton and Obama on this one.


Everything else you typed is ranting and antagonistic spin.

And isn't it great how I've replied to you and have yet to respond in kind to you with insults.

[SidDithers]

12. Welcome to DU...

Sid

[fleabiscuit]

29. Glass half full, half empty, or as an engineer might say, it's twice as big as it needs to be?

Hillary won that age group by 18%, an outstanding ratio. Elections are won in the margins.

[fleabiscuit]

35. Your claim seems a bit... odd.

Voter registration overall increased approximately, by nearly 50 million. They didn't all register Democratic. Hillary had the better percentage though, around 43 percent. That alone means 57 percent gave no kind of guarantee of voting for the Democrat. Those numbers also spread over all states. Most are going to be in more populous states obviously. Hillary did well in those states. I believe you are yelling into the wind.


Edit
Opps, gone before I got it posted. Oh well.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. This sounds like it's from the Onion.

She isn't going anywhere. At all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. I just want her to adopt me on her way out

God, I'm so jealous of Chelsea and also Huma.

[pnwmom]

20. +1. n/t

[JHan]

26. lol. ;)

[lapucelle]

40. I know an early and loyal low level volunteer who has gotten a phone call on her birthday

every year for the last 16 years.

She got a letter and a phone call when her husband died. The call came after the letter. Hillary thought a letter alone might seem impersonal.

The constant crap I read about Hillary (even here) makes me want to spit.

[pnwmom]

42. Thanks for sharing this, lapucelle.

I'm sick of the crap, too. She's a great woman.

[KT2000]

43. thank you!

I saw that OP and thought the same. How much is she expected to give. She should do whatever she pleases.
Facing those horrid republicans for years with their phony suits and investigations must have been awful. Turns out they were actually get rich schemes for the R's.

[George II]

44. She would also get universal healthcare and a VERY liberal federal/provincial government.

As a Canadian (and US, to avoid the imminent personal attacks!!!) citizen I'm giving it serious consideration.

[KingCharlemagne]

47. Forming a government in exile may be becessary, if civil war breaks out here and

moves from cold to hot. Or she can come to California to lead the resistance from here. Trump's goon squads will not be welcome here after Jan. 20.

[ucrdem]

49. I'll bet she could land a great job in the Trudeau admin.

Canada is a bright spot right now. Malcolm Turnbull (current PM of Australia) is another. François Hollande is another but sadly he's announced he won't run for reelection and it's likely the conservative candidate will win in April.

[Motown_Johnny]

50. Got a link for Hillary's popularity in Canada (and elsewhere in the world)?

I am sure she has high name recognition in many countries but I did a search and can't find anything to substantiate your claim.

Any and all help would be appreciated, thanks.

[pnwmom]

51. It's more than name recognition and I doubt you tried very hard.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-22/donald-trump-canada-wary-justin-trudeau-barack-obama/7530960

A recent poll by the Abacus Data market research firm revealed that if Canadians were voting in the presidential contest, a whopping 80 per cent would choose Democrat Hillary Clinton over Mr Trump.

A slightly larger number — 82 per cent — told Abacus they believed that Mr Trump was either probably or certainly a racist and he did not understand the rest of the world.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/05/07/wma-2016/

Three times we have asked and three times we have been told: Bill Gates is the most admired man in the world. Since 2015, when we first begun to test the most admired men and women separately, Angelina Jolie has also come out on top both times. So in the third installation of YouGov's massive international study of personality admiration involving over 31,000 interviews, it's safe to say the global public values humanitarianism over politics.

SNIP

Hillary Clinton remains the third most admired woman, boosting her presidential bid with a show of global admiration nearly equal to Obama's. In the vast expanses of India and China she places first (ahead of Malala Yousafzai) and second (ahead of Angelina Jolie), respectively.

[still_one]

54. Here's one which Mr. Google found me afirming Canadian support for Hillary

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/poll-finds-strong-clinton-support-in-alberta-and-across-canada

of course some prefer to ignore the fact that Hillary's 3 million popular vote victory is unprecedented

[pnwmom]

55. Thank you, still_one. And notice how many Canadian MEN supported Hillary.

They weren't fooled the way so many US men were.

[still_one]

56. Agreed

[still_one]

52. In Alberta and across Canada there was strong support for Hillary to be President

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/poll-finds-strong-clinton-support-in-alberta-and-across-canada

Hillary was also voted most admired woman again for the 21st time by Gallop.

I know this bothers some people, but a hell of a lot of people do like Hillary. Not only did she win the Democratic primary because more Democrats wanted her, but she also received the most votes in the general election.

Of course there were some self-identified progressives who refused to vote for her.

In Michigan she lost by .3%. Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Similar results in Wisconsin and other critical swing states.

Russ Feingold and Zypher Teachout lost also, as did every Democrat running for Senate in a swing state against the establishment, republican, incumbent.

Of course some people tend to forget that 11 days before the election, Comey sent a letter to the republicans in Congress which MSNBC was the first network to report as "BREAKING NEWS", that "the FBI had reopened the email investigation". THAT WAS A LIE by the way. MSNBC then begin to parade every right wing politician on their screen to propagate that LIE. Within an hour CNN, and the other networks had joined in on the distortion.

A few day later Bret Baier from fox news reported "from HIS sources in the FBI, an imminent indictment was pending on the Clinton Foundation". By the way, THAT WAS ANOTHER LIE, but it did stop the other news outlets from reporting it. Two days later Bret Baier came out and apologized, and said his information was not correct. Interestingly enough that didn't stop his network, fox news from continuing to repeat the lie.

With all that excitement going on, people also seem to forget in 2013 the Supreme Court ruled down a key provision in the Voting Rights Act, and what occurred after that ruling motivated other states to add more restrictive voting requirements. In fact 14 states added more stringent voting requirements, including Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina.

http://prospect.org/article/22-states-wave-new-voting-restrictions-threatens-shift-outcomes-tight-races

North Carolina added an interesting twist because they removed a whole set of voters from the voting list. The NAACP went to court and managed to get those voters reinstated on the voting list, but it was late in the game, and many did not realize the they could vote in time.

Of course there are some people, (elsewhere in the world), who do not like Hillary, such as Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin

but let's not dwell on such things. Nothing to see here

[JI7]

53. yeah, but NY loves her also. and so does California and many other places. it's just that the

ignorant tend to be the loudest voices . and ignorant attention whores get on tv and other media and heard more and drown out others.

[pnwmom]

57. Unfortunately, NY and CA wouldn't be able to keep her out of jail.

If things get bad, she'd be safer speaking out from a distance.