General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Rodham Clinton ... [View all]DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)No one shall debate that, except for Trump, but then again Trump would debate two plus two making four. I will also not deny that there are people who have a vested interest in setting the house on fire because they think once the ashes and smoke clear, they can finally build the house they want. Bernie was not such a person, but many who claimed to back him were (the same people that ignored him once he supported Hillary.)
However, there is a point to ponder what we could have done differently. It is not demonizing Hillary to say "ok, we lost this game what do we do differently next game?" Personally, the one and only thing I would "Blame" Hillary for is letting some of the people whose job it was to get her elected make very numbskull errors, and then not toss them out or tell them to step off. Simply put, the Democratic party apparatus DID let her down, be it making the classic "Blue wall" error in the Midwest, or trying to keep her off television instead of simply letting her talk. The party itself should have made election theft front and center, a project that should have been done since 2000, because a lot of hijinks were done in Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan. However, just like Obama should not have been expected to be Superman and undo 16 years of GOP damage with a open stroke, neither should Clinton have paid so much money to get so little help.
as faqr as then popular vote, that is what GOP losers use to step into offices they did not win and claim a mandate. The one oprginal purpose (outside of trying to support the slave-owning south) Was to make sure a crook did not win. If one were to make Russian involvement go poof like a magic trick, the CONSTITUTION, when discussing the Emolument issues, guive a very black and white reason to reject trump, in and of themselves. He plans to make money personally from the investments in Russia he would allow, and is NOT EVEN QUITTING HIS JOB AT NBC. That alone, alone should make the case not to elect him. If the electors do not reject him, we have a clear case for abolishing the electoral college. Granted, Dixie will not allow that now, but if we actually keep the pressure up, become a party of no that makes sure he is a one term president (directly stealing from Mitch's Mcconells playbook), then we can say "hey this electoral college thing is a bad idea.)