We have these stories about Hilary being very unlikable, but she might get as many votes as Obama in 2012. He got 65,915,795 votes. Currently Hillary is at 63,759,985. Given there are a lot of votes not yet counted she might get pretty close to Obama's number. I think it kind of goes against the narrative that no one likes Hilary. It kind of sucks how the election is usually determined by 3 or 4 swing states. The whole rest of the country doesn't really matter. If you are republican in Cali or NY it doesn't matter. If you are in Texas and democrat it doesn't matter. Almost 1/4th of the population lives in those states. Ohio and Florida have a 10% of the population and they tend to be the states where the presidential candidates spend all their time since they change the most. basically the vote of 10% is more important than the vote of 90%. http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174
I don't think it really matters. Plenty of people, I'm sure, voted for Clinton without liking her. I don't see why the moral victory matters anyway. She still doesn't get to be President.
Actually, polls confirm that Hillary is VERY unliked and distrusted and the fact that a complete piece of garbage named Donald Trump was within striking distance at the end proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. Try as hard as you can, you can't paint Hillary in a positive light. ANY other legit Dem candidate would have easily beaten Trump by 5-10%. She let her party down big time. I believe she was the only legit Dem Trump could have beaten. At the same time, the national Dem machinery made a historic mistake to hand her the nomination as soon as Obama beat Romney. IMO, the bottom line of the election is the Dems blew a layup in 2016 and I think history will make that clear. I also disagree with you "it sucks" swing voters have a significant influence. Without the electoral college, the rhetoric and hostility would be ramped up even worse as both sides wouldn't give a flip about anything other than turning out "the base". I'm sure that puts me in a minority position in this forum.
Why are we still talking about her? She's done, let her and the Clinton political dynasty fade away into obscurity.
You're correct that Hillary was a horrible candidate, but once again we see someone underestimating the Trump phenomenon. Really, O'Malley would have beaten Trump by 5-10%? Only a parallel Earth experiment could prove that, but I highly doubt it. The angry voters who wanted an outsider wouldn't have liked O'Malley. And I still think the Bannon machine would have gone into Anti-Semitic overdrive against Sanders, painting him as a professorial "elite" (wink wink) and actual communist, etc, etc. I actually think Trump would have beaten Sanders, O'Malley, etc. 61 million people didn't care about crotch grabbing, no-tax-paying, torture-threatening, wall building, etc, but they would have voted for someone with a career in government? If you insist. Again, agree on Hillary and she ran a bad campaign. Too mental for this climate, and she slept on the midwest.
Hillary and her handlers grew too numb to the Bubba coalition. They should've leak leaked something about that rather than pretending to have damage control by hiding and pointing at trump
The numbers don't support you assertion. The only guy to get crazy ass support was Obama in 2008. I wasn't a fan as Hillary as pres. She was too hawkish for me. However she was pretty centrist in her policies.
Don't put candidates names in my mouth. If the Dem elite had signaled early on all comers were welcome, there would have been a legit candidate who would have found his/her voice and actually had a message to deliver. Hillary had nothing. She was a broken, empty shell who deserved to lose. I think 90% of us here can agree it's great Clinton Inc is finally dead and buried. Bernie conveniently became a Dem just so he could run & pontificate and nobody took him seriously because it was supposed to be a HIllary coronation. The only reason he got so far was because a comatose Hillary would have struggled against anyone. It wasn't her time. It was NEVER her time. Spare me the "Trump phenomenon" nonsense. He lost the pop vote by over 2 million votes to the worst possible Dem candidate. He won no mandate. His main schtick was anger and venom. I'm curious to see how close Trump 2016 is to Bush 2004.
I don't think anyone said that no one likes Hillary. But, clearly many people have a negative opinion of her. And, you can say the same thing about Trump. Many people disliked both candidates, but both candidates had their diehard fans.
We live in a republic where smaller states carry an extreme amount of power. The Senate is even more extreme than the Electoral College. Approximately 18% of the population controls a majority of the Senate. The 10 smallest states are about 2.8% of the total population and they control 20% of the Senate. The 10 biggest states are about 56% of the population and they control 20% as well.
While we're on the subject of completely irrelevant numbers, the Texans gained 354 yards last night and the Raiders gained only 325 yards. I certainly hope that I don't have to explain the American system of government and the reasons behind it yet again.
I think Hillary almost coming close to obama's vote totals had a lot to do with Trump being an all-time bad candidate who most of the country saw as unfit for the presidency. It just so happened that Trump's supporters lived in more advantageous areas for him to win the electoral vote.
It was really losing the rust belt that screwed Hillary. She assumed she had those states in the bag because no Republican had won states like Pennsylvania and Michigan since 1988.....the same year that California last went to a Republican. That's an indication of how unpopular she really was.
She was unpopular among certain groups of people in certain states, but was more popular than Trump if you take America as a whole.
Sure, when it comes to raw vote, she got more. Unfortunately for her, that means nothing at all. This was the bottom of the barrel election. An all time worst Democrat against an all time worst Republican and Hillary still managed to lose despite the built in advantages Democrats have in the electoral college. She somehow was a worse candidate and ran a worse campaign than Donald F'n Trump. Amazing. Just about anyone else beats him easily.
I don't have a problem with Hillary losing fair and square, but I'd support a push to allow for split electoral votes within states by popular vote percentage. In this way, Texas, California, and New York won't be taken for granted by either party, and I'd believe we'd see more voter participation.
Never liked the electoral college. I've only voted in 1/2 of the elections since turning 18 due to the fact that Texas will (for the time being) vote Republican. I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college, however I think it's a catch 22 - IMO it's almost undemocratic since a vote for a democratic candidate is meaningless in a red state, and vice versa.
Oh yeah, she ran a horrible campaign for sure, ignored those rust belt states. Hillary is gone now. It's Trump who has the problem of over half of this country not liking him, a lot of people being scared of him, and almost everyone thinking he's a bad human being. Trump has the 4 hardest years of his life coming up, but this is what he wanted, right?
Here is one of the reasons we have a EC. The founding fathers were scared of true democracy. They believed if some crazy ass person was elected the EC voters could elect to not cast their vote for him. I think some states mandate that their EC voters vote for the guy who the state voted for.
