Dems would be much better served if they admitted that Hillary was simply a bad candidate

[ColonelAngus]

Why is that so difficult? Run someone better in 2020.

$1.2 billion was spent on her campaign.
The entire mainstream media advocated for her.
The incumbent POTUS actively campaigned for her.

She lost.

That is a bad candidate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now that all the Trumptards have admitted she was a bad candidate, will they also admit that Trump could never have beaten a good candidate?

 

[Norman]

And that Trump was overall awesome...

Won against a seasoned opponent who had double the funding, establishment in her pocket, not to mention "experience".

 

[Chuz Life]

Why is that so difficult? Run someone better in 2020.

$1.2 billion was spent on her campaign.
The entire mainstream media advocated for her.
The incumbent POTUS actively campaigned for her.

She lost.

That is a bad candidate.

Pahleeeeeese!

Please STOP trying to help those leftarded dumbasses.

 

[whitehall]

It doesn't matter how incoherent angry democrats "are served" anymore. They tried to serve a lead sandwich to members of a republican baseball team and they have been threatening the life of the President for six months. It doesn't matter why Hillary lost. What matters is the mental health of the dwindling radical angry and incoherent democrat base.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The smartest liberals around here knew Hillary was a bad bet all along.

Like this guy, who said:

"You realize, don't you, that if Hillary doesn't run, whatever value you might imagine Benghazi had disappears. Whatever value Hillary's support for the Iraq was might have had disappears. All the Clinton baggage you might imagine helps the GOP disappears.

Careful what you wish for."

Now who do you suppose said that? lol, I did, in 2014

New Benghazi E-mails Link White House to Doctoring of Talking Points

 

[JGalt]

Now that all the Trumptards have admitted she was a bad candidate, will they also admit that Trump could never have beaten a good candidate?

Why is that so difficult? Run someone better in 2020.

$1.2 billion was spent on her campaign.
The entire mainstream media advocated for her.
The incumbent POTUS actively campaigned for her.

She lost.

That is a bad candidate.

Do they really not know how bad a candidate she was, or is it that they can't admit it? Granted some have figured it out by now, but the majority of leftists spend more time trying to prove how bad Trump is, than figuring out what went wrong with their own party.

 

[HenryBHough]

Hillary will run again.

This time she'll rub her bace with a burnt cork and, if you don't vote for her, you're racist.

 

[Fang]

Now that all the Trumptards have admitted she was a bad candidate, will they also admit that Trump could never have beaten a good candidate?

Hillary was the best you had. So what does that say about your party?

 

[Fang]

The smartest liberals around here knew Hillary was a bad bet all along.

And yet Liberals were in the tank for her during the primaries. You do realize you just told us Liberals are dumb as shit.

 

[Tresha91203]

Now that all the Trumptards have admitted she was a bad candidate, will they also admit that Trump could never have beaten a good candidate?

Don't know about the Trump fans, but many of us who voted for Trump would say very loudly, "YES!" You have the DNC to thank for Trump.

I'll add that nothing has changed my mind and I still would not vote for Hillary. While I don't like Trump, I am relieved it's anyone (almost) but Hillary. I'd bet money if the election were tomorrow, Trump vs Clinton, the results would be the same.

 

[ColonelAngus]

If the Dems don't find some introspection soon, they will lose more seats in 2018 and lose POTUS again in 2020.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now that all the Trumptards have admitted she was a bad candidate, will they also admit that Trump could never have beaten a good candidate?

Hillary was the best you had. So what does that say about your party?

Bernie was beating Trump by bigger margins in the matchup polls than Clinton was. O'Malley could have beaten Trump. Biden could have easily beaten Trump. Jim Webb could have beaten Trump.

 

[Fang]

Now that all the Trumptards have admitted she was a bad candidate, will they also admit that Trump could never have beaten a good candidate?

Hillary was the best you had. So what does that say about your party?

Bernie was beating Trump by bigger margins in the matchup polls than Clinton was. O'Malley could have beaten Trump. Biden could have easily beaten Trump. Jim Webb could have beaten Trump.

But your party picked, uh, well rather "anointed" Hillary.

 

[deanrd]

Why is that so difficult? Run someone better in 2020.

$1.2 billion was spent on her campaign.
The entire mainstream media advocated for her.
The incumbent POTUS actively campaigned for her.

She lost.

That is a bad candidate.

Who?

 

[strollingbones]

the same could be said for the gop....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now that all the Trumptards have admitted she was a bad candidate, will they also admit that Trump could never have beaten a good candidate?

Hillary was the best you had. So what does that say about your party?

Bernie was beating Trump by bigger margins in the matchup polls than Clinton was. O'Malley could have beaten Trump. Biden could have easily beaten Trump. Jim Webb could have beaten Trump.

But your party picked, uh, well rather "anointed" Hillary.

The topic of this thread is about Democrats admitting Hillary was a bad candidate. I told everyone here she was a bad candidate as early as 2014, and I showed you one of the posts where I did it.

Now who else's opinion am I accountable for?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The smartest liberals around here knew Hillary was a bad bet all along.

And yet Liberals were in the tank for her during the primaries. You do realize you just told us Liberals are dumb as shit.

The liberal wing of the party mostly voted for Bernie.

 

[Fang]

The smartest liberals around here knew Hillary was a bad bet all along.

And yet Liberals were in the tank for her during the primaries. You do realize you just told us Liberals are dumb as shit.

The liberal wing of the party mostly voted for Bernie.

Which made them socialists. I never said socialists were dumb. Uninformed, yes. But not dumb.

 

[sartre play]

Even with 50% of the population being women, we have never even had a women vice president. she is just a regular looking woman for her age, so no extra votes for being hot. she is just a worker bee, no great one liners or elaborate political moves. to much policy, people wont read all that stuff. the democrats let a non democrat run. who beat a very loud but limited drum, saying just what a large segment of the population wanted to hear. same for republicans not much detail but just what that group wanted to hear. then we have all the scandals from 30 years forward, + crazy stuff like sex rings at pizza places & of course the Russia deal. I thought she had the barest of chances to win.