Hillary was never a good candidate. Why did the Democrats pick her?

[Blackrook]

Hillary was never a good candidate. Why did the Democrats pick her?

I think it wasn't that they picked her, it's that they all just gave up and let her take the nomination without putting up a fight.

And by allowing Hillary to take the nomination, they almost certainly have lost the White House for four years, and maybe even eight.

Why did not a single decent Democratic politician rise up to oppose her?

I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders, who is a leftist extremist who would never stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected in the general.

Why didn't a moderate Democrat, a governor perhaps of a western or mid-western state, or a southern state, run for President?

Was it impossible to build a party consensus around a moderate, reasonable candidate in the face of the screaming juggernaut that is Hillary?

Did she just buy everyone off? Did she just scare everyone away? Did she just take it by fear and force?

I do not see why the Democrats allowed this to happen, and now we will have Trump as President, because the Democrats did not give us a reasonable alternative to Trump.

 

[easyt65]

Duh...it was her turn.

 

[Blackrook]

I'm not saying the Republicans are much better, but at least they TRIED to stop Trump. Now they have almost all abandoned their principles and fallen in behind him. And the Democrats cannot criticize, because they did not even TRY. Instead, they nominated Hillary, who was guaranteed to lose no matter who the Republican was who ran against her.

 

[Blackrook]

It's like the Democrats are a tired worn-out whore who can't resist the beatings of her pimp any more so just lies down and takes it, and Hillary and Bill are the pimps giving out the beatings.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hillary was never a good candidate. Why did the Democrats pick her?

I think it wasn't that they picked her, it's that they all just gave up and let her take the nomination without putting up a fight.

And by allowing Hillary to take the nomination, they almost certainly have lost the White House for four years, and maybe even eight.

Why did not a single decent Democratic politician rise up to oppose her?

I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders, who is a leftist extremist who would never stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected in the general.

Why didn't a moderate Democrat, a governor perhaps of a western or mid-western state, or a southern state, run for President?

Was it impossible to build a party consensus around a moderate, reasonable candidate in the face of the screaming juggernaut that is Hillary?

Did she just buy everyone off? Did she just scare everyone away? Did she just take it by fear and force?

I do not see why the Democrats allowed this to happen, and now we will have Trump as President, because the Democrats did not give us a reasonable alternative to Trump.

In your subjective, errant opinion.

Clinton represents the views of a large majority of democrats – moderate, pragmatic, middle of the road.

And democrats correctly understand that Clinton can best withstand Trump’s personal attacks and lies, unlike Sanders.

 

[Blackrook]

Hillary was never a good candidate. Why did the Democrats pick her?

I think it wasn't that they picked her, it's that they all just gave up and let her take the nomination without putting up a fight.

And by allowing Hillary to take the nomination, they almost certainly have lost the White House for four years, and maybe even eight.

Why did not a single decent Democratic politician rise up to oppose her?

I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders, who is a leftist extremist who would never stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected in the general.

Why didn't a moderate Democrat, a governor perhaps of a western or mid-western state, or a southern state, run for President?

Was it impossible to build a party consensus around a moderate, reasonable candidate in the face of the screaming juggernaut that is Hillary?

Did she just buy everyone off? Did she just scare everyone away? Did she just take it by fear and force?

I do not see why the Democrats allowed this to happen, and now we will have Trump as President, because the Democrats did not give us a reasonable alternative to Trump.

In your subjective, errant opinion.

Clinton represents the views of a large majority of democrats – moderate, pragmatic, middle of the road.

And democrats correctly understand that Clinton can best withstand Trump’s personal attacks and lies, unlike Sanders.

Except that Sanders isn't coated with a thick, slimy layer of scandal, built up from decades of breaking the law.

 

[oreo]

Hillary was never a good candidate. Why did the Democrats pick her?

I think it wasn't that they picked her, it's that they all just gave up and let her take the nomination without putting up a fight.

And by allowing Hillary to take the nomination, they almost certainly have lost the White House for four years, and maybe even eight.

Why did not a single decent Democratic politician rise up to oppose her?

I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders, who is a leftist extremist who would never stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected in the general.

Why didn't a moderate Democrat, a governor perhaps of a western or mid-western state, or a southern state, run for President?

Was it impossible to build a party consensus around a moderate, reasonable candidate in the face of the screaming juggernaut that is Hillary?

Did she just buy everyone off? Did she just scare everyone away? Did she just take it by fear and force?

I do not see why the Democrats allowed this to happen, and now we will have Trump as President, because the Democrats did not give us a reasonable alternative to Trump.

You are 100% wrong

Hillary Clinton will most certainly be the next POTUS. She is headed into this race with a 6 to 10 point advantage as the 1st woman Presidential nominee in this nation's history. Women rule today as the largest voting block in this country, and they will be voting for her heavily. 73% of women in this country have an unfavorable opinion of Donald Trump.
73 percent of women voters have an 'unfavorable' view of Donald Trump

Trump and his supporters have chased off every voting block you can shake a stick at. Primarily Hispanics, 17% of the population, or all 23 million of them are now solidly in Clinton's column. This when the GOP nominee needed at least 46% of this block to win the white house, Trump is polling at an historic Negative 80%.
GOP Win Will Need More Than 40 Percent Of Latino 2016 Vote, Says Study
Poll: 8 in 10 Hispanics don’t like Trump
Latino conservatives: If Donald Trump is the nominee, we will not work to elect him

Now add to this, that half of Republican women will not cast a vote for Trump, and there are millions of Republican men that will be voting for Hillary Clinton to keep Donald Trump out of the oval office.
Poll: Nearly half of Republican women wouldn't vote for Trump
I’ll Take Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump
Mac Stipanovich: An open letter to my fellow Republicans

These numbers are already indicating that Hillary Clinton is going to paint this country blue from sea to shining sea. In fact they're so bad Republicans will lose the senate, and tons of seats in the house, and down ballot races all across this country.

In fact, Republicans only hope was for a Bernie Sanders nominee, who would have been creamed in a National Election.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'm not saying the Republicans are much better, but at least they TRIED to stop Trump. Now they have almost all abandoned their principles and fallen in behind him. And the Democrats cannot criticize, because they did not even TRY. Instead, they nominated Hillary, who was guaranteed to lose no matter who the Republican was who ran against her.

I can agree with most of your post. Hillary would lose against almost all the 16 candidates that started out the run for president. However, I'm pretty sure she can beat Trump, only because he's even worse than Hillary. That's how bad Trump is.
His policy statements either lack substance or just plain don't make sense, either by showing ignorance of the subject or they are laced with contradiction within the topic line.
Plus, his childish insults/behavior may have carried him to the nomination but now he is to dealing with the general voting public which is a totally different crowd than the demographic which has supported him. .

 

[MarathonMike]

Yes the Dems are in quite a pickle with Hillary having to fight a 3 front war between Trump, Sanders and her criminal investigations. If she loses California, that's going to make for one doozy of a convention. Remember when the Dems were salivating over a GOP contested convention?

 

[Gracie]

Did she just buy everyone off? Did she just scare everyone away? Did she just take it by fear and force?

Yes

 

[HenryBHough]

Hillary was never a good candidate. Why did the Democrats pick her?.

There, in the first sentence of a longer post is the display of failure to understand the process.

Hillary is NOT the pick of The Democrat Party.

The Democrat Party has not yet had their convention - definitely having made NO "pick".

I feel The Democrat Party will NOT "pick" Hillary. Indeed, they will not "pick" at all. They'll merely rubberstamp the name George Soros tells them to "pick".

In any case, it is becoming increasingly clear that the "pick" will more likely be Fauxahontas - if only to assure the "Native American" vote. Too bad The Democrat Party has forgotten that most of those were killed off by - who else - the federal government!

 

[oreo]

I'm not saying the Republicans are much better, but at least they TRIED to stop Trump. Now they have almost all abandoned their principles and fallen in behind him. And the Democrats cannot criticize, because they did not even TRY. Instead, they nominated Hillary, who was guaranteed to lose no matter who the Republican was who ran against her.

I can agree with most of your post. Hillary would lose against almost all the 16 candidates that started out the run for president. However, I'm pretty sure she can beat Trump, only because he's even worse than Hillary. That's how bad Trump is.
His policy statements either lack substance or just plain don't make sense, either by showing ignorance of the subject or they are laced with contradiction within the topic line.
Plus, his childish insults/behavior may have carried him to the nomination but now he is to dealing with the general voting public which is a totally different crowd than the demographic which has supported him. .

No she wouldn't have lost against any of them. A little election history for you. In 2012 it was women that secured a 2nd term for Barack Obama. Women have a sour opinion of the Republican party, because they campaign on women's issues. In 2012 abortion was on their platform, which then went into who's not going to pay for birth control pills, that then went into what is legal legitimate rape questions which sent women running into Obama's column by double digits, younger women by 36 points.
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump

In 2012 Republicans also made their platform about immigration, deportation, etc. The last Republican President to win was G.W. Bush who captured 44% of this block and won, Romney only captured 27% of this block and lost.

These are two very large voting blocks that Republicans continually chase off. Mitt Romney's fate was sealed long before he even became the nominee of the party.

Instead of Republicans learning anything from the loss in 2012, they lined their stage again with several candidates that in no way could have won the White House. They would not have won women or Hispanics, much less Independents. They were: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindhal, Rick Perry & Scott Walker. This country would have never elected a 3rd Bush, so Jeb Bush was done. This left Chris Christie, who has a lot of scandal baggage, who is also capable of offending many, and John Kasich who I believe was the only one that could have given Hillary Clinton a run for her money, as he could have appealed to the majority, but he still would have been a tough sell.

Frankly, there was no one on their raining men platform that would have attracted the majority of voters in this country. I believe Hillary Clinton would have defeated any of them.

As far as Republicans falling in line???? You haven't been paying much attention. Read the links again in the prior post and this.
McConnell Tells GOP Senators: We’ll Drop Trump ‘Like A Hot Rock’

The ONLY candidate that would have lost against all of them would have been Bernie Sanders. All of the above would have united to keep a socialist out of the oval office., and Donald Trump would be the next President. This country is center, it always has been, it always will be. It will not elect far left or far right candidates, much less a recognized and confirmed socialist who is out there campaigning on free college tuition, adding 29 trillion dollars to Federal Government spending, when we're already 19 trillion in red ink. Much less a candidate that is on record for praising one of the most brutal, murderous dictators that came out of the 20th century, that Republicans were certain to remind everyone of.
Bernie Sanders heaped praise on Fidel Castro in 1985 interview

If Bernie Sanders were the nominee of the party, here is what you would see on election night. Just move the blue over to Vermont. This is the election disaster, that instituted 714 Democrat Super Delegates to prevent another one from happening. Reagan v Mondale 1984

 

[Blackrook]

I'm not saying the Republicans are much better, but at least they TRIED to stop Trump. Now they have almost all abandoned their principles and fallen in behind him. And the Democrats cannot criticize, because they did not even TRY. Instead, they nominated Hillary, who was guaranteed to lose no matter who the Republican was who ran against her.

I can agree with most of your post. Hillary would lose against almost all the 16 candidates that started out the run for president. However, I'm pretty sure she can beat Trump, only because he's even worse than Hillary. That's how bad Trump is.
His policy statements either lack substance or just plain don't make sense, either by showing ignorance of the subject or they are laced with contradiction within the topic line.
Plus, his childish insults/behavior may have carried him to the nomination but now he is to dealing with the general voting public which is a totally different crowd than the demographic which has supported him. .

I believed all that too. In February, I never forsaw that Trump would win primary after primary, caucus after caucus, while the other candidates dropped out one at a time. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, for people to finally wake up and realize how insane it was to vote for Trump, but that never happened. And every time Trump said something stupid, obnoxious, or outrageous, it did not hurt him, it made him MORE POPULAR.

And Hillary is a weaker candidate than all of the Republicans that Trump has already defeated, for any of them could have beat her. She has a negative personality, an annoying presence, a harsh voice, a grating arrogance, and she is completely and utterly corrupt, without even the slightest shred of morals or scruples. All Trump has to do is talk about her past, and Bill's past, and he is guaranteed to win. Or he can talk about her failures as Secretary of State, including Benghazi and the emails, or he can talk about the slushfund known as the Clinton Foundation, a piggy bank for Wall Street Banks, foreign governments, millionaires and billionaires, and even the terror-sponsoring state Saudi Arabia.

 

[HUGGY]

Hillary was never a good candidate. Why did the Democrats pick her?

I don't think the dems picked her as much as she picked them, not unlike Trump taking the GOP's nomination. She has been running for the last 5 years. She just believes it is her turn and started paving the way a very long time ago. I think she is doing it out of spite ever since the attacks on her over Benghazi and the e-mail accusations and her perception that her husband was unfairly impeached by the senate even though she stood by her man. I believe she feels that the same elements that went after her husband need to be defeated by public referendum which would be her getting elected president. I don't think she offers a damned thing that America hasn't already seen and some of what Bill's office signed was the worst legislation we have ever had. NAFTA and GATS paved the way to some of the worst trade agreements America has ever entered into.

 

[candycorn]

Hillary was never a good candidate. Why did the Democrats pick her?

I think it wasn't that they picked her, it's that they all just gave up and let her take the nomination without putting up a fight.

And by allowing Hillary to take the nomination, they almost certainly have lost the White House for four years, and maybe even eight.

Why did not a single decent Democratic politician rise up to oppose her?

I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders, who is a leftist extremist who would never stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected in the general.

Why didn't a moderate Democrat, a governor perhaps of a western or mid-western state, or a southern state, run for President?

Was it impossible to build a party consensus around a moderate, reasonable candidate in the face of the screaming juggernaut that is Hillary?

Did she just buy everyone off? Did she just scare everyone away? Did she just take it by fear and force?

I do not see why the Democrats allowed this to happen, and now we will have Trump as President, because the Democrats did not give us a reasonable alternative to Trump.

Can’t wait to bring this one up again on a Wednesday in November.

 

[candycorn]

I'm not saying the Republicans are much better, but at least they TRIED to stop Trump. Now they have almost all abandoned their principles and fallen in behind him. And the Democrats cannot criticize, because they did not even TRY. Instead, they nominated Hillary, who was guaranteed to lose no matter who the Republican was who ran against her.

I can agree with most of your post. Hillary would lose against almost all the 16 candidates that started out the run for president. However, I'm pretty sure she can beat Trump, only because he's even worse than Hillary. That's how bad Trump is.
His policy statements either lack substance or just plain don't make sense, either by showing ignorance of the subject or they are laced with contradiction within the topic line.
Plus, his childish insults/behavior may have carried him to the nomination but now he is to dealing with the general voting public which is a totally different crowd than the demographic which has supported him. .

People forget the national history of this.

Truman got 2 terms D
Ike got 2 terms-R
Kennedy would have gotten 2 terms-D
Nixon got 2 terms-R
Carter got one term-D
Reagan got two terms-R
Bush Sr. got 1 term-R
Clinton got 2 terms-D
Bush Jr. got 2 terms-rR
Obama got 2 terms-D

We have a very predictable history of switching parties every 8 years when we have a 2 term president. HRC should be very far behind the GOP nominee; not leading in most polls and dominating the electoral college.

 

[Hossfly]

Hillary was never a good candidate. Why did the Democrats pick her?.

There, in the first sentence of a longer post is the display of failure to understand the process.

Hillary is NOT the pick of The Democrat Party.

The Democrat Party has not yet had their convention - definitely having made NO "pick".

I feel The Democrat Party will NOT "pick" Hillary. Indeed, they will not "pick" at all. They'll merely rubberstamp the name George Soros tells them to "pick".

In any case, it is becoming increasingly clear that the "pick" will more likely be Fauxahontas - if only to assure the "Native American" vote. Too bad The Democrat Party has forgotten that most of those were killed off by - who else - the federal government!

Hillary was never a good candidate. Why did the Democrats pick her?.

There, in the first sentence of a longer post is the display of failure to understand the process.

Hillary is NOT the pick of The Democrat Party.

The Democrat Party has not yet had their convention - definitely having made NO "pick".

I feel The Democrat Party will NOT "pick" Hillary. Indeed, they will not "pick" at all. They'll merely rubberstamp the name George Soros tells them to "pick".

In any case, it is becoming increasingly clear that the "pick" will more likely be Fauxahontas - if only to assure the "Native American" vote. Too bad The Democrat Party has forgotten that most of those were killed off by - who else - the federal government!

Soros or Sorass?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hillary was never a good candidate. Why did the Democrats pick her?

I think it wasn't that they picked her, it's that they all just gave up and let her take the nomination without putting up a fight.

And by allowing Hillary to take the nomination, they almost certainly have lost the White House for four years, and maybe even eight.

Why did not a single decent Democratic politician rise up to oppose her?

I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders, who is a leftist extremist who would never stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected in the general.

Why didn't a moderate Democrat, a governor perhaps of a western or mid-western state, or a southern state, run for President?

Was it impossible to build a party consensus around a moderate, reasonable candidate in the face of the screaming juggernaut that is Hillary?

Did she just buy everyone off? Did she just scare everyone away? Did she just take it by fear and force?

I do not see why the Democrats allowed this to happen, and now we will have Trump as President, because the Democrats did not give us a reasonable alternative to Trump.

Because this is politics. She has a name. Of the other two who stood, one no one can remember his name even now, the other was unknown and not even an member of the Democratic Party.

So, she was the only candidate who stood a chance and stood for what(ever the hell) the Democratic Party stands for (does it stand for anything? Doubtful).

 

[oreo]

Yes the Dems are in quite a pickle with Hillary having to fight a 3 front war between Trump, Sanders and her criminal investigations. If she loses California, that's going to make for one doozy of a convention. Remember when the Dems were salivating over a GOP contested convention?

Sanders could get every single vote in California, and still lose the nomination.

Hillary Clinton will win & secure the nomination on June 7th, before California comes in. New Jersey with 142 delegates, and New Mexico with 43 will be reporting. Prior to June 7th Puerto Rico will be voting, and I imagine Hillary Clinton will do very well there as they are Hispanic.

Hillary Clinton needs 73 more delegates
Bernie Sanders needs 841 more delegates.

Primary schedule

Jun 4 Virgin Islands Caucus 12
Jun 5 Puerto Rico Primary 67
Jun 7 California 546
Jun 7 Montana 27
Jun 7 New Jersey 142
Jun 7 New Mexico 43
Jun 7 North Dakota Caucus 23
Jun 7 South Dakota 25
Jun 14 District of Columbia 46
total delegates left 913

Now you can understand why everyone is scratching their heads as to why Bernie Sanders hasn't dropped out of this race.

 

[Blackrook]

It just seems that if Hillary is really the best candidate the Democrats can come up with, then the entire party is a failure. This is a failure of energy, a failure of imagination, a failure of vision, a failure of hope, and a failure of a desire for a better tomorrow.

Hillary is the anti-JFK. He represented youth, vigor, idealism, courage, and strength of conviction. Hillary is the opposite of all these things: she is old, sick, cynical, cowardly, and totally lacking in any convictions at all.

JFK represented a bright new future for America. Hillary represents a dark, ugly past, a hearkening back to the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States, her husband Bill, one of only two Presidents to be impeached, a President who ended his term with a flurry of pardons for his corrupt co-conspirators, and plea bargains for himself, and he was disbarred and disgraced for telling lies under oath.

She is literally the worst candidate that has ever been this close to nomination, and if she is nominated, it will be an unmitigated disaster for the United States, because it will mean the BOTH PARTIES have failed to nominate reasonable candidates who would make reasonably competent and ethical Presidents.