Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

JI7

(90,984 posts)

9. Clinton got more votes, so no.

Reply to NRQ891 (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2016, 04:55 PM

Dec 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are people underestimating the 'No More Bushes or Clintons' sentiment this election? [View all] NRQ891 Dec 2016 OP

I would say it was a big factor... vi5 Dec 2016 #1

Are you equating the Democrats and Republicans? ismnotwasm Dec 2016 #2

It's about names and personalities, not the parties as such. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #4

Parties as such? ismnotwasm Dec 2016 #8

In other words, it doesn't equate the parties. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #12

Hmm ismnotwasm Dec 2016 #21

Im talking about the public perception of what at one point in time was a likely choice of finalists NRQ891 Dec 2016 #5

Yeah you keep saying that ismnotwasm Dec 2016 #10

because perhaps it's ummmm......TRUE? NRQ891 Dec 2016 #11

Yeah, you keep saying that ismnotwasm Dec 2016 #20

Interesting, but as I recall, Clinton actually won the popular vote. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #3

Plus 1000000000000 ....... Hekate Dec 2016 #7

Thanks. I cannot count that high, but I did just post the following separately: guillaumeb Dec 2016 #13

Thank you.. you'd think she was beat by that many votes they way they talk here nini Dec 2016 #22

Do we decide who wins the World Series or Super Bowl by how many fans they have? Exilednight Dec 2016 #41

By accepting the meme that Clinton "lost", this does two negative things. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #43

They don't. sfwriter Dec 2016 #33

no they are underestimating bigotry JI7 Dec 2016 #6

Clinton got more votes, so no. JI7 Dec 2016 #9

got more votes, but still lost to the most unpopular president-elect in history NRQ891 Dec 2016 #15

It amazes me that people who hated him voted for him. sfwriter Dec 2016 #34

Thanks for the false equivelence Buzz cook Dec 2016 #14

there was nothing false about reality of the perception NRQ891 Dec 2016 #16

No you didn't make it Buzz cook Dec 2016 #17

It was a factor, TheCowsCameHome Dec 2016 #18

Please clap. AngryAmish Dec 2016 #19

It was a big factor but a lot of people just don't like to admit it mtnsnake Dec 2016 #23

Certainly didn't help but part of the general geek tragedy Dec 2016 #24

Absolutely not, because it's a bullshit narrative anyway. BobbyDrake Dec 2016 #25

Are you underestimating Russia's interference with this election by overestimating other factors? blm Dec 2016 #26

ok, you've outed me - I'm KGB NRQ891 Dec 2016 #27

... SMC22307 Dec 2016 #31

He seems to be bringing up a single facet... sfwriter Dec 2016 #35

well he seems stupid because based on their record Obama is much more pro free trade JI7 Dec 2016 #37

It IS a real one, and pales in comparison to swing state vote suppression, blm Dec 2016 #39

Bill Clinton had a very high approval rating when he left office, which was nearly 16 years ago. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #28

I always felt this argument was a bit of a setup for Hillary Clinton EffieBlack Dec 2016 #29

I think that sentiment hurt her EXACTLY where she lost the EC. sfwriter Dec 2016 #30

PEOPLE WERE DEMANDING HILLARY CLINTON AS OUR NOMINEE! THAT'S WHY SHE WAS VIRTUALLY THE ONLY CHOICE Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #32

Whatever.. now you have fucking trump.. hope they're smug about that Cha Dec 2016 #36

I don't know who thinks political dynasties are a good idea. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #38

I believe this is true because TrishaJ Dec 2016 #40

I think it's where Trump saw his opportunity NRQ891 Dec 2016 #42