Even Vox says Hillary was a pretty shit candidate

The second main argument Shattered makes is that Clinton herself was a flawed candidate whom no campaign team could have saved. This argument hinges on the idea not that Clinton was failed by her staffers, but that she failed them by never articulating a political vision that they could use to capture the public’s imagination. It is in uncovering proof of this second thesis where the book is both most persuasive and most arresting — and where its lessons for the Democratic Party are the most salient.

And if they’re saying it then yes, she was a pretty shit candidate.

Hmm, or is this the reverse ferret? Because they still think all her policies are just great so therefore it must be the candidate that was flawed?

18 thoughts on “Even Vox says Hillary was a pretty shit candidate”

  1. So the Democrat Party is just like socialist governments. They only work when the “right” person is at the top.

    And like all socialist governments thru history, the Democrats have now failed to put the “right” person in charge.

    I don’t think either has a snowballs chance of fixing themselves. And the Democrats may have even a smaller chance because they have come to believe their role is to tell people how to think and behave – not listen to them.

    Democrats =modern Whigs.

  2. “Because they still think all her policies are just great so therefore it must be the candidate that was flawed? ”

    Nobody ever knew what her policies were – other than ‘get elected any way possible’.

    She was for good wars and against bad ones.
    She was for poor people
    She was for women

    But none of that ever came with concrete policies. Sanders, as despicable as he is, at least had the courage to list a few concrete policy proposals he’d try to implement if elected.

  3. Clinton’s policies were as follows:

    We’re going to do all the stuff you hated about the last guy. But it’ll be COMPLETLY different this time because I’ll be wearing a wig and dress.

  4. The Inimitable Steve

    The feministboilerplate.txt on Hillary Clinton is: strong, smart woman, Most Qualified Presidential Candidate Ever, YAAAS QUEEN! who lost only because of the evil Russian-FBI-KKKonspiracy.

    So what did this stunning and brave woman do on election night, after President Obama personally asked her to concede, and while her own supporters – people who had given her money and put in months of work trying to elect her – were crying their hearts out on the floor of the Javits Centre, after waiting all night to see their candidate?

    She hid.

    A man had to do her job for her, facing the press and telling the crowd to go home.

  5. “[But] no explanation of defeat can begin with anything other than the core problem of Hillary’s campaign — Hillary herself.”

    So riddle me this batman – 60,000,000 voted for her.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    The Inimitable Steve – “after President Obama personally asked her to concede,”

    I bet he enjoyed that.

  7. Social Justice Warrior

    Obviously Hillary was a poor candidate – look who she lost to.

    What made her a poor candidate is that she’s just not likeable on television. If you decided whether to vote for her by listening to her speak for thirty seconds, you’d chose someone else.

    Nevertheless, there are a lot of smart, productive people in the US who see things more deeply than that. Those people tend to concentrate themselves on the Northeast and West coasts, in states which voted overwhelmingly for Hillary.

    Trump, by contrast, appealed to low-information voters who wanted to hear simplistic solutions to difficult problems. Those are the people who stay in their home states.

    The US electoral system allows a minority of voters, distributed across the states receiving Federal subsidies, to outvote a majority concentrated in the smaller number states which pay for them. It’s not a good system.

  8. ‘It’s not a good system.’

    As opposed to the French system, where Paris will pick Macron for the country.

    ‘Trump, by contrast, appealed to low-information voters who wanted to hear simplistic solutions to difficult problems.’

    Left failure to accept Hillary as a shit candidate.

    Insulting people who voted for Trump as a strategy failed in the election; it’s not going to work now, either. But y’all keep it up!

    The Left has one solution for all problems: government. The people said GO F*** YOURSELVES. It’s called “democracy.”

    ‘Those people tend to concentrate themselves on the Northeast and West coasts’

    Elites should choose the president, not the people.

  9. Social Justice Warrior

    The plurality vote should choose the president. That’s democracy.

    To be fair to Trump, he appeals equally to low-information blog commentators.

  10. SJW


    If that was the method to be used to elect the President, you don’t know that Trump wouldn’t have won it.

    He at least had the basic intelligence to focus properly on what was needed to be President (ie the electoral college).

    For example, unlike Clinton, he actually went and campaigned in Wisconsin. She didn’t even visit, once? That was supposed to be part of her (270) “blue firewall”, for Christ’s sake. You would sort of think she might understand that? She was an idiot, pure and simple (as well as unlikeable).

    If plurality, Trump would no doubt have spent time in California and New York. Under electoral college, that was wasted time, so he didn’t.

    Low information?

  11. “The plurality vote should choose the president.”

    How colonial of you. You, an Englishman, know how the Americans should run their country.

    Didn’t we already have this conversation at some length?

  12. We as in we had rather a war over it a couple of hundred years ago and a bit.

    But your insistence, in the middle of a British general election, that the head of the executive part of government must be directly elected is, umm, amusing.

  13. Social Justice Warrior

    Come off it Tim, it wasn’t me who started talking about what “the people said”.

    I don’t have a particular preference for direct elections, so long as the system is not too distorted. We’ve had a couple of elections in the UK which resulted in victory for the party with fewer votes (1951 and October 1974), but at least the margins (as in the US 2000 presidential election) were small.

    The US has now got to the point where what’s clearly the less popular party controls the presidency, the legislature, and the (powerful and politicised) Supreme Court. That’s unhealthy.

  14. SJW

    “what’s clearly the less popular party”

    We’ve already established that you don’t actually know that.

    A lot of people in safe seats don’t bother voting, they know it’s a waste of time. Campaigns are also run differently.

    Hence, quite obviously, the % total vote in these systems does not necessarily represent the % total vote in an “every vote counts” system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *