Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Hillary was too upset to give a concession speech on election night

A new book about Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign details the moment she realized she lost the race to Donald Trump.

The New York Post published an excerpt from the book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Election Campaign. Part of it reads that Hillary Clinton took her assistant’s phone and “faked a smile with her voice,” congratulating Trump while “suppressing the anger that touched every nerve in her body.”

The night of November 8, Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, were watching the returns in their suite on the top floor of The Peninsula Hotel in Manhattan.

“Hillary was still surprisingly calm, unable or unwilling to delve into the details of how her dream was turning into a nightmare,” authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes write in the book.

“Bill was less reticent. He’d had a sinking feeling that the British vote to leave the European Union had been a harbinger for a kind of screw-it vote in the United States.

“He’d seen the trans-Atlantic phenomenon of populist rage at rallies across the country, and warned friends privately of his misgivings about its effect on Hillary’s chances.

“Now his focus turned back to the international movement he’d seen gathering. ‘It’s like Brexit,’ he lamented. ‘I guess it’s real’.”

Earlier on the book describes campaign manager Robby Mook telling Clinton he doesn’t see how they are going to win. Clinton tells him she understands but was not ready to officially bow out of the race.

“I’m not ready to go give this speech,” Clinton is quoted as saying in the book. Then President Obama personally picked up the phone to call her and tell her to concede.

Trump credited Clinton for being a smart opponent who ran a tough campaign, his phone call with Clinton lasting about a minute, according to the book.

by Anonymousreply 134February 20, 2020 12:51 PM

No different than any male Presidential candidate who had to concede. The difference being that the election was stolen from her with the help of Russian trash. She was disappointed and she had a right to be bitter. Stop being a shit stirrer.

by Anonymousreply 1May 2, 2017 1:36 AM

I'm reading this book. Much of the content DL cannot cope with so I will just say the blame it lays at Hillary's feet is objective and not shaming. But she made her share of major and minor mistakes. For anyone with an open mind, read the book. It's fascinating.

by Anonymousreply 2May 2, 2017 2:27 AM

R2 she won by 3 million votes. The are currently 2 grand jury investigations. More information is coming in everyday. I think it was a little early to write the book about this election.

by Anonymousreply 3May 2, 2017 8:44 AM

Duh, she was too upset. And all sane voters would have been too upset to listen to a concession speech by her on election night.

by Anonymousreply 4May 2, 2017 9:30 AM

Too drunk to make a public appearance.

by Anonymousreply 5May 2, 2017 10:20 AM

R3 keep dreaming

by Anonymousreply 6May 2, 2017 10:26 AM

This is the only occassion that I have ever seen a politician fail to make a concession speech. I've never seen that happen before.

Huge failing as far as I'm concerned. At the very least she should have thanked her supporters for their efforts.

She let the side down on this one.

by Anonymousreply 7May 2, 2017 10:54 AM

How soon we forget. She let all of those shell shocked supporters languish in the false hope that it wasn't over and then took a powder and allowed Podesta to come out and lie to them again. She owed it to them to tell them in person that it was over and that she appreciated their support but it was time to go home. Classless, Bush League move on her part. Not listening to her husband, the quintessential politician, was her biggest mistake.

by Anonymousreply 8May 2, 2017 11:35 AM

Give it a rest Trump trolls. She won the popular vote by 3 MILLION. No one cares that she didn't make a speech 6 months ago. Seriously, with all we know about Russia and all the divisive garbage from Trump, you're focusing on this still?

by Anonymousreply 9May 2, 2017 11:41 AM

People want Hills to be some nurturing grandmotherly type. But she's a politician first. That was off putting to a lot of the traditional family values types, as well as other women.

Don't think I've ever used the phrase "dumb cunts" as much as I have in the 2016 Presidential race. When supposedly forward thinking feminists like Susan Sarandon speak out against the most qualified female to run for POTUS ever, it gets a lot of use. Susan needs to be punched in her face.

by Anonymousreply 10May 2, 2017 11:48 AM

R9, those 3 million votes came from California. She won California by a big margin. She lost the popular vote in more states (30) than she won (20) and in this country... that's all that counts. This whole "she won the popular vote" thing has as much merit to it as Trump's insanity that he had the most well attended inauguration.

by Anonymousreply 11May 2, 2017 11:52 AM

R11, three million more people voted for her than Trump. Period. Stop spinning. You're a fool.

by Anonymousreply 12May 2, 2017 11:55 AM

[quote]those 3 million votes came from California.

And?

by Anonymousreply 13May 2, 2017 11:55 AM

R12, no, sweetie, when 1 state out of 50 gives you the edge, it's not a broad based win. It simply means the blue state with the most people voted for the blue candidate. Sorry, that's it, pure and simple. Again, the argument is as dumb as Trump saying there were millions at his inauguration.

by Anonymousreply 14May 2, 2017 11:58 AM

I don't think you can underestimate the shock of Trump's win- he himself seemed bowled over by it. He seems absolutely shocked with the job.

by Anonymousreply 15May 2, 2017 11:58 AM

I think he had a sense it could happen, r15. I haven't read the book, but I also get the feeling Hillary knew that she wasn't doing well in the last few days of the campaign. The red flag for me was when she canceled the fireworks display. I don't know if this came up in the book.

by Anonymousreply 16May 2, 2017 12:03 PM

Actually it was 2.8 million votes. We can't count any better than Trump can read.

by Anonymousreply 17May 2, 2017 12:04 PM

[quote]when 1 state out of 50 gives you the edge, it's not a broad based win.

Bullshit spin.

When your opponent actually won 3 million voted more it is not a win, period. It's a scam. The electoral college should be abolished and every vote should count the same. It's egregiously undemocratic that a vote in Wyoming is 5 times as powerful as one in New York.

by Anonymousreply 18May 2, 2017 12:09 PM

R18. 1 state out if 50 gave her the edge in the popular vote...a metric that is meaningless in our election. Meanwhile, Trump turned formerly blue states red. Holding one large, true blue state is what that 2.8 million means. Trump flipping states, whether it be by 1 vote or 100,000 votes, is what did her in. And some of these states were blue for decades.

by Anonymousreply 19May 2, 2017 12:15 PM

Idiotic, provincial conservative trolls here trying to claim that votes in California somehow matter less than votes in other states when calculating who won the most votes in a national election. Don't throw your backs out trying to spin this.

by Anonymousreply 20May 2, 2017 12:22 PM

Actually, r20, she lost the election. The only spin is people like you swearing that California's vote counts more than Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin... four blue wall states for 30 plus years that flipped this election.

by Anonymousreply 21May 2, 2017 12:26 PM

R3, I couldn't care less what you think. Your opinions are apparently shaped by star power and let's pretend we're living in Hillary Clinton's presidency. I guess you are happy of there. Many of us like to read and learn and don't wait until the environment will support conditions as we would wish them to be. Poor little lamb.

by Anonymousreply 22May 2, 2017 12:27 PM

Hillary is very very sad. Why is this book rubbing it in?

by Anonymousreply 23May 2, 2017 12:29 PM

The first book after a scandal/tragedy/defeat are usually less nuanced and thought out (by necessity) than later books.

People need to hate Hillary for some reason. They think it makes them smart or powerful.

I always give these posts the benefit of the doubt, and it devolves into Hillary (and now weirdly) California bashing.

by Anonymousreply 24May 2, 2017 12:38 PM

It's actually a well-thought out book, R24. You should read it before -- dare I say -- "bashing" It.

by Anonymousreply 25May 2, 2017 12:42 PM

R25, I'm sure it's entertaining, but as a historian, until the documents surrounding the election (especially Russian interference or proof there was no interference) are released, I'll wait for the post mortum.

I'm a liberal who is just obsessed with facts. #sad

by Anonymousreply 26May 2, 2017 12:45 PM

R24, nobody is bashing California. There is no judgement being made on the state or its voters whatsoever. When someone says she won by 3 million, saying that it came from California is not bashing the state. And, if you do consider that bashing, then you sound like a drama queen who lives in a bubble. It is a fact that she won the most popular, blue state by a wide margin and still lost the election. It is not spin to say that winning 1 state doesn't negate the four, big previously states that fliiped red after 30 plus years.

by Anonymousreply 27May 2, 2017 12:51 PM

I also thought it was strange for her to cancel the fireworks. Unfortunately, that became a little news story in itself. Why not keep the fireworks order and if you lose, just don't set them off?

Something else was alarming to me...maybe it was early on Election Day and maybe she and Bill were walking on the sidewalk outside the polls. And Hillary looked sad and meek to me and said something like "if people do me the honor of voting for me..." It just sounded strange and out of character.

by Anonymousreply 28May 2, 2017 1:54 PM

Lunacy abounds.

Here's what's going down:

[bold] 1. Dems who donated huge sums are furious with the Clintons [/bold] Or Mrs. Clinton, to be exact. "Shattered" is a well-researched, well-thought out book that was supposed to be the very pro-Clinton story of how she won the election. The authors had deep access to her team, her friends, people at the DNC ... and so it's being taken as proof that what everyone had been saying to themselves or among select groups of friends was true: that she ran the worst campaign possible, riven with infighting and (the worst sin of all) without any sort of a clear message beyond "It's My Turn." The fact that her staffers considered actually using that line as a slogan is probably the most damning part of the book. And people were indeed furious that she did not come out that night to speak to supporters who had given her millions and even angrier that she is not taking any of the blame for her loss--it's almost comical, the way her list of "reasons I lost" gets bigger every day. People who donated six- and seven-figure sums to the campaign are furious and want her to stop making public appearances and let Obama take over as senior Democrat. The fact that Obama's main speechwriter, Jon Favreau is on record in "Shattered" as a saying her campaign was a clusterfuck, is very telling.

[bold] Harping on the 3 million vote victory just makes you look stupid [/bold]. It's like claiming that your team won the Super Bowl because they had more completed passes or more rushing yardage even though the final score was against them. Hillary knew that the game was to win the Electoral College. Whether you agree with the premise of the Electoral College is immaterial: the game was not to rack up 3 million extra votes in California; the game was to win the most electoral votes. Period. That meant winning the most states, but whatever margin needed. Bill Clinton was elected with one of the lowest percentages of popular vote (43%) but he won the electoral college vote. Again, because, like it or not, that is how the election is run.

by Anonymousreply 29May 2, 2017 2:34 PM

R28, because in NY, once a fireworks display is set up it must be shot off. So, it was either cancel the display or shoot it off regardless of who won.

by Anonymousreply 30May 2, 2017 2:43 PM

I read the book. She made loads of mistakes during the campaign but it's hard not to be sympathetic towards her, especially the end where her friend talks about her still being crushed inside. And the bit where she changed the line in what was meant to be her victory speech talking about her mother and what she would say to her in that moment.

by Anonymousreply 31May 2, 2017 2:43 PM

Look, Russia might have hacked this election, but the argument that "Hillary won because...popular vote" is idiotic, specious, and ahistorical.

We have an Electoral College. If you wouldn't have complained about the system were HRC now in the WH, it is beneath you to gripe about it now.

And it is not "too soon" to have a book that details reactions on Election Night. There will be a plethora of books to follow.

by Anonymousreply 32May 2, 2017 2:44 PM

Again R26, while there are many instances of books being rushed to press to capitalize on a historical event, "Shattered" is not that type of book.

It is well-researched and written by people who had deep access to her team. People who know what went down acknowledge that the book is true. That's why there's been no real backlash against it.

It was supposed to be a glowing report of how the first female president won the 2016 election. Team Clinton changed that narrative.

by Anonymousreply 33May 2, 2017 2:48 PM

I bet, r31. She was a good senator for NY. She won both Senate elections easily and in her own right. The thing I don't understand is that she was a good campaigner when she ran for the Senate. She reached out and connected to the average person, which is something that she seemed unwilling to do in both presidential campaigns, particular this last one. Even her messaging for Senate was on point. She was focused and a policy wonk, but not to the degree where it was off putting.

by Anonymousreply 34May 2, 2017 2:49 PM

r28, Team HRC cancelled the fireworks because, unlike her voters and maybe even the candidate, they could read the proverbial writing on the voting-booth wall. And it wasn't "For a good time, call 555-HRC-PREZ." So why pay not to set them off?

by Anonymousreply 35May 2, 2017 2:50 PM

She was the best qualified Presidential candidate EVER , she wasted two years of her life on the path to nowhere and had to sit and watch a moron with no conscience, no compassion, no experience and on policies being handed the job. In all honesty, I would have been in a fucking rage too. I admire her grace and dignity.

by Anonymousreply 36May 2, 2017 2:53 PM

[quote] Hillary was too upset to give a concession speech on election night

weren't most of us too upset to hear a concession speech on election night, I know I was.

I wish Al Gore had not been so quick to concede, retract, then eventually concede again.

by Anonymousreply 37May 2, 2017 2:56 PM

[quote] She was the best qualified Presidential candidate EVER

No, she wasn't.

by Anonymousreply 38May 2, 2017 3:01 PM

The "qualified" argument is not valid R36, and if anything, was quite detrimental to her campaign.

To begin with, it's simply not true.

Bush The Elder was the "most qualified" candidate in recent times as he'd been a:

*Congressman

* US Ambassador to the United Nations

* Chairman of the RNC

* US Ambassador to China

* Director of the CIA

* Two-term Vice President

And as we saw, "most qualified" did not make him a great president.

Then there's the Obama issue: Barack Obama was probably the [italic] least [/italic] qualified person in recent history to run for President. He was a junior Senator. Period. (Hillary tried to use that against him in '08 and failed.)

So you have Hillary, claiming that she deserves to be president because she is the "most qualified" only her plan is to continue to policies of the man who was the least "qualified" candidate but who went on to become a very popular and effective president

You can't have it both ways.

(Not to mention the fact that "most qualified" sounds like it's in the same genre as "but she's got a great personality!")

by Anonymousreply 39May 2, 2017 3:03 PM

R34 After the New Hampshire primary where Bernie beat her by 20 points she said to her friend she didn't understand the country and what was happening. I think she hasn't had much contact with people from middle america for too long and had no idea of the frustration and anger. Also I think she became too risk averse, she was always in front in the polls and played it safe. I think in her first NY campaign she knew she would have to fight for votes and prove herself, but for the Presidency she kind of seemed to rest on her laurels.

by Anonymousreply 40May 2, 2017 3:04 PM

So Californians don't count as Americans?

by Anonymousreply 41May 2, 2017 3:10 PM

R39 and he had a penis, absolutely the most important of qualifications.

by Anonymousreply 42May 2, 2017 3:11 PM

R39, the problem with Bush the First is that, when he initially ran, he was a moderate. The problem with becoming President after Reagan, was he had to continue Reagan's failing policies.

If he had been President instead of Reagan, he would have been better

by Anonymousreply 43May 2, 2017 3:12 PM

No one, now, give a fucking shit that she held her concession speech until the next morning. NO ONE.

by Anonymousreply 44May 2, 2017 3:13 PM

Sure Hillary made mistakes but so did Trump. If Trump had lost (and it was VERY close), we'd be talking about how incredible her campaign was.

by Anonymousreply 45May 2, 2017 3:14 PM

The majority of the country is still crushed HIllary didn't win, not just Hillary.

by Anonymousreply 46May 2, 2017 3:15 PM

R46 is why Hillary lost.

R42 Misogyny was not a big factor in her loss. People dislike her, not female candidates in general

R45 No. To her own point, she should have been up by 50 points. Trump was a clown.

by Anonymousreply 47May 2, 2017 3:21 PM

That makes sense, r40. Was that in the book? It really was/is amazing the striking differences in the Senate and presidential campaigns.

Sure, Californians count as Americans, R41. But, losing the election doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Californians are American. It's 50 individual races and not a popularity contest. The rules didn't change midway through the election and this wasn't her first presidential campaign. So if anyone should have known better it was Hillary, particularly given what r40 said about New Hampshire. Sanders win in the Michigan primary should have been another wakeup call.

by Anonymousreply 48May 2, 2017 3:21 PM

Also, R48-- Bill won by the smallest majority in modern times--he only received 43% of the popular vote. He won because of the electoral college.

by Anonymousreply 49May 2, 2017 3:23 PM

Can someone decipher the word salad at R22???

by Anonymousreply 50May 2, 2017 3:26 PM

Each time someone tries to roll that 3 million vote meme I know they must be stomping their foot as they hit Enter.

As for the subject of concession speeches, if the Russians had "hacked" the election and Trump's win wasn't legitimate, why did Obama the Wisest President Ever push her at midnight into calling Trump and congratulating the winner? When will the excuse-makers for Hillary begin saying Obama was a Putin puppet.

Lastly I guess we'll have to wait for Hillary's death before Robbie Mook dares tell the story of the beatdown Hillary laid on him and Podesta.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 51May 2, 2017 3:28 PM

[quote]He won because of the electoral college.

Nice detective work there, Sherlock. EVERY President has won "because" of the electoral college. And Bill Clinton also won the most popular votes as well, so your point is truly moot. He won 43% in a three-way race. Winning less than a majority but still a clear plurality of popular votes in a three-way race is not remotely the same as losing the popular votes. The most popular votes = winning the popular vote, regardless of the percentage.

by Anonymousreply 52May 2, 2017 3:32 PM

And of course the whole "Russia hacked the election" thing is fading away. The US Government (FBI) has never once even touched the DNC server, access was REFUSED numerous times. And, the company that DID (Crowdstrike - with ties to Soros funded thinktank) has been completely discredited. They've pulled this bogus "Russian hacking" shit before. They've even refused to go before the House Intel Committee. Look it up yourself. The extent of this whole nonsense story amounts to some 1000 fucking twitter sock accounts. WOW - Some fucking hack! Podesta was a phish. DNC was an insider leaker who was subsequently murdered. Not Russia. :)

by Anonymousreply 53May 2, 2017 3:35 PM

[quote]And of course the whole "Russia hacked the election" thing is fading away.

OMG keep telling yourself that, Vlad! 😆😆😆

by Anonymousreply 54May 2, 2017 3:37 PM

Russians:Dems = BIrtherism:GOP

by Anonymousreply 55May 2, 2017 3:38 PM

[quote]Misogyny was not a big factor in her loss.

😳

by Anonymousreply 56May 2, 2017 3:43 PM

Newt Gingrich shut down the government after Bill Clinton made him sit at the back on Air Force One.

Bill Thomas called the police on Democrats House members who walked out of a Ways and Means Committee meeting in protest of the way the GOP was running it.

Trump just a couple days ago pitched a hissy fit when a reporter asked a question he didn't like and then turned away, sat down and ignored him like a child playing "you can't see me!"

Hillary being too upset to give a speech after losing to a buffoon is positively refreshing compared to the standard temper tantrums thrown by idiot politicians all the time.

by Anonymousreply 57May 2, 2017 4:00 PM

If you can't see the difference between those instances and Clinton dissing supporters who had contributed millions to her campaign, then there is no hope for you Cecil B. R57

by Anonymousreply 58May 2, 2017 4:04 PM

Newt's lucky. He should have been duct taped to the wing.

by Anonymousreply 59May 2, 2017 4:07 PM

Giving a speech 12 hours later than expected = "dissing her supporters."

Only in Trumplandia.

by Anonymousreply 60May 2, 2017 4:18 PM

And yet it's just Trump supporters who are upset about this, and they need to troll this thread because their leader is tanking daily. But oh, yeah, let's blame Hillary (AGAIN) for "dissing" her supporters 6 months ago!

by Anonymousreply 61May 2, 2017 5:20 PM

[quote] “Bill was less reticent. He’d had a sinking feeling that the British vote to leave the European Union had been a harbinger for a kind of screw-it vote in the United States.

[quote] “He’d seen the trans-Atlantic phenomenon of populist rage at rallies across the country, and warned friends privately of his misgivings about its effect on Hillary’s chances.

[quote] “Now his focus turned back to the international movement he’d seen gathering. ‘It’s like Brexit,’ he lamented. ‘I guess it’s real’.”

I'm not a fan of Bill, but he's no dummy. These quotes, if true, show that at least someone around Hillary could see what was really happening. This is the first indication I've seen that anyone on the Dem side even acknowledges this.

by Anonymousreply 62May 2, 2017 5:27 PM

Just because you repeat that mantra over and over again doesn't make it true, r61. So in your world anyone who has a legitimate criticism of Clinton is a Trump troll? It isn't that she didn't show. She sent Podesta out to LIE to the people who were there for HER and had waited around for hours clinging to hope because she didn't concede. Because he told them it wasn't OVER. They needed to hear the TRUTH from HER. If you don't understand that then you won't ever get why so many people didn't trust her. Including 47% of white women. Hang on, Scout. She may have another job for you in Chelsea's campaign for the Senate.

by Anonymousreply 63May 2, 2017 5:33 PM

But you are a Trump troll if you are still leading the charge against Hillary 6 months after the election, R63. No one here buys your spin.

by Anonymousreply 64May 2, 2017 5:44 PM

She's on MSNBC right now and she totally ignored the question as to why she thinks 47% of white women didn't vote for her and launched into a filibuster about equal pay for equal work. She isn't taking ANY blame for losing. You don't have to be a Trump troll to see that she is either woefully self-deluded or unable to take any responsibility for being a flawed candidate.

by Anonymousreply 65May 2, 2017 5:48 PM

Did McCain apologize for losing? Romney? Kerry? Gore? Why does Hillary need to grovel and beg forgiveness? Double standard much?

Yes, this is sexism, no surprise.

by Anonymousreply 66May 2, 2017 5:53 PM

Regardless of what you think about his politics, there's no denying Bill Clinton is a natural born old-school politician. Hillary and Al Gore both made the mistake of not using him to their full advantage.

by Anonymousreply 67May 2, 2017 5:54 PM

[quote] Did McCain apologize for losing? Romney? Kerry? Gore?

Yes.

They all did.

Took the blame on themselves and apologized to the people who donated millions to their campaigns.

As have countless female politicians who lost.

by Anonymousreply 68May 2, 2017 5:58 PM

I would have taken to my bed chamber and not emerged for a month.

by Anonymousreply 69May 2, 2017 5:59 PM

Again. I'm just stating facts. Not leading a charge. Not spinning anything. Pretending that she isn't/wasn't perfect or responsible for her own failure is not helpful. Especially if the party hopes to win back those white blue collar voters who were, and still are, tired of the bullshit. Honest reflection on why and how the Democrats have lost touch with their base is paramount to winning them back. If you don't get THAT then be prepared for Trump 2.0 in 2020. Seriously.

by Anonymousreply 70May 2, 2017 6:00 PM

[quote] Giving a speech 12 hours later than expected = "dissing her supporters." Only in Trumplandia.

Or in DNC-landia

Once again, there were a lot of people there that night who donated six- and seven-figure sums to her campaign. They expected her to come out that night and were not happy about it.

by Anonymousreply 71May 2, 2017 6:00 PM

R64, what you keep referring to as "spin" others here think of as a cautionary guide on what not to do the next time. I sincerely hope tnat your attitude is not indicative of most liberals. If it is, then you might as well flush the next four years down the toilet too.

by Anonymousreply 72May 2, 2017 6:01 PM

R70 -- not worth arguing with them.

There are a few Cecil B's on DL who will not be convinced she isn't Jesus-in-a-Pantsuit and any non-glowing comments are construed as heresy.

Best to just not respond.

by Anonymousreply 73May 2, 2017 6:02 PM

On a positive note she looked really good. Taupe is a good color for her. Still wearing the pantsuits but the jacket was nicely tailored and she wore a lovely printed scarf that was very flattering. See. I like her. I really like her!

by Anonymousreply 74May 2, 2017 6:08 PM

Yeah R74.

The optics on many of her clothing choices, especially for the debates, fell into "WTF, is no one in charge here?" territory.

She needed to look like a "businesswoman"-- even Sheryl Sandberg manages that. Ditto Theresa May and Angela Merkel. Even Nikki Haley.

Instead she looked like some kind of Anna Wintour wannabe with that yellow Mao jacket thing.

Which only reinforced the notion that she was completely out of touch.

by Anonymousreply 75May 2, 2017 6:23 PM

[quote]Pretending that she isn't/wasn't perfect or responsible for her own failure is not helpful.

I guess you meant "pretending she is perfect?"

No one here is seriously doing that. No one here is saying she is perfect, faultless or not responsible for any of the failures of her campaign.

What people are arguing is that her lack of a concession speech on election night (or the very early hours of the day after) was not that big of a deal. You are seriously mischaracterizing the arguments in this thread if you think people are arguing about whether Hillary is perfect or not. I'm only arguing that the timing of her eventual concession speech the next day was hardly a big deal. Others here are clearly saying it was, and claiming "her supporters" were disrespected by this. As an actual supporter who knows many more supporters, this is laughable. All of the Hillary supporters I knew were really hoping she would find a way to challenge the results. None of us went to bed that night angry about a lack of a concession speech. Quite the opposite, in fact. We didn't want her to concede. I'm still glad she didn't right away.

Her campaign failed for many reasons; her shortcomings and strategic mistakes played a part like any other candidate, but the confluence of Russia, a partisan FBI director, a surge of far-right populism and, yes, misogyny, all played a role. Discounting the injustice of the electoral college is also suspect, as is claiming a few hundred thousand votes in swing states are a fair counterbalance to 2.8 million popular votes. These arguments do reveal the true loyalties of the speaker.

by Anonymousreply 76May 2, 2017 6:27 PM

R75 - misogyny at its best. Why don't you give Trump a fashion critique? God knows you'd have much more to talk about.

by Anonymousreply 77May 2, 2017 6:28 PM

R74, you are hilariously and quite cluelessly sexist. You like her? Really? You sure about that?

by Anonymousreply 78May 2, 2017 6:30 PM

R78 = the infamous lesbian Clinton defender.

Everything is sexism

Hillary is perfect.

I especially love this one

[quote]As an actual supporter who knows many more supporters, this is laughable.

Yes, but whereas you and the other supporters you know were listening to Indigo Girls songs and drinking calming spirit tea, the people inside the hotel, the ones who had donated six and seven figure amounts--those people were pissed as all hell.

You may not want to believe it, you likely don't know people like that, but they exist and it happened.

by Anonymousreply 79May 2, 2017 6:42 PM

Oh, and FWIW, Trump and his flyaway ties and $5K suits that somehow still looked like he bought them at The Men's Wearhouse-- perfect.

He's a TV star and billionaire-- the don't want him to look like one of them.

by Anonymousreply 80May 2, 2017 6:44 PM

In all honesty, Hillary should apologize.

by Anonymousreply 81May 2, 2017 8:45 PM

Ha ha - Remember the brouhaha over Trump's debate answer to the question "Will you accept the results of the election?" They said that answer would sink him, that it was O-V-E-R. Hillary said it was dangerous and un-American. They when ON and ON over that little morsel of faux outrage. Then, Her Exalted Royal Highness Hillary, Queen of All She Surveys, shits the bed on election night and refuses to concede until the NEXT day and THEN participates in the ridiculous forced recounts. Very telling, and the ULTIMATE in hypocrisy.

by Anonymousreply 82May 2, 2017 8:57 PM

R57, you ended with:

"Hillary being too upset to give a speech after losing to a buffoon is positively refreshing compared to the standard temper tantrums thrown by idiot politicians all the time."

Being too upset to give a speech? Seriously? THAT's really what we need in a President, someone who needs a fainting couch when things don't go her way? You indict her with your own statement of support and you don't even realize it.

by Anonymousreply 83May 2, 2017 9:12 PM

She lost the election because of that cunt huma and perv husband. why she still doesn't cut ties with them is a mystery to me. some smart people are so stupid.

by Anonymousreply 84May 2, 2017 9:25 PM

R83, do you not understand the meaning of the phrase "compared to?"

There was no "fainting couch." There was no "statement of support." It was putting her behavior in context. It was perspective.

And what we have instead is a president who regularly throws temper tantrums. Again, being to upset to give a speech at an arbitrary time is a big fat nothingburger by comparison.

by Anonymousreply 85May 2, 2017 9:31 PM

R82 Gets it.

by Anonymousreply 86May 2, 2017 9:32 PM

R75 Agreed. She should've worn more outfits like this not Chairman Mao knockoffs (especially at the debates):

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 87May 2, 2017 9:37 PM

Average, relatable to the fraus (also doesn't look too expensive):

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 88May 2, 2017 9:40 PM

[quote] She should've worn more outfits like this not Chairman Mao knockoffs

Something in keeping with her personality. She never looked better.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 89May 2, 2017 9:46 PM

I think you're missing the big picture- no matter how "bad" Hillary's strategy was, Trump was and is a fucking joke. Of course no one could fathom intelligent Americans could vote for him, and that was the ultimate failure of strategy - overestimating the intelligence of average Americans. Like when I started debating OP.

by Anonymousreply 90May 2, 2017 10:45 PM

R82 makes a good point.

by Anonymousreply 91May 3, 2017 12:05 PM

She's getting her ass handed to her today for her refusal to actually OWN her own failures as a candidate as the REAL reason she lost. To the poorly dressed, toxically narcissistic, pathologicallly lying, shallow know nothing, sexist, misogynistic, pussy grabbing, orange buffoon. She lost to THAT GUY. THAT is why she didn't face her supporters and donors the night of November 9th. Had she done so it would have been painful and emotional and shown her as someone who isn't always in control and who doesn't always show a stoic, lady like reaction to disappointment. It would have allowed her supporters to grieve with her. Right there. Right then. But she chose to LIE to them. It isn't a nothing burger. It says everything about her character. Trump tells his supporters that he doesn't need them anymore. Right to their faces. She continues to lie to herself. What ever. Democrats have serious work ahead and need to focus on 2018. She's a distraction, not an asset. The last thing people like Osssoff need or want is to have to defend why he is not just another Clinton democrat. Go on vacation. Have more heady talks with your lofty peers like Kissinger. Spend time with the grand kids. Give Bill a happy ending. For once. But please shut the fuck up about the many reasons why you lost.

by Anonymousreply 92May 3, 2017 8:50 PM

Chelsea may be a better candidate. She's warmer.

by Anonymousreply 93May 3, 2017 9:44 PM

[quote] Chelsea may be a better candidate. She's warmer.

She certainly is. It's remarkable how far has come the measurement of minute temperature differences.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 94May 3, 2017 9:55 PM

[quote]Chelsea may be a better candidate.

For what, prom queen? The last thing the Democratic Party needs is a candidate who grew up in the White House. The US voting public is not as fond of political dynasties as its ruling class is. Chelsea will be the Jeb! Bush of her generation.

by Anonymousreply 95May 4, 2017 4:03 AM

Chelsea will be much different by 2020, R95,

by Anonymousreply 96May 4, 2017 1:06 PM

Chelsea needs to sit down. No one is buying what she's selling.

by Anonymousreply 97May 4, 2017 2:34 PM

This means Hillary doesn't read the Wall Street Journal or Financial Times because both accurately predicted she'd lose and lose in PA, MI and WI on the day of the election.

by Anonymousreply 98May 4, 2017 2:52 PM

She only reads the NYT that tells her how great she is.

by Anonymousreply 99May 5, 2017 12:19 PM

To me, the fact that she didn't even show up to her own campaign party to give a concession speech to her supporters was an example of why she really wasn't cut out to be president. Bish should have manned up and got her ass out there and not hid behind her VP or press secretary. People waited for hours to hear her speak but she never shows up and they quickly throw something together for the next day. She acted like a spoiled little girl who couldn't handle adversity. You think people want a fucking crybaby who breaks down when things don't go her way as president? Personally, I was kind of shocked at how she handled the loss -- no show of inner strength or grace under pressure. No, this bish stamped her feet and stayed home.

Maybe she didn't even have a speech written, but that's not the point. The point is every single candidate in modern history that lost made a concession speech ON ELECTION NIGHT. She was so arrogant, so certain she was going to win that when she didn't she lost her fucking poise. She let her own people down that night, just left them hanging and that speaks volumes of how she really operates. I voted for Hillary, but I understood the resentment people had against her. It was a nasty campaign on both sides -- Hillary's people pulled out all the stops with demonizing Trump a -- and more importantly -- his supporters. It's a testament to the arrogance and disrespect that her campaign showed to certain groups of people, that Trump won.

They hated her that much. So much in fact that they were willing to take a chance on Trump.

by Anonymousreply 100May 5, 2017 12:39 PM

Why all the Chelsea hate on here?

by Anonymousreply 101May 5, 2017 12:46 PM

If she was crying as I suspect she was, she should not have gone out and given a concession speech. Doing so would have doomed any other female presidential candidate for years to come. "See? Women are too EMOTIONAL to run a country!" "Imagine if she's PMS'ing! She'll use the nukes!" "She'll start WWIII!"

She needed to present a calm, cool appearance to make that speech and she did. She conceded publicly. Let's give it a fucking rest, move on and start mobilizing Dems for 2018.

by Anonymousreply 102May 5, 2017 1:32 PM

[quote]Why all the Chelsea hate on here?

"Hate?" Really? Why the love? She's just another scion from a 1%er family. She's not exactly "the man from Hope" or Wellesley Valedictorian '68. She's a spoiled rich girl with connected parents who's never wanted for a single thing in life. She can write books and pose for photo ops until the cows come home, I am never casting a vote for her. And I voted for BOTH her parents.

by Anonymousreply 103May 5, 2017 3:22 PM

R102, you sound like someone who actually voted for her. Unlike the rest of this thread claiming she "dissed" her supporters at 3am on a very emotional election night for all of us. Well, some of us. Others apparently can't stop gloating 6 months later.

by Anonymousreply 104May 5, 2017 3:25 PM

R104, I'm R102. I did vote for Hillary Clinton. I went to bed hoping/assuming she would win. When I went to bed my TV was on NBC4 (NYC). When I woke up I was greeted with the faces of the shocked Clinton supporters and was in disbelief. Not because I was cocky or confident. I honestly did not expect so many white women to vote for the Orange Freak or that those states the Dems had carried for so long would turn.

But she's had her chances and I think we've learned that it's time to look for new Democratic blood to run the country. What ever happened to Julian Castro? I thought he was being groomed.

by Anonymousreply 105May 5, 2017 8:09 PM

R104, I'm R102. I did vote for Hillary Clinton. I went to bed hoping/assuming she would win. When I went to bed my TV was on NBC4 (NYC). When I woke up I was greeted with the faces of the shocked Clinton supporters and was in disbelief. Not because I was cocky or confident. I honestly did not expect so many white women to vote for the Orange Freak or that those states the Dems had carried for so long would turn.

But she's had her chances and I think we've learned that it's time to look for new Democratic blood to run the country. What ever happened to Julian Castro? I thought he was being groomed.

by Anonymousreply 106May 5, 2017 8:10 PM

Many who voted for her now regert it.

by Anonymousreply 107May 5, 2017 11:59 PM

Bump

by Anonymousreply 108May 6, 2017 7:46 PM

I don't care anymore.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 109May 6, 2017 7:49 PM

A GOP candidate other than Trump would have built up a 10-point lead based on all of her missteps.

And likewise, a candidate as atrocious as Trump should have allowed her to build up a 10-15 point lead, and we would have seen the stage rise up and break the glass ceiling.

You can blame everyone else, but in the end it's Hillary who lost the campaign. And you can play the What-If Game all day long. If the DNC hadn't cooked the Iowa primary totals in her favor and allowed Bernie to win it (as he probably did) and build momentum, we would have a Democratic President right now.

by Anonymousreply 110May 6, 2017 8:15 PM

[quote]Chelsea may be a better candidate. She's warmer.

Chelsea is as dumb as a box of hair. Have you ever read any of her Twitter posts? She gets excoriated on a regular basis because of the dumb things she says.

by Anonymousreply 111May 6, 2017 8:22 PM

I never liked the name Hillary.

by Anonymousreply 112May 6, 2017 8:27 PM

Let's be honest, the signs were there very early on how incompetent she was.

She announced her candidacy via the most simple-minded YouTube video ever. Watch it again. It looks more like an insurance commercial than a POTUS announcement.

She released a logo with a huge RED H on it. Red being the color of "red states". And that catch phrase, "I'm With Her." Really dumb.

Her first major campaign rally was on Roosevelt Island in NYC. While Roosevelt Island has nice views of Manhattan, it's a dreary place to have a campaign rally. Roosevelt Island looks like Cold War Russia with thousands of the ugliest apartment buildings crammed together.

She then went on to insult voters by calling them deplorables, screech that she should be 50 points ahead, swan around with celebrities and tell everyone she had seen Hamilton *three* times. During the debates, she looked like she had memorized all her answers and was several times thrown off balance by Trump's "I don't give a fuck whether I win or lose" attitude. She was tone deaf to the immigration issue, the email server issue and the only reason she could think of for people to vote for her was "It's my turn."

Is it any wonder she lost?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 113May 6, 2017 8:44 PM

[quote] During the debates, she looked like she had memorized all her answers

The risk you run when the "impartial" media give you the questions in advance allowing you to memorize the focus-group approved answers.

"Donna Brazile is not apologizing for leaking CNN debate questions and topics to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary. Her only regret, it seems, is that she got caught. “My conscience — as an activist, a strategist — is very clear,” the interim chair of the Democratic National Committee said Monday during a satellite radio interview with liberal activist and SiriusXM host Joe Madison. She added that “if I had to do it all over again, I would know a hell of a lot more about cybersecurity.”"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 114May 6, 2017 9:06 PM

Spot on, R114. It backfired on her big time.

by Anonymousreply 115May 6, 2017 9:08 PM

[quote]Donna Brazile is not apologizing for leaking CNN debate questions

Which is another reason the Democratic Party needs to do a top to bottom clean out. They are now tainted as the party who cheats, lies and doesn't care about middle class people.

by Anonymousreply 116May 6, 2017 9:11 PM

Hillary wasn't too upset to give a concession speech that night. She had the runs from that shitty Mexican food that Mook fed her.

by Anonymousreply 117May 6, 2017 9:59 PM

Hills should have chosen another city to wait out election results in. NYC was Trump's domain. Hillary looked like she was hiding in his shadow.

by Anonymousreply 118May 6, 2017 10:01 PM

Such a sore loser. Sad.

by Anonymousreply 119May 6, 2017 10:06 PM

Hillary actually wanted to go out and make that concession speech, but important duties intervened.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 120May 6, 2017 10:29 PM

Hang in there guys, it wasn't entirely your fault.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 121August 16, 2017 2:58 AM

You're president is a Nazi supporter who has Jewish grandchildren.

No amount of Hillary bashing is going to change that.

by Anonymousreply 122August 16, 2017 3:24 AM

Sounds like a good prison read.

by Anonymousreply 123August 16, 2017 3:33 AM

I on, the other hand was laughing in the grave

by Anonymousreply 124August 16, 2017 5:22 AM

Aw, Trumpsters are so upset about their boy Donnie they're bumping old threads about this shit book. Cute.

by Anonymousreply 125August 16, 2017 5:24 AM

Nasty drunk bitch.

by Anonymousreply 126April 23, 2018 5:38 PM

Is anything ever her fault?

by Anonymousreply 127February 20, 2020 3:47 AM

Trump never wanted to be President. He was trying to use the campaign trail for free publicity for the family brand. That's what they were reduced to by 2016: hawking cubic zirconia jewelry, steaks, underarm deodorant, neckties... And laundering money through golf resorts. Nobody would loan them money anymore.

It was Steve Bannon who started whispering in his ear that he could be King. And he started to believe it.

But none of it could have happened without The Kids going to the Russians for hacking and propaganda help (which I'm sure Bannon knew all about). The voting machines were carefully hacked to flip votes in those 3 crucial states.

by Anonymousreply 128February 20, 2020 4:02 AM

[quote]Hillary Clinton took her assistant’s phone and “faked a smile with her voice,” congratulating Trump while “suppressing the anger that touched every nerve in her body.”

I felt the same way too, except my butt also hurt from where Hillary kicked me to the curb the second her kid went away to college

by Anonymousreply 129February 20, 2020 4:06 AM

[quote] Then President Obama personally picked up the phone to call her and tell her to concede

Which he would never have done so soon if there was a legitimate basis for claiming the result was not legitimate. Unless of course you think Obama was a Putin stooge.

by Anonymousreply 130February 20, 2020 4:21 AM

Speaking of nasty drunk bitches, Hillary Hater Troll: you're drunk off your ass tonight and bumping up all the Hillary threads you can find to post nasty shit about her. Well, this is 2020, and she's no longer running: DEAL WITH IT.

And F&F.

by Anonymousreply 131February 20, 2020 4:27 AM

I wonder who's bumping these old threads. Is it a Bloomberg troll upset that he did badly tonight?

by Anonymousreply 132February 20, 2020 5:44 AM

[quote] The voting machines were carefully hacked to flip votes in those 3 crucial states.

This is why it is crucial to demand VOTER ID from your representatives. It's the most powerful and effective way to stop the terrifying threat of Russians hacking our elections. Do it for Hillary!

by Anonymousreply 133February 20, 2020 12:28 PM

R131 I don’t drink, dear.

by Anonymousreply 134February 20, 2020 12:51 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!