1) even Warren was insinuating her ass was a misleading flip flopper a few years ago. Saying she changed her vote on a payday loan bill because of lobbyists.
And she lied about dumb shit, like Sniper fire and the origin of her name. All of that adds up to somebody untrustworthy. Who lies about their name? Its like the kid that says his uncle works for Nintendo or he has an Ultra 64 in his basement but you can't play it Or see it because it's packed up. Everything she says is suspect because of those high profile lies, and criticism for flip flops that came from the left.
Hell, she admits that she lies in her Goldman speeches. "Public and private positions" reads a lot like "sometimes you say you are going to do something that you have no intention of actually doing", probably all politicians do this but she sucks bad at it. Terrible salesman.
2) I don't care why she doesn't have charisma. I just care that she doesn't have it.
3) we're in a thread taking about how smug her campaign was that is literally littered with examples of smugness. You should consider reading the op and some of the posts.
I just looked this up in the dictionary:
having or showing an excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements
Tge example sentence was "smug-ass Hillary bought fireworks and glass shaped confetti and didn't write a concession speech because she was so sure she was going to win."
1)
Two politicians publicly disagree on a proposed law. A civilian overstates the danger of their first experience of an active war zone. The inspiration for someone's name, as told to them by their mother, may or may not be a bit dubious. (I've got questionable origin stories for my
own name. I feel no qualms telling them, because they're amusing, and they don't matter.)
This is some piddly bullshit. On the scale of character flaws and white lies, this doesn't even rank.
And "public and private positions" is
how politics works. It's how the sausage is made. It's how
everything works, because it's
Negotiation 101. "I really care about
this, and I'm willing to give up
that to get it, but I'm not telling them that so they think they got the better deal." Every politician's intra-office email is chock-full of examples of this. And apparently, Hillary was both good and effective at it, as liberals were generally pretty okay with her voting record, and no-one called her on it until Podesta's email got hacked.
2)
Your choice. I find the knowledge that she effectively had to method-act her entire public life a useful lens for evaluating her actions and character.
3)
"Smugness" is a character trait, not a cause, and even if I agreed that she evinced it to an intolerable degree (and I don't), that has
zero functional bearing on the many, many elements which factored into her loss.
If you're looking for a single proximate cause, it's the Comey emails, which clearly resulted in enough of a swing in the polls that she would have won handily without it. Back out further and you've got overconfidence leading to overreach on the part of the Clinton campaign, reaching for red states when they should have been entrenching swing states. They went for the
big win to send a message, not grasping how far they could still be set back by a soundbite without substance, or how much free negative advertising the Trump campaign was getting out of the Wikileaks/4chan/The_Donald echo-chamber.
But they wouldn't have done that if it weren't for an apparent systemic bias in the polling, which pollsters are going to have a field day trying to figure out. I'm guessing that their
likelihood of voting guesstimation breaks down at high levels of candidate dislike. Turns out asking "Clinton or Trump?" is somewhat less indicative than "Clinton, Trump, or sleep in, and then play some CoD?"
Walk back further and you can blame Podesta for his piss-poor information security. (...to an extent; given a targeted attack, every institution is going to have
that guy.) Further back, I blame Bernie for weakening the spirit of
not-his-party. And I suppose, at the start, you can fault Hillary for the hubris of thinking she could weather the shitstorm she knew would rain down if she tried to run.
You could argue her demographic targeting, but she underperformed across the board, so I don't think any particular racial focus could have salvaged that. Possibly, she leaned too hard on feminism -- once she'd reeled in the voters receptive to the message, further push on the topic probably drove down enthusiasm in the unreceptive. Someone's going to have to really drill down on demographics to see if there was something she missed, but the broad breakdowns I've seen just show a collective sigh of "meh" outside of the GOP wheelhouse.
Of course, there's her one true boneheaded move where she came down with C-Level Syndrome and thought she knew better than IT on how to run email. I give her a partial pass on that due to the government's technology uptake and information security being
really bad. But only a partial one.
And finally, there's all the shit that I don't know because
I wasn't there, and this enterprise was vastly more complicated than I could possibly conceive. So, I'm going to wait for a post mortem from someone who
actually knows what went on and isn't
a pundit who got the whole election entirely wrong. And in the meantime, I'm going to sit back, relax, and consider drinking heavily.
