What is so wrong with Hillary?

[MarcelineTheVampire]

I know I know, not another one of these threads but I'm struggling to understand why everyone hates her so much.

I know she has been accused of corruption but nothing has stuck and it doesn't seem to be any worse than her male counterparts- is it because she's a woman?

AIBU to ask you to point me to some facts as to what she has done to be so hated? I'm genuinely interested.

The issue was Clinton couldn't get the Democratic vote out.

Low turn out and a drop in Democratic vote and a higher than normal % for the '3rd candidate' points out imo the Americans weren't enamoured with either option.

At the start of his campaign he said he would repeal all of Obamacare except the pre existing conditions clause. He also said he is pro choice wrt abortion. I pray he sticks to his original beliefs.

He has been a supporter of marriage equality. I hope that doesn't change either.

218,959 000 million people are eligible to vote in the US and 146,311 000 are registered to vote so what's happened to the other 72 million (that is over half the amount of people that voted which was 126,144,000) I don't understand why they are not registered do so many not care (I guess some are not registered as they do not want to be traced)

I am surprised it was such a low turnout at 55.6% and especially for young people not even 60%

Wrt his flip flop on the ACA - hopefully this is the beginning of a dogfight between him and the Republican ideologues in the House and Senate who want the pure untrammeled forces of capitalism applied to healthcare, and the beginning of some sort of coalition of reasonable legislators that will include Democrats.

UnGoogleable He always said he agreed that people shouldn't be exempt due to preexisting conditions. That's now a new stance.

He's said he's pro-choice in the past, and he's said nothing about repealing or contesting marriage equality laws, just that he felt it was an issue the states were capable of dealing with. So he's not the hard-right that a lot of Republican presidents have been (and like John McCain and Mitt Romney would've been).

Not* a new stance.

It's a pretty fucked up system if the person with the most votes doesn't actually win don't ya think

No, it's not. And Clinton would have been aware of how the system works.

Clinton lost because she was a poor candidate, not because she is female.

www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/12/hillary-clinton-we-failed-her-sarah-churchwell#comments

He's said he's pro-choice in the past, and he's said nothing about repealing or contesting marriage equality laws, just that he felt it was an issue the states were capable of dealing with. So he's not the hard-right that a lot of Republican presidents have been (and like John McCain and Mitt Romney would've been).

Trump had said he is pro-life and totally against abortion and would stop funding Planned Parenthood.

Trump has been a consistent opponent of marriage equality.

No. He's said he's pro-choice, that he's pro-choice but with restrictions on late term abortion, and then that he's pro-life.

And sure, he's said he was against marriage equality (although he said a couple of years back that his view was evolving and that he considers himself open-minded), but he has never said he intends to change the current laws. There's a difference.

Hillary was against gay marriage at one point.

Yep, until 2013.

He's got no intention of focusing on LGBT rights. Why would he? He was the candidate who flew the Rainbow flag during his campaign.

I don't see Trump caring about either gay marriage or abortion to address either of his own volition. It absolutely would not be a policy priority. As a friend said "Trump cares about conservative family values as much as the average Joe who's been married 3 times and lives in NYC". Therefore I don't see him going there unless as a bargaining chip for support for something else that he really wants to do and then I have no doubt that he'd throw those issues under the bus.

No, but the Republican-dominated congress may choose to go there and Trump must likely won't try to block them.

"Leaving it up to the individual states" means repealing Roe v Wade and is an anti-abortion stance in the US. At the moment, women living in more conservative states have protection from the Supreme Court and the constitution. Him saying he thinks it should be up to the individual states to decide means that he is in favour or removing that protection. Presumably he will HAVE to make a Supreme Court nomination if Obama can't get one through before Jan so it's not something he can decide not to have a position on.

Exact same applies to marriage equality.

He was talking about it in past tense, not present.

Considering his previous stances, I doubt anything's going to happen.

Ironic that "the system" turned out to be truly "rigged" against Clinton, not DT.

A conservative biased Supreme court upheld gay marriage, I don't think the Republicans can get supreme court to reverse earlier decision. They don't do that.

I wondered if gays could be taken off any protected category list, though. So effectively, job or housing discrimination against gays could be reinstated. I don't know how Supreme Court would deal with that.

Trump has basically said that marriage equality is "done"- i.e. he's got no intention of trying to repeal it (and I suspect he's secretly quite relieved about that).

As lljkk says, the risk is more about whether (e.g) someone who is very religious can refuse to rent their apartment to a gay couple on the basis of their own religious beliefs.

What is so wrong with Hillary?

There are several ways to look at this question.

First, it is well-known in political science that people sometimes vote strategically, ie, they vote against a candidate rather than for them. This happens most often when there are only two options. (Yes, I do know about the Greens and the Libertarians running candidates, but these were fringe candidates.)

Another aspect is that there are types of candidates and the three relevant ones here are: legacy, experience and narrative. Trump was very much a narrative candidate, as were Obama and Reagan. Their USP is "vote for me so you can feel good". Clinton fell somewhere between experience and legacy but, unfortunately, both of those qualities had negative connotations with the electorate. Her legacy elements were her: time in the White House when her husband was president and her time as Secretary of State. Bill Clinton's was a very flawed presidency, which is why he was not trotted out as the typical loyal adoring spouse, eg Nancy Reagan, that is so often a feature of high-level US elections. Further, there were concerns about her judgement (the private email server) and her ability (Benghazi) as well as doubts about how she came to be elected at the Democratic's Primary elections in Chicago and concerns that she was fed debate questions in advance by the media.

Add to this the fact that many people plain just don't like or trust Hillary. It has nothing to do with her being female and everything to do with her personality - she just does not come across as likeable or warm or accessible. Agree or not, these are essential qualities for an effective politician. Calling a good percentage of the voting population "a basket of deplorables" did not help her cause not did her lack of transparency about her health, eg collapsing at the 9/11 ceremony and brushing it off as being "overheated" rather than admitting that it was pneumonia.

Lastly, Hillary represented the establishment, which further alienated a large swathe of the population who felt that their concerns were not being listened to. Whether or not one agrees with or shares those concerns is irrelevant: one of the jobs of a politician is to listen to what people are saying. Not doing so means that the person comes across as cold and remote and out-of-touch, which is one of the reasons Clinton lost.

First off I have to say again loud and clear I am NOT a Trump supporter. Also I don't disagree with she just does not come across as likeable or warm or accessible Even her supporters said that on the campaign trail Hillary was cold, passionless and bereft of conviction,

But we have to mention the thousands of young American's used as cannon fodder in Afghanistan and Iraq while Hillary and Bill rolled around in the untold millions given by 'donors' to their sordid foundation The carnage she unleashed in Libya, the dirty coup in Honduras. Obama and her plunging into Syria, in support of the rebels and the countless dead and untold billions that cost. Obama, her and Merkel's failed coup in Ukraine which overthrew an elected gov't. Had they succeeded, we would no doubt be in a shooting war with Russia now.

And all the while the US amassed a trillion $ trade deficit, that's bleeding the country’s economy and who's paying the cost?

We shouldn't be too simplistic here and we should stop condescending and stop talking down the the US electorate. it was more than just issues around presentation that done for Hillary. Now look at who we have leading the free world? The system is broken severely and perhaps we do need to hit rock bottom with Trump to begin it's repair?

Good points, Tropezienne.