Support NeoGAF

[Monocle]

"Witch hunt" lmao

How DARE people point out the overwhelming flaws of a candidate in an effort to pick a better one to run our country!!

By point out overwhelming flaws, do you mean harping on the same played up gaffes and issues that are downright pedestrian for a politician with a career as long as Clinton's?

Are you going to ignore her history of being shamed, harassed, and demonized by her enemies for decades? The partisan circus of the Benghazi hearings, the ridiculous oversaturation of coverage of her emails? Do you really want to overlook the unprecedented and vastly more severe and numerous problems with the candidate she ran against?

 

[megalowho]

What do nationwide favorabilty numbers have to do with Clinton's popularity in NY?

We have 16 years of elections to show that, yes, she is in fact well liked in New York.

Because I looked for one specifically showing NY and it doesn't exist. Hence, there's no hard data to go on, but it does provide a snapshot of the overall trend.

There is this though:

But at the moment, she's not terribly popular among the voters she represented for eight years. Siena found that only 50 percent of voters viewed her favorably and 47 percent hold a negative opinion of her. The Quinnipiac survey was even worse, with only 41 percent holding a favorable opinion of her and 52 viewing her unfavorably.

A review of over a hundred poll results since 2002 suggests that this favorability rating is currently worse than any Democrat who appeared on the following statewide general election ballot this century.

http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2016/08/despite-big-poll-lead-clintons-favorability-low-in-new-york-104379

 

[Bolivar687]

I think she should ride off into the sunset.

 

[guek]

Hilary Clinton' still a hot topic as long as the Trump wound still stings, and I can't help but be a little more than bitter at her (and Democrats as a whole) for dropping the ball this hard, but you're right, this is a New York decision through and through. Though in a time where Dem's need to play their battles smart, I can't help but be curious if her losing to Trump has created too much a stigma/curse against her.

It's too soon imo to be determining whether or not she'd be viable in 2018. We're all still a little dazed after being blindsided by Trump.

 

[Vyse24]

If it's true that Paladino will be the GOP rep again, then the Dems are gonna win regardless on account that Paladino is an idiot.

 

[Fox Mulder]

She's got to keep her donors happy and salvage the Clinton name a bit. All that money went to someone that now has little power.

If the people of NY want her, that's their business

 

[Blader]

Could have said the same during the Primary. But that would have made me a "sexist" back then.

At some point, I hope, you will take a cue from Bernie and move on with your life to focus your time and energies on more immediate and important fights, and not continue to relive the 2016 presidential primary.

Who cares? When has this country elected Presidents based on the popular vote? She lost.

What does the electoral college matter to electing the governor of New York?

You just told someone they're being anti-intellectual because they disagree with you on your perceived "data". You have no ground to stand on regarding embarrassing yourself.

Says the one who claimed Hillary would never campaign outside of NYC, despite having done to great effect already in two winning Senate races.

 

[Aaronology]

I don't care all too much, but I would prefer her not to- not because she wouldn't win (she would), but because its time for the Clinton' to fade into irrelevance. She gambled on the the lives of minorities with a terrible campaign, and its time for her political career to be put to rest.

Should every politician who didn't mount a successful campaign and consequently lost in 2016 "fade into irrelevance"?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Because I looked for one specifically showing NY and it doesn't exist. Hence, there's no hard data to go on, but it does provide a snapshot of the overall trend.

There is this though:

http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2016/08/despite-big-poll-lead-clintons-favorability-low-in-new-york-104379

Great, then you don't have data to back up what you're saying.

(Both of those polls greatly underestimated Clinton's margin of victory in NY, FWIW. That would have a negative effect on her favorabilty numbers in the poll.)

 

[studyguy]

If it's true that Paladino will be the GOP rep again, then the Dems are gonna win regardless on account that Paladino is an idiot.

No way they run that moron, if they do they're simply asking for a loss.
Astorino got smashed last go around. Do R's even have anyone on bench who isn't an immediate loss?

 

[FlowersisBritish]

It's too soon imo to be determining whether or not she'd be viable in 2018. We're all still a little dazed after being blindsided by Trump.

THat's also really true, not even taking into account this is just an of hand comment from a news person. Boy 2018 is going to be... well it'll be a year.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Says the one who claimed Hillary would never campaign outside of NYC, despite having done to great effect already in two winning Senate races.

I was clearly joking in that post.

 

[Crocodile]

Winning the popular vote doesn't mean she's well liked, just that she's more liked than Donald Trump. Clinton hasn't had good favorability ratings for awhile now, and losing the election certainly didn't help in that regard.

That said, I don't think she's hated by the majority of the country or anything either. I wouldn't exactly call her popular though.

This is fair, I should chose my words more carefully. I was only trying to comment on why the PV numbers are ever brought up to begin with.

What do nationwide favorabilty numbers have to do with Clinton's popularity in NY?

We have 16 years of elections to show that, yes, she is in fact well liked in New York.

The number of people posting in this thread who are from New York or care about New York can probably be counted on one hand LOL

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

Should every politician who didn't mount a successful campaign and consequently lost in 2016 "fade into irrelevance"?

Bernie obviously doesn't count because excitement. (lol)

 

[noshten]

In the rust belt Clinton won voters whose primary concern was the economy. Which issues are you talking about, exactly? And by all means go through the list of Democrats on the ballot in the rust belt from BernieCrats to moderates and compare their performance.

BernieCrats... would have been a thing if Bernie was top of the ticket... he wasn't

Sadly Clinton even failed to select a good VP, nevermind campaigning in the Rustbelt, never mind the millions she raised and wasted with her negative advertising instead of mobilizing people and using that huge monetary advantage in a way it doesn't compound her image as just another politician...

But yes carry on talking about how BernieCrats connected with a poison ticket with Kaine(pro TPP) & Clinton(pro TPP) could possibly win in the Rustbelt - when their actual constituency unions and young people were disenfranchised Clinton's campaign.
The worst thing is we saw this in the primary - Clinton loosing rural voters, losing union households, losing young people... her campaign was just so focused on Trump and making this about her and Trump instead of what her actual platform and policies are. Well she got what she wanted and it lead to not only a Trump presidency, Trump Supreme Court and GOP gaining more control.

 

[EatinOlives]

While I think she would win handily in New York, I think her time has more than passed and she should just go away.

 

[megalowho]

Great, then you don't have data to back up what you're saying.

(Both of those polls greatly underestimated Clinton's margin of victory in NY, FWIW. That would have a negative effect on her favorabilty numbers in the poll.)

I was never the one that claimed I did and lorded my superior intellect over others. But I did make an attempt to actually seek some out. And favorability isn't the same as a vote, considering the alternative.

 

[Melkezadek]

BernieCrats... would have been a thing if Bernie was top of the ticket... he wasn't

Sadly Clinton even failed to select a good VP, nevermind campaigning in the Rustbelt, never mind the millions she raised and wasted with her negative advertising instead of mobilizing people and using that huge monetary advantage in a way it doesn't compound her image as just another politician...

But yes carry on talking about how BernieCrats connected with a poison ticket with Kaine(pro TPP) & Clinton(pro TPP) could possibly win in the Rustbelt - when their actual constituency unions and young people were disenfranchised Clinton's campaign.
The worst thing is we saw this in the primary - Clinton loosing rural voters, losing union households, losing young people... her campaign was just so focused on Trump and making this about her and Trump instead of what her actual platform and policies are. Well she got what she wanted and it lead to not only a Trump presidency, Trump Supreme Court and GOP gaining more control.

This is such bullshit and further proves that people are projecting some evil, self serving caricature onto her that has no basis in reality.

 

[KHarvey16]

...Kaine(pro TPP)

Wrong.

& Clinton(pro TPP)

Ouch, 0-2.

 

[legacyzero]

Primaries are over dude. Let it go.

edit: And Bernie Sanders supporters like myself weren't shouted down here on GAF. Supporters like you who shit up threads and can't get over his loss were.

So you're telling me that a majority of the folks who were trying to have a discourse surrounding a potentially better candidate we're thread-shitting, and weren't met with condescending responses, including insinuating that they were sexist?

Hmmm I remember a different Primary than you do apparently.

 

[guek]

THat's also really true, not even taking into account this is just an of hand comment from a news person. Boy 2018 is going to be... well it'll be a year.

2018 is the year the Dems and thereby liberty fights for its very existence. We're gonna have to go to war.

 

[Skellig Gra]

lol sure why not, then she can launch her bid for president again 6 months after that.

 

[Vyse24]

No way they run that moron, if they do they're simply asking for a loss.
Astorino got smashed last go around. Do R's even have anyone on bench who isn't an immediate loss?

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but Paladino repped for Trump in NY didn't he? They'd probably use that as a crutch for him to be the nominee.

And if not him, well honestly I don't know who else they'd go to. I doubt they'd be desperate enough to ask Giuliani to run.

 

[Melkezadek]

So you're telling me that a majority of the folks who were trying to have a discourse surrounding a potentially better candidate we're thread-shitting, and weren't met with condescending responses, including insinuating that they were sexist?

Hmmm I remember a different Primary than you do apparently.

No, they weren't. People like you were and it obvious what type of productive discourse you were trying to have given every thread I see you in, shitting it up with talks of the primary.

Again, stop taking about Bernie supporters like we're a monolith. Plenty of users on this board who voted for Clinton, voted for Sanders in the primaries. The only ones who feel slighted are the ones who couldn't get over it. The Bernie or Busters. They are not the majority of Bernie Supporters.

So again, as a former Bernie supporter, get over it.

 

[studyguy]

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but Paladino repped for Trump in NY didn't he? They'd probably use that as a crutch for him to be the nominee.

And if not him, well honestly I don't know who else they'd go to. I doubt they'd be desperate enough to ask Giuliani to run.

Man using Trump as a crutch to push Paladino would be hilarious considering how he also was smashed in NY polling during the general. More power to them I guess if this is their best option. Bigots gotta stick together I guess.


Again this thread shouldn't be fighting the primary over again. Keep things in context of NY and NY alone.

 

[legacyzero]

Wrong.
Ouch, 0-2.

Even if I wanted to agree with this, which I don't- Clintons history ALONE gave folks in the Rust Belt a sour taste in their mouths.

But oooook let's just forget just how much Clinton PUSHED for TPP, calling it the Gold Standard (and even GAF is against TPP from what I've read, mainly because of a lot of the shitty legislation woven into it). But I'm just supposed to accept that she no longer accepted it once she wanted to run for office?

🤔🤔🤔

And let's not forget that Bernie won both Wisconsin and Michigan in the Primary. But let's just mostly ignore both states in the GE because they're "mostly blue, right?"

It's not just Hillary's history that lost her the election. It's arrogance. Arrogance even in the face of a large chunk of the Democratic base that dared to raise their hand and say "uuuummmm... this isn't going to end very well..."

No, they weren't. People like you were and it obvious what type of productive discourse you were trying to have given every thread I see you in, shitting it up with talks of the primary.

Again, stop taking about Bernie supporters like we're a monolith. Plenty of users on this board who voted for Clinton, voted for Sanders in the primaries. The only ones who feel slighted are the ones who couldn't get over it. The Bernie or Busters. They are not the majority of Bernie Supporters.

So again, as a former Bernie supporter, get over it.

If you wanna try and skate to the next election without trying to foster reflection as to why we lost, that's on you. But the issue that led to us having a deep red America for the next 4 years (at least, because at this rate, we'll be looking at 8) goes even beyond the Primary.

 

[Blader]

I was clearly joking in that post.

Of course.

So you're telling me that a majority of the folks who were trying to have a discourse surrounding a potentially better candidate we're thread-shitting, and weren't met with condescending responses, including insinuating that they were sexist?

Hmmm I remember a different Primary than you do apparently.

Anyone who posts the number of Young Turks videos you do to make arguments is clearly thread shitting.

 

[Crocodile]

HOW THE FUCK DID A THREAD ABOUT NY POLITICS TURN INTO A RELITIGATION OF THE PRIMARY?

 

[B-Dubs]

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but Paladino repped for Trump in NY didn't he? They'd probably use that as a crutch for him to be the nominee.

And if not him, well honestly I don't know who else they'd go to. I doubt they'd be desperate enough to ask Giuliani to run.

Cuomo already ethered the shit out of Paladino in his initial run for governor. Paladino is dead politically in NY state politics.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

HOW THE FUCK DID A THREAD ABOUT NY POLITICS TURN INTO A RELITIGATION OF THE PRIMARY?

It happens with anything tangentially related to Hillary Clinton, unfortunately. Faster if her name is in the title, but the same people will always find a thread even vaguely related to her to bring up her and the primary.

 

[PBY]

I mean... is this a good thing for the Democratic party's future in national elections?

50 state strategy is the goal, but what is the upside here against the downside?

 

[studyguy]

Cuomo already ethered the shit out of Paladino in his initial run for governor. Paladino is dead politically in NY state politics.

I would still love to see him run. I'd like to see the ads that roll out of that fucking run off between the two.

 

[Futureman]

Go for it. I don't live in NY but go for it Hillary. Do what you want. I support her. You might even say I'm with her.

 

[gutter_trash]

I would say a big fuck you to politics and just spend time with family instead.

 

[kirblar]

I mean... is this a good thing for the Democratic party's future in national elections?

50 state strategy is the goal, but what is the upside here against the downside?

Clinton is well-liked in NY and has never lost an election there. This is exactly what you do with a 50-state strategy btw. Find candidates tailored to individual markets.

This is just a special case because Cuomo's circling the drain and trying to cling to life rafts while everyone else is trying to avoid getting stuck with him.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

At a time when the Democratic bench of politicians with a national profile is already paper thin, I'm not sure giving the chance to win such a prominent position to someone whose career is coming to a close rather than to a fresh young face is a very good idea. I think Clinton would probably win if she ran; I also think a lot of other Democrats would and the net gain for the Democratic party is better if the position gets taken by an up-and-comer.

 

[noshten]

Wrong.



Ouch, 0-2.

Wrong?

It was the Gold Standard for both until it proved unpopular - during the primary. Their change in position and what is happening behind close doors doesn't suddenly change that this is a very unfavorable position in the Rustbelt. You have a VP that is on record saying: "I tell everybody the same thing: I'm pro-trade, but it's got to be under the right conditions, and I want to make sure that that's the case."

I mean a day before being announced he was talking about all the wonderful pieces of the deal and how he had one last piece of the puzzle he was unsure about

"I see much in the TPP draft — which has now been public and apparent to everybody for quite a while — that I like," he said to Politico on July 11. "There's one piece that I'm still really digging into is the dispute resolution."

"I am having discussions with a lot of groups around Virginia about the treaty itself. I see much to like. I think it's an upgrade of labor standards, I think it's an upgrade of environmental standards. I think it's an upgrade of intellectual property protections," he told the Intercept on July 21, a day before Clinton announced him as her VP pick.

Kaine said, "I haven't switched my position" on TPP.

Though Kaine voted to give Obama fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals, a piece of legislation that paved the groundwork for TPP, he never took an official position on the deal itself.

Throughout 2015, he reiterated he would oppose the deal if it didn't have strong environmental and labor provisions. But in July 2016, Kaine repeatedly praised TPP for including those exact protections.

Days later, as Clinton's running mate, he came out against the trade deal.

We rate Kaine's claim Half True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ine-says-he-hasnt-changed-his-position-trans/


Trade deals are important and losing union and youth support in the midwest could have been avoided if she picked someone who opposed the trade deals more vigorously like Warren or Bernie and utilizing one of them to campaign there instead of totally ignoring the Rustbelt compared to Obama.

This is such bullshit and further proves that people are projecting some evil, self serving caricature onto her that has no basis in reality.

Please find me any positive ads done by Clinton and her Super Pac and I will find five negative ones.
She didn't run a positive campaign and it just cemented the perception of her being another politician using negativity to win over voters. Worst of all I didn't expect this at all but foretold this in September after watching her campaign in GE mode and witnessing how awfully her campaign was being run.

The last few months I've seen a lot of his platform adopted. But instead of screaming that from the rooftops with positive advertising from the millions she raised - Hillary's campaign and her Super Pacs are more concerned with Trump and Gary Johnson. Her campaign is seriously approaching this campaign in such a way and it just reinforces her already shaky image as a candidate with huge corporate and international ties who pretty much hand selected the DNC and was already untrustworthy. This candidate decides that the best action is instead of talking about the wonderful platform she has to use all that money to say how much worse her opponents are.
This is why the enthusiasm for the platform is gone. Because Bernie had qualities and an image that Democrats could have used this election. If they had approached his grassroots and if it was level playing field Hillary would have been a fine victor. And she would have easily brought in everyone into the fold. You might be facing Trump/Cruz but you'd still prefer people to have something to vote for.


I've said harsh things but that's my perception of her, her campaign and her hardcore supporters - to me as a candidate she always seemed like Mitt Romney, Kerry, Gore league. I'm high but not high enough to vote for Gary Johnson - Clinton will hopefully win but she has made this whole election far more nerve wrecking than I ever expected it to get.

 

[B-Dubs]

At a time when the Democratic bench of politicians with a national profile is already paper thin, I'm not sure giving the chance to win such a prominent position to someone whose career is coming to a close rather than to a fresh young face is a very good idea. I think Clinton would probably win if she ran; I also think a lot of other Democrats would and the net gain for the Democratic party is better if the position gets taken by an up-and-comer.

The NY governorship isn't for cutting teeth. The NY press is beyond ruthless and will use any mistake to rip someone to shreds. It's not a position for an up-and-comer.

 

[Aaronology]

BernieCrats... would have been a thing if Bernie was top of the ticket... he wasn't

Sadly Clinton even failed to select a good VP, nevermind campaigning in the Rustbelt, never mind the millions she raised and wasted with her negative advertising instead of mobilizing people and using that huge monetary advantage in a way it doesn't compound her image as just another politician...

But yes carry on talking about how BernieCrats connected with a poison ticket with Kaine(pro TPP) & Clinton(pro TPP) could possibly win in the Rustbelt - when their actual constituency unions and young people were disenfranchised Clinton's campaign.
The worst thing is we saw this in the primary - Clinton loosing rural voters, losing union households, losing young people... her campaign was just so focused on Trump and making this about her and Trump instead of what her actual platform and policies are. Well she got what she wanted and it lead to not only a Trump presidency, Trump Supreme Court and GOP gaining more control.

There are a stable of far left progressives endorsed by Bernie Sanders who performed worse than Clinton in the rust belt and far worse than moderate Democrats. You can't blame Hillary for the performance of Teachout in NY. You can't blame her for Strickland when the electorate were voting for her while they were voting against him. You can't blame her for Feingold, who ran on Bernie Sanders's platform and was rejected by a larger margin than the Democrats' presidential bid. I've posted about this at length and if this topic is still raging when I'm home and not mobile gaffing from work I'll drop another lengthy ass list of far left progressive failures in the rust belt so we can once again diasbuse ourselves of this delusional notion that Clinton's platform was the problem when her platform, even in its failures, outperformed those to her left who ran on Bernie's.

Or you could save us both the trouble and actually look at how economic populism fared in the rust belt instead of whining about HRC. Nevermind the goddamn fact that I keep having to repeat: Among voters who listed the economy as their primary concern in the rust belt Clinton won by double digits. That's a deeply inconvenient fact for a lot of people's narrative.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The NY governorship isn't for cutting teeth. The NY press is beyond ruthless and will use any mistake to rip someone to shreds. It's not a position for an up-and-comer.

I'm not talking total fledgling, but there's obviously a pretty large niche between, say, multiple term NY House representative on the one and former First Lady, former Senator, former Secretary, former Presidential candidate on the other. If you're telling me the Democrats can't find a single candidate in that middle ground, they have a much bigger problem than I thought.

 

[KHarvey16]

Their change in position...

Oh so they did change? That's all you had to say.

 

[legacyzero]

Of course.


Anyone who posts the number of Young Turks videos you do to make arguments is clearly thread shitting.

Interesting, because outlets like TYT, and their affiliates called it right for most of the election. Funny how that worked in retrospect.

And no, I didn't post hardly any, if at all, videos from TYT. In fact, I think TYT is pretty goddamn annoying. I'm more for people like Kyle Kulinski, who is a pregressive, but is pro freedom of speech, anti safe space, and more realistic. The dude called it spot on for most of the election, even as the polls spun out of control.

And I find it funny that you go straight to my posting of ANY YouTube video as "thread-shitting" when people are like "show me receipts!" Ok- here's the receipts! "Ugh he posted something from YOUTUBE!! What a shit source!" When the video contained actual proof. Mental gymnastics followed, with any little attempt to discredit the source. But only "mainstream" media sources were allowed, for whatever ungodly reason.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm not talking total fledgling, but there's obviously a pretty large niche between, say, multiple term NY House representative on the one and former First Lady, former Senator, former Secretary, former Presidential candidate on the other. If you're telling me the Democrats can't find a single candidate in that middle ground, they have a much bigger problem than I thought.

I'm saying it's not a jumping off point. You'd have to play a perfect game to make it through a term without being torn to shreds. It's an office more likely to end a career than advance one.

 

[kirblar]

I'm not talking total fledgling, but there's obviously a pretty large niche between, say, multiple term NY House representative on the one and former First Lady, former Senator, former Secretary, former Presidential candidate on the other. If you're telling me the Democrats can't find a single candidate in that middle ground, they have a much bigger problem than I thought.

NY/NJ state politics are poison to an up an coming career if you have national ambitions. The Governor's mansion is an endgame, not a stepping stone.

This is why running Clinton makes sense, you're not really giving up any opportunity cost.

 

[Skiptastic]

Going the Nixon route? I don't know, I don't see it.

 

[Blader]

Interesting, because outlets like TYT, and their affiliates called it right for most of the election. Funny how that worked in retrospect.

And no, I didn't post hardly any, if at all, videos from TYT. In fact, I think TYT is pretty goddamn annoying. I'm more for people like Kyle Kulinski, who is a pregressive, but is pro freedom of speech, anti safe space, and more realistic. The dude called it spot on for most of the election, even as the polls spun out of control.

And I find it funny that you go straight to my posting of ANY YouTube video as "thread-shitting" when people are like "show me receipts!" Ok- here's the receipts! "Ugh he posted something from YOUTUBE!! What a shit source!" When the video contained actual proof. Mental gymnastics followed, with any little attempt to discredit the source. But only "mainstream" media sources were allowed, for whatever ungodly reason.

Yeah, it's a pretty big mystery as to why anyone would put more stock in WaPo or The Atlantic or the NY/LA Times, publications with long histories of credible journalism and political reporting, than the esteemed Secular Talk.

 

[Xe4]

I mean, people in NY like her, so I don't see why not. There's no way she's running for president again. However, if a better person shows up to run, they should definitely go with them. Clinton is old guard AF, so we do need some new blood. Still, a W is a W, and if Clinton can get that, I'd take it.

I don't live in NY, so either way.

Yeah, it's a pretty big mystery as to why anyone would put more stock in WaPo or The Atlantic or the NY/LA Times, publications with long histories of credible journalism and political reporting, than the esteemed Secular Talk.

Yep. Crazy how people put so much stalk into credible news sources over fake news and blogs. I mean, what advantages could actual news offer over opinion of people over the internet and motherfuckers in Macedonia???

 

[TestOfTide]

This is going to sound weird, but rather than run for office again, I would rather Hillary either focus on charitable causes

OR play the role that everyone keeps accusing her of anyway. She could be the person who raises funds for democrats behind the scenes.

 

[Xe4]

This is going to sound weird, but rather than run for office again, I would rather Hillary either focus on charitable causes

OR play the role that everyone keeps accusing her of anyway. She could be the person who raises funds for democrats behind the scenes.

Yeah, say what you will about Hillary's GE campaign, she was a pretty good fundraiser. She should work for the DNC doing that. And the Clinton foundation, much as it was shit on, does a ton of good around the world, and is a top rated charity. She could do a lot of good there too.

But if she can get elected to NY Governor's seat, and has better chances than anyone else, she can do a ton of good there too. I just don't want her running for president again (though I don't think she will).

 

[StormKing]

There are a stable of far left progressives endorsed by Bernie Sanders who performed worse than Clinton in the rust belt and far worse than moderate Democrats. You can't blame Hillary for the performance of Teachout in NY. You can't blame her for Strickland when the electorate were voting for her while they were voting against him. You can't blame her for Feingold, who ran on Bernie Sanders's platform and was rejected by a larger margin than the Democrats' presidential bid. I've posted about this at length and if this topic is still raging when I'm home and not mobile gaffing from work I'll drop another lengthy ass list of far left progressive failures in the rust belt so we can once again diasbuse ourselves of this delusional notion that Clinton's platform was the problem when her platform, even in its failures, outperformed those to her left who ran on Bernie's.

Or you could save us both the trouble and actually look at how economic populism fared in the rust belt instead of whining about HRC. Nevermind the goddamn fact that I keep having to repeat: Among voters who listed the economy as their primary concern in the rust belt Clinton won by double digits. That's a deeply inconvenient fact for a lot of people's narrative.

Well Hillary had all the money and still failed while those candidates had none. The Republicans focused on the downticket races because they felt that Trump wouldn't win.

Feingold got 1,380,496 votes.
Hillary got 1,382,210 votes.

Hillary got about 2,000 more votes than Feingold, very impressive.

The last two times Democrats won Zephyr Teachout's seat was in 2006 and 1988.

Ted Strickland also ran against an incumbent Republican senator in state that has had only one Democrat win in the past 16 years. And that Democrat won in 2006.

Hillary is far more of a historic failure than these candidates. She is the first democratic presidential nominee to lose Wisconsin since 1984, Michigan since 1988, and Pennsylvania since 1988.