Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NRQ891

(217 posts)
5. it is about a choice between two candidates that had record high negatives
Fri Dec 2, 2016, 10:24 AM
Dec 2016

and the question is why - since when is putting up a candidates with record high negatives risk free, particularly when the closest aid has a husband who gets caught sexting a 15 year old girl?

i think these issues are being totally overlooked - that luck was pressed and ran out. both her high negatives, and Weiner's 'hobbies' were known risks, and not managed

The party core doubled down on Hillary knowing this risk. Biden wasn't available due to his son, but Biden really isn't different than Hillary when it comes to policy, and he doesn't have anywhere near the negatives. He would have won, period.

Why couldn't the party find a 'spare Biden'? Why didn't it have one? Why did it ignore Hillary's negatives as a serious risk factor?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Would ted Cruz have won t...»Reply #5