[equalarrow]

Yah, I mean, the Clintons are interesting. Bill is a Rhodes Scholar, Hillary is Wellesley & Yale. Nothing to brush off for sure. Chelsea and a PhD, again, no small feat.

I dunno, on one hand I really respect that level of commitment to learning, especially at an entire immediate family level.

What sorta boggles my mind is Hillary's complete fuck up of the election. And maybe this is because either: A. She's still a novice compared to how far the right wing will go to bury her (I guess they hate her more than no other - a driven woman) B. Her hubris is bigger than Trump's (doubtful)

My wife was really bummed she lost. She even took pics with my 3yr old daughter on a 'historic' day.

We'll see a woman president soon I think and hopefully she's more in touch than Hillary was. Who knows, maybe Chelsea (altho I think the Clinton name is prob done in the whitehouse).

[purple-again]

There are plenty of driven women in the Republican Party. Hyperbolic attacks like that at best distract from any good points you may have made and simply serve to further divide us. Trump got the republican vote that Bush and Romney got. Hillary lost because a large number of Obamas voters didn't turn up to vote for her.

[shiven]

This. Trump did not win because he is in any way better than Hillary. He won because the people who supported Hillary never showed up to vote. As close to a win by default that one could get.

[root_axis]

Seems to me like they did show up. A 3 million popular vote spread is pretty significant. Of course, the popular vote isn't what wins an election, but those people certainly showed up.

[purple-again]

The popular vote is irrelevant to US politics. Hillary clearly lost because the voting base that normally shows up for Dems did not show up for her. Trump did no better than previous Republican candidates.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/09/graph-shows-hillary-c...

[root_axis]

This graph is deliberately misleading, especially for the point you're trying to make. Starting the Y axis at 52k creates a visual exaggeration of the difference between turnouts, and omitting elections prior to Obama obfuscates the fact that Obama's election turnout was a historic and unprecedented outlier. If you include previous elections, it will show that Hillary Clinton received more votes than any other candidate in history besides Obama.

Obama's record breaking turnout does not represent "the voting base that normally shows up for Dems".