Focused on what things, her policy platform? Her policy platform was terrible, the last thing she wanted to do was make the election into a policy vs policy race, she'd lose that even harder.
Both her platform and the democratic platform at large was unpopular on issues like immigration, the economy, trade, national security, social issues, taxes, etc.
Her incompetence wasn't in choosing to run a smear campaign instead of focus on the issues, it was in only reading the first line of karl rove's book and skipping over the rest
If she had run a policy campaign she would have lost. If she had run a smear campaign targeting Trump's strengths, she would have won. Instead she attacked his weaknesses, and lost.

Hillary Clinton was not completely incompetent, she was completely arrogant, and just incompetent enough to make the pride go before the fall

haha, no surprise that hillary shielded an accused sexual harasser on her campaign

Pro-free trade would've been a start. I think possibly even enough alone. I think a huge portion of the moderates who went Trump's way did so because of the constant focus on identity politics. The interest in identity politics is much smaller than it appears to be on the internet IMO. Anecdotally the vast majority of people I've talked to who voted Trump were annoyed by this avoidance of important issues in favor of nonsense.

Most of her other positions were politically fine.



That is very true.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jan 26 2018 03:51pm

She stayed married to one.

You got that right. New folks may have better ideas or as yet untried ideas.

Doesn't matter what race they are though. Hiring someone with new ideas is a good thing. Hiring a minority expecting to get new ideas just because they're a minority, is just plain stupid.

Free trade was unpopular. The people who are against it are fervent, the people who are for it are ambivalent.
If Hillary ran an economic policy campaign, Trump would say she's shipping jobs overseas and he's bringing them back. Even with the hatred the democrats drummed up against Trump to the point where pollsters could get 50% of americans to say they think Trump is a cannibal- just because they'd automatically answer whatever they perceive as the most antitrump option- they still granted a huge edge to Trump on the economy over Hillary. It was by far his biggest strength.

Now, as Karl Rove showed, you can defeat Trump by attacking the strength. But not by meeting it head-on with an argument, by subverting it and pulling the rug out from under it. John Kerry got swift boated, not asked respectfully by debate moderators to share his 'nam experiences and let the people decide. If Hillary's campaign wasn't run by morons, the answer was to cast Trump as an inept businessman and an elitist unrelatable snob, someone who didn't know how to run a company let alone an economy, and achieve that by whatever underhanded means necessary. They even showed a little inkling of it with attempts to exploit his bankruptcies, but let him play it off as a pragmatic business move to exploit the system.

Exactly what I meant, thank you!

Champion of womens rights, huh?

I want you to maintain this standard with our next Democratic president, Trumpshill.

german state TV artificially ramped up the boos in a report about trumps speech in davos, while their reporters aggressively critized trump for talking about "fake news" and "unfair media":

https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article172917293/ARD-Nachrichtensendung-Tagesschau-drehte-Buhrufe-fuer-Trump-etwas-lauter.html


sad.
so SAD!