• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another reason Clinton lost....

It's interesting that a candidate should have to pander to religious bigots to get elected :rolleyes:

It's illuminating that a candidate portrayed as being "crooked" refused to compromise her positions and beliefs whereas her opponent - who was projecting an image of being a straight talker - was willing to pretend to be religious :rolleyes:
 
The Don said:
It's interesting that a candidate should have to pander to religious bigots to get elected :rolleyes:

It's illuminating that a candidate portrayed as being "crooked" refused to compromise her positions and beliefs whereas her opponent - who was projecting an image of being a straight talker - was willing to pretend to be religious :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But the story says that Obama gave a leading magazine an extensive interview that portrayed him in a positive light and helped him win, and Clinton apparently is a life-long committed Methodist who quietly organized a Bible-study group when she was First Lady. It's a mistake to claim all evangelicals are bigots; there are plenty of black and Hispanic evangelicals too. She might have found some common ground with the 25% of the voters who call themselves evangelicals. Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty U., and started out by saying "There are lots of things we don't agree on, but here's what we should be able to agree on," and laid out his social justice platform to respectful applause. At the least, Clinton closed the doors on the evangelicals while Trump was claiming to be one of them.
 
Bob001 said:
But the story says that Obama gave a leading magazine an extensive interview that portrayed him in a positive light and helped him win, and Clinton apparently is a life-long committed Methodist who quietly organized a Bible-study group when she was First Lady.
Click to expand...

Methodism is a long way from Evangelicism IMO

Presumably they'd be looking for assurances on abortion and for special consideration for religious beliefs when it comes to discrimination. If that's the case then she should have nothing to do with them.

Bob001 said:
It's a mistake to claim all evangelicals are bigots; there are plenty of black and Hispanic evangelicals too. She might have found some common ground with the 25% of the voters who call themselves evangelicals.
Click to expand...

Why not call them bigots ?

They may not be racist bigots but they sure as heck are religious bigots :mad:

Bob001 said:
Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty U., and started out by saying "There are lots of things we don't agree on, but here's what we should be able to agree on," and laid out his social justice platform to respectful applause. At the least, Clinton closed the doors on the evangelicals while Trump was claiming to be one of them.
Click to expand...

Perhaps she took the view that the damage that she would incur by appearing to court evangelicals would outweigh the benefits of attempting to appeal to white Evangelicals.

Having already hijacked the GOP, it seems like the evangelicals are now determined to infiltrate the Democratic Party as well. Let's have both parties calling for "teaching the controversy" :rolleyes:
 
She probably didn't want to be associated with Evangelical$ for obvious reasons. They're the most hypocritical christians on the planet.
 
The Don said:
It's interesting that a candidate should have to pander to religious bigots to get elected :rolleyes:

It's illuminating that a candidate portrayed as being "crooked" refused to compromise her positions and beliefs whereas her opponent - who was projecting an image of being a straight talker - was willing to pretend to be religious :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wow, you really don't understand this whole voter outreach concept.
 
trustbutverify said:
The same reason she didn't waste resources on other interest groups whose votes were essentially unavailable to her.
Click to expand...

Responding to inquiries is a very low-effort outreach. And I'm sure she could have gotten more evangelical votes than she did if she tried, just as I'm sure she did get some evangelical votes.
 
Ziggurat said:
Wow, you really don't understand this whole voter outreach concept.
Click to expand...

I do, if you lie with dogs you risk getting fleas ;)

There's also the added risk that your overtures will be embarassingly rebuffed.

Like I say, having already hijacked the GOP, the evangelicals are attempting to infiltrate the Democratic Party. This is the first salvo, give the impression to a hurting Democratic Party that they could have won if only they pander to the evangelicals....:rolleyes:
 
Gee, maybe if she had reached out to Black evangelicals in Wi, Mi and Penn she would not have lost.

But I understand that they are "bigots." I read it on a site for "skeptics."
 
I do agree that she probably should have reached out in some way, the only way to win is to gather as many votes as possible.

However I am also an incurable idealist, and frankly if the only reason you want to vote for someone is because of their religious position, then I don't care what you think, and if that means losing, so be it.
 
The Big Dog said:
Gee, maybe if she had reached out to Black evangelicals in Wi, Mi and Penn she would not have lost.

But I understand that they are "bigots." I read it on a site for "skeptics."
Click to expand...

Evangelicals are pretty much the dictionary definition of bigoted:

bigot
ˈbɪɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
Click to expand...
 
The Don said:
It's interesting that a candidate should have to pander to religious bigots to get elected :rolleyes:

It's illuminating that a candidate portrayed as being "crooked" refused to compromise her positions and beliefs whereas her opponent - who was projecting an image of being a straight talker - was willing to pretend to be religious :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You don't think Hillary Clinton also did a lot of pandering?
 
No outreach to fundamentalists. The GOP already has them locked down, and it would only compromise the values of the Democratic party to pander to religious bigots. We've already seen that the Democrats can get a majority of the vote anyway. In a few years, that majority will be larger due to demographic shifts. Only the antiquated electoral college and gerrymandering is keeping the GOP in a position of power.
 
I doubt that Hillary Clinton could have done much of anything to appeal to the evangelical types.

However, I was pleased that she did not shamelessly pander to them the way so many other national politicians do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom