Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Hillary Clinton Will Lose Against the Republican Nominee in Nov 2016

Hillary Clinton Will Lose Against the Republican Nominee in Nov 2016

As many of you have heard by now- Hillary Clinton has “won” the democratic caucuses in Nevada by 5% of the vote. The results seem to largely validate most pre-election polls which showed that Hillary Clinton had about 2-3 % more supporters than Sanders. However many aspects of this supposed “victory” and previous democratic primaries have convinced me that Hillary Clinton has little, to no, chance of winning against a populist (or even moderately competent) republican opponent in the presidential election of Nov 2016.

Here is why..

Let us start with some history. As, once again, many of you know- Hillary Clinton (henceforward referred to as Shrillary) was the unopposed candidate of the democratic party establishment. It is also widely known that the democratic party establishment actively discouraged other viable democratic candidates from running against her in the primaries. They did so because they, rightly, felt that Shrillary could not win the democratic nomination against an even moderately competent competitor. Now.. there are many reasons for her innate lack of appeal to democratic and general voters. While she is widely seen as an extremely corrupt and untrustworthy corporate stooge, those attributes by themselves are not the real deal-breaker.

The biggest roadblock in Shrillary’s path to winning the general election is first and foremost- her “personality” (if you can call it that). I am sure that many of you have also noticed that there is something about her persona that just feels highly unnatural, artificial, deceptive and unrelatable. It does not help that every attempt made by her to appear more ‘human’ always ends up making her look more artificial and deceptive. While this would not be a big issue if we still lived in an era before the internet and when part bosses controlled who got the presidential nomination- we don’t. The reality is that people with Shrillary’s “personality” are just not viable presidential candidates in the post-1980 world.

However the democratic party establishment is desperately in need of a presidential candidate who can bring them tens of billions of dollars and other favors from wall street and other corporations. To make a long story short, Shrillary was and is the best bet for funneling all that money and corporate favors into the democratic party establishment. It is also therefore not surprising that the party establishment has invested so heavily in her candidacy. Under “normal” conditions, they might have even succeeded in pulling off that crap- but then a series of events in the real world upset their calculations.

The first two (or three) events that upset their calculations first manifested themselves about 7-8 years ago. The candidacy and eventual victory of Barack Obama was a disaster for Shrillary in many ways that were not fully appreciated in 2008 or even 2012. You see, Obama ran as a more relatable and eloquent version of Shrillary. While the immediate consequence (loss of the 2008 democratic nomination) was a big downer for Shrillary- the second and third order consequences were even worse. The inability and unwillingness of Obama to keep even a fraction of the promises he made to ordinary voters during his campaign have made it much harder for any further democratic candidate to make the case that acceptability by the establishment matters.

To put it another way, very few democratic voters now believe that a presidential candidate who accepts billions from corporations and wall street will keep any of the promises made to them. While this would not have been a major liability as late as the mid-2000s when the general mood in USA was still upbeat- events since 2008 have made it very clear to many voters that the old way of doing things is just not workable. It is therefore amusing to watch Shrillary trying to wrap herself in Obama’s legacy to win black votes in the democratic primaries. My point is that the black votes she might win in the primaries with her embrace of his legacy pale in comparison to the numbers she will lose for doing so in the presidential election.

Another big problem for Shrillary is that her potential republican opponent in 2016 is unlikely to be an establishment politician- at least nobody with as awful a “personality” as hers (except Ted Cruz). Donald Trump, for his many faults and shortcomings, is a far more relatable person than Shrillary. His willingness to play the nativist-populist cards and constantly attack his opponents make him a far more formidable candidate than most greedy and effeminate public “intellectuals” and talking/blogging heads are willing to acknowledge. Look.. Trump handily won the republican primary in South Carolina after calling Bush43 an idiot and liar. In other words, Shrillary can win the general election in 2016 only if her republican opponent was either Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz.

And this brings us to the issue of Bernie Sanders, or more specifically why he has been so successful against Hillary Clinton in the democratic primaries.

In the three democratic primaries hat have taken place so far- Bernie has won one with a large margin (around 20% in New Hampshire) and lost two by very narrow margins (0.2% in Iowa and 5% in Nevada). Perhaps more worryingly, Shrillary is losing to Bernie in demographic categories that she was expected to utterly dominate. It is no secret that she is losing to Bernie among white women (especially those younger than 40-45) and the younger voters (18-40). More problematically, she is now losing to Bernie in the Hispanic voter category. While some of this might be due to the fact the Hispanic voters are younger than the median- it does not bode well for Shrillary’s presidential aspirations.

But there is a much bigger problem.. she is losing all those categories to a guy who is openly socialist secular jew- a grouping of characteristics that is supposedly to make you unelectable in the presidential election. Even more humiliatingly- he was almost unknown on the national stage until a few months ago. So how did a guy who was almost unknown on the national stage 6-8 months ago suck way so many voters from her. I am not sure if you remember that even 3 months ago- Shrillary was leading Bernie in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada by 30-40% in opinion polls. The fact that he could close and reverse those odds tells you two things. Firstly, Bernie is a pretty good candidate. Secondly, Shrillary is a piss poor candidate who could not win unless the electoral process was heavily rigged in her favor.

I think we have to accept that there are far fervent Shrillary supporters than the media and “experts” want us to believe. While this might not have been an issue if she was running against equally or more unlikable candidates such as Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz- the lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy among democratic and democratic-leaning voters will be a big problem if she runs against a populist like Trump or a non-repulsive empty suit like Rubio. This will be especially problematic if she gets nominated through overwhelming support by unelected ‘super-delegates’ at the democratic convention in mid-2016.

To summarize- Shrillary will very likely lose the 2016 presidential election even if she gets the democratic nomination because her nomination will result in low turnout of democratic and democratic-leaning voters. Additionally, some potential democratic voters might just end up voting for Trump. Also, Trump or Rubio might increase turnout among republican or republican-leaning voters. The net result of these voting patterns is that democrats will end up losing one or more of the so-called ‘swing’ states, and thereby the presidency, to republicans. Since the biggest deal-breaker about Shrillary, namely her “personality”, cannot be fixed- it might be better to nominate Bernie Sanders. Alternatively they can Hubert Humphrey themselves into electoral oblivion.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. hans
    February 21, 2016 at 4:24 am

    That may very well all pan out this way, but will the Eskimo oligarchs in charge of the US actually allow it?
    I very much doubt it.

    I´m dismissing assassination though, surely Trump is savvy enough to keep the ruling US Zio&Nazi factions guessing if he can be used.
    He´s done it his whole life, even married of his blonde schicksa daughter to one of the Tribesmen.

    Nah, my bet is on them going the good ole fraud route, putting Hitlary in charge.
    Only THIS time ´mericans will actually see right through it and THEN shit will hit the fan.

    I´d get my popcorn ready for it, if only I´d had a fuck to give about the US election circus.
    But I got bigger shit to worry about, 1.5 million ork problems and counting.

  2. Wilson
    February 21, 2016 at 6:23 am

    Might be some competition for the nomination, but almost impossible for the Welfare Party lose in a welfare state; she’ll make courageous proposals for free stuff, and the narrative of her historic vagina will become prominent so voters don’t have to admit to themselves they are dependent losers

  3. John
    February 21, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Ultimately the liberals are allowing in Muslim immigrants, and it is the Muslim immigrants who are going to destroy feminism. That’s why I think Roosh and his RoK site is taking the wrong path critcizing Islam, because utimately it’s the Muslims that are flooding into Europe that are putting white European women back into their place, is it not? Shouldn’t RoK be supporting Islam and the Muslim immigrants? Because they are accomplishing (destroying feminsm) what the antifeminists and MRAs are too spineless to do.

    So in a sense I kind of hope the liberals win the election, cause they’ll just open the floodgates to more Muslim immigrants which in turn will destroy feminism ultimately. Let’s face it, white men are never going to stop feminism. The only force powerful enough in this world to stop feminism is Islam.

    • P Ray
      February 21, 2016 at 6:16 pm

      Right. That twaddle about “Islam will stop feminism”:
      Muna revealed ISIS jihadis ripped out Kayla Mueller’s finger nails last August
      Terror chief then told her that he would take her as his wife ‘by force’
      But Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi feared his others wives finding out so he kept Kayla a secret

      Oh ya, women are not in charge in Islam.

      Another one:
      “Under Muslim law, a woman can ask the Syariah Court for a divorce if the husband cannot provide for her for 4 months” – Ahmad, “Criminal Intent II: True Stories from Changi Prison, Singapore Prison Service, 2011

      Yes, Islam will stop feminism /sarcasm

    • P Ray
      February 21, 2016 at 6:18 pm

      Another one:

      A few weeks earlier, a 20-year-old Saudi woman filed for divorce from her husband-of-seven-months because he is shorter than her.
      In legal documents she claimed that towering over her husband during their brief seven month union had made her feel ‘painfully uneasy’ and ‘distressingly uncomfortable.’

      Yes, men are completely in charge in Islam

      • hans
        February 22, 2016 at 12:00 pm

        Oh yes! Great finds!
        Indeed Mohamed´s(Batshit be upon him) little cult is the ultimate for every single dark female impulse. From the fifty-shades ones to the craving for a strong psycho alpha that leads to the easy harem life.

        Every western swampy cooch that spreads her legs for an oh so strong Ork soon finds out what a big mama´s boy he is when she follows him home.
        THAT is when the real nightmare starts.
        Cause middle eastern dragon mamma DON´T like foreign pussy at all, her sister has all these “useless” ork-girl cousins for her son to marry.

      • P Ray
        February 22, 2016 at 1:39 pm

        Speaking on the related idea that Muslim guys are all aggressive:
        “In ONE generation, women can genocide out of existence ALL of the kind and caring men in their society – just look at Afghanistan, for example. How do you think it came about that an entire country’s women are not allowed to leave the house without a man? Are all those men in Afghanistan really nice, caring men? Of course not – the nice, caring men were GENOCIDED out of existence by the stupid women who lived and then rejected those nice men for the violent men, when the nice, caring men were still alive.”

        One should always remember that women like to blame men … for women’s own decisions. That blame-shifting is what blue-pill men and manginas … allow women to get away with.

        Of course, Abrahamic faiths competing for women’s approval … is a global version of “Let’s you and him fight”.

    • hans
      February 22, 2016 at 12:09 pm

      Roosh is an ork.
      He fucking knows all too well what a fuckup this accursed cult really is.
      But the Gutmenschen like you never listen, even when the air-raid sirens are blaring.

      Which figures because the only cure for stupid is death.

  4. shiningtime
    February 21, 2016 at 9:36 pm

    There is no real choice here. Trump or Clinton? A man who was born wealthy and grew even wealthier; the definition of ‘1%er’. Or the woman who has been a Washington insider for +30years; the epitome of the corporate deep state establishment. Those are our options? The Presidential election is an elaborate game rigged in favor of those who control all the pieces. There is no choice only the illusion of such.

    • hans
      February 22, 2016 at 12:16 pm

      Ah what the heck, I´ll bite.

      So then DON´T vote for them?
      How about all the independent candidates? For example libertarian Mcafee. A truly incorruptible one as evident by the countless MSM lies about him and even an honest to god conspiracy against him by a foreign government.

      But ohnoes then mah vote will be “useless”!!
      So fucking what! It already is, isn´t it?

  5. John
    February 22, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    I’ve decided to go through with my Legalize Prostitution website/blog idea, and I’d like to invite the Dissention blog’s owner to help write for it. Is there any way I can contact him?

    I’m the guy who created the famous Boycott American Women blog which went super viral a few years back.

  6. February 23, 2016 at 10:48 am

    this is funnier than shit…

    • hans
      February 24, 2016 at 3:09 am

      Yeah, vote for the Jew who is bad with money. And cannot wait to bend over for every conceivable and inconceivable (LGBTXYZ!#*) minority EVERYWHERE.
      What could possibly go wrong?

      I can tell you what can go wrong.
      Right in my country I have over ONEMILLIONFIVEHUNDRED (&counting) examples of what can go wrong with retarded Gutmenschen like that and your faggoty self.

      The only right answer to you “people” is..

  7. hans
    February 24, 2016 at 3:32 am

    A little FYI on the German word “Gutmenschen” I´m constantly using.

    It got nothing to do with the gut, unless equating “gutless” with it.
    The literal translation would be “good men/people” and is now established here as a sarcastic description of the phony hypocritical self-view the various Bolsheviks, socialists, LIEberals have of themselves. And what passes for CONservative here.

    Closest English pronunciation would be “good-man-sh-an” or “good-man-sh” for a single ork lover like “fagwithaboner” above.

  8. February 24, 2016 at 10:53 am
  1. November 12, 2016 at 10:11 am
  2. May 30, 2019 at 11:20 pm
  3. February 13, 2020 at 9:27 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: