It gives a lot more context and is less sensationalized.

Even the young turks are critical of this. I thought I never would have seen the day. Even demcrats are getting sick of her

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fqlM78a0Gc 

How much context do you need, she does interviews and explains in detail some of theese events. Thats tat thing about this is that is a list of diferent events that add up to her loss. So we can take each even independetly without reading the entire thing.

I think Trump is closer to 30%.

Nailed it. It amazes me how few people seem to recognize this.

Clinton had very little to appeal to the working class voters. The Clinton's have a very cozy relationship with Wallstreet and central bankers, are pro free-trade, her husband signed NAFTA into law, not to mentioned Hillary spearheaded the "NAFTA on roids" TPP. Trump (similar to Bernie) ran heavily on an anti-free trade platform and anti-outsourcing, which places with a decimated working class like Michigan and where industry once was the backbone of the local economies responded to. Hence the loss of the Blue Wall/Rust Belt, which was also her ultimate downfall. This is why I feel strongly that Bernie would have won the election had the Democrats ran him out there rather than making the foolish decision to box him out (similar to what Republicans did to Ron Paul in 2012), as he had much overlap to Trump in this regard.

Hillary thought she could essentially run on the luster of the first woman president along with "well at least I'm not Trump!" but as it turns out the majority of Americans care about more than trivial things than this, such as having a decent job with liveable wages and being able to support a family. Not that Trump's going to be the one to actually carry this out but at the very least he did a hell of a better job selling this angle than Hillary. Also, most people outside college students and privleged rich coastal elites don't give two shits about identity politics in the grand scheme of things, which was Clinton's other major platform.

I would say I am pretty undecided in my head... I am more moderate but supported Trudeau in the last election. I am getting more liberal socially and economically over time but I do dislike the authoritarian tendencies of PC culture.

Canada is pretty liberal but there has been a sizeable pushback against nonsense like forcing people to use gender pronouns and that kind of stuff is largely focused in Universities... I would argue urban California is more Liberal then Canada.

Canada is not as divided but there is a sizable portion on the right who are anti PC and a sizeable portion on the left who are delusional.

Trudeau biggest flaw is he is a man of all talk, nice hair, and socks but of little action. 

If Hillary was elected, things would have been better but Hillary vast unpopularity would have meant a failed Presidency 

I suspect I am the only person here who has even read part of it.

"Even the Young Turks"? Here's a news flash for those who haven't been keeping up: The Young Turks opposed Clinton in the Democratic primaries in both 2008 and 2016 and have ALWAYS been critical of her. They still endorsed her after she won the Democratic nomination, but my point is: Why should one be shocked that they maintain the same critiques they've always had of her now?

I'm not uncritical of her either (I did vote for Bernie Sanders in the primaries and my own political views are, in actuality, well to the left of his), but I am also very much a pragmatist and one who tends to view candidates for public office as human (with the possible exception of our current president), and yes I do indeed think that there were a mountain of factors besides Hillary Clinton's in reality minor shortcomings (like failing to visit this or that state, speaking with unnecessary caution, changing a couple of stances between 1994 and 2016 like no one else has ever done, etc.) and that Clinton's assessment of what those were in her new book isn't way off base.

Hillary's new fact-checker speaks truthiness to power (this is not a parody, read it yourself).



https://verrit.com/every-major-media-narrative-about-2016-is-demonstrably-false/

FACT: Hillary Clinton is the first woman in history to become the presidential nominee of a major party. Would anyone characterize that as a “flaw?” Singling out Hillary Clinton as “flawed” when all humans are flawed has a decidedly sexist tinge. [:D] There is nothing particularly flawed about working a lifetime to become one of the most accomplished women in political history.

Cant say I would know much since I hate the young turks and barely saw any of their talks after berney vs hillary. But they where 100% sure hillary was going to win and mostly critized trump. Now they always knew for some reason dint care back then. 

There are always factors, its never a walk in park. If she could not handle opositin then she should just say so.

I Will say this in her favour, the media did an awfull job as well, by being so bias that they tried to make everything sound good in her favour.. That would just make people doubt. the rig debates. Belittling  everything trump said. Every critisim she got was brushed off as nonimportant. They gave her so much spotlight on nonsense about her being the first woman president instead of what her actual policies where. 

only 25% of her tv spotlight was policies. the rest was Im a woman and trump sucks.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads 

So theres still hope for you. Center is the best way to go, so undecided just means you are already on the right path.

Are you in college yet? Just survive that without falling to them saying that there is only right or left. Both have good parts.