Meg Whitman to Step Down as HPE CEO

Is she planning to run for Governor again?

Some people think she may be thinking about running against Trump in 2020 - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/21/kevin-oleary-thinks-meg-whit...

Silicon Valley is trending for like-ability about where Wall Street was in 2008. But of course she should run, as should Zuckerberg, Thiel, Altman etc because it would be a hoot watching them go down in flames.

If Clinton's 9-figure campaign couldn't get a handle on what the average American voter wants from their government, it would be downright hilarious to watch someone from Silicon Valley try. The region is so far out of touch, they aren't even on the same planet.

The problem wasn't Clinton's campaign, it was the candidate; it's amazing that a candidate that widely hated and whose negatives were rock solid from decades of political exposure still managed to get more votes than Trump, who came in with slightly higher negatives, but about whom voters had far less firm opinions.

Uh huh. Overt racism & sexism, foreign meddling, systemic disenfranchisement, Johnson & Stein pulling a Nader (+2m votes over 2012), $3b of free earned pro-Trump media, Comey’s sabotage, the electoral college, and 300k opioid addicts voting for the Big Chief were all totally irrelevant.

Nope. HRC was unlikeable. It’s all her own fault.

Look, let's consider the 2000 election for a moment: Florida was both brought within distance for theft to matter by Nader votes and actually stolen, resulting in the Bush victory. But the only reason the results, in Florida or nationally, were close enough for any of that to matter was because the Gore made the incredibly moronic choice not only fail to leverage the fact that he was Vice President to the most popular outgoing President in the history of polling, but to top that off my spitting in the face of that with the Vice Presidential pick.

Similarly, yes, all those things you mention were part of the context in which the 2016 election occurred but they were decisive only because that Democrats picked the weakest possible candidate, with higher unfavorable ratings than any previous major party nominee, firm unfavorability because of decades of national political exposure, and relatively little experience as a candidate in electoral politics (having only served a couple terms as a Senator in a heavily-selling state coming in onethe coattails her husband's Presidential popularity; she'd never been in a campaign where she needed more than the approval of the Democratic establishment to win.) Clinton had the worst negatives that can come with long political exposure, without the strengths that come from long and relevant electoral politics experience.

And, no, it's not her fault, it's the Democratic establishment's fault. Clinton didn't have the choice to be herself or be someone else, the Democratic establishment did have the choice not to decide to go all in for Clinton even before other candidates were declared.