2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTen Reasons Why Hillary lost - And they are probably not what you thought
The following are the ten reasons why I believe that Hillary Clinton lost the election. None of them infer that she was a bad candidate, because that just isnt true. I didnt try to come up with a nice round number like 10; I just started listing the factors that contributed to the loss and that is the number I came up with. I frankly dont believe that any one of these alone was responsible, or any combination of two or three for that matter. Rather it was a perfect storm where all or at least most of these factors led to a very surprising and most unpleasant result the evening of November 8th.
1) The Economy: Many people have been hurting for the last 8 years while the country slowly recovered from the worst economic downturn since the great depression. When compared to the rest of the industrialized world, our country is in great shape, but trying telling that to Americans who have had to work part time jobs because there is was no other work or those paychecks haven't increased most of the last 8 years. And remember whose policies caused that cataclysmic economic downturn. It wasnt the fault of Barack Obama. The economy is finally getting back to full employment and wages are starting to rise again, but there has been a lot of pain in the mean time. People were looking for something or some one to blame it on and along comes a con artist ready to blame their favorite bogymen and willing to promise absolutely anything to get himself elected.
2) Trump lies: Fact checks revealed that Trump lied on 71% of the major statements he made during the campaign. His strategy was a lot like that of basketball team whose coach teaches his players to attack on ferociously on defense under the assumptions that the referees cant call every foul. The under educated and ill informed bought the majority of Trumps lies because they don't read fact checks and they didn't have background information to know when he was lying, which was most of the time. So like hungry fish taking the bait, they believed him because he was telling them what they wanted to hear.
3) Trump's appeals to deplorables: Unfortunately that there is a very large portion of our population that falls into the deplorable category. Racism may be less obvious in this country than in the past. but it still has deep roots in this country and not only in the South. While they may not be white supremacists, it is still far too easy to convince ordinary working people that immigrants are after their jobs, or may rape their wives and daughters, or may plant a bomb where the work or play. So how did Obama get elected twice you may ask. That's because no legitimate Republican politician like McCain or Romney would have ever lowered themselves to appeal the deplorable nature of too large a segment of our population. Donald J. Trump has no such scruples taking advantage of gullible people and lying to inflate his image is a big part of who he is.
4) Republican attacks on Hillary over the years: This doesn't even require an explanation. Ask yourself this, would an identical email problem of any other politician with Hillarys record of service and achievements been held in false equivalency to the many outrageous things that Donald Trump has said and done? And why do the Republicans hate Hillary. They really hate Bill Clinton because he made them look like fools so many times during his eight years as President and they view Hillary as an extension of Bill.
5) Hillary is a woman: My wife told me a long time ago that she believed Trump would win because down deep the majority of the men in this country are not yet ready to elect a women President. I told my wife that she was mistaken, but I now have to admit that I was the one who was wrong. It is certainly no accident that non college educated white men cast the highest percentage of votes against Hillary. It is this demographic that is the least likely to want a woman in charge. This list isnt in order of importance to the results of the election, but if it were this one item would be listed much higher.
6) A cranky government computer system: The Republicans tried like hell to make Benghazi a major issue, but even after 11 congressional investigations, they couldnt really make it stick. It was the email issue with its drip, drip, drip of information that hurt Hillary far worse. And why did she set up her own server because the state departments non classified email system, after years of Republican budget cuts, worked so poorly that almost no one in the entire department used it any more than they absolutely had to.
It was so bad that of the recent Secretaries of States used their private email accounts for non classified government business. Colin Powell used an AOL account and you cant tell me that some of the data that flowed through that insecure account couldnt have been retroactively classified. Government emails ended up on Anthony Weiners computer precisely because his wife and Hillarys top aid, Huma Abedin, had to send government emails to her private email account to print them at home because she found that it was almost impossible to use the government system to print long emails.
And give the Republicans in Congress credit they are very good at using their investigative power to blow up small trifles until they appear to be sins against the entire human race. If the State Department would have had a modern email system no one would have given a damn what was on Hillarys emails.
7. Bernie Sanders: Sanders initially entered the Democratic primaries for two reasons. No, one of them was not to win; at the time he entered he did not believe he had a chance of doing that. The realization that he might have a chance to win and the calls for a Revolution came later. The two reasons were: 1) No one was running against her remember how he claimed should have primaried Barack Obama in 2011. 2) He wanted to push Hillary further to the left before she contested the general election.
While he failed to attract a majority of Democratic Party members in nearly primary, he attracted enough independents the most liberal of all voters and young people who rallied to his promises of a free college education and an escape from crushing college debt to make the primaries very competitive. His supporters grew very excited; it was the dawn of the Revolution. Once he was convinced he had a chance to win, Sanders was not only just pushing his ideas, he was attacking Hillary with a vengeance. Many of his more successful attack themes were later happily adopted by the Trump campaign which relished the task of continuing to pound them into the heads of the American voters. In the process Bernie was able to convince many of his supporters that Hillary was unfit to be their President.
When Sanders finally bowed out, many of his followers were devastated and resentful. The excitement was gone, their hero was defeated and, in their eyes, only a distasteful Democratic candidate remained. Some of Bernies supporters later enthusiastically supported Hillary, some held their noses and voted against Trump, but others, many of them young people, just werent interested anymore since that their champion they had worked so hard to elect was gone. In my opinion Sanders candidacy was a large net negative for Hillary Clinton.
8. Putin was in bed with Trump: It was apparent throughout the campaign that Donald J. Trump and Vladimir Putin were having a public bromance. Putin pulled every string he could try to assure that Trump was victorious. (His reasons should be obvious by now.) Some computer scientist trying to protect the election from hacking accidentally discovered a server in Trump Towers which was dedicated solely to transmitting human conversations back and forth with two servers in a Russian bank with very close ties to Putin. After the election, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that the Russian government had been in close communications with many of the key Trump staffers throughout the campaign. (Now we know what the Trump Towers server was used for.)
The Clinton campaign emails which were hacked by the Russian military intelligence agency and released by Wikileaks were made available during the final stages of the campaign, were aimed specifically at undermining Hillarys chances of being elected. They revealed nothing more sinister than a campaign staff plotting as usual to win an election. However, the drip, drip, drip of hacked materials fed into the illusion of false equivalency between Clinton and Trump in the minds of under informed voters. And lets not forget that Trump encouraged Putin to do more hacking on his behalf. The two of them need to get a room.
10) Poll errors: Many of the state polls were inaccurate. This might have been because the pollsters underestimated the percentage of undereducated whites, especially men who would participate in the election. Or perhaps it was because people were embarrassed that they supported Trump so they lied when they were asked by pollsters who they would vote for. Perhaps their were other factors, but for whatever reason both the public state polls and those performed internally by the Democratic campaign gave Hillarys people a false sense of security about three states which would prove critical Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Consequently the Clinton campaign didnt expend as much resources in those states as they should have.
Its easy to be a Monday morning candidate, but look at the facts. During the entire general election period Hilly was never behind in the polls of any of those three states. According to Nate Silvers weighted poll averages, on November 7th Hillary had 5.2% lead in Wisconsin. In Michigan she led by 4.2% and in Pennsylvania she led by 2.3%. Silver gave the following probabilities that Hillary would win those three states: Wisconsin 83.5%, Michigan - 78.9%, and Pennsylvania 77.0%. If you know your statistics you can calculate that Trumps chances of winning all three states was only 0.8%. His chances of taking the easiest two, Wisconsin and Michigan, while losing Wisconsin were only 4.9%. I would take those odds going in any day.
However, those statistics are only as good as the polls on which they based and for some reason or another the 121 polls which Silver used to calculate his probabilities for those three states were systematically off. I am sure that the Clinton campaigns internal polling showed similar results as the public polls. Campaigns have to make choices were to invest the limited resources they have available, and I wouldnt have put a lot money into those three states either.
10) Comey - The final blows were of the campaign were administered by the FBI Director who just happens to be a registered Republican. Normally at the conclusion of a FBI investigation, the FBI has little to say. If the investigation does not yield evidence of criminality, the FBI puts out a notice saying just that and nothing more. Whether he was trying to tilt the election in favor of Trump or to cover his ass in the face of what he knew would be intense pressure by Republican Congressional investigations, on July 5th while clearing Clinton of any charges, James Comey took the unprecedented step of adding that Hillary was extremely careless with government secrets.
The Clinton campaign called on Comey to declassify the emails and allow the public to judge the seriousness of the subject matter for themselves, but of course that never happened. I am willing to bet a lot of money that when those emails are finally released years from now, we will find that the emails in questions didnt include deep dark secrets at all, but were classified after the fact by over zealous operatives in one of the intelligence agencies who would consider my aunts shoe size to be sensitive information or by government employees out to embarrass Hillary.
Instead of being able to finally put the email issue behind her, Hillary was subjected a new barrage of accusations by Trump and his allies which again brought the false equivalency problem to the forefront. But Comey wasnt done with meddling in the election. On October 28th, just 11 days before the polls opened on November 8th, Comey wrote a letter to his Republican buddies in Congress saying that he had reopened the Clinton email investigation because some of Clinton emails had been found on Anthony Weiner PC. (The letter was of course instantly leaked to the press.) In the process Comey broke two cardinal rules of FBI protocol the FBI never comments about an investigation in progress and never reveals anything that could affect the results within 60 days of an election. Of course nine days later, just 48 hours before the election, the FBI Director had to admit that nothing incriminating had been found.
At the time that Comely had his letter delivered to Congress, Donald Trump was drowning in a sea of public disgust resulting from the airing of an old video showing him bragging about sexually assaulting women with impunity. Following his claim that it was just locker room banter (boy talk in the words of his wife), he was sinking deeper and deeper as one after another 12 women came forward with verified stories of Donalds assaults on their bodies. With his letter to Congress about the reopened investigation, Comey not only threw Trump a life ring, he also reeled him back into the boat. The FBI Directors revelation completely changed the election conversation. Rather than sinking with the concrete boots of sexual assault encasing his feet, a reinvigorated Trump had new ammunition to fire at Clinton in the closing days of the campaign. When Comey eventually came out and said, Opps, never mind. My bad, it was too late, the damage had been done and Hillary never recovered.
This was the final blow to the Clinton. The polls which were widening in her favor started to seriously tighten again. However had she not been weakened by the other early onslaughts it probably would not have been fatal, but since she was already weakened by all of the other blows which had preceded it, Comey treachery proved to be the knock out punch.
The article was originally published on my blog:
Ten Reasons Why Hillary lost
radical noodle
(8,605 posts)There were some other things like the vast amount of money the NRA quietly spent against her, but your list covers most of it. It breaks my heart that the most experienced candidate who was known to be able to get things done lost the electoral college to a person like trump, but still won the popular vote by so much.
CaliforniaPeggy
(152,119 posts)But even a quick reading tells me you're most likely right.
It makes me sad to read it, but ...We must acknowledge the facts and opinions that you stated here in order to fix the situation so that next time, these won't happen again.
Thank you.
JonLP24
(29,351 posts)And I remember Bernie Sanders in the beginning when the media gave him no shot kept asking him why and he is not someone to bullshit made it clear he was in the primary for serious reasons not some bullshit about hoping to pull her to the left. He kept it on policies but he was serious for his reasons for running.
R B Garr
(17,379 posts)a run for President. Nothing was stopping him... right? He saw an opportunity and slid in. How else do you explain why he sat out 11 prior elections.
And he certainly didn't stick to policy. Hating billionaires is not a policy. He attacked our nominee without being accountable for any of his smears. He was a self-serving opportunist. Shameful what he did.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)DemonGoddess
(5,123 posts)JonLP24
(29,351 posts)He was concerned about both parties in bed with Wall Street, I think he ran to give someone an option.
I don't think he hated billionaires but their influence in politics and wealth distribution.
When the media kept asking about Clinton in the beginning he said his decision to enter wasn't about her and focused on his platform or policies.
R B Garr
(17,379 posts)he obviously wasn't *that* concerned. Wall Street was eight years ago, so surely he could have named one person in those eight years since George Bush left office.
He also couldn't name one policy that Hillary exploited for Wall Street.
So truth in messaging wasn't a big concern for him, and it's time to quit badgering people with those phony talking points in light of his obvious grandstanding.
He slithered into the race because he thought Hillary was vulnerable. Actually, his platform was mainly concern for the white vote. People got posts hidden here for quoting Bernie's exact words about his platform.
JonLP24
(29,351 posts)He has consistently voiced his concerns on Wall Street and generally in favor progressive policies.
My talking points aren't phony but based on memory.
Tell me what Bernie Sanders' words are that would get you banned. He may have not done well outside of white males but he has always had a strong record on civil rights.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Then when he figured out he had a chance to win, it was all about pushing his REVOLUTION. With Bernie it is still all about the REVOLUTION - he is a true believer and very late in his career he final has gained some attention to his life long quest.
What is strange about Bernie's revolution is that much of its support comes from white people, many of them in good financial shape, who would least benefit from it. On the other hand, those who you would think would most benefit from it, blacks, Hispanics, etc. are not really on board. As revolutions go, it has to be among the strangest ever.
JonLP24
(29,351 posts)Finding out how much support he has before he declared he said repeatedly this wasn't about Hillary Clinton who he praised at the time and when asked if she supports similar policies hevsaid "you'll have to ask her".
As far as his support I can't say why others didn't favor him as much except to say lack of name recognition and his record was likely unfamiliar for voters who never heard of him until the primary election coverage.
To me I think he has a record anyone can get behind.
Sanders has built a reputation as a leading progressive voice on issues such as campaign finance reform, corporate welfare, global warming, income inequality, LGBT rights, parental leave, and universal healthcare. Sanders has long been critical of U.S. foreign policy and was an early and outspoken opponent of the Iraq War, the First Gulf War, and U.S. support for the Contras in Nicaragua. He is also outspoken on civil liberties and civil rights, particularly criticizing racial discrimination in the criminal justice system as well as advocating for privacy rights against mass surveillance policies such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance programs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)He was a voice, that was all, a voice that few heard and even to whom even fewer paid. He represented tiny sliver of the US population - a state, tiny in size and tiny in population - the only state with two Senators and only one Representative.
He lacked name recognition because he never got anything of any substance done during his time in the House or the Senate. He was not a leader in the chambers despite his longevity, in large part because he wouldn't compromise and wasn't the best when it came to working with others. He has always been on the far left, a socialist, when the country is center left or center right, you choose.
The minority heard about Bernie's proposed programs, how could they not, and they just weren't interested. He wasn't talking in language that appealed to them. He had never established relationships with the blacks, Hispanic national communities. Sure, he marched in the original Civil Rights marches, but they saw little evidence that anything he had done recently to improve their lives. That was in stark contrast to to Hillary's relationship with the minority communities over a long period of time.
Perhaps all of this was a product of the constituency which Bernie represented for so long. In Vermont the voters are predominately white and Bernie's supporters predominately very liberal except for their love of fire arms. They apparently loved the lone wolf who represented them, though he rarely got anything of substance done, especially when he was willing to forgo his liberal values when it came to protecting their 2nd Amendment rights and to bring big military contracts to their state.
However, when he tried to parley his record into a Presidential campaign, it was not surprising that he appealed to people who are like his Vermont constituents and did not appeal to people who are not like his constituents.
Wabbajack_
(1,300 posts)The only state, besides Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Delaware.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Okay then the Vermont is that state with the 2nd smallest population - 626,630, after Wyoming - 582,658, and both have have smaller populations than the District of of Columbia which has no Senators and no voting Representatives.
Wabbajack_
(1,300 posts)The most unrepresentative legislative body in the world. Cali and Wyoming having the same representation is just ridiculous.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Many of the states which had small populations were afraid of being totally marginalized by states with large populations both in the election of the executive branch and most notably in Congress, so they insisted on equalizers before they would sign the Constitution. Hence we have the Electoral College and the Senate where each state has equal representation regardless of size.
Neither are going to change because it takes three quarters of the states to pass an amendment to the Constitution and the smaller states will never sign off on losing their power.
Wabbajack_
(1,300 posts)Apparently even a constitutional amendment couldn't reform it because there's a line in Artcle V, what's called an "entrenched clause" that says you can't pass an amendment to ..well I'll just copy/paste it'
" no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate"
So it would have to be a unanimously agreed to to ratify that amendment.
We may one day have the interstate popular vote compact idea render the EC moot but it looks Senate reform won't ever happen.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)jg10003
(1,029 posts)Is this what a self-serving opportunist would say:
stevebreeze
(1,882 posts)If Bernie had been in it to win it from the start he would have started a year earlier. He would have been in AK and LA making contacts with people down ballot and raising his profile.
But no Bernie didn't get in until Warren dropped out, very late in the game.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Early on he was not "in it to win it". Interviews on CNN before he threw his hat in the ring indicated that he was concerned that Hillary wasn't far enough to the left, but he gave absolutely no indications what so ever that he thought he could beat her. So there is only one conclusion that I could draw.
And he was very non combative with Hillary early on. However, I think he was legitimately surprised by the support he got, not only from very progressive voters (that was a given), but also from very enthusiastic young people excited about his college loan promises and, as usual, eager to rebel against older generations and the status quo.
Suddenly Bernie figured he had he actually had a shot and that's when he started attacking Hillary personally, claiming that she was unfit to lead, a message that stuck in the mind of many younger voters after the primaries. It should also be noted that Hillary never went after Bernie personally because she didn't want to alienate his supporters that she would need in the general election. Bernie, being the big underdog, had no such qualms.
stevebreeze
(1,882 posts)Hillary would have done herself a big favor to take the mostly Bernie crafted party platform, and take it out for a spin.
You can't just give people a negative reason to vote, you have to give them something hopeful.
I don't think the general was a well run campaign. It should not have been close enough for a lot of this marginal stuff to matter.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)IMHO is that so few of the things he talked about were actionable. If you're thinking ahead, and you don't expect to have huge majorities in the house and senate. You don't promise that you're gonna take a whole bunch of steps that the republican controlled congress is gonna go for.
The concern would be you'll lose even more control in congress in 2018 when you haven't accomplished anything.
JonLP24
(29,351 posts)A year and a half ago or so he was determining what kind of support he may have spent a lot of time in Iowa, once his poll numbers were climbing he started to go other places notably Minnesota.
LeftInTX
(30,007 posts)And I believe there is some truth to this.
He said the odds are against the incumbent party after 8 year. Add everything else to the mix. There was a lot to overcome which the state polls didn't pick up.
The same analyst predicted Trump will be impeached.
ucrdem
(15,703 posts)WI: 4.1%
MI: 4.6%
OH: 4.8%
PA: 5.7%
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200017/state-unemployment-rate-in-the-us/
But to hear the pols and their ads you'd think it was 1930.
uponit7771
(91,770 posts).. he can make them better!?
I'd like to see him try at that
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... those who worked without raises for seven or eight years while the little inflation we had pecked away at their take home pay are happy today? What about the union workers who actually took losses when they had to renegotiate their contracts in a atmosphere which favored employers, do you think they are happy? What about those who lost their manufacturing jobs to automation and had to take lower paying jobs to get by. Do you think they are happy?
Now none of that falls on Obama's shoulders; he managed to bring the country back from the brink of a deep depression, but don't tell me that everything was warm an fuzzy on the jobs front for Hillary. There was plenty of misery and anger for the con man to tap into.
treestar
(82,383 posts)She won by standards of normal countries. This one has a system that can allow the loser to get the office.
Tyranny of the minority.
Ford_Prefect
(8,202 posts)No matter how you want look at it the vote in several states doesn't add up, and there were the purges of registered voters in GOP run states prior to the vote. No one is talking about either of those influences and everyone seems to be trying real hard to find excuses and conventional answers for the outcome. In those states the numbers for President and for Senate are well out of line with similarly contested races for Governor and other state wide positions. How ever it happened it does not make sense historically or statistically.
Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)
Post removed
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)They can never accept her flaws. Maybe if she actually campaigned in Wisconsin and Michigan. Take voters for granted. ....
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)the election was rigged
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Don't sink to his level
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)just like they killed Hillary.
The system WAS rigged.
INdemo
(7,020 posts)millennial vote.He would have drawn the minority vote plus he would have drawn some Republicans that voted for Trump becasue it was a vote against Hillary and not for Trump.Bernie Sanders would have brought with him a Senate Majority and would have possibly taken control of the house..because Bernie Sanders would addressed the issues, the issues that Hillary did not and Bernie Sanders would have went to the voters in PA,Wisc,Mich that Hillary took for granted...(which was mostly the fault of her incompetent advisors)
Also Bernie Sanders would have gotten those Democrats that voted for Trump.
I think Karl Rove tried to rig the 2012 election.Remember how Romney and Rove were shocked because Obama won Ohio?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)I'm sorry, but this is a spectacular delusion.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)same with far left wing politics.
that's what happened with McGovern, to disastrous consequences.
R B Garr
(17,379 posts)as a socialist. Rural America is not voting for a socialist.
And I haven't seen Bernie hating on Donald because he's a billionaire and all his other Bernie bingo smears .
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,561 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Your candidate was a failed opportunist who would have been skewered by the two foot tall pile of opposition against him that they never had to use because he was busy beating up Hillary for them.
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
Excerpt:
Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.
Then theres the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermonts nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words environmental racist on Republican billboards. And if you cant, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.
Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die, while President Daniel Ortega condemned state terrorism by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was patriotic.
The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I dont know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
For fuck's sake.
JudyM
(29,517 posts)TRump did far worse things, and people are just not that concerned about socialism, based on the polls while he was running. It's a favorite big false trope of the DNC to paint socialism as a big ogre because that's all they really had on him. None of that other stuff would have had legs, either, minor in comparison to the other candidates' weaknesses.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)pnwmom
(109,563 posts)Vote purges, new voter ID requirements, reduced number of polling places, reduced number of early voting days, etc.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,561 posts)Ligyron
(7,897 posts)He has real power now to bring all the points made here more public and to start the DOJ investigating election irregularities. Of course, Trump and team would kill any efforts in this direction after the inauguration and instillation of his Cabinet, but the DOJ and other arms of the administration could at least bring all this to the forefront in the public's eye.
At least they could friggin' TRY.
Back in the 80's Reagan would ask for airtime, and get it, anytime he wanted to make an important point or to ask the American people to engage their Congress people to support or oppose some issue facing legislation, etc.
But to my horror, I saw a running news banner on MSNBC this AM that claimed Obama would not criticize Trump's administration publicly even as they dismantle his legacy. WTF!!!!
Repeal of the Voting Rights Act
uponit7771
(91,770 posts)pnwmom
(109,563 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I'm sure he didn't mean it that way.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)And its premise is itself misleading. What it said was that the percentages of low paying jobs, medium paying jobs, and high paying jobs have remained relatively the same. This is not surprising and indeed would be expected under any economic conditions.
Working for McDonald's is not like to ever move from being a low paying job to a medium paying job, and being an elementary school teacher is not likely to become a high paying job. The number of jobs in each of the three major categories cited in the article are likely to remain the same. Even the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour, working at McDonald's would still be a low paying job.
What happens during a recession is there are less jobs in every category and virtually no one gets a raise because there are plenty of others who will take a job without a raise.
What happens at the top of an economic recovery is that the pay of most people will go up because when the country reaches full employment there aren't enough people to fill the jobs available. So employers have to compete for good employees.
However, just because wages are rising almost universally, doesn't mean that a guy working at McDonald's going to make a salary anywhere near that of a teacher or that a teacher will start making salary in the same third as a doctor.
In my humble opinion the article is simply a useless restatement of the obvious and contributes absolutely nothing to your argument..
Vinca
(51,057 posts)In the final days of the campaign I remember the orange blob having hate rally after hate rally and Hillary would be headed to the west coast for a fundraiser. Her campaign should have been following things closer in the upper Midwest and scheduling more appearances up there. Maybe if something significant had been done for Flint things would have changed in Michigan. In the end, it was a convergence of lousy things.
pnwmom
(109,563 posts)She needed to raise money and not just for herself -- she was raising money for the party and downticket races, too.
Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to make no mistakes when you wear your special hindsight glasses.
mtnsnake
(22,236 posts)I believe that either one of Obama or Bill Clinton would have run away with it, winning most of the swing states along with it. They had a magnetism when they ran that Hillary didn't have, unfortunately.
pnwmom
(109,563 posts)Her margin is now greater than 24 of 45 Presidents. Her only problem was that her supporters were in the wrong states, because our votes don't count for as much.
And Hillary was the only Dem who had to run for President after the 2013 court decision that dismantled the voting rights act. Millions of voters were purged across the country, and others couldn't vote because they lacked the ID. Polling places in Democratic districts were systematically eliminated, and early voting days cut back -- all in the successful effort to suppress Democratic votes. We're never going to succeed again if we don't address the real problem of voter suppression because we're too busy blaming Hillary for lack of "magnetism."
mtnsnake
(22,236 posts)Sorry, but as smart and qualified as Hillary is, and as good a president as she would probably have made, I just don't think she's a natural when it comes to campaigning. For example, whenever she's talking, she always sounds like she's giving a speech. Not that that's the reason she lost or anything. Just an example.
pnwmom
(109,563 posts)had a difficult time, too. (Not only against Trump's sales techniques but against the 2 foot thick folder of opposition research that Kurt Eichenwald reported on.) I read about the techniques in the manual for the salesman at Trump University. Trump used them successfully in the national campaign. Two points stood out. One, he said to make the sale all about FEELINGS, not reason. Two, he said to keep the potential buyer on an "emotional roller coaster." That's what he did throughout the campaign. No Democrat in my lifetime has reduced their campaign to feelings and emotions, but that's what Trump did.
With regard to our candidates,, even though she won the popular vote,, you are convinced that she wasn't "magnetic" because her style didn't appeal to YOU. That is subjective. I, in my own subjectivity, found her speeches and rallies much, much easier to listen to than Bernie's, with the scolding and finger wagging.
You should read the posts of the almost four million Hillary supporters who joined Pantsuit Nation just before the election. They LOVE her but formed a secret group because they wanted a place to speak about her and what she meant to them without being harassed by naysayers.
athena
(4,187 posts)I, too, found Hillary much more likable than Bernie. Anyone who didn't find her likable should look inside themselves to try to figure out exactly why she did not excite them. We're never going to conquer bigotry if we're not strong enough to look inside ourselves and see clearly the bigotry that is in there. We all have it. The difference is that some of us recognize it and fight it, whereas others wallow in denial and are therefore ruled by their bigotry.
LeftInTX
(30,007 posts)Hindsight is 20-20
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Biden didn't run because he was in no shape to do so after his son's death; he simply wasn't up to it. Also consider that had Biden would have thrown his hat into the ring earlier, Sanders probably would not have run. I wouldn't have liked Joe's chances against Hillary.
Biden would have been in the same category as Sanders, if you can't win your party's nomination you can't win the Presidency.
Enough with the couldas, wouldas, shouldas. Enough with the idle speculation. Hell I could state that Mark Cuban could have beat Trump and no one could prove me wrong, but for a number of reasons that wasn't going to happen either.
pnwmom
(109,563 posts)would have been prepared for the con man's onslaught.
Trump followed the plan in his own manuals for Trump U. He says that his shysters should not sell products, but should sell FEELINGS. And they should put the potential buyers on an "emotional roller coaster."
That's exactly what he did. Now we have to figure out how to counter this evil without becoming evil ourselves.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,012 posts)We have to be open that there were failures in her candidacy also when she failed to decisively defeat a candidate as unpopular as Trump. No where on you list do you even hint at Clinton being a less than ideal candidate or running a less than ideal campaign, or being in any way responsible in part for the outcome.
I wrote the following in my DU journal on September 30th:
Beware of Overconfidence
Trump is having a melt down this week, he's had them before. Any breaking frightening hard news could wipe the slate clean and trigger another reset. Hillary has been smart to focus on what a disaster Trump is, but she needs to keep broadcasting a strong message of change also. This is a restless public election year.
In a nut shell, give Obama credit for rescuing our economy from the chasm and restoring us to growth - but stress that the mission now is making sure our economy works for all of us. Argue that the failed Bush economy set us back a decade. Now though we finally have the chance to do what Democrats historically do best - fight for and deliver economic well being for all Americans - not just the well connected. That is the change most urgently needed. We crawled our way back out of the pit - it's time to start building our future again.
Posted by Tom Rinaldo | Fri Sep 30, 2016, 03:56 PM (4 replies)
Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #23)
CajunBlazer This message was self-deleted by its author.
Auggie
(31,804 posts)I wasn't gender. It was Hillary. She's not a great campaigner and IMO she struggles with authenticity. She couldn't connect with many people because of this. She lost Michigan by just 11,000 votes, but 90,000 voters failed to vote for either her or Trump. That's telling.
Good analysis. Thanks for sharing.
DemonGoddess
(5,123 posts)"struggling with authenticity" you mean that she is guarded. She is, and rightfully so.
Auggie
(31,804 posts)I felt like she never showed us the real Hillary. I thought it was me at first but then Michael Moore brought it up two days after the election. It's not a big deal to me but I think it affected her likability on a grand scale. Why else would 90,000 Michiganders not be able to vote for either her or Trump?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Also some of the things he has said lately makes me believe that he is more concerned about the "Revolution" then he is about the Democratic party.
For those reasons, I am not sure he is the best authority to to be commenting on why Hillary lost the election.
Auggie
(31,804 posts)Moore and I are not the only ones to mention it. Neither of us claim to have all the answers, especially me.
I think your "being guarded" thought is an excellent observation. Hillary Clinton was about as unfairly and rudely treated by the media and her opponent as anyone could be. It was a disgusting display.
Auggie
(31,804 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Even a blind hog finds an acorn occasionally
hamsterjill
(15,510 posts)They are incapable of seeing that things were bad when Obama took office, and have been steadily improving. They cannot fathom that change on a nationwide level just might actually take a few years. They want it NOW!!!
They also saw a black man in power and that scared them because it's something that hadn't ever happened before. The fact that Hillary was a woman scared them even more. They can't handle change and like the security of the status quo. They need their security blankets and need to be amongst the other idiots telling them the big bad Democrats are going to take their lives away.
That said - I am going to state here that I think this list is correct, but I think it is a very sad thing that Dems are simply more enlightened than the rest of these idiots. It's like arguing with a freaking brick when you try to use facts to aid in a discussion with a Trump supporter. They can't see beyond the three feet around them and their world. They are incapable to understanding the bigger picture.
They are in for a rude awakening as Trump takes hold and throws their little worlds into the toilet. But they won't be capable of seeing that.
Hillary now has over 1.5 million MORE votes than Trump, and by george, the next time around, the Dems - you, me and all of us - need to make sure that THOSE votes count. For the sake of the country and for the sake of the world. We have GOT to get control away from these morons. Our very survival depends on it.
Retrograde
(10,657 posts)IMHO, Sanders' showing - especially in the Midwest - was a symptom of dissatisfaction with the DNC candidate that was as far as I can tell given short shrift after Clinton got the nomination. While I think that Sanders would have been creamed in a GE, the mere fact he was running and did so well was a sign that a lot of people, the ones we needed, were not happy about Clinton being rammed down their throats as inevitable. He brought up a lot of baggage, such as the Wall Street speeches, that stuck and secured Clinton's image as an Eastern insider.
As much as we laugh at it, Trump's red hat sent a subliminal message to blue color voters: I may have been born with a silver foot in my mouth, and I've got more money and stuff that you can imagine, but deep-down I'm just an Ordinary Joe who knows how to get his hands dirty.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)The hardline centrists will bash on Sanders till the sun comes up.
mcar
(43,519 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)It took several days because I kept thinking of new ones when several time I thought that I was done.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)I live in a deplorable area and have heard a lot of these opinions expressed.
The only glaring exception that I heard that's not included is the Supreme Court and 2A.
CBHagman
(17,139 posts)It wasn't just that the Republicans made certain the Benghazi investigation took four years, until -- oh, look! It's a presidential election! It's that Hillary Clinton has been demonized one way or the other for years.
The media's chosen talking point this year was that she had high negatives, but actually her reputation has gone up and down over the years, and she always had her fans...and critics of the harshest variety. All this for a Methodist and an overachiever who's been known as an advocate for women and children.
But as Marlo Thomas put it years ago, to be considered ruthless a man has to be Joe McCarthy. All a woman has to do is put you on hold.
underpants
(186,716 posts)But the 10 reasons you posted, in weighted amounts, made up the rest.
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)I agree with most of your points. But it can't be ignored that we picked a nominee with huge negatives. And the party has been ignoring the lower middle class through the last two Dem Presidents. We saved the bankers, and their bonuses, but although we "saved" the auto industry, there has still been a slow bleed of the associated manufacturing jobs. And we have allowed the decline of the unions and did little to address that through two administrations.
Trump lied like a rug about his ability to do anything about these problems, but he spoke to them. We picked a candidate that was playing catch up on the TPP and trade in general, not to mention had all of those "hidden" speeches. The democrats have been exposing their flank with the blue collar voters and I've been waiting for some GOP candidate to figure that out. I just never anticipated it'd be Hughey P. Long.
potone
(1,701 posts)Poll after poll after poll showed that people didn't trust Hillary, and that Bernie had a better chance of beating Trump than she did. There wasn't the sort of excitement generated by her campaign that both Bernie and Trump generated. Too many Hillary supporters found it inconceivable that people would vote for an unqualified man who spouted bigoted and sexist remarks over a candidate with years of experience in public service. But Hillary represented for Trump supporters a continuation of the same economic priorities that we have had for decades that elevate corporate profits over the economic needs of the majority of Americans. People are sick of that; they quite literally can't afford it. That is how we have ended up with this false populist in office. Those who voted for him will soon realize that he is not their champion, but it will be too late. If we are lucky, it will only be four years of hell instead of eight.
God help us all, for Trump surely will not.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)That would be the attacks which Trump observed, copied, and used to his advantage. Oh, that would be her fellow Democrat...hnmmm.... friendly rival - Bernie Sanders. With friends like him you don't need enemies.
potone
(1,701 posts)Hillary did that to herself by her changing positions and her refusal to release the text of her Goldman Sachs speeches. That made people think that her campaign promises weren't sincere. The simple fact that she seemed so close to Wall Street was a red flag for many Americans, who still have not recuperated their losses from the 2008 crash. If the Democratic party doesn't start addressing the economic concerns of working-class people, we will continue to lose elections. This election result should be a wake-up call for the DNC.
Trump was not the choice of the Republican party establishment; they thought that they could continue to run candidates that ignored the economic needs of their base as long as they championed a hard line on social issues. His nomination and election is a sign that that coalition of religious conservatives with those advocating trickle-down economic policies is no longer working for the Republican party. Both parties are in trouble and in need of reform.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Enough with this blaming everyone else.
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)That started way back when Vince Foster died. The GOP has been singing that song on and off for a couple of decades. The Benghazi hearings weren't because of Bernie. Neither was the fuss over her emails. Heck, he tried to END that part. Primaries are always tough. Obama was hard on her too. Progressive opposition to Hillary dates back to the Iraq vote. And Hillary's negatives predate Berni's entrance into the race at all.
She lost because of things like NAFTA and the TPP. She lost because she's a main line democrat in a time when the lower middle class white voter only was focused on jobs and the economy. She lost because Obama saved the bankers straight out of the gate (and the top 20%) and watched as the lower middle class lost their homes and their jobs and struggle for 8 more years. The democratic party has abandoned the lower middle class and labor unions for the better part of 30 years. That isn't Hillary's fault alone. To a great degree, she had very little direct hand in it at all. Rumors had her furious with her husband over some of the things done, especially to children. But she inherited a democratic party that was committed to markets and investment, and thought that in exchange, they could do things for children, and minorities, and the LGBT community.
They got the balance wrong.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)lending credibility to the primary GOP Big Lie: that Hillary was the anti-Christ and lied about classified information in her emails.
When Comey was questioned by the Congressional Committee M$M dutifully played the question from Trey Gowdy, was there any emails with classified information in them? To which Comey of course, replied: yes, there were emails with classified information.
BUT, nowhere on M$M was the questions Rep. Matt Cartwright asked re the lack of Classified Headers on the emails to be seen. Comey had to admit that none of the emails had classified headers on them. Then Cartwright asked would it not be a reasonable inference for Sec. Clinton to make that there was no classified information in any email that did not have Classified Heaader on it. Comey said that would have been a reasonable inference for Sec Clinton to make..
These questions and Comey's answer confirmed that Clinton did not lie when she said she didn't send or receive anything marked classified. But I'll bet only about 2% of the population knows about Comey's answers to these two questions.
Also not reported by M$M is the fact that NONE of the emails purported to contain classified information were initiated by Clinton. Every one was sent to or forwarded to Sec Clinton. But M$M did not report that.
M$M played a very important role in helping 'sell' the GOP Big Lie that Clinton was a liar and not trustworthy.
dubyadiprecession
(6,346 posts)and far too many of Trump making outrageous statements.
If she had competent people on the ground in the rustbelt (who were worth a shit!), She might have been able to speak to those voters and convince them to vote for her!
Oneironaut
(5,768 posts)They chose the worst candidate at a time when the zeitgeist was anti-establishment. It was a foolish mistake. Any other candidate would have won.
The Democrats were arrogant and complacent. Trump didn't win - we lost. If the Democrats don't learn from this, they deserve to lose.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)No one. Too much ASSumption that Hillary was the annoited one, just marking time to pick up her crown.
Oneironaut
(5,768 posts)Your attitude is the problem with our party. Only career politician corporatists get taken seriously, and everyone else is forced out by the system. We need to either change or keep losing.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts).... who make up minority of the Democratic Party feel that they feel that they ought to be running every thing and that everyone else should bow to their wishes. When they don't get their way in their attempt to drag the party as far to the left as possible (and in the process scare off the independent decide Presidential elections), they sit on the sidelines and pout for awhile while bitching about rigged election.
Some never get over their anger and vote third party or sit home on election day and suck their thumbs. Others "hold their noses" or otherwise unenthusiastically decide to vote for the Democratic candidate as the "lesser of two evils". Only a few transfer their loyalty totally to the Party's nominee. Do all of the other contribute money to the general election campaign - no, of course not! Do they contribute their time and talents to the campaign - definitely not! Heck they think it is a major sacrifice if they just vote for the Democratic nominee.
Then after the election they come back to DU and loudly proclaim, "our candidate could have won" or in other words, "see, next time you non progressives better vote for our candidate or we will lose again".
I have but three words to describe those ultra liberals - self absorbed hypocrites
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)Arguing better is pointless. But data suggests that Bernie was more viable, especially against Trump. He under cut Trumps jobs message, as well as his comments about trade and fiscal policy. He was the "system isn't fixed" candidate that was needed to oppose Trump. Hillary was weak on all that. It may not be fair, but it is the reality of politics.
Hillary beat Bernie predominately because of her strong support in the AA community, which she earned. He had a huge weak spot here, which progressives would do well to think about long and hard. But unfortunately for her, that demographic did not show up at the general in the numbers she needed, in the states that she needed, to put her over the top. And the "angry white lower middle class voter" did.
It was economic issues that helped Trump, and she had a weak reputation on those subjects, earned or not.
jg10003
(1,029 posts)And Bernie attacked Hillary's positions, not her. He never "attacked Hillary with a vengeance" or said she was "unfit to be president". Just the opposite; He, and Hillary, campaigned on ideas. After he lost he campaigned enthusiastically for her.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)When the primaries were over the Republicans had watched the Bernie's attacks on Hillary and were making their plans to use his most successful attacks. Here are some of their observations:
While Sanders' endorsement of Clinton today is sure to be filled with sunshine and smiles, there is no forgetting the contentious primary between the two rivals that has left many of his supporters unwilling to back her.
Sanders Attacked Clinton For Being Unqualified To Be President On The Grounds Of Her Wall Street Ties And Foreign Policy Record.
Sanders Claims That Hillary Clinton Doesn't Have The Judgement To Be President, Partly Due To Her Iraq War Vote.
Sanders even went so far as to term Clinton's use of the term "super predators" as being "racist" and saying she knew the use of the term was racist as well.
https://gop.com/the-top-15-sanders-attacks-on-clinton/
Meanwhile Trumps was taking notes:
And for his part, Trump has begun incorporating Sanders into his stump speech, repeatedly asserting that he'll attempt to build on Sanders' characterizations of Clinton.
"Bernie Sanders has a message that's interesting," Trump told "Morning Joe" last month. "I'm going to be taking a lot of the things that Bernie said and using them."
He continued: "I can reread some of his speeches and I can get some very good material."
Bernie Sanders is escalating his attacks on Hillary Clinton and Trump is taking notes
Raine
(30,604 posts)NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)When those premiums went up and she didn't come out and acknowledge it was a problem and talk about how she would fix it that it would hurt her. That in combination with Comey and the people who refused to unite for the greater good to defeat Trump is what really hurt her.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)...and she would have won by the a landslide in the electoral college
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)There are a lot of states whose governors did NOT create their own marketplace because they were trying to block Obamacare entirely. I live in one of those states. The insurance offerings SUCK...and they suck bad. The costs for the premiums are high and sure, the tax credit would pay for that part...but the coverage was not good. The deductibles alone would prevent average people from ever bothering to use it. Not all states expanded Medicaid, either. In those states having those already high premiums go up even more when people already can't afford the damn deductibles made a HUGE difference. Hillary should have come out right away after the media started reporting the premiums going up and tell people she recognize this was a problem and she had a plan to address it and reassure people. Since Trump was promising to repeal it the people hurt by the rising premiums and outrageous deductibles most likely voted for Trump only because of their pocket book. Hillary never came out to address the issue and then shortly after that is when Comey came out about finding Huma's emails on that computer of her estranged husband. If she had of eased people's mind about Obamacare then the Comey letter would not have hurt as badly.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Not easy is it.
The costs of the AHCA policies are going up for two reasons:
1) Young people who think they are immortal and bullet proof aren't signing up for insurance because they would rather spend their money on having fun. They aren't being responsible and since they are the biggest risk takers, when they get into accidents and can't pay their medical bills, all of us pay more when medical facilities and doctors have to absorb loses on their care.
2) Insurance companies are having to pay out more than they expected because they are having to insure older and sicker populations which are not balanced out by healthier young adults.
My solution is already written into the law. This year and from now own the penalties for not having insurance will really kick in for those who can afford insurance yet refuse to enroll in a plan. Since the penalties come due when they pay their taxes, this April a lot of people are going to be in for a surprise because they will have to have proof of health insurance or they will have pay their fines.
The slackers will figure out that their penalty will rise to 2.5% of of their total household adjusted gross income, or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, to a maximum of $2,085. For many it will make sense to get insured immediately. If they are going to have to pay anyway, they might as well get something for it.
By the way - the high deductible plans you call useless aren't in place to pay for ordinary medical expenses, and they aren't useless. They are designed to prevent people from being bankrupted by the expenses resulting from catastrophic illness and accidents. This type of coverage is getting less and less unusual - many large companies are going to this kind of coverage for their employees, including my employer.
LisaL
(46,608 posts)At least I did.
But don't forget the press that was like a dog with a bone about email nonsense.
Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)
Post removed
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)After the candidates were known, Bernie always polled far better than any other candidate for either party. Don't blame Bernie.
Hillary has been unpopular for a long time. The more people see her, the less people like her. She lost to a very unpopular Republican candidate. She might have gotten more votes (Republicans do have an unfair advantage), but her weakness as a candidate caused her to lose.
In the next presidential election don't support a candidate that gets rich on the corrupt Washington DC system while promoting a neocon foreign policy and caring little about the average American - really not a good idea.
Bernie polled better than any other candidates? Well, Hillary always polled better than Trump. How did that turned out? Looking at hypothetical polls months before an election and claiming that means something is ludicrous.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Bernie was not. Hillary's loss should not come as a surprise to anyone that had any idea what was going on. Hillary's supporters were warned that there was a good chance that she could lose.
This is malpractice by the Democratic Party. People chose selfishness over country, and that includes Hillary.
citood
(550 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)She ran two horrendous campaigns.
We have been losing pretty consistently the federal legislature, state houses and state governorships since the Third Way revolution. We keep losing. Everywhere. We keep putting all our eggs in the Presidential basket to the exclusion of all else. Third Way policy is guaranteed to lose in 90% of this country.
It may still get enough votes to occassionally elect a President, but there is no sign that it will ever win anything else. And its failure in 90% of the country starts us with an electoral college disadvantage. We can win every big city in the country and still lose the EC.
In fact, I think we just did. Again.
The Democratic Party has some real issues they need to address. I, of course, think they need to be more progressive and ditch the corporate appeasement. But it's also what you said: they need organizations in every state and they need to run candidates and develop their bench. There is no one currently like Elizabeth Warren anywhere that I know of. All the up and comers are milquetoast middle of the road types like Corey Booker.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)
When are you folks going to realize that you are not a majority in the Democratic Party. Note that in almost every primary (and their were more than 50 of them) that the majority of Democratic Party members voted for Hilary - who you refer to as a "third way" candidate.
In addition your group makes up a small percentage of the American voting population, maybe 10% or 15%. (It is a very loud, active and enthusiastic 10% to 15%, but it is still as a small share of the votes.) When either of the two major parties nominate candidates from their fringes, their chances of winning the White House are diminished because Americans are primarily center left or center right in their orientation.
So, the ultra left have three choices:
You can form your own political party I'm sure you can get the tiny groups of Greens and Socialists to join you. But be aware - if you do so you will marginalize yourself to the sidelines and will likely ensure that Republicans will permanently occupy the White House.
You can continue to be unreliable allies of the Democratic Party: In other words you can continue to act exactly like you have been acting - running candidates who will likely lose in the primaries or very likely will lose in the general election if they get that far. You also continue to act like like you have when a more center oriented progressive wins the Democratic nomination - either unenthusiastically supporting him/her, holding your nose and voting for him/her, not voting (your conscious, etc.), or voting 3rd party.
You can join with the rest of your progressive brethren in an strong coalition which is likely to win by also appealing to the independent centralists who decide most Presidential elections: The fastest growing demographics are on our side - blacks, Hispanics, unmarried women, and the young. If we stick together it will grow ever more and more difficult over time for Republicans to win the White House unless they totally disavow many of their current policies.
This was an an exceeding odd and strange election. Trump had populist message which also appealed to the worst elements of our society, but he is in for a very rocky road as he tries to govern. He will be revealed as the con man, the charlatan that he really is. His lying will catch up with him and, for various reasons, he will be unable carry through on many of the promises he made. And he won't have the excuse of having opposition Congress. He is already backing away from some of his more impossible commitments and he hasn't even taken the oath of office yet. Trump is destined to give populism a bad name.
However, Trump has already made it all but impossible for the Republicans to take the difficult steps to deal with the demographic changes which will become more and more difficult to ignore. They need to soften or even reverse their stances on immigration, abortion and law and order but with the nomination and election of Trump, he has made those tasks impossible for the time being.
In 2020, I believe that the country will be ripe for a change and together we can take advantage of that, but only if we stick together. However, if the ultra left chooses again to go its own way, we may have to endure Republicans in control of the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court for sometime to come.
ramapo
(4,724 posts)1. Did not notice the success of Scott Walker in Wisconsin and didn''t bother to campaign there
2. Had a lousy campaign message. Wait, what was it? We all know Trump's.
3. Was a victim of a multi-year campaign by Republicans.
4. Was she the best candidate? She was the only candidate. Bernie is not a democrat.
I hate Trump. But democrats blew it, big time and I contend it goes back to the firing of Howard Dean.
Time for reinvention.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Evidently you didn't hear her positive messages because the media mostly reported on negative campaign messages and you evidently weren't paying enough attention to hear them.
quantumjunkie
(244 posts)You make valid points but you purposely left out that Hillary had major flaws.
1. She became very arrogant and did not campaign that much (or at all) in those specific states that are the focus of recounts. Obama brought this up as a radical departure from what he would have done.
2. She didn't have a message. I'm with Her is not a message. All she did was say to vote for her because Trump was worse. Not smart
3. She refused to embrace Bernie's supporters which were the young and Independents because as she said in the Primaries she did not need them.
4. She was and still is very much tied with the very things that voters despise which is pay-to-play politics. This is the key reason the young and Independents were not excited by Hillary. This is quite possibly the biggest reason why Trump was able to beat her. She was viewed as the establishment while Trump was viewed as the Change candidate this round. Sure Trump is a heavily corrupt and is very much establishment but he kept bangining the message that Hillary was the establishment not him.
It was not about her being a woman (for democratic voters). Elizabeth Warren would have won this (polls showed Bernies supporters would have overwhelmingly supported her). Obama would have won a 3rd term even though he too is a flawed candidate (another pay-to-play type) but at least he is a tad left of Hillary.
I donated several times to the recount with some hope that it might put Hillary in the WH but make no mistake it is only because she is the better alternative, not because she is good.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Catch me if I'm wrong here because I'm just guessing, but let me see if I can describe you during the general election campaign: 1) You either voted for Jill Stein, or didn't vote, or you voted for Hillary with absolutely no enthusiasm, and only to keep Trump from winning. You contributed to Bernie's primary campaign, and maybe even volunteered, but you didn't contribute a nickle to Hillary's general election campaign and you certainly didn't volunteer to work for Hillary's election.
When some of your friends decided to vote for Stein or not vote vote at all, you did nothing to persuade them to vote for Hillary. You hated it when Trump won, but you believed that Bernie would have won if only he had been nominated. For you in the big dark Trump cloud you cling to a sliver of a silver lining because of Hillary's defeat that the Democrats will be more prone to nominate a "real progressive" in 2020.
Okay, now tell me, how close did I get? I figure that if you don't respond, I am dead on.
JHan
(10,173 posts)by 60,000 votes.And Obama should be wary of clear cut comparisions - he never really won rural voters either. But yes HRC needed to tend to her firewall. That doesn't explain the vitriol towards her.
2) I don't know what more she could have done, offer blood perhaps, because she adopted some of Bernie's ideas.
3) And that is a massive lie. No where did Hillary ever say that, and no where did you ever hear it from her mouth. No doubt some Clinton supporters have been antsy but Hillary never said that herself.
4) The Establishment message was utter nonsense and voters fell for it. Every administration needs an establishment- I bet some of the anti-hillary progressive crowd , looking at the hot mess of people Trump has lined up for government, are wishing Obama's "establishment" could stay on right? That's the problem with demonizing people, you end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Hillary would have made a great president if she had the support. She has more than demonstrated throughout her public service career that her intent is sincere. She really wanted to improve the lives of Americans - if that doesn't make her "good" enough for you, I don't know what will. The fact this goodness could not be seen is the tragedy, a competent woman - with flaws yes, who doesn't have them? - was dragged down to the level of a vulgarian, smeared by both the left and the right. I'm amazed she still managed to win the popular vote by millions.
djsunyc
(169 posts)there's only 1 real reason why it was close to begin with...people decided to vote by their gut and not their head.
trump was able to access enough people's gut/emotion to win it. it really shouldn't have been close at all - hillary should've amassed over 300 electoral votes but trump kept it close and that was good enough.
the comey letter was the end all be all.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)We are almost at full employment.