I think a better way to build a more winning coalition is to expand our base

[boston bean]

of people who would NEVER vote for a racist/misogynistic/sexual assaulter.

You think we can do that?

Or do we have to cater, change our messaging, to these bigots in order to win, like many believe we need to?

[Alekzander]

1. It is always good to expand your base if you can but you also have to find a way to keep that base

united which is our problem right now.

[FBaggins]

2. Same error that you're making on the other thread

Convincing people to NOT vote for an objectionable candidate is good as far as it goes... But it doesn't mean that they'll show up... Or that they'll vote for you.

[metroins]

3. Cater

Rural people don't like gun restrictions nor do they like smugness.

We have an issue of acting "holier than thou"...even though most of the Democratic solutions are right, we don't break them down into easily digestible sound bites.

For environmental stuff, we need to tie it to the economy or drinking water. For Healthcare we need easily understandable solutions and less talk about numbers. On foreign policy we need to tell people how it a
effects them personally.

Rural votes are worth more than urban because of the electoral college.

The gun thing, we're just wrong.

[benEzra]

42. Yep, exactly. (n/t)

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

44. Exactly

And at least in the northern part of the country there isn't anywhere near as much racism as people are accused of. That causes deep damage. When you are on the side of equal rights for all and you have some asshole attacking you and calling you a racist just because you don't agree with them on all points and have different priorities you do NOT forget it. That resentment burns hot and deep...and so many on this site keep attacking. Democrats can't win on the west coast and New York and some small bordering New England States and ever be elected again. Tossing out the baby with the bathwater never resulted in anything good.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

60. That too

Sometimes people just dislike a person because they are an ass and not because of any group they belong to.

[JI7]

4. i think there are people who didn't vote because they thought there is no way trump would win

And if they knew what they knew now they would have.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Trump trotted out Bill Clinton's assault victims, whether you believe them or not

and that was apparently enough for his voters to move on from the Access Hollywood tape, Alicia Machado and all sorts of other offenses. It would have been nice if he didn't have that option, wouldn't it have been? It's undeniable that our candidate was weighed down by her husband's baggage. Imagine the power of a female candidate for President in that situation who wasn't? It might very well have been an entirely different story.

[boston bean]

6. My god

[BeyondGeography]

8. It's called reality

[boston bean]

9. It's called misogyny.

[BeyondGeography]

12. And not being able to reap the full benefits, politically

Because Bill was a fucking train wreck when it came to impulse control and women. If you don't think that was an enabling factor for Trump to survive his own issues, you're kidding yourself.

[boston bean]

13. Wow.

[EffieBlack]

20. So instead of voting for a candidate who had poor sexual impulse control 20 years ago

they voted for a CANDIDATE who HIMSELF displays poor impulse control in every aspect of his life NOW?

You really expect anyone to buy that?

Your argument makes no sense and holds no water.

[TwilightZone]

21. No, it's even more ridiculous than that.

Don't vote for the *wife* of a guy who had poor impulse control decades ago and punish the wife for her husband's behavior by saying she shouldn't run for office.

[BeyondGeography]

26. What really doesn't hold water is we need to cater to women haters because Hillary lost

to Trump. Any honest attempt to figure out why he was able to survive his behavior and win white women by ten points will nullify that idea. Imagine, say, Obama in the same contest with Michelle making the same speech she made in NH post-Access Hollywood without any of the baggage that the Clintons have getting in the way. Different outcome? I think so.

[TwilightZone]

16. If you're using the term "assault victims"...

I think you can dispense with the "whether you believe them or not" disclaimer.

[BeyondGeography]

17. If "alleged" helps you, fine

Now tell me how Bill's troubles were not a political bonanza for Trump.

The larger point: We don't have to cater to mysoginists to get votes. Just run candidates who aren't connected to bad behavior with women in any way shape or form and we'll be fine.

[TwilightZone]

19. Compared to the e-mail server, they got almost no press.

And exit polls showed that Trump's strengths were immigration and terrorism. Latinos and Muslims, in other words.

I think you're assigning Bill's history an importance in this election that isn't borne out by the data, perhaps simply because you want it to be true. That horse was dead years ago.

"run candidates who aren't connected to bad behavior with women "

Right, like JFK. Or FDR. Hilarious.

[Uponthegears]

37. I think you're still missing something

I doubt your counterpart in this discussion (who I suspect wants to say "We should have run Bernie" more than anything else) gets it either, though

BUT

Trump didn't parade out the Paula Jones brigade JUST to send a message to hopeless misogynists that "Hillary can't run her husband, how can she run the country." Face it, he probably had them in the bag already with the rest of his "hate above all things" campaign.

He also did it to counter Hillary's main post-debate talking point, i.e., that Trump's blatant use of his power to take sexual liberties with (more accurately, sexually assault) women disqualified him from the presidency.

He was saying to people who might have been persuaded by Hillary's message (and I would have hoped a lot would have accepted it):

"Sexual predation didn't disqualify Bill Clinton in '92 and '96, did it? How is this an issue?"

The very data on which you rely shows it worked. As you noted, Trump's conduct was not an issue at all for many voters.

Btw, back to my first point, here's what angers me about the "Wouldn't have been an issue with Bernie" crowd. Bill doesn't magically go away if Hillary is not the candidate. ANY campaign (Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, doesn't matter) that tried to make Trump's assaultive behavior a disqualifying issue was going to have to explain why Bill was different.

Full disclosure, I was among those people who was so disgusted by Trump that I thought everyone else would be as well. I didn't figure out how Trump was playing this until it was too late either.

[el_bryanto]

7. Well we lost the election - we have to change the message obviously. If we had a winning message we

would have won. That said I don't think the way forward is to cater to racists and misogynists, but to craft a Democratic coalition that embraces diversit, fights for the rights of all Americans, expands economic opportunities, and limits the power of the moneyed interests. Both Clinton and Sanders are out of the game, so we'll have to find a new standard bearer for 2020. Maybe Warren, maybe O'Malley, or someone else.

Bryant

[boston bean]

11. And trump won on immigration amd terrorism. Hillary won on the economy.

What messaging should we change to to get these voters.

[el_bryanto]

14. Well that goes to why you think people voted for Trump

Did people vote for Trump because they hate immigrants? If so than there's not much we can change to win them over without giving up our core principles, which for the record, I don't think we should do.

The truth is people voted for Trump or sat out the election for a number of reasons. There's no message that is going to get back all voters to vote for good policies - there's a core of Limbaugh Conservatives or Trump Conservatives who are never going to vote Democratic (just as there is a core group of Democratic supporters who are never going to vote Republican). So we need determine how we can adjust our message to get people in the middle without giving up those principles that are important to us.

The message will change any way without having to change much of the platform, just by virtue of Hillary Clinton not being the nominee. Regardless of what else she pledged, after 30 years or so in the public eye people had an idea of what she was bringing to the table; which was a neo-liberal view point that wants incremental change in social programs without dealing with corporate power. I understand that her platform could be seen as very liberal (and there was a lot to like in it) but the history colored that. The next candidate presumably won't have that problem.

At a guess though I would like to see our messaging on the economy be "After the crony capitalism displayed by Trump we can no longer afford to ignore the growing power of corporate America. We have to be willing to fight for our economic rights and to regulate corporations more carefully, to preserve American jobs and savings."

Bryant

[boston bean]

18. No it doesn't go to what I thought. It's the facts.

[el_bryanto]

22. Well deciding between those two options

If you think the two options are "We should cater to Republicans and Conservatives by attacking immigrants and minorities" or "We should stand fast to our commitment to support immigrants and minorities" well I would favor the later. We should continue supporting immigrants and minorities and to even more.

If you think the only answers are supporting Hillary Clinton's policies going forward or supporting Donald Trumps policies, than that's an easy answer as well.

That seems simplistic to me; but if that's the duality we live in, than there you go.

Bryant

[boston bean]

23. No. i think some folks are assigning reasons that are not correct or borne out by the facts

With the facts being what they are what is the solution.

[el_bryanto]

25. And the facts are that Hillary Clinton was strong on the economy

As you see it? That is a factual statement that brooks no rational disagreement?

Bryant

[boston bean]

27. Point to something facts based that shows that to be untrue.

[el_bryanto]

28. This requires a certain amount of research - so will have to get back to you later in the day nt

[boston bean]

29. Ok.

[el_bryanto]

40. The question is why people failed to vote for Clinton in the face of Trump

So there are three types of factors that lead to Clinton's loss of the electoral college.
1. Factors that we should not adjust our strategy to account for
2. Factors that were part of the unique make up of this years election, and thus most likely not going to be an issue in the next election.
3. Factors that we can and should adjust for.


Factors that we should not try to adjust for

1. Racism and anti-immigrant feeling were obviously factors.

2. Misogyny and sxism likewise probably played an role in swaying some voters.

Factors unique to the Hillary Clinton electoral run.

1. While African Americans and Millenials voted for Clinton, they did not do so in the same numbers as they had supported Obama. This might point to Obama being a unique candidate.

2. There were lingering trust issues related to Hillary Clinton. Most of those issues were nonsense drummed up by the right wing over the years over the year, but they doubtless played a roll.

a. Special note should be made of James Comeys decision to reopen the inquiry into her private e-mails in the last few days of the campaign - a very dirty trick and really nasty.

3. Attacks on Trump often pointed to his unfitness for the office; which he was. But the fact that he reach the national stage as he did showed that people weren’t as bothered by his blowhard racism as they should have been; blowhard racism is nothing new unfortunately.

Factors that could be problems in the future and that we might want to for adjust

1. While the economy might have actually been better after 8 years of Obama; people did not feel it was better. From Dan Roberts at the Guardian "Unfortunately for Clinton, many Americans simply did not feel as positive. Stagnant wage levels and soaring inequality were symptoms of the malaise felt by many voters."

a. Roberts also argues that Clinton failed to respond on the trade issue; and when she did respond her responses weren't convincing. I think that he overstates the case, but included it anyway.

b. One other distinction; it appears that Hillary won on the economic issues, but she didn’t win be enough to overcome other issues. People who voted for her often voted on the economy, but the economic issue did not pull enough in to overcome Trump, and this argument may have been more meaningful for people who feel like the economy has been doing well.

c. This suggests to me that bolder changes rather than incremental change might be more effective going forward.

2. Clinton did not do as well with the Blue Collar workers as she might have. From an article by Molly Ball at the Atlantic, "As Alec MacGillis reported, many blue-collar men voted for Barack Obama against John McCain and Mitt Romney because they thought he better related to their struggles. They did not think the same of Clinton"

3. Hillary Clintons had a large number of generally sound policy prescriptions; but with so many of them, no one message sprang out as being definitive. This left her main selling point as herself; which was compelling to many people and unconvincing to others.

This not an exhaustive list; and I have little illusions about how it will be received - but thank you for the opportunity to review this issue.

Bryant

[beachbum bob]

10. The problem is getting people off their butts to vote and these same

Folks will be whining all the time on what trump and conservatives will do....

[TwilightZone]

15. We don't even need to expand our base.

We just need to get them to consistently and reliably vote.

And, we need to ensure that they are *allowed* to vote. Find a way to get rid of Voter ID laws, voter purges, and other forms of systemic voter suppression.

Not saying that we shouldn't expand the base - we should always work toward bringing in more voters. Demographically, however, we already have solid base numbers and the GOP's base will continue to dwindle as they're further outnumbered.

[duffyduff]

24. Our base is fine. It is the Electoral College that screws things up.

We can't even begin to get those Trump voters to listen to reason because of the way they were raised.

[TheKentuckian]

58. Even if that is granted for the Presidency (and it can't be because excuses won't cut it)

that says nothing about Congress, Governors, and state legislatures.

Without the Electoral College the party would still be doing poorly and even with a firm hold on the executive governing would be between precarious and impossible.

[guillaumeb]

30. Many other people have been saying this also. eom

[still_one]

31. I agree, but adding more to this section would also be helpful

?t=27

[forjusticethunders]

32. those are basically liberal leaning non-voters/3rd partiers

Yeah the Stein voters and non voters are pretty dumb (especially since Hillary is NATURALLY progressive and the Clintons only pandered to the center-right because that was the only way to win, because my faction doesn't like voting for people who doesn't make them feel tingles up the leg), but being angry at them, even rightfully so, won't get them to vote for Democrats. This has been a problem going back 40 years, and it's a massive chicken and egg problem
(Progressives (or at least too many of them) don't vote which makes Dems not support candidates that will appeal to progressives who don't vote, which causes progressives to not vote).

The fact that there was a progressive on the ballot this year (Hillary basically was to the left of the median between Obama and Bernie, and that platform would have been Mondale'd or McGoverned 30-40 years ago, this year, she won the pop vote by 2.5+m and was cheated out of the electoral vote, running as a woman, and a woman the Right hates to the point they'd vote for anyone with a R to keep her out, and a woman who herself admits she's better at running things than running *for* things) is irrelevant because Hillary didn't appeal to people's feels enough. Unfortunately, in the voting booth, feels trump reals, on both sides of the aisle.

[rainy]

33. We need to engage the young people like Bernie did

with a REAL progressive not a republican lite like Hillary. That is and has always been our biggest mistake. We go right. We have allowed this country to go too far right by not being real liberals. Money out of politics, then progressives win.

[forjusticethunders]

39. Hillary ran on a platform to the left of McGovern.

And I'm fairly convinced that's actually where she's always wanted to put herself (I mean Hillary was, in her own ways, as much a campus radical as Bernie was). The problem is that she wasn't able to break the corporatist militarist perception among a lot of hard left voters (hell it took me some time to do it myself).

[rainy]

41. I didn't hear her out on the trail making

as firery and convincing speeches talking about free college and single payer health care. I believe she may have been a true lefty but her wallstreet connections and her D.C. insider dealings made her unconvincing.

[Garrett78]

34. You'll never win over the diehards of the opposition.

And some didn't vote for Clinton simply because they've bought into the decades' worth of hate directed at her (in other words, it wasn't about message at all). And then there's the FBI interference, as well as voter suppression. Not to mention a ratings-focused media that promotes false equivalencies and loves spectacle over substance. In spite of all that, Clinton only lost by a razor thin margin in a few key states. And the country is getting more diverse.

As has been pointed out already, Clinton won among those whose top concern was the economy. She won among those most hurt by the recession. And she did, in fact, have a very strong and substantive economic message. Lying to the masses and dumbing down the message is anti-democratic. So is promoting racism, sexism and xenophobia.

Democrats should do more outreach to Dems who live in rural areas of purple states, and find a way to engage at least a portion of the disengaged (the 40% who don't vote in presidential elections, the 60% who don't vote in mid-term elections). And try to bring back unionization in the work place. A younger, more diverse ticket wouldn't be a bad idea either.

[HassleCat]

35. We have to find the Trump voters who are not bigots

And appeal to them. The first step would be to recognize there are such people.

[LexVegas]

36. Yes. nt

[JCanete]

38. Simple question. Is racism inherent or is it a condition?

If your answer is the latter, then I submit that we need to expand our base by using intelligent messaging that helps to erode that ignorance, not push people into the arms of the people that will use that ignorance.

If your answer is the former, well shit, we can start having a discussion for the purpose of eroding ignorance right here and now.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. About 3.5% voted for Gary Johnson.

Maybe that is a place to look for additional voters, given the fact that the GOP is undoubtedly going to knee-jerk towards authoritarianism in their governing style, like they always do.

And since presumably as freedom-minded progressives we all agree that government has no business telling consenting adults what they can do with their own bodies, or censoring what consenting adults can read or watch, or otherwise dictating their personal choices, it should be pretty easy to make the case to those voters on that basis, even if we may disagree with some of them on questions of economics or taxation.

[TwilightZone]

45. Expand the base and improve turnout.

I think we have the numbers (nationally, at least) if we could find ways to improve and maintain turnout.

The demographics are only going to get better as time passes.

[Garrett78]

46. Simply changing the messenger would do the trick.

Clinton was victimized by decades' worth of hatred. I'm pretty confident that a different candidate with the exact same message and strategy would have won.

[TwilightZone]

47. Yeah, I think you're right.

30 years of unsubstantiated nonsense was clearly a factor.

Getting rid of Voter ID laws and other blatant voter suppression efforts would also help, though fielding a new candidate in 2020 is probably a little easier. haha

[Garrett78]

48. Yep. Shelby County v. Holder was a devastating (5-4) decision.

And the makeup of the Supreme Court is likely to get worse.

[TwilightZone]

50. Agreed.

On both counts, sadly. *sigh*

[triron]

49. yeah like adding some Chinese hackers

to hack the Republicans to help elect democrats.

[jfern]

51. "Everyone who didn't vote for my candidate is a bigot" What a great argument.

[duffyduff]

52. It's the truth. No intelligent person voted for Trump. NT

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Okay, so we forget about Trump voters and we've already got the Hillary voters. Who is left?

Seems to my math, the biggest remaining slice is the Gary Johnson voters.

Since good progressives generally side with groups like the ACLU, support personal choice and freedom, and oppose things like the drug war and censorship of what consenting adults can do or read or watch or say, it seems to me that - if we're doing an exercise of "finding more votes", here- that would be an excellent place to start.

Wouldn't you agree?

[QC]

59. Hey, it worked great this time, so why not keep doing it? n/t

[ismnotwasm]

57. If Trump turns out to be the horror we predict this may be possible

I never forget he's a master manipulator though--

[Lil Missy]

61. The best way is to work for higher turnout.