Trump received the most votes of any ....

[okieinpain]

Republican presidential candidate ever. but he still is 3 million votes behind hillary clinton and would have lost the election if we could have gotten enough people to the polls. the votes are there the DNC and hillary clinton campaign just didn't get the votes to the polls.

having said all of that imo i wouldn't waste one minute trying to convince people that would vote against their economic interest because someone has a different skin color, religion or sexual preference. i would put all of my interest in beating these voting restrictions laws, getting my people to the polls and getting things done for my voters.

I truly believe if the DNC takes care of the basics we get some of those rust belt voters and turn some of those red states blue.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-popular-vote-2016-12]

[Exilednight]

1. You have to get the right people in the right states to vote.

The EC is a complex mathematical equation and we failed the test.

[Amishman]

3. Yup, geography matters

There are no political offices elected by a.nationwide popular vote. Geography matters and the great majority of Democrats are densely clustered in metropolitan areas.

This is why we need to change our message to appeal to a wider audience

[okieinpain]

8. i think the voter suppression played

a bigger role then people will admit. but i'll go along with some message changes as long as it doesn't become republican lite.

[SharonAnn]

9. Voter suppression made a huge difference.

[Hekate]

16. Right. It's always refreshing to be reminded that we Californians scarcely matter, because Idaho.

[former9thward]

20. No, not just ID.

Trump won the popular vote in the 49 states outside of CA. It does not make any difference what the margin is in CA because you can only win it once.

[pkdu]

27. You need better sources , try this one for instance

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174

She won 21 States PV including 5 swing states

Or maybe you were being sarcastic?

[former9thward]

30. Not being sarcastic.

I am just able to do math. Clinton had a popular vote margin of about 4.3 million votes in CA. She had a popular vote margin nationally of about 2.8 million. So that means Trump had a popular vote victory over Clinton in the combined 49 states outside of CA of about 1.5 million. Which is exactly what I posted. Clinton's popular vote margin nationally is because of CA -- and you can only win CA once no matter what your margin is.

[pkdu]

31. Your Math sucks...trying reading what I posted

She won 21 States PV including 5 swing states


Thats 21 , twenty-one or tuh-when-tee-won States ( inc DC) where she won the Popular Vote

21 > 2 by a long, long way.

You just did state-by-state "Math" as an average... try again.

[former9thward]

35. You don't understand math, I understand...

[guillaumeb]

29. Blame the Founders for that.

From another northern blue state.

[BlueCaliDem]

2. The only way for a Democrat to win the presidency again, is to shift to the RIGHT

and appeal to those Republican voters. That's the message of this past and disastrous election.

Democrats and PoC are being systematically eradicated from the voting polls through Republican voter suppression laws, and facing undemocratic acts like unnecessarily long lines, FAR less polling stations, less voting machines in populous areas, egregious JimCrow-style voter suppression corruption, fake news sold as truth, unnecessary voter ID's, a Republican-complicit U.S. media, and shorter voting days. All these conspired to throw the election to DumbTrump and the worst Republicans ever to run for Congress who, in the past, wouldn't have survived.

Republicans clearly believe that only Republicans are allowed to vote, so in order for Democrats to win any seat in the House, Senate, and the White House ever again, it appears we have to bow our heads to the Republican voter and hope they'll be so kind as to vote Democratic (which they did in 2008 and to a lesser degree in 2012--because the economy was crashing).

Our last chance to win any election on the Federal level was this past one--and too many Liberals decided that their fee-fees were more important than the path President Obama had set us on toward prosperity for all and voted Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.

Why is this not clear to some people?

[ZoomBubba]

5. Shifting to the right is an overstatement ...

... it's more like go back to the big tent and allow members to have more flexibility in regards to their individual districts. We also have a lot of purist Democrats that actively try to undermine those who deviate from liberal lines to win in conservative districts.

[okieinpain]

6. i'll give you some right shifting. guns and pro-choice

seem to be items that people have a hard time with. I would settle for a platform that says those two items are state issues, i could also see reducing taxes for small corporations.

[SharonAnn]

10. Don't you dare give away my constitutional right to own my own body! Don't you dare!

[ZoomBubba]

19. I don't think he's saying that ...

... but making it a centerpiece doesn't seem to be a winning issue for us. Kind of like guns, some flexibility will need to be allowed. I think he overstates it needs to be a "state" issue, but Democrats need to be allowed a wider spectrum to fall into instead of an all-or-nothing approach. Would you rather have a couple of Democrats who don't support abortion after 18 weeks (which is when most European countries have restrictions set) and have a Democratic majority or not have a couple of Democrats and have an even more extreme Republican majority? It's something we have to be pragmatic about if our goal is winning instead of righteous losing.

[SharonAnn]

11. Should we make Slavery and segregation a "States Rights" issue, too? Women's right to vote?

[ZoomBubba]

21. I don't think he's saying that ...

... but making it a centerpiece doesn't seem to be a winning issue for us. Kind of like guns, some flexibility will need to be allowed. I think he overstates it needs to be a "state" issue, but Democrats need to be allowed a wider spectrum to fall into instead of an all-or-nothing approach. Would you rather have a couple of Democrats who don't support abortion after 18 weeks (which is when most European countries have restrictions set) and have a Democratic majority or not have a couple of Democrats and have an even more extreme Republican majority? It's something we have to be pragmatic about if our goal is winning instead of righteous losing.

[okieinpain]

23. i agree whole heartly. to much time and effort goes

to fighting those battles that we want to not admit we're fighting.

[HassleCat]

28. Guns, taxes

Guns are a constitutionally guaranteed right, and we need to support the constitution. We need to face up to the reality that laws such as the assault weapons ban are ineffective, and only piss off gun owners. Most of them can live with expanded background checks, so let's focus our attention there.

Instead of talking about how we plan to increase taxes for high income earners, let's talk about lowering taxes for the working class, or shifting some of the tax burden off the middle class. Voters would appreciate that far more.

[okieinpain]

7. agreed. n/t.

[brush]

12. Isn't there a contradiction there?

". . . he still is 3 million votes behind hillary clinton and would have lost the election if we could have gotten enough people to the polls.

[okieinpain]

13. lol, no contridiction just worded wrong.

". . . he still is 3 million votes behind hillary clinton and would have lost the election if we could have gotten enough people to the polls [edited: in the right states]."

[okieinpain]

14. lol and after reading about michigan i'm pretty sure i'm right. n/t.

[brush]

15. Still seems like a contradiction. She got nearly 3 million more but didn't get out enough votes?

[Exilednight]

17. Compare her vote total to Obama's. overall turnout was done this election.

[brush]

18. Cali is still counting and her total is nearly matching his

My point is that with Comey, Putin, Assange, voter suppression, gutting of the voting rights act by SCOTUS, 64% of voting machines broken in Detroit, a heavily Clinton area, and very like vote hacking in key states, the election was stolen.

[Johnny2X2X]

22. LOL

There is not longer a democratic solution for this, voter suppression tactics prevented millions from voting. And just wait until voter suppression on steroids is passed.

Trump could have a 15% approval rating in 2020, he's still winning reelection. They won't let people who oppose him vote, plain and simple. Our Democracy was stolen from us and we aren't going to get it back by simply voting.

Liberals need to buy guns, because sooner or later they are coming for you, your friends, or your neighbors.

[okieinpain]

24. no joke. n/t.

[Garrett78]

25. The same message and strategy would have won had Clinton not been the messenger.

I'm not saying there aren't things the Democratic Party (and future candidates for POTUS) should do differently (such as being more vocal in opposition to voter suppression and gerrymandering, doing more outreach to rural Dems in purple states like Obama did in states like Iowa, etc.), but Clinton was victimized by 25+ years of vicious slander. I expected Clinton to overcome the hate, but I was wrong.

All else being equal, replace Clinton with some other mainstream Democrat and that person would be the President-Elect right now. Not only that, but I suspect that person would have won more than 50% of the vote and 350+ electoral college votes.

[okieinpain]

26. agreed n/t.

[duffyduff]

33. More nonsense.

It is not in accordance with the truth.

The problem wasn't Clinton.

The problem was the Russians.

Please stop the debunked talking points.

[Garrett78]

34. You can't debunk a hypothetical.

There's a multitude of factors that could have changed the results. I happen to think Clinton being victimized by 25+ years of vicious slander was one such factor. All else being the same, I think a different mainstream Democratic nominee would have won. There is a visceral hatred for Clinton going back many years.

Other factors include the FBI, voter suppression, the infotainment industry's love affair with spectacle, etc. And bigotry, of course, was an overarching factor.

Given how close the election was, you can eliminate or reduce any one of those factors and Clinton would likely be the President-Elect. You yourself, just in this one thread, have pointed to two different factors as the factor.

[duffyduff]

32. The economy had nothing to do with Trump.

It was all about immigration and Muslims, i.e., bigotry.