Hillary Lost Because ...

[NanceGreggs]

Between FaceBook, other social media, and the many political sites I frequent, apparently HRC lost the election for at least a hundred reasons – and counting.

She didn’t connect with voters, she didn’t hold enough rallies, she didn’t smile enough, she didn’t debate well, she spent too little time in some states, she spent too much time in the same states. She was too much like Obama, she wasn’t enough like Obama. Her speeches were too subtle, her speeches were over-the-top. She played to the right audience at the wrong time, she played to the wrong audience at the right time.

She should have focused more on policy, she should have focused more on personality. She went too negative on Trump, she should have gone for Trump’s throat. She had the wrong campaign advisors, she had the wrong spokespeople. She was too confident, she was not confident enough. She wore the wrong clothes, she was too concerned about her appearance. She was too dumbed-down, she was too intellectual.

She shoulda, woulda, coulda won easily if only she’d listened to the Monday morning quarterbacks who have become overnight experts on political campaigns – but only after-the-fact. But that’s always the way. It’s only after the game is called on Sunday afternoon that the experts show up to explain how the team would have gone on to certain victory, had their heretofore silence been heeded.

The fact of the matter is that HRC won the popular vote. That means that for all of the kvetching by the “she did everything wrong” crowd, she apparently did a lot of things right. The majority of voters heard her message loud and clear, and cast their ballots accordingly. The majority of voters embraced HER message, and dismissed Trump’s “make America great again” bullshit. The majority of voters chose HER vision of what the country could be and should be, and rejected the inane ramblings of a bigoted racist who took pride in his own ignorance, his own dishonesty, and his own abject stupidity.

When the majority of voters voted for HRC, it seems rather ludicrous to talk about how she went so wrong.

And let’s keep something else in mind. Hillary WON the majority of votes despite the fact that she has been scorned and ridiculed for thirty years without respite, despite the fact that the MSM fawned over Trump and ignored all of his obvious lies, fraud, lawsuits, and conflicts of interest, despite the fact that she was an “uppity woman” competing for a job many consider to be the sole domain of men, despite the fact that she has been cast as a criminal for doing the same things in office her predecessors have done, and despite the fact that the media focused on Benghazi-and-emails while never even mentioning Trump’s inexperience, ignorance of how government works, and his blatant stupidity in respect of every facet of foreign and domestic affairs.

Add into the mix that despite the fact that the FBI, via Comey, declared that HRC was “still under active investigation” for wrongdoing when she clearly wasn’t, that so-called “truth-tellers” like Julian Assange released emails that cast Hillary as the ultimate villain while never saying a word against Trump or his shady dealings with Putin and the PTB in Russia and elsewhere, and that Hillary was accused of having literally murdered scores of political adversaries by so-called “progressives” who regurgitated all of the above, because they’d rather see Trump in the White House than be cheated out of saying “I told you so” to those who didn’t support their candidate-of-choice in the primaries, HRC STILL WON the majority of votes cast.

I cannot think of another politician in our country’s history who could have withstood the constant onslaught of lies paraded as truth, three decades of scrutiny by those determined to vilify her, and a never-ending army of nay-sayers set on her destruction – while she STILL went on to win the support of the majority of her fellow citizens.

So spare me the “Hillary lost because …” bullshit. She didn’t lose – the country did. And so says the majority of those who bothered to vote, as opposed to those who spend their lives on websites bragging about their after-the-fact political expertise.

[Hoyt]

1. "She didn't lose --the country did." Perfect.

[Auntie Bush]

108. 100

[ailsagirl]

152. Damn straight

[earthside]

206. Except ... she lost.

Hillary Clinton will not be taking the oath of office for President of the United States in January 2017.

As the old saying goes 'denial' is not a river in Egypt.

[Hoyt]

207. If you say so. Don't think you get it.

[earthside]

208. Oh, I get it ...

... and no mount of impassioned rationalizations about how she didn't really lose and that therefore we are all going to suffer anyway is going to change the hard, cold truth:

Hillary Clinton lost because she was not a very good candidate; her campaign was arrogant and lackluster; and she never effectively addressed the economic message where it counted most in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

[SpareribSP]

212. She kinda did lose though.

She clearly screwed up somewhere, and people are grasping for answers because now we have to say "President Trump" for the next four years. She lost. If she had run a better campaign and been a better candidate, she would have have won. It's Hillary and her campaign's fault that she lost.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. This is true, but the amateur pundits it's aimed at are not listening.

[pbmus]

3. She lost because of a stupid outmoded electoral college

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

[PatrickforO]

56. Good! I'm following up

on national popular vote in my own state.

[kacekwl]

100. Hillary lost because

No one can endure 24/7 "news" coverage calling her a liar a crook a murderer . 24 hours of non-stop email bullshit Bengazi lies Clinton Foundation smears etc. She may have had her baggage but it was investigated over and over , she admitted she made mistakes and apologized. No classified info was hacked so after many others have and still use private email the pounding continued. Meanwhile a man who after saying,doing things during the campaign in his business practices and in his life would have sunk ANYONE else the media constantly provided cover and excuses for him.people who are exposed to Fox entertainment and the like all day every day think they are getting news so will support anyone but Hillary. Even the MSM constantly shilled for Trump. The media IMOP was the biggest reason for her loss.

[narnian60]

123. So freaking well said.

[MadDAsHell]

132. Her first full year of responses on the emails absolutely WERE NOT admitting her mistakes.

In fact, she claimed for a while she had specifically been given permission to setup such a system.

Huge mistake to not come clean on day 1 when the Neocons were already saying she was untrustworthy. Played right into their hands. And based on the exit polls, the deflection/lying strategy clearly convinced even some in her own Party that the Neocons were right in that regard.

[ificandream]

197. As someone who worked in newspapers, I agree ...

.. the media really screwed this up. And Trump, somewhat brilliantly, played into it all. We (not just the GOP) have been suckered.

[Grey Lemercier]

105. The Compact is probably unconstitutional, and likely violates the Voting Rights Act

Why the National Popular Vote Compact is Unconstitutional

Norman Williams
Willamette University - College of Law

http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview

V. CONCLUSION
The NPVC seeks to effect a fundamental change in the presidential
election process. But like other state-initiated attempts to circumvent the
federal constitutional framework for federal elections, the NPVC does so
in a way that exceeds the states’ constitutionally delegated authority. As
the Court admonished in Thornton, change, if it is to be undertaken,
“must come not by legislation adopted either by Congress or by an
individual State, but rather—as have other important changes in the
electoral process—through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V.





Popular Vote Compact: Fraught With Constitutional Perils

http://www.jurist.org/forum/2012/02/william-ross-vote-compact.php


Some opponents of NPVIC also have warned that the compact might violate sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by diluting the votes of racial minorities and impeding their exercise of the franchise. Since African-Americans and Latinos are concentrated in populous states that have large numbers of electoral votes, these opponents of the compact contend that the election of a president by virtual popular vote would diminish the electoral influence of these racial minorities. Since, for example, Latinos comprise eight percent of the voters in the nation but constitute 28 percent of the electorate in California, which has more electoral votes than any other state, the compact could make Latino vote less significant in presidential elections. This could violate the Voting Rights Act or at least trigger its provisions requiring the US Department of Justice to approve changes in voting procedures that may have a discriminatory purpose or effect. Although the applicability of the Voting Rights Act to the compact is far from clear, what is clear is that the compact could generate complex litigation under the act.



snip


also, this, from a practicality standpoint


Why a Plan to Circumvent the Electoral College Is Probably Doomed

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why-a-plan-to-circumvent-the-electoral-college-is-probably-doomed/



but




There is a solution

Abolition will never occur, as even if the constitutional amendment were passed in the Congress, all it takes is 13 states (the smaller ones, of course) to block it. They have way more than 13 who oppose it.

BUT there is a fix, and it just doesn't fix the electoral college. If fixes the House too.

Expand the House to 1001. That would also Expand the EC to 1106 (100 for senators, 1001 for House, plus 5 for DC). It doesnt take a Constitutional Amendment either, just an Act of Congress (overturning a 1929 Act).

Its been stuck at 435 (with 2 temp added for AK and HI for a couple years, removed in 1962) SINCE 1913!


The population then was 97 million. Now is 325 million. The average rep has almost 750,000 people in his/her district.

Because the EC is based (in the constitution) off number of congress people, increasing the House also increases the EC.

THEN you can more fairly split up those 1106 EV's and those 1001 House seats. Right now, a Wyoming electoral vote is worth 3.7 times MORE than a California vote.


Expanding the House also, of course allow for a more representational distribution for the states as well, at HOUSE government levels. California, and the other large states get FUCKED right now in very way.

The main barrier to this will be getting House members to dilute their power, PLUS Rethugs to go along, as they KNOW thery have all the benefits to the current system


Read this for more info. http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

The 1001 is just my own number, you could do it so many different ways (such as the much less impactful (but still better than nothing) Wyoming Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule , or double it, plus one (has to be odd number to avoid ties)

[pbmus]

107. Thank you for your time putting this together

Very important reading.

[TheFrenchRazor]

173. electoral college and hacking. nt

[betsuni]

4. This is everything I've wanted to say but too slothful to attempt.

By the way, I saw a comment on Wonkette that I firmly believe is true: "Every time someone types 'neoliberal' on the interwebs, a hipster gets his wings."

[Hekate]

5. Nance still has the energy and the fire. Thank gods for that.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. Yes... I don't necessarily agree with all of Nance's views, but she certainly makes her argument powerfully and eloquently.

If I had to boil Hillary's losing the election down to a single point or phrase, it would be this: Hillary had the right positions, but the wrong message. Of course, there's more to it than that, but most of that explanaton falls under that rubric.

[realmirage]

6. It's not just Hillary - Democrats in all areas are in the minority...you don't care to find out why?

conspiracy theories and excuses don't bring us back from the depths of shit where we currently are. We HAVE to start retooling this party... isn't that obvious?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/11/22/daily-202-rust-belt-dems-broke-for-trump-because-they-thought-clinton-cared-more-about-bathrooms-than-jobs/58339cf3e9b69b7e58e45f1b/

[ybbor]

16. Thank you!

OMG! Our leadership screwed us royally and they only have conspiracy theories to understand what the hell happened. Take a look in the mirror people. We were had and I point to our leadership as failing us over the last six years. 2010 was the writing on the wall and we all whistled by not making corrections.

So frustrating!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

48. Wait a minute! The GOP was/is on the brink of disaster. How do Democrats respond to the Nazi Party?

What labor movement is there? What kind of labor are we talking about today?

[emulatorloo]

76. Yes, if only she had pandered to transphobes and homophobes.

[HenryWallace]

101. Well Reasoned.............?

60 Million transphobes and homophobes, plus
46 Million transphobes and homophobes who didn't bother showing up at the polls!

[INdemo]

80. We were suppose to "retool the party" after the election of 2000

was stolen but the spineless Democrats did nothing.
Oh there were several that declared "this will never happen again" but it did...in 2004..
So here we are in 2016 declaring that we must retool out party,and we sure as hell must,but I imagine those same declarations will be voiced in 2020 unless we get real Progressive Democrats elected and force those corporatcrats out from behind their corporate curtain and send them on their way and replace them with real Democrats...

[Martin Eden]

89. Good article, thanks

The Democratic Party would be insane to ignore the reasons why so many switched to Trump.

[green917]

106. Exactly!

The democratic powers that be have completely lost their ability to read the wants of the American people. In 2008, senator Barack Obama was swept into office because of his message of "change" and most of middle America has been waiting for that change (which for many of them came in very small increments or not at all) ever since. The primaries of both parties should have taught both major parties what the people wanted...change from the status quo. The republican party listened and put forth a reality tv star that promised to bring back their jobs and put a stop to our horrendous trade policies that have cost so many jobs. By contrast, the democratic party tipped the scales for the most status quo candidate that we have ever had. She represents, for much of middle America, the antithesis of trump (and not in the good way that most of us know she is)...her husband signed nafta during his presidency and, whether she likes it or not, she's on record as pushing for the trans pacific partnership and other trade deals like it. This was a bread box kind of election year and we blew it! To quote James Carville, "It's the economy stupid!"

[tinrobot]

7. She lost because of lines drawn on a map in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The electoral college was her biggest enemy.

[pbmus]

9. Exactly

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

[muddrunner17]

22. And lines drawn by republican legislatures after the 2010 Census.

[DeadEyeDyck]

82. District lines play no part in the electoral college

[uponit7771]

8. amen, the ... FACT... that she won the popular vote means at ....MOST... there was a tactical error

... somewhere on her side.

or

There was voter suppression when there's close margins that helped...

Please notice there are few if any models with calculated voter suppression included in the post mortem analysis... because these people are fuckers and don't want to admit the assholery they GOP is being

[TheKentuckian]

191. That only holds up if the only office is the Presidency and even that only narrowly against

the worst candidate in history with plenty of us so weighted down with clothes pins and Fabreeze that we could barely fit in the voting booth.

Don't dare presume that all those votes are an endorsement particularly when the opposition was off the meter unacceptable.

In the big picture from bottom to the top, there are substantial problems and if my vote helps blind others to them then in the face of losing anyway I cannot help but to deeply regret it, I and likely millions of others have done nothing but added fuel for hubris and wrong-headedness in a desperate effort to mitigate harm to our country but actually only serve to prevent all hope of cure.

We are a minority in both houses and we control six states to their like thirty-four or so and you think "AT MOST" minor tweaks are required?

I guess only complete blow outs both electoral and popular along with what surrendering every Mayor's office and City Council along with everything else will clue some folks in.

They almost have a Constitutional amendment level governing majority and people are playing the Black Knight, "it just a pin prick!"?

Are you serious?

[eridani]

10. Let me add #101

Obama and those Democrats who supported TPP handed the midwestern rust belt to Trump on a silver platter.

[MadDAsHell]

45. Add Hillary herself to "those Democrats." nt

[Nay]

110. Yep. That was the death knell. Even a lot of regular Democrats hated that the

TPP was even being put together and considered. NO ONE thought the TPP would help anybody except the rich. Burnt once, twice shy. NAFTA is a dirty word in the US and Mexico for the jobs it destroyed in both places and the TPP, secret as it was, was rightly considered to be a giveaway to the mega-rich. Dems need to stop pushing that shit!

[lapucelle]

144. What's a "regular Democrat"?

What a peculiar thing to say.

[Nay]

179. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I don't consider myself a regular Democrat

in that I am much more left-leaning/socialist than 'regular' Democrats I come in contact with, who seem more centrist to me. That's all.

[JI7]

11. The MEdia was the WORST i i have ever seen it this campaign . Google news search was full of

breitbart and related trash .

[ffr]

12. I'm not convinced she lost. Let's see

if the voting machines or totals were padded for Donald. I want to see what happens when voting machines are feed 10 votes for Ds and 10 votes for Rs, but report 7 votes for Ds and 13 votes for Rs.

[ybbor]

13. Was she aware of how this worked?

Popular votes don't matter. The Electoral College matters. Is it outdated? Possibly. Did she know the rules going in? God I hope so! There is a whole lot of hand wringing going on here as if the fact that she got the most votes should now hold sway. It doesn't, never has. And now we are dangerously close to allowing the Republicans to call a Congressional Convention due to their holding 33 state legislatures and having them rewrite the whole damn thing.

We need to get it together and make some drastic changes or we are severely and utterly screwed. She/we screwed up! There is no other way to say it. She did not get enough people in the right states to vote for her regardless of what California and NY did for her. She lost all of the rust belt! She didn't resonate with the voters there. She didn't do a great job getting her people out. That's why she lost.

Unfortunately, Popular vote numbers don't matter. Stop focusing on them. We need to make sure we don't mess the next round up, or we may be seeing the rewriting of our constitution by the very folks we fear.

To quote a saying from when her husband was president, we need to "Move on".

[Skittles]

20. move on?

I say when an unqualified piece of SHIT wins the presidency with the help of the outdated electoral college, voter suppression, a swooning media, Russia and the FBI, the LAST thing we need to do is MOVE THE FUCK ON

[ybbor]

24. Ok...

Then don't.

But what I'm saying is we better get our shit together or its only gonna get a hell of lot worse than it is right now. And lord knows I never imagined it could get this far.

What are your suggestions? We couldn't have fucked this round up any worse. We need to start winning back states. We need to take back state legislatures and governorships and county commissioners and school boards. That is how we move on. They've been kicking our asses at all levels since we "lost" in 2000. Stop rerunning this round, we need to reload with a whole lot of new and better ideas for the next round or else we can most definitely kiss our asses good-bye.

That's what I'm saying.

[Skittles]

26. I want everyone to know the TRUTH about what happened with this election

because it was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and America will be paying for it for DECADES, if not HUNDREDS of years

[Kentonio]

219. It'll certainly be paying for it for decades if you just sit back and refight the same battle.

Do you think there is seriously any possibility anything is going to overturn the result? In 2000 everyone knows the result was fixed, but what practical difference does that make to anything? Did those soldiers not get sent to die as a result? Did the electoral system get fixed? No, people just occasionally sit and say to each other 'well yeah, the whole thing was a fix you know' and then NOTHING CHANGES.

So instead we have the option of actually getting ready for the next battle and trying to actually stop decades of damage before it happens. Seems like a much better strategy to me.

[NanceGreggs]

21. Oh, I get it now!

Hillary "lost" because she reached out to ALL citizens, instead of only those who live in the "right states".

Yeah, she/we fucked up. Hopefully the next Dem candidate will abandon their principles and cater to the bigots, homophobes, xenophobes, and anti-choice voters in places like Bumfuck, Middle America, in order to secure the presidency.

Popular votes don't matter? Well, they do when it becomes glaringly obvious that the people - remember them? - have made their choice obvious, and are told that the pResident-elect will be the guy that the majority of the country DIDN'T vote for.

According to people like you, HRC would have won - if only she'd been an anti-choice, immigrant-hating, ignorant of world affairs, disabled-mocking, anti-union, anti-Constitution, dumbass Republican.

[ybbor]

29. Wrong

She lost because she didn't step foot in Wisconsin because it was sewn up. She lost because she didn't really have a message. What was it? I can't think of it off hand. I'm with Her? What the hell does that even mean. She got fucked by the press, yes horribly. But not during the primary.

And don't get me wrong, Trump is a scary as hell misogonistic, racist, bigoted, disgusting xenophobic asshole who has no right visiting, let alone occupying the White House. His Supreme Court nominees will set us back decades if not centuries. As the father of an eight year old daughter, I'm terrified!

She didn't get her vote to come out and work for her to make sure she had the votes. How the fuck does she lose to that fucking piece of shit garbage? How? I can't tell you, but its pretty fucking sad that she could not beat that piece of shit.

And yes our country is full of a bunch of shit-for-brain assholes who hated her more than loved their own daughters and female friends, we can only thank the media for their work over the past 30 years for that, but we knew that going in and still made her our nominee. Well that didn't go so well for us now did it.

We have a lot of soul searching to make sure that never happens again. And as far as the Electoral College goes, it is not going anywhere soon, if ever, so we better figure that out or we may not see the Oval Office for some time.

[dae]

43. Thank you!

[ybbor]

49. I hate pointing out the truth sometimes

But my god, I'm sick as hell that she lost, but let's look at why and fix it. We all knew how the presidency is won, and we/she blew it. Let's get our act together because we need to royally kick some ass in 2018!

[cwydro]

74. Good post.

[ybbor]

88. Thanks

[Nay]

94. I thank you as well. Many Dems have been screaming for years that we have

to stop thinking it's business as usual, because it hasn't been for a long time. Frankly, nominating Clinton was the main error; sure, it's not her fault, especially, that the right has ginned up all that lying bullshit against her all these years, but there it is. AND IT HAD AN EFFECT ON THE BUFFOONS GOING TO THE VOTING BOOTH, as anyone with half a brain would know if they thought about it for 5 seconds.

If we continue to insist that every voter is a paragon of intellect and only needs a position paper to correctly decide to vote Democrat, we are going to keep losing elections until this planet falls into the sun. Propaganda works, folks, and it's past time we started using it. And if we have to find our own demagogues, well, let's start looking, ffs.

[ybbor]

102. Preach it!

Thank you, as well! Glad to see there are other sane folks on here.

[Captain Stern]

120. Well, said.

Our candidate lost, and so did we. It's not so much that Trump excelled, and brought out new voters....he didn't. He got less votes than Romney. The fact is, Clinton didn't get all of the people that voted for Obama just four years ago.

In fairness to Clinton, there weren't many of us screaming "GO DEFEND WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN, AND PENNSYLVANIA!", but, in retrospect, we should have been. Personally, I thought those states were part of an impenetrable "blue wall" that Trump couldn't breach. Evidently Clinton, and her advisors, felt the same way. And they were wrong. Very wrong.

It wasn't obvious while it was happening, but the bottom line is...Clinton ran a poor campaign. She lost to the Republican candidate that I think most of would have hand-picked for her to run against.

[BREMPRO]

142. it was apparently obvious to those paying close attention on the ground.

both her HUSBAND Bill, and Michael Moore were warning her months before the election to pay more attention to working class white voters in.. you guessed it... the rust belt, specifically: Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.. if THEY knew it, it wasn't a surprise, it was campaign malpractice. Lots was done right, clearly she won the popular vote outright, but that doesn't matter in a system that uses an Electoral college by state, and the campaign should have know that and not ignored the cries from depressed rural factory towns in these states. I can't help but thing they ALL associated the name CLINTON, with NAFTA, and LOSING JOBS. That's a tough legacy to overcome and should have made special efforts in the rust belt to court the voters most affected.

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bill-clintons-lonely-one-man-effort-to-win-white-working-class-voters/article/2607228

[Kentonio]

220. Christ..

His comments in Michigan marked the last leg of a lonely, one-man war he launched earlier in the election to appeal to working-class and white rural voters, whom senior Clinton staffers reportedly told him were not worth the time or effort.

[mcar]

182. She didn't have a message?

What campaign did you see?

[MadDAsHell]

46. She would have won if she looked at a fucking electoral map. The math wasn't hard. nt

[NanceGreggs]

50. And yet another ...

... "she should have kow-towed to the people in the right states" voter weighs in.

If only she'd come out AGAINST the rights of LGBTers, raising the minimum wage, free college tuition, affordable healthcare, a woman's right to choose, and unions, she could have racked-up the votes in the "right" states.

[MadDAsHell]

90. Orrrrr....simply showed up in those states. But no, she wasn't arrogant at all.

Last edited Fri Nov 25, 2016, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

You're right. All hail NanceGreggs the great and powerful sage of USA politics...from Canada.

[ybbor]

91. Now, now...

Play nice. Kill them with kindness, or at least rational thought.

[lapucelle]

141. Who exactly comprises the "them" that you're tring to kill?

What a peculiar thing to say.

[ybbor]

149. It's a saying for how to treat those who are not treating you very nicely.

There is no killing going on, not even with kindness.

[lapucelle]

150. That's a peculiar reading of the idiom.

Why didn't you simply say "treat them with kindness" if that's what you meant instead of using an expression that Webster defines as an attempt "to cause discomfort to someone by treating him or her in a way that is extremely kind or helpful"?

[Kentonio]

221. The kill refers to the death of their argument, not them themselves.

[Yurovsky]

228. IT'S JUST A SAYING, AN ADAGE, A SAW, A MAXIM, AN EXPRESSION...

probably old as dirt. For Pete's sake (another antiquated yet useful saying!), can we focus on the subject at hand and quit harping over the nuances of the language? I'm sorry if the word "KILL" offends you... perhaps Volleyball should quit using the term and replace it with "ball that was unable to be returned or kept in play by the receiving team"...

Feel better now? Have we solved all the worlds problems? If I can't "kill with kindness", perhaps I'll "sucker punch with sarcasm"...

Seriously, we've got bigger fish to fry! (another outdated yet useful saying, apologies to my vegan friends & loved ones!)

[Exilednight]

201. Yet Obama won those states.

[Lokilooney]

127. Yes

That is how the outcome can come to be living in a Republic not a Democracy, for better or worse that's how the game is played.

[emulatorloo]

77. Yes, Hillary was totally ignorant of the Electoral College.

The fact that you would imply that shows you aren't a serious person. You're not the first DU to make such a claim, so must be a new meme.

[ybbor]

85. Yes, new meme...

I can't wait to see what today's is! Goody, goody, goody!

No, actually that is what is known as a rhetorical question. It just seemed that way because of all the "she won the popular vote" cries. As I've said already, popular vote doesn't elect the president, the electoral college does and she couldn't carry enough states to win it.

But no one on this website wants to try and figure out how we prevent this scenario from playing out again. We used to be the website that used to think outside of the box, we were not status quo Dems, we were the more progressive "underground" members of our party. Instead it has turned into an echo chamber and only one message can be heard: Hillary got jobbed. If you don't follow along you are "deplorables", a Trump supporter, or worse. This isn't helping.

She lost the election to the most unqualified thing to have ever run, but we can't say it was at all her fault. The system was rigged I tell ya. Go back a month and read these posters comments with regard to the election being rigged. They were giddy with the ridiculousness of that "meme". She Lost! Were fucked! Where do we go from here? It can't be the status quo, or we are deemed to keep losing, not just the White House, but everywhere.

[Kathy M]

125. This

Thank You for writing this

Agree completely

[lapucelle]

138. Some of your remarks are disgustingly patronizing and sexist.

Hillary lost for a number of reasons. Incompetence wasn't one of them.

And she certainly did a better job in 2008 of delivering her supporters to Obama on election day than was done this year by her primary opponent. That was a test of leadership. Hillary didn't fail it.

[ybbor]

148. Okay...

I don't mean it to be sexist at all.

The campaign was arrogant and was poorly run, so I'm not saying she was incompetent, but her campaign was. She thought she had it wrapped up. Hell I thought she had it wrapped up, how could she lose to him? That feeling began to change around 9:30 on election night. I still can't believe she lost, but she did.

This has nothing to do with her primary opponents, they all endorsed her and asked their followers to do so as well. I don't recall her every asking for their support, lord knows her followers were not all that welcoming, I was told to "beat it, we don't need you" by many here in no uncertain terms, but I still voted for her.

So sorry, I'm pissed at the leadership of our party for dropping the ball, and she's part of that group, as is Obama, and I'm really just parroting a lot of what he has said after the fact.

[LisaM]

202. Exactly.

Bernie Sanders' tepid support was a disappointment, though it was about what I expected.

I'm sure Hillary's 2008 primary loss was bitter, but she gave it everything she had for Obama.

[Lil Missy]

14. gerrymandering ....

[FBaggins]

84. How?

What does gerrymandering have to do with it?

[Garrett78]

126. I suppose it could play a role in this sense:

Gerrymandering has probably demoralized a lot of folks and led to some giving up on politics. Republicans control so many state legislatures that some understandably might feel hopeless.

[AgadorSparticus]

15. 1000!!!! As always, Nance, you are spot on!!!!

[ybbor]

18. No, she's not.

Her excuses are just that. Popular vote means NOTHING to the outcome. Repeat, NOTHING! We knew this going in to the election. If you didn't then you were misinformed. She lost the Midwest and that was easily avoidable. And I'm pissed!

[NanceGreggs]

23. Yeah, I am SO sure you're pissed. n/t

[ybbor]

31. What does that even mean?

[melman]

36. The poster

is accusing you of being a Trump supporter.


Because the poster is unable to answer your very sensible posts.


And also because that is just what they do here. They post these OPs expecting recs and hoorays only. Anything else gets attacked and insulted.

[ybbor]

37. Yeah, that's what I figured

I guess I could start an ignore list, but I have never done so, and don't see myself starting now.

We need to refocus our efforts to put up viable progressive candidates in all levels of government to get this ship righted, pardon the term.

[radical noodle]

54. What is an example

in your mind, of a viable progressive candidate?

[ybbor]

58. Good question

I guess I'll start a list:

Environmentalist, i.e. No fracking
Pro clean, renewable energy
Pro choice
Pro education
Equal rights for all
Pro post-office banks
Pro local banks
Pro small business
Pro organized labor
Pro single-payer healthcare
Pro manufacturing base jobs
Pro livable wages
Pro infrastructure investment
Pro taxation of the wealthy, or all of us, with no loopholes
Pro Secretary of Peace
Less of our GDP to the MIC

I guess that's a start, I'm sure I'm leaving off a lot. Feel free to add. Not sure we can get them all, but doesn't hurt to try.

[NanceGreggs]

60. If you "don't like what THEY do here" ...

... why are YOU here?

[melman]

61. Are you the board police?

I say "they" because I know how the alert game works. It's really a very specific group of posters, but to be specific about it would get my post removed.

[NanceGreggs]

63. Board police?

Hardly.

But still wonderin' why - if you don't like the way people here act - you're still posting here. Also curious as to why you're so concerned about "alerts" and getting your posts removed on a website where "THEY" react in a way you don't appreciate.

There are lots of websites where you'd be more than welcome, and you'd never have to worry about "a specific group of posters" - so why not post there and be free of your paranoia?

[melman]

64. lol

Whatever you say. Not takin' the bait. So Sorry.

[MadDAsHell]

134. Did you not abandon DU entirely for a while when you first started losing your popularity?

From what I remember you were gone the moment your posts started getting anything besides recs and "You're the best writer ever" replies.

A few challenging that your posts weren't gospel and we didn't see you for a long time.

A little bit of the pot calling the kettle black here.

[NanceGreggs]

157. I left DU in 2009 ...

... when the TOS was changed, and "only constructive criticism of Dems" was changed to "any and all criticism of Dems" being allowed.

After that, DU was flooded with RW trolls who bashed Obama and the Party relentlessly. That's why I left - and that's why a LOT of people left. If you look at the Alexa ratings, DU started to nose-dive traffic-wise at that point, and has never reattained its former numbers.

As for my "popularity", it was never an issue for me one way or the other. I actually have a life. The fact is I moved from here to a site where there is no "like" or "rec" system, so apparently I didn't really care about such things, did I?

I write because I enjoy it, and I don't consider myself to be really all that good at it. If people like it, that's great - but it really doesn't affect my life one way or the other.

As for DU, if I see the place being overrun with anti-Dem trolls again, I'll leave - and I won't be the only one who does. I find it rather pointless to participate on a "Democratic" site when obvious anti-Dem bullshit becomes the majority of what's posted.

But, hey, thanks for your concern!

[George II]

180. People have come and gone and come back again for a number of reasons. I did the same thing too....

....back in 2009 because the venom being directed toward President Obama gave me the feeling that many here on "Democratic" Underground weren't really Democrats.

I came back a few years later.

I don't try to characterize why people come and go, nor do try to psychoanalyze why people did leave periodically.

Knowing Nance from way back when I first signed up (we joined a few weeks apart), I know why she (and others incidentally) has taken at least one break, maybe more. But I don't chronicle membership here or keep a scoreboard.

While we're at it, though, being a member for just barely two years, how could you be so intimately familiar with what happened more than five years before you ever joined? Very curious indeed.

[MadDAsHell]

185. Been here since 2001. Not the friendliest forum I've seen though, took me a while to actually...

join.

[George II]

188. Well quite honestly the post I responded to wasn't exactly the friendliest either.

[Cary]

184. Interesting

Account status: Active
Member since: Wed Nov 5, 2014, 10:56 AM
Number of posts: 858
Number of posts, last 90 days: 138
Favorite forum: 2016 Postmortem, 72 posts in the last 90 days (52% of total posts)
Favorite group: African American, 5 posts in the last 90 days (4% of total posts)
Last post: Sat Nov 26, 2016, 11:24 AM

[MadDAsHell]

186. I concur friend...

Account status: Active
Member since: Wed May 9, 2012, 07:38 AM
Number of posts: 6,405
Number of posts, last 90 days: 301
Favorite forum: 2016 Postmortem, 202 posts in the last 90 days (67% of total posts)
Favorite group: Hillary Clinton, 13 posts in the last 90 days (4% of total posts)
Last post: Sat Nov 26, 2016, 11:45 AM

[Cary]

187. I actually go back to around 2004

I have no idea why it says 2012 and don't care. But then it wasn't I who dissed Nancy about 2009.

[George II]

195. Curious posting history, especially since he claims to have been here since 2001 but....

.....didn't join until THIRTEEN years later!

Then he comes here and attacks a long-standing member (whether you like her or not, she's been around a long time and still here) for something she did seven years ago? Truly curious, wouldn't you say?

[Cary]

196. Totally

But I really have been at DU since about 2004 so I don't know eat to say.

I have always been "Cary." Like Cary Grant.

Just like him.

[jack_krass]

66. Are you implying something?

[Skittles]

27. again

the media, RUSSIA and the FBI involvement for ONE PARTY was UNPRECEDENTED

THIS IS WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

[NanceGreggs]

165. Try reading for comprehension.

This piece is not about winning or losing. It's about attributing "right moves" and "wrong moves" to candidates after the fact.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that Hillary won the popular vote AND the EC. Everything that is being said about her now would be the exact opposite.

"She didn't connect with the voters" would now be "she obviously connected with the voters."

"She didn't campaign in the right states" would now be "she campaigned in all the right places, and it paid off for her."

"After 30 years in the public eye, she had too much 'baggage' to win" would now be "the voters really responded to her three decades of experience."

When Trump was declared the winner on election night, it took the MSM bobbleheads a matter of minutes before they were praising Kellyanne Conway's "brilliant" campaign strategy. Had Trump lost, they would have lost no time proclaiming her a know-nothing amateur, whose political ignorance probably cost him the election.

The fact that HRC won the popular vote is important, not because it meant a win or a loss, but because she was obviously the choice of the voters - which means she DID do all the right things in order to garner the majority of votes.

Were there no electoral college, Hillary would be the next POTUS. She lost because of an out-dated system that over-rides the will of the people, and not because she made all the "wrong" moves. As far as actual voters are concerned, HRC was THEIR choice, hands down. To now try to imply that she lost for any other reason is to completely dismiss the idea that actual voters should have the final say.

Just as a side note, it's been amusing to watch the "get rid of the oligarchs and let the PEOPLE decide" advocates now defending the idea that the electoral college should have the last word. As long as it means that HRC won't be the next prez, they're more than happy to go along with one of those "establishment" systems they previously railed against.

But then maybe there are other things at play here. Perhaps HRC lost because she's walking around in a body brace, the victim of at least a dozen diseases that she's been hiding from the public. Or maybe it was her "body double" who lost the election. Know what I mean, Vern?

[ybbor]

167. Ok sorry

I just am tired of the "stupid electoral college" whining. That is the rules, and she didn't do it.

[NanceGreggs]

168. No, she didn't win the EC ...

... she won the majority of votes from actual citizens instead.

Apparently that doesn't count - especially among those who whined about the "oligarchy" that takes power away from the people and puts it in the hands of a powerful few.

Funny how the self-declared warriors against 'the Establishment" suddenly became pro-Establishment ass-kissers all of a sudden, huh?

[ybbor]

169. I apologized, why do you continue to insult me?

I'm leaving, you win. Hope you're satisfied.

[NanceGreggs]

170. The only people I "insulted" ...

... are those who self-declared as "anti-Establishment" warriors who now think the "Establishment", via the EC, is more important than the will of the people.

Well, I guess the shoe fit ...

[ybbor]

175. You know what? I'm not sorry...

I've slept on it and I'm not sorry. Just because you're a bully and want to play " if" doesn't make it right.

Being anti-establishment doesn't mean not playing by the rules. The EC is the rule. No ifs, ands or buts. She lost! And I saw it happening last May. Oh, I'm not gleeful in my ability to see the future, turns out it's not always so spot on. I knew she was going to lose Michigan, again, back then. I could read the sentiment of the people. They don't like her, personally I could give two shits about her. I am sure she is quite pleasant and I hear very funny, but as we keep saying, 30 years of falsehoods, portrayed as fact, have blinded folks to all the good she has done in more than 30 years of public service. Was she screwed by the MSM for failing to portray him poorly? Maybe, but we all heard Mr. Pussy-grabber in Chief on live audio, and they still voted for him.

Oh, I know, "but 2.5 million more voted for her". Yes, we get it. But I cannot say it enough, so what! That is not how the presidency is won! Never has been! Ever! Probably never will be! They are no "ifs" about it.

But, here are some "ifs", since you want to play:

If she had released her speech transcripts, she probably would have lost to Bernie in the Primary making this discussion unnecessary. Would he have won Michigan? Probably. Because he was talking about getting people back to work. He was talking about how bad we got screwed from the likes of "Gold-standard of trade deals". And he was talking about all of the other issues for which he stood up for his whole career.

If Hillary, and mainly her surrogates hadn't portrayed Bernie as a racist, which is laughable, he probably would have won in those southern states where the Africsn American community played such a large role in her success. And that may have propelled him to victory.

Remember, we're discussing totally implausible "ifs" here, just like if we imagined there was no EC.

If she had not been so arrogantly confident in her victory (which I was sure she was gonna win, too. I mean, come on, she was running against that imbecile. Who the hell could lose to that ape in a suit? No one, right? Oh....) and let her grand finale of fireworks leak, she may have been able to sway a few more thousand people to vote for her rather than leaving that part of the ballot empty in those, yes it's true, "right states".

Let's see... What are some more? This is kinda fun.

If she had been running against a child, an actual child, not a human of great age that acts like one, she may have won the EC. Maybe not won the popular vote, mind you, but the actual real goal of winning the EC.

I could probably go on all day, but it's senseless. There are no "ifs" in politics, only reality. She may win the popular vote by 3 mil., but it doesn't mean shit, really. We can make her a trophy that says "Won the Popular Vote 2016", but she still lost the EC. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

She lost.
Our country lost.
My daughter lost.
I lost.

What I'm saying is, okay, how do we make sure this doesn't happen again?

We need to reimplement the "50 state strategy" that Howard Dean started. Because, turns out, it's the states that determine who is president. With that strategy we can start taking back all those states that we lost under the DWS DNC.

We need to talk about the issue most important to most people: "it's the economy, stupid". The imbecile who won, spoke about it all the time. You know what, people want to hear it. So much so, they could get past all of his other crap. All those states she should have won, you know Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the state she couldn't find time to visit, Wisconsin are really concerned about the loss of their jobs.

So no Nance, I'm not gonna leave! I'm not gonna be bullied by the ilk like you! Being anti-establishment doesn't mean anarchists. You still need to play by the rules until you can change them.

So I'm staying! And I'm gonna work to make sure this clustefuck of an experience doesn't happen again!

We need to get people motivated for 2018. The Dems are more susceptible to losing more Senate seats this next go round. We need to win House seats back. We need to win state house and senate seats back. With true progressive candidates (see my list of some of the characteristics somewhere on this thread).

And then we need to nominate a candidate who can win the states needed to kick that orange asshole to the curb in 2020. Which is really the most important election in my life, other that 2010, and this one, to make sure we win back those state houses, so we can redraw all those state districts into ones more representative of the states' make-up. You know we usually tally more votes for Dem candidates but still lose seats due to gerrymandering. So 2020 is essential!

So see you around. I'm not going anywhere. I may even have more to say in this thread as well.

[NanceGreggs]

190. Again, reading comprehension.

My OP is NOT about who won or lost. It’s about attributing blame or praise after the fact, which is a narrative that is spun on-the-spot based on who won or lost.

Let’s assume that Obama and McCain ran exactly as they did in 2008 – except the win went to McCain on election night.

Immediately, Obama’s eloquent speeches would be described as “preachy”, his self-confidence would be described as “arrogance”, his “message of change” would have been labelled as totally out-of-step with what the citizenry wanted. In other words, every single thing he said or did that was previously described as a positive would have suddenly been denounced as a negative.

And that’s what is happening here. Had HRC won, everything people are now claiming caused her loss would be praised as having led to her win.

After every election, we get to hear the pre-scripted narrative: “____ didn’t connect with the voters, ____ didn’t have a good ground game, ____ didn’t convey the right message.” The name of whoever lost is simply slotted into the blanks.

In this particular instance, however, insisting that Hillary lost because she did everything wrong flies in the face of the fact that the MAJORITY of voters apparently think she did everything right – and cast their ballots for her accordingly. Due to the EC, that doesn’t give her a “win” – but it does show that the “she did everything wrong” schtick has no basis in reality.

As for you continuing to post here or not, I’m not sure why you think I care one way or the other. Not my monkey, not my circus.

[Kentonio]

222. Your premise is deeply flawed.

Basically you're just saying that because people will always dissect and critisize losing campaigns, that any analysis is pointless.

[NanceGreggs]

230. Your reply is deeply flawed ...

... because you apparently didn't understand my premise.

[grossproffit]

204. Uh huh... "No way She will never get my vote..."

"No way

She will never get my vote, she could have FDR incarnate as her VP and I wouldn’t vote for her."

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/would-the-nomination-of-e-warren-for-vp-change-my-vote-on-hillary/#post-15601

[mcar]

205. Oopsie!

[ybbor]

229. I'll tell ya what's an oopsie...

Losing the election to that Cheeto-faced moron. Now that's an oopsie.

But I guess it's hilarious to you that I couldn't see myself voting for her in July. I did hold my nose and do so in the end. Too bad she couldn't convince more people in the Rust Belt to do so. But keep on rolling on the floor laughing while the rest of us weep.

[ybbor]

210. Nice fishing! I'm not afraid to admit I said it on July 2

You know what, I was pissed, but mainly because of her followers.

I did end up voting for her. I felt horrible after I left the polls, though. But you know what, I did the right thing for my daughter, wife, mom (who by the way left the pres open), sisters, country, and frankly, myself. I again voted for the lesser of two evils. I voted for her because the opposite was repulsive. I even sat in my car at the polling station, read the projections for MI, which had her up 9 points, but because I had seen so many of his signs in the outskirts of my town I voted for her.

And as I looked back at my disgust for her over the final few months of the campaign I thought back to how I felt about her prior to the primary season. I recalled how I would honk my horn and give the thumbs up to people who had "Ready for Hillary" bumper stickers on their cars, and I recalled how I was ready for her.

And then Bernie entered the race. I am a long time listener of Thom Hartmann, and became familiar with Bernie from his Friday shows. I agreed with most of what he said and threw my hat into the ring for Bernie. I really believe his vision was the best for the country. I was all in for Bernie during the primary, as were many DUers. The hatred immediately displayed towards him on this site was unbelievable. I have been a member here for over 8 years, and a daily lurker since the summer of 2004, and had never witnessed the display of disdain toward anyone other than W in all those years. I was as disgusted by the content displayed by her followers as hers were with Bernie's.

When Manny was banned I was shocked. I couldn't believe that someone who really was such a big part of DU was banned, it blew my mind. The primary was still going on and he was expressing his feelings in ways that were not much different from the language on the other side. So yeah, I was pissed and at the time I was not gonna give her my vote. Even if she had FDR as her VP.

But as I said above, I reflected on how I felt about HRC in the years leading up to the primary. Did I believe she was a flawed candidate because of all of her baggage? Yes I did, and still did/do. But that being said, I also defended her regarding the Bengazi witch hunt bullshit. Hell, I even passionately defended her to my republican mom the Sunday before the election with regard to all the work she has done for decades for women and children, and the great humanitarian work the Clinton Foundation has done around the globe. I was still unsure of my vote or no vote at the time. I was really divided, but it really wasn't about her, it was about the people who were so mean to me and other supporters of Bernie on this very website. But I got past it and cast my vote for her despite all of the crap I endured on here.

So kill me for saying something in July in the heat of my rage. My rage was not directed at her, but at those here who were so horrible to anyone who wasn't for her initially. I was told more than once that my vote wasn't needed and to not let the door hit me on the ass on my way out of here.

So I was pissed, and still am. But I stepped back, put my adult brain on and cast my vote for her. I am glad I did, and would never have voted for anyone else. Stein showed she was clueless, Johnson was never an option, and the other? No fucking way!

You know, this post was supposed to have been made on election night, but we all know what happened to DU that night. I don't apologize for what I said in July, because at the time that is how I felt. So congrats for your fishing expedition, and thanks. It allowed me the chance to explain my thought process the past 5 months.

I doubt that you've read this far, it's pretty freaking long, but that's my story. I don't even recall the post you commented on, but I will say I stand by that too, if I remember the thread correctly.

Peace

[madamesilverspurs]

17. I've said it before, I'll say it again --

I want to write like you when I grow up!


.

[NanceGreggs]

38. Well, if I ever grow up ...

... I hope I grow up to be a much better writer than I am now.

[pnwmom]

19. 1000. n/t

[panbanger]

25. electoral college

I feel like we're not going to see the electoral college go away until the other side loses it while winning the popular vote, like the Democrats have now twice in the last five elections.

I too am tired of reading about how Hillary didn't energize this, didn't do that. It's funny how for Democrats need to do this and do that....The Republicans nominated someone who is disturbing beyond anyone they've nominated before, at least in my lifetime. And he got ballpark the votes that the Republican nominee always gets.

So the take-away I guess is that Democrats need a message, they need to be inspired. Republicans - they need a name on the ballot with the letter "R" next to it.

[Nay]

113. Here's the thing, though --

he wasn't disturbing to the people who voted for him.

And the crazy RW religious nut Pubs who've won all the state houses and governorships -- somebody voted for these cretins. Actually voted for them.

It's just my opinion, of course, but this fascistic thing will have to run its course naturally. IOW, it will have to crash the system. There's no coming back from this sort of inchoate rage among large segments of the population, even if it is a misdirected and self-destructive rage. Consequences must rain down on one and all.

The Dems have spent the last 20 years tippy-toeing around the Pubs and it has done nothing but bring us to this point. Until the Dems can come up with a plan that does more than tinker around the edges of our problems, we're dead in the water. Also, FORGET about the presidency for a round or two -- get some goddamn work done in the states. I know I'm a broken record about this, but the Tea Partiers got rid of Cantor here in VA and replaced him with that dolt Brat, and when the general election came up, THE NATIONAL DEMS DID NOTHING - NOTHING - FOR THE SELF-FUNDED CANDIDACY OF THE DEM CHALLENGER. No money, no ads, no nothing. Even though it was a gift-wrapped opportunity to put a Dem in. This is why we are losing the states, folks. And we will continue to lose.

[MadDAsHell]

136. Because all our resources were focused on "making history" with our Presidential candidate's gender

[Nay]

183. Yes, there was a lot of that sort of feeling; that another historic presidency was

going to put her over the top anyway.

Way back in the primaries, I was voicing some cautions about that idea:

1. Obama was elected by a huge outpouring of AAs who, considering their history, were totally galvanized to vote. In my own district, I saw many AA voters who never came out before. The lines were enormous. I voiced my opinion that there would not be a similar outpouring for Hillary by AAs or women. I know too many women who are Republicans. (God knows why, but there you go.) I was correct -- many, many fewer people of all colors voted this time.

2. Obama had no real baggage. Hillary did, even though a lot of it was fake RW baggage. But it was baggage just the same. Her being a woman does not erase that.

3. There was going to be a lot of backlash from a large number of Americans over ANOTHER historic presidency -- "What?? We had the black guy for 8 years, now it's a woman??" That sort of attitude.

4. There are many men who are comfortable with a man in the presidency, even a black man, rather than a woman. More than we thought there were.

[JHan]

28. Frankly...

I can't criticize Hillary too much. I think, minus the arrogance of the campaign in August where they ignored Bill's advice to go back to the midwest and cement the firewall, she ran a great campaign- and I mean that..

She won all the debates - hands down. It was the first time in a long time, a candidates debate performance moved the needle on their trajectory towards the presidency.

It was a clean campaign for the most part.

She provided policy details, she was the only candidate with depth to her positions whether domestic or foreign.

Quite simply, she was up against unsurmountable odds. She represented the establishment everyone was fussing about because she was former SoS. After two terms of Obama, this was the chance for the Republicans to take the presidency.

She had to withstand attacks from within her party from the progressives, withstand attacks from the right. The poor reporting of the email controversy, despite her repeated apologies and explanations. And then the FOI requests for emails and subsequent release by Judicial Watch. Then Wikileaks came at her, and truly the moment when I became worried - Comey's letter.

No one is really delving into this but the week before Comey's letter, Hillary was moving upward beyond the margin of error, her email issues largely dismissed and the leaks from wiki not causing too much damage. Then Comey came along and it was a week of speculation and poor reporting, damaging leaks from the FBI by agents with an agenda and even whispers from former agents. It was even reported she could be indicted, Megyn Kelly asked if voters would feel comfortable electing someone who could be indicted while in office. It was a clusterfuck of a week, and would have reminded hedging democrats of Hillary's issues. Comey's second letter probably woke up Trump voters who thought it was DOJ and FBI corruption clearing Clinton. After a week of Trump selling the idea that maybe the FBI wasn't "rigged" and Hillary would be held accountable ( for crimes he made up out of thin air), plus all the other lies his surrogates were spreading, the second Comey letter would have motivated Trump voters to come out and vote HRC out.

Inspite all this she ran away with the popular vote and narrowly lost midwest swing states.

Still, this Election Cycle was rigged against one person - HRC.

[Leontius]

30. She lost because more people in 30 states voted for Trump and not Clinton.

Everybody needs to quit fucking crying about it and figure out how to change that dynamic before the next elections in 2018.

[ybbor]

34. Thank you!

[Kathy M]

155. Thank You !

[JSup]

32. I'm just going to add...

...that the "99% chance to win" really didn't help with turnout.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

57. You beat me to it... this cannot be stated often enough!!

[MadDAsHell]

139. A lot of that shit was propagated right here on DU; I specifically remember a "bloodbath" post..

in the last 48 hrs or so.

We need to wake the fuck up.

[Flatpicker]

33. So now we deny that she lost?

We're all Monday Morning quarterbacks here.

Seems that if we play by the rules we all agreed on (EC) she lost. Don't like it, then change the rules. I'm all for that.

How about we throw something else into the mix.

Would all "Despite the fact" lines have mattered if another candidate had run?

Would another candidate have generated the "constant onslaught of lies paraded as truth, three decades of scrutiny by those determined to vilify her, and a never-ending army of nay-sayers set on her destruction?"

Is it possible that Hillary Clinton wasn't the best candidate to run in our current environment?

Sure, the country lost, I'll agree with that. The country lost because Trump won.

Hillary lost because she was the wrong Democratic candidate to run this time.
We were just so sure that Trump was a joke that we could not fathom anybody losing to him.

[NanceGreggs]

40. Ah, the inevitable ...

... "if only we'd run Bernie instead, none of this would have happened" post.

[Flatpicker]

42. Nope

Actually wrote the post with Elizabeth Warren in mind.

But you deflected the question.
Would another candidate have brought the baggage Hillary Clinton did?

[ybbor]

44. She's unable to answer your questions because we are not supposed to ask them

Everything you brought up is valid, but there is a lot of hand wringing and assuming going on in the aftermath. No actual consideration of what may have gone wrong. This mindset won't help us in the future.

[Flatpicker]

47. I don't really fault them for it

But, I can't in good conscience follow that.
We became an echo chamber as badly as the Republican party for awhile. Weren't willing to hear anything outside our views.

It hurt us really bad.

[ybbor]

51. As a matter of fact...

During and after the primary I was told repeatedly on this site that I could leave if I didn't like their views, and that they didn't need me anyway. Well I didn't leave, and I did vote for HRC, anyway, and they did need my vote, turns out. But their attitudes haven't really changed. They still can't see past their own wants and views.

We need massive change in our leadership or we will continue on this death spiral. Who's in? The time to start is now! Stop continuing to shit on those of us who are trying to get our country moving on the correct path. It's very telling of there actual motives. My way, or the highway doesn't do much for any of us.

[melman]

53. I do

A lot. They are totally wrong and very aggressive about it. What's not to fault?


As you say, it hurt us a lot. And now to dig in deeper and refuse to even consider anything but their own view? And to be so damn nasty about it? Still? Yeah I find plenty to fault in that.

[NanceGreggs]

59. I guess you didn't get the memo.

Warren was thrown under the bus when she didn't endorse BS in the primaries, and later went on to campaign for HRC.

Funny how the people who (allegedly) trusted Bernie and Liz without hesitation suddenly decided they DIDN'T trust them when they encouraged their (again alleged) die-hard fans to vote for Hillary.

[Flatpicker]

62. Once again

Would another candidate have brought as much baggage with her?

[mtnsnake]

128. I couldn't agree more with you, Flatpicker

Hillary should have called it quits when she retired from her cabinet post, but no, she just had to run again, despite the fact that the right wing had been preparing for her for more than 20 years and despite the fact that she is indeed a very flawed candidate and not a very good campaigner. Hillary was the only possible candidate who could possibly lose to Trump because of everything you said in your post. When Trump won his primary, it was like they handed us a gift on a silver platter, yet we still couldn't pick up any of those swing states with her as our candidate.

[Lucinda]

35. KNR Thank you!

[elmac]

39. She won the popular vote by at least 2 million

so she is my president, Sniffles is the electoral president, just like Bush Jr. I will have nothing but disdain for President Sniffles, just like Bush. Now, with that said, I think the only major mistake the party made was wasting time and money in the southern states, the states that are still fighting the Civil War. HC worked hard, did the best she could. She was a good candidate, as good as any. She ran into the perfect storm of big money politics, republican dirty tricks, treasonous FBI and Putin terrorists.

[cwydro]

75. Good luck with the south bashing there dude.

The south did not elect Trump.

Go look at the maps.

[elmac]

98. But they did chose HRC during the primary

but were a no show during the GE.

[MadDAsHell]

146. What will be your Madame President's first act in office?

Come on people, denial gets us another 2018.

[King_Klonopin]

41. She "lost" because of

1) The stupid electoral college system.

2) Voter suppression.

3) Democratic and Independent voters who never learn that laziness and apathy
loses elections.

4) A media intent on having a "horse race" -- refusing to shoot down the crap about
BenGhazi, emails, Comey, etc. and refusing to expose the evil of Trump.

5) To use the analogy of a football game, she was the better team (candidate) on paper,
but it was a bad match-up because he was the master of invective and personal attacks
and she was placed in a no-win situation regarding combating this negativity: If she did
not fight back, it would be construed and spun as a sign of weakness; and if she fought
back, any positive message she had would be overshadowed, she would be painted as the
"bitch', Trump would get a free pass, and he would win in the end because nastiness is an
offensive scheme which he excels at and one which she is hamstrung from defending.

Of all the Republican candidates who ran in the primary, Trump was the only one
who was a bad match-up and who had a chance to beat her.

6) She won more votes, by a lot. She was more qualified, by a lot. More people want her
to be POTUS. It is frustrating on a grand scale.

Michael Moore's "Trumpland" special was consoling, in a way. It put some things in
perspective, sadly. I'm still depressed....

[Martin Eden]

122. "she was placed in a no-win situation regarding ..."

Last edited Fri Nov 25, 2016, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree Hillary was placed in a couple of no-win situations, but it wasn't due to the "personal invective" nastiness of this election. She is tough as nails and very smart, capable of putting a vile demagogue in his place.

On the economy, the rust belt blue collar workers were the deciding factor in this election. They perceived that bad free trade agreements were the biggest factor in the "giant sucking sound" (quote from Ross Perot) of good paying industrial jobs out of our country. Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA deal, and like it or not Hillary is tied to his administration. It doesn't help that she initially called TPP the "gold standard" of trade deals until she saw a populist uprising against it. It also doesn't help that Bill signed financial deregulation that essentially repealed Glass Steagall, or that Hillary garnered huge fees with speeches to Wall Street elites. If she wanted to be the leader of a Democratic Party that truly represented the interests of the 99% and to make voters believe it, her time would have been better spent stumping for the kind of policy changes that would make a positive difference in their lives.

On national security, Hillary was in a no-win position because she voted to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq. Trump's strategy was to paint a horrific picture of ISIS in Iraq (it is horrific) and Islamic terrorism, then blame it all on Obama/Clinton. It is, of course, overwhelmingly the fault of Bush/Cheney, but Hillary was in no position to make that argument because of her vote to empower them. If, instead, Senator Clinton had stood up and spoke truth to power against that war of choice based on lies, her foreign policy credentials would have been by orders of magnitude a stronger asset in this election.

[ybbor]

133. Great post! nt

[radical noodle]

52. Perfect

Thank you Nance! This was great to read... agree absolutely.

[ucrdem]

55. That contested primary didn't help.

Just sayin'.

[stonecutter357]

65. K&R!

Bernie and his bro's calling her unqualified for weeks did not help.

[EL34x4]

69. She's winning the popular vote solely because of California.

And that single state's massive population of Democratic voters. Her 2 million popular vote lead comes entirely from her 3.7 million vote lead in California. I watched the election. Trump held the popular vote the whole night until California's tallies started coming in.

I'm tired of the "but she won the popular vote!" crybaby crap. SO WHAT! It doesn't mean a damn thing.

Trump wasn't trying to win the popular vote. He didn't campaign with a strategy to win the popular vote. He was trying to win the electoral college and that's exactly what he did. What Hillary Clinton was trying to do, who the hell knows?

And this is why the country is calling him President-elect Trump. This is why he is picking cabinet members and Hillary Clinton is walking her dog and dropping by bookstores.

And this is why two months from now, he'll be living in the White House and Hillary Clinton will be living in Chappaqua, hoping and praying that her new President keeps his word about not pursuing criminal investigations into her shadiness.

Hillary Clinton won a game that nobody was playing. Good for her. Yay! Give her a participation trophy.

[Auntie Bush]

111. 👎🏻

[earthside]

209. You are, of course, 100 percent correct.

But folks like you and me aren't very popular around here right now.

If the "Hillary didn't lose" rationalizers don't get a gripe, however, and see the inconvenient truth that you discuss, then the Democratic Party is doomed.

[JHan]

211. And your point is?

Yes that's full on snark because it doesn't matter where the votes came from, I don't give two figs if they were behind God's back. These are Americans, those votes represent AMERICANS who did their civic duty, and who have concerns and worries.

That you don't realise this is proof that we should abolish the E.C.

If Trump lost the EC and won the popular vote bizarrely by capturing most votes in the so called "heartland" of America what would be the theme? Not that HRC didn't win all of America, that Trump was the true populist?

[SpareribSP]

213. The point is that Hillary lost

The rules of the game were the electoral college, not the popular vote. Trump didn't have a prayer campaigning in California, or even New York and a whole host of other places. If it made sense for him to campaign there due to different rules, the vote totals would be different.

Complaining about the rules of the game after you lost is bad optics, especially since I barely heard a peep about the electoral college before the election. Try to fix it for 2020, sure, but it's not something you can just blame the entire election result on.

[JHan]

214. Where in my post did you pick up that I am not aware that Hillary lost the presidency?

Again, people keep proving that maybe we should abolish the college.

Votes matter.

You cannot ignore the fact that we have a Minority President - and the popular vote differential continues to climb.

that is significant ,regardless of your issues with HRC.

If the situation were reversed and HRC won the EC, I would also be worried. The point is E.C reform.

What if a President wins the Electoral College but only wins 30% of the popular vote - yes that is possible - that would be acceptable and fine to you?

The fact that voters can be nonchalantly dismissed as "California voters" PROVES, that the way the E.C is set up, Voters in certain states are either taken for granted and/or dismissed because of the party they overwhelmingly favor ... even though greater numbers of them voted , their concerns won't be a priority in the winning administration because *their party lost* or they didn't have enough electoral votes - this is perverse any how you slice it..

[SpareribSP]

215. I'm not saying you're wrong about abolishing the EC

And clearly, Trump is going to have an incredibly contested presidency because he's widely disliked, and you don't need vote totals to prove that. So yeah, screw Trump, and EC reform (or hell, all sorts general voting reform from EC to basic stuff like restoring the voting rights act to maybe alternate voting methods etc etc) all the way.

I think my points still stands though that if it made sense for Trump to campaign in California then there wouldn't be as much of a differential, but he had no reason to given the EC. If the rules of the election were to win the popular vote, both candidates would have campaigned very differently, and so Trump might have still won.

[JHan]

216. Trump's message would not have resonated in California.

If he could have won California, by that logic, he would win New York and Massachusetts easily. You must mean a different Trump who campaigned in a parallel universe.

[SpareribSP]

217. He wouldn't have to win California with no EC

Just do better. Winning a state wouldn't matter with no EC.

I am talking about a different Trump and a parallel universe because things would be vastly different with no EC, which was the entire point of my post. That's the whole point, and why it's intellectually disingenuous to blame the EC for Hillary's loss.

[JHan]

218. It's not "disingenuous" . You also acknowledge the E.C needs reform

No one is disputing she lost narrowly in those States and thus the Presidency -

Would haves and should haves and what ifs aren't really the point - what if Al Gore didn't walk up to George Bush during the debates in 2000? what if what if what if ...

The point is discontent and problems with governance a Minority President can potentially face if he loses the popular vote significantly - so yes the E.C matters and should be a part of the discussion.

[Kentonio]

223. Why on earth would we waste the time and effort?

The Republicans are about to control the White House, Senate and Congress along with god knows how many state legislatures. The Republicans also, in case you missed it, just won an election based entirely on the EC result. So please explain to me how exactly we're expected to 'reform the EC' and why the Republicans would allow that for one single second?

[JHan]

225. You cannot control what people choose to talk about or concern themselves with..

The point is Trump doesn't have a strong mandate. Democrats SHOULD emphasize he is a Minority President, that's why dismissing the popular vote lead as "just those votes in California" is folly. Trump cannot govern as though he has a strong mandate . He is already a corrupting influence and he hasn't even been inaugurated yet.

And there were some funny goings on in this election:

1) Voter Suppression ( Yes it happened)
2) Purging of voter's lists across States
3) THE HACKING OF A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN BY A FOREIGN POWER -


All three of those things are worthy of discussion and even investigation. Should democrats also ignore those things because Hillary lost the E.C?

[Kentonio]

226. When did I say I had any interest in controlling what people choose to talk about?

That doesn't mean however that when you put an idea forward, its not going to face criticism or critique.

As for funny things going on, yes I'm saying its a distraction that will look to the voters like ridiculous sour grapes on our part. Good on Jill Stein for trying to actually get evidence, but realistically the chance of it being proven are incredibly slim. Hell, after 2000 it was proved pretty much beyond any doubt that the election was won by voter suppression, yet I don't remember Bush being thrown out of the White House as a result.

People want something to vote FOR and yet again we've failed to provide that. The only message that comes out of us focusing on election fraud is 'WE were robbed!' to which the voting public's response is liable to be 'Welcome to the club'.

[JHan]

227. Yes Democrats can focus on message..

And the other things I mentioned.

If we had focused on the rich and varied stink ways the repubs employ voter suppression , we would have been better prepared for it this year and mobilized to counter it much earlier.

[democrank]

70. Democrats lost because......

We can bat Bernie and his followers around, start a hate campaign against Stein and/or Johnson, blame the media, the KKK, voting machines, bat Bernie and his followers around some more, blame the words "crooked Hillary" or the F.B.I. Director. The list is endless and there are kernels of truth in the blame for some on that short list. What I'm spending my energy thinking about is....why did DEMOCRATS lose? House, Senate, Governorships, mayoral races. We can celebrate a pickup here or there all we want, but the overall picture is a bit unsettling. What we have to figure out is why? And if the answer is always that it's the other person' fault, we'll keep right on losing. The leaders in the Democratic Party should start soul-searching, then step up to the mike with some answers and a plan.

[MadDAsHell]

145. "And if the answer is always that it's the other person' fault, we'll keep right on losing."

Some seem suspiciously comfortable with that prospect, and they want to accuse us of being the trolls for wanting the party to open its damn eyes and stop assuming that every single vote is locked up ahead of time based on race, gender or sexual orientation.

For wanting the party to stop assuming that merely calling your opponent a racist, or lumping half of his voters into a "basket of deplorables," somehow qualifies as a campaign strategy.

Those are not the only three issues people vote on, people.

[democrank]

151. During the campaign, I was astonished with the negative reaction to some Democrats saying

ALL LIVES MATTER. To me, that meant black lives matter, gay lives matter, Hispanic lives matter, Native American lives matter, white lives matter, atheists matter, Methodists matter, the disabled matter, etc. All of a sudden, saying ALL LIVES MATTER proved you were a racist....an absolutely ridiculous claim. Second time I've said it here today, Democrats have some soul-searching to do. For any of you who have not listened to Van Jones' recent Toronto speech, I encourage you to do so.

[mtnsnake]

71. Hillary lost because she RAN.

The only reason she even had a chance was because of who she was running against.

As accomplished and qualified as she was, she should never have run in 2016, not with all the baggage she had and not with over 20 years that the right wing had been preparing for her.

Yes she won the popular vote, but my god, look who she was running against.

Any other qualified candidate such as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or even Martin O'Malley would have mopped up the floor with trump because they would have taken the swing states plus the popular vote.

Half of the people who voted for trump voted for him because they hated Hillary. Apparently, some people will just never be able to admit that.

[emulatorloo]

79. Take a look at Kurt Eichenwald's post-mortem when you get a chance.

We need to figure out what to do next, but we need to be truth based as we do so.

The article summarizes the two foot stack of oppo reasearch Repubs had on my primary choice, Bernie Sanders.


THE MYTHS DEMOCRATS SWALLOWED THAT COST THEM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
BY KURT EICHENWALD ON 11/14/16

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

1. The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee
2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump

[LisaL]

86. I have no doubt whatsoever that Trump would have eaten Sanders for breakfast.

Sanders wasn't a strong general election contender no matter how much his supporters try to claim otherwise.

[Nevernose]

96. Apparently neither was Clinton

So how do we correct our mistakes and win our he next one?

[LisaL]

97. Who would be a strong general contender after all the attacks?

For instance, how would we stop FBI from doing the same thing in the future it did in this election (Comey's letters?).

[Nevernose]

99. Before the primaries started I said, on DU

That Clinton wasn't a great candidate for 2016 because of the decades of attacks on her. I've always been a fan of both Clintons, but I'm also aware of their reputation among a huge swath of voters, even among liberal voters.

Sanders might have won. Not because he was "better" than Clinton or even very different (they agreed on 95% of issues), but because he represented change and Hillary didn't. I've seen the opposition research against Bernie. The research on Trump was worse, but HE still got elected. We should have taken the thirty year hit job on Hillary as the major liability it was and not as a point of pride. That makes US feel better, but doesn't win elections.

I have no idea who we should run in 2020. My thinking is that we should concentrate on governor's mansions and state houses in 2018 to soften the worst impact of of Trump, and pray someone as charismatic as Obama is made clear (like when he ran in 2006 for senate and the whole country said "holy shit&quot .

And as crazy as it sounds: maybe we should ask Michael Moore. He's been right about everything so far. Which is weird, but I believe accurate.

[Nay]

115. Oh, man, 1000 to you. I said a similar thing in one of my above posts. We have to

shift our focus to the states. And yes, Hillary was a bad candidate because of her negatives. Many of us knew this going in, but had to shut up pretty early. Hell, I know Pub women who hate Hillary because she didn't dump that philandering bastard Bill!!

And Michael Moore needs to be the main consultant to the DNC from now until he dies.

[Nay]

116. How do we stop the FBI from pulling this shit again? First, there should have already

been a public firing of Comey and, if there are charges that could be brought, then he should have been dragged out of the FBI building in handcuffs and charged. There should already be an ongoing investigation of who, what, and where all this email shit came from, who propagated it and when, and the relevant heads should roll. Agents who went along with it should be busted back to the field office in Sitka, Alaska. There's plenty that could be done, but . . .

we need to look forward, not back!

Right??

[MadDAsHell]

147. A contender who doesn't first deny she made a mistake for a full year

The Republicans were never going to let this issue go, but at least they would not have been able to call her a liar on it and further that characterization of her and Bill.

[Auntie Bush]

112. He would have eaten him and then spit him out.

[liquid diamond]

114. I agree.

Trump was propelled to the presidency by fucking white racists (euphemistically referred to as the "white working class" by clueless DU posters). There is no way these people would have voted for a Jewish man let alone a socialist.

[dawg]

87. Thanks for the link. That was an interesting read.

The Republicans are going to demonize every candidate we field. Hillary was no exception, but neither was she uniquely flawed.

She got "swiftboated" about her emails, the Clinton foundation, and Benghazi.

But the very term I just used, "swiftboated", speaks to the fact that this was nothing new. And for that matter, just look at the way the media treated Vice-President Gore. Shameless.

Obama was able to overcome the swiftboating because the country was in the midst of an economic collapse and the people were desperate for a change.

There is a critical mass of voters in this country whose default setting is "Republican". They will believe whatever lies and exaggerations are spread about our candidates, and our opposition has no reservations about spreading those lies.

It's a problem, and I don't know how to solve it. But seeing it for what is is will certainly be the first step.

[Number23]

172. That's a great link. Thanks for that.

[emulatorloo]

192. ...

[StevieM]

199. It would have been a bit strange for her not to run given that she was polling in the 60s

when the primary began. It was an unprecedented lead.

You seem to be forgetting just how popular she was when she wrapped up her tenure as Secretary of State.

There was no way of knowing that the GOP would be so successful at selling the fake email scandal. They are very talented at adapting their McCarthyism to each individual candidate and campaign.

And I am sure that they had a lot lined up for Sanders, O'Malley, Biden or Warren had one of them been the nominee. And that might have even included a phony FBI investigation, courtesy of James Comey.

The Democrats lost this race when Barack Obama decided to be bipartisan and appointed James Comey to be FBI Director. That was the biggest mistake of his otherwise fantastic presidency.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

72. K&R for reason.

Regardless of the handwringing of the jackpine deplorables crowd who have been slinking back in on this thread.

[quaker bill]

73. I agree that the country lost.

Hillary ran a fine campaign. Since 2008, whenever pressed, I have stated that Hillary was good for 48% of the vote, if she did everything just right. She got +/-48.1% and she won the popular vote. She did this in the face of all the above adverse circumstances you list.

My point since 2008 has been that after 22 of the 30 years of clearly unjust "scorn and ridicule", these results for Hillary were already fully priced in. Hillary could optimize her performance and get to the full 48%, or fail to do so and ring up just 45 to 46%.

The map was a problem, but it was a blast from the past, say the 1980s, but with the demographic twist of vastly more "D" leaning Hispanics in the desert SW. It was a DLC map the unfortunate and unexpected tiny losses in PA, MI, and WI. Without this, the map was a winner.

One can sit here and second guess "what if Bernie?", "what if Joe Biden?", "what if Martin O'Malley?". All that is pointless. Had it been any other candidate, Trump would have adjusted to a different approach which may or may not have changed the outcome. It is impossible to predict the results of an experiment that was never run.

[dawg]

78. The Republicans won the House, the Senate, and the majority of Governorships and ...

state legislatures.

This isn't about Hillary. (Although, by all means, let's put our heads in the sand and pretend that it is.)

[emulatorloo]

81. Good point.

[Nay]

117. Yes, and that's why the Pubs have been able to fuck with the state election

process and make the counts come out to whatever the fuck they want! Why can't we get the DNC to see this?? It's so obvious that one wonders if they even care.

[dawg]

119. I'm sure they see it, but what can they do?

The DNC isn't a very wealthy or powerful organization.

Money matters in national elections, but it is paramount in local elections, and the Republicans are the party of the rich. In state-level elections, they are often able to drown out the opposition with a flood of advertising.

Until Democratic voters are willing to show up and vote in the off-season elections, there is nothing the DNC or anyone else can do.

We're sitting here at our keyboards wondering why the DNC hasn't done something. But it's up to us to do something. It's up to the state & local party organizations to fight for our legislatures and governorships. I'm sure the DNC would be glad to help us to do that, but they aren't big enough to do it for us.

[Nay]

121. If it's true that the DNC has no money for state races, even the races that

would have been easy to win (like the one here in VA where a Dem could have gotten Cantor's seat because an unknown teaparty dope, Brat, won the Pub primary), well, then we're screwed for sure. Expecting local Dems to totally pay for their own campaigns is a non-starter. If the DNC expects that, why doesn't it have a list of wealthy Dems in every state who can be tapped to run in local or state races? And why don't they call them up and invite them to run when an opportunity presents itself? I mean, that's how backroom politics used to work -- why not do that? Maybe I'm expecting too much.

As far as turnout, I have no idea why it wasn't high. Sick of the election way before it happened? Lackluster candidate? Who knows.

[kentuck]

92. First of all...

I recognize that Republicans have had a strategy for years to take the strength of their opponent and make it a liability. Such as, George W was a "hero" and John Kerry was a "traitor". Al Gore Invented the Internet? What a "liar"!

The opponents of Republicans always have the worst character flaws and are the biggest "failures" at the jobs they have attempted to do. "Crooked Hillary", etc.

Then, they are repetitive. They repeat over and over on the corporate media anything that sticks to their opponent.

It has little to do with issues or what is best for the country. It mostly is about who is best at persuading the gullible. This election proved that, if nothing else.

I can think of nobody, including Bernie, that could have stood up to the onslaught of the propaganda machine of the corporate media any better than Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump was a master at manipulating the media and was able to dispose of 16 ambitious Republicans rather handily. Without the help of corporate media, Donald Trump would have lost to the first woman candidate for President.

Just my opinion.

[LisaL]

93. And people underestimated Trump at every turn.

Unfortunately for us, he did know one thing very well-how to manipulate the media. And media was only happy to be so manipulated, because Trump was making them money.

[Nay]

118. Yes, that's called "framing," and George Lakoff has begged the DNC to listen

to him about framing for 20 years. They don't seem to get it.

[Fast Walker 52]

156. yes. We need to be better at manipulating the media and framing the argument better

and working at the local level, etc.

Oy, it's all so tiresome.

Does the GOP really work that hard at it, or do they just have an easier job?

[tavalon]

95. Try this one on for size

Hillary lost because there are ballot irregularities in at least four states that she was predicted to win in but lost.

Jill Stein has raised enough money to pay for recounts in at least three of the states. She wasn't my candidate, but she is busting ass to get official recounts.

Contribute if you can.

[niyad]

103. K AND R GAZILLION

[HenryWallace]

104. Apparently DU needs more time to grieve!

[ZX86]

109. HRC was the captain of the ship.

And the ship sunk. Blaming deck hands and water is weak. Denying the ship sunk is weak.

[NanceGreggs]

158. Is that supposed to make sense?

Because it clearly doesn't.

[ZX86]

177. What doesn't make sense is

Denying the fact that HRC lost the election and that the entities most responsible for that are the candidate and the party that sponsored her.

I know you're hurt and pissed off. Everyone is. But HRC had every advantage the DNC and corporate America had to offer. Endless endorsements and millions upon millions of dollars and she lost the election to a reality game show host.

If you really believe HRC and the DNC has no responsibility for this election loss you would endorsing her for 2020. You aren't. Nobody is.

[Kentonio]

224. Nicely put.

[cpwm17]

124. She was always very bad choice from the very beginning.

She has always been disliked by many across the political spectrum. For many reasons, the more people see her, the less they like her.

Too many among the PTB, for selfish reasons, cast their lot with her. Hillary had to have known she was a weak candidate. Greed and selfishness are a powerful forces.

People don't like Trump either and he even got fewer votes. But someone had to win. Hillary was just about the only Democrat that had the ability to allow Trump to win. It was malpractice by the Democratic Party.

[ybbor]

135. Her poll movement history held true...

She always heads down in the polls from her initial polling.

[JTFrog]

137. Flaming out? nt

[ismnotwasm]

140. That's bullshit.

[liquid diamond]

143. Come out and say

what you really want to say. If Hillary was such a bad candidate, then how did she beat ALL of her opponents in the primaries? Your boy Bernie got his ass handed to him to the tune of 4 million votes. He couldn't win a primary let alone the general election.

[oasis]

129. K and R

[The Wizard]

131. When Trump said the election was rigged

he knew something was going on behind the scenes. Real simple: He can not be trusted.
Yes we as a nation did lose, and it will get worse before it gets better.

[vi5]

153. Well, given that it seemed like....

...her campaigns strategy was to run up popular vote by putting money, time, and effort into states she would never win (Utah? Fucking Utah?) instead of shoring up insurmountable leads in battleground states that she ended up losing that pretty directly falls on her or her people. Unless she was spending lots of time in those must-win states before she even spent a dime in a solidly red state, then her campaign is not blameless, so let's not pretend it was. We can complain all we like about the outdated electoral college but that is what we have and that is what she needed to win but failed to win. So yeah, her strategy managed to get her a popular vote victory at the expense of an electoral college victory in even 1 of the must win states.

Were there a metric shit ton of other reasons well beyond her control why she didn't trounce Trump by double digits everywhere? Absolutely. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

But there were definitely a number of stupid, ill conceived decisions and big gambles by her campaign that never should have happened and that could very well have made this whole discussion moot.

[ClusterFreak]

154. Kick and rec to the power of infinity.

A 'drop the mic' post if ever I read one.

[VOX]

159. A hostile foreign power manipulated U.S. public opinion before the vote.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/americans-keep-looking-away-from-the-elections-most-alarming-story/2016/11/25/83533d3e-b0e2-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?client=safari
Per the WaPo, 11/25/16:
Americans keep looking away from the election’s most alarming story-

In assessing Donald Trump’s presidential victory, Americans continue to look away from this election’s most alarming story: the successful effort by a hostile foreign power to manipulate public opinion before the vote.
U.S. intelligence agencies determined that the Russian government actively interfered in our elections. Russian state propaganda gave little doubt that this was done to support President-elect Trump, who repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin and excused the Russian president’s foreign aggression and domestic repression. Most significantly, U.S. intelligence agencies have affirmed that the Russian government directed the illegal hacking of private email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and prominent individuals. The emails were then released by WikiLeaks, which has benefited financially from a Russian state propaganda arm, used Russian operatives for security and made clear an intent to harm the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.


From the Russian perspective, the success of this operation can hardly be overstated...
<snip>

[ificandream]

160. Can't say much more than thank you ... so thank you...

Like you, I've thought about it, too. I think, really, that Trump's con job did the trick, something that is already becoming apparent and will be more as time goes on. Trump is an outright damned liar. The American people have been played. Badly. This is the new reality show "Government Apprentice." Unfortunately, it's not a show.

Scared yet? I sure am.

[hfojvt]

161. for what it is worth, this here armchair politician

said she shoulda picked Sherrod Brown as Veep before she made a pick.

We should have taken Ohio with Brown on the ticket, and it might have made the Bern victims less angry. Yeah, I know I am not supposed to call them names, but I am feeling the Bern because apparently some of them helped to start the whole country on fire, and now we will all be their victims.

The other large part of the political picture is - in spite of Hillary's popular vote win, our party largely once again got our a$$es handed to us. That is, the other party controls the Senate, the House and a whole bunch of state legislatures and Governorships. Frigging Russ Feingold lost in Wisconsin (again). Nixon is gone from Missouri (term limits and replaced by a Republican)

That's not Hillary, but it is our party and its seeming inability to win very many elections. We probably should be trying to figure out why that is and what to do about it.

[LisaL]

162. Considering how much OH went for Trump, not sure picking Sherrod Brown would have helped there.

[hfojvt]

163. huh, you may have a point

Brown took fewer votes in 2012 than Obama did, to my surprise and Strickland got crushed this year. Still I would expect Ohio to be tighter with Brown on the ticket and might have brought in enough Bernie supporters to tip Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into our column.

Bernie did fairly well in the Ohio primary as well, getting 43% of the vote in March.

To me, a Brown pick would be an olive branch to the left wing of the party, whereas the Kaine pick was more like a big middle finger.

[Bear Creek]

164. Lose

Until the republican opertives manufactured voting machines are removed. That is first and foremost. The votes can be manipulated. Obama is popular but yet somehow he never had enough senators or representatives to do anything. They got a little greedy look at the election really that many republican wins a few democrats just to say see there was a couple. How many times are the democrats going to let this happen?

[ismnotwasm]

166. Jesus there is a lot of bitter vetch on this thread

Great post as always.

[Number23]

171. I haven't been here in months but are the Sanders folks still screaming that he was the only one

that could beat Tramp? Even Krugman has tried to put that one down, not that I suspect it will do much. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/opinion/the-populism-perplex.html?_r=0

Nothing can make people determined to burn the turkey to cinders just to keep other folks from getting its crumbs see the light. If Sanders had been on the ticket, it would have been a flip because the minority voters who side eyed him through the entire primary would have stayed home instead of the white voters. If someone can help me understand how over 50% of white WOMEN supported Trump, I'll eat my damn shoe.

Nice to see you, Nance.

[DemonGoddess]

174. K&R!

Thank you Nance, wish I was this eloquent.

Here's something else that's interesting

https://medium.com/sashastone/ten-reasons-bernie-sanders-would-not-and-could-not-have-beaten-trump-b596674c1c93#.9ox4nowb6

Given that it's a medium link, I have never figured out how to properly link to those...

[beachbum bob]

176. hillary lost because not all democrats. liberals, and progresives voted for her or didn't vote

Hillary lost because we sit on our asses and let conservatives win state and local elections...hillary lost lost becasue some of us believed voting for the lesser of 2 evils was not an option....hillary lost because the media, the russians...the FBI wanted her to lose

and in the end...america lost

[Exilednight]

178. I'll take these on point by point.

She didn’t connect with voters, she didn’t hold enough rallies, she didn’t smile enough, she didn’t debate well, she spent too little time in some states, she spent too much time in the same states. She was too much like Obama, she wasn’t enough like Obama. Her speeches were too subtle, her speeches were over-the-top. She played to the right audience at the wrong time, she played to the wrong audience at the right time.

She didn't connect with voters. Overall, Democratic turnout was down. Compared to Obama in 2012 she received 5% less of the African-American vote and 6% less of the Hispanic vote. Her lack of charisma, ability to connect and forming a coherent message turned off these voters.

I have yet to see anyone claim that she was "too much like Obama", but even Hillary herself admitted that she wasn't a natural politician like Obama or Bill.

Many of her speeches were too subtle and filled with wonky information, which is fine for a wonk like me. When she did try to connect and be more personable it came off as being over the top. She reminds me of Mr & Mrs Edgar who I grew up down the street from. I loved Mrs Edgar because she spoke WITH me, but Mr Edgar spoke AT me. When Hillary spoke, she always reminded me of Mr. Edgar.

She should have focused more on policy, she should have focused more on personality. She went too negative on Trump, she should have gone for Trump’s throat. She had the wrong campaign advisors, she had the wrong spokespeople. She was too confident, she was not confident enough. She wore the wrong clothes, she was too concerned about her appearance. She was too dumbed-down, she was too intellectual.

She should have focused more on policy, or focused more on personality, she didn't do either. She attempted to cut the baby in half, and she came of as if she was searching for that x factor she was lacking. She didn't go too negative on Trump, she screwed up and went after Trump supporters, but again it was the wrong type of negativity and lackluster at best. If you're going to do it, then you go full-bore ahead and aim the candidate. By the time she found the right balance it was too late.

Let's also be honest when saying she did have the wrong advisors. Much of her campaign staff were the same people from 2008, which didn't turnout so great for her. She placed loyalty over competence when it came to picking her staff.

She never came off as too confident, but I would say she did come off as arrogant. A good advisor will TELL their candidate that they never start a sentence when talking to the a large audience with "I KNOW". When you start a sentence that way, you're not talking with people, you're talking AT them.

She shoulda, woulda, coulda won easily if only she’d listened to the Monday morning quarterbacks who have become overnight experts on political campaigns – but only after-the-fact. But that’s always the way. It’s only after the game is called on Sunday afternoon that the experts show up to explain how the team would have gone on to certain victory, had their heretofore silence been heeded.

Many of the "Monday morning quarterbacks" that you so handily dismiss are often right. Many tried to warn the Democratic establishment about these issues, but no one wanted to listen. If they did speak up, especially on this very board, they were automatically labeled "concern trolls". At history has now shown us, those concerns were justified.

When the majority of voters voted for HRC, it seems rather ludicrous to talk about how she went so wrong.

And let’s keep something else in mind. Hillary WON the majority of votes despite the fact that she has been scorned and ridiculed for thirty years without respite, despite the fact that the MSM fawned over Trump and ignored all of his obvious lies, fraud, lawsuits, and conflicts of interest, despite the fact that she was an “uppity woman” competing for a job many consider to be the sole domain of men, despite the fact that she has been cast as a criminal for doing the same things in office her predecessors have done, and despite the fact that the media focused on Benghazi-and-emails while never even mentioning Trump’s inexperience, ignorance of how government works, and his blatant stupidity in respect of every facet of foreign and domestic affairs.

We don't choose our president by the "majority of votes". We chose our president by the Elelctoral College system. It's a system that Hillary should be well familiar with.

I have yet to see anyone call her an "uppity woman", but she does come across as arrogant, much in the same way that Mitt Romney does.

Add into the mix that despite the fact that the FBI, via Comey, declared that HRC was “still under active investigation” for wrongdoing when she clearly wasn’t, that so-called “truth-tellers” like Julian Assange released emails that cast Hillary as the ultimate villain while never saying a word against Trump or his shady dealings with Putin and the PTB in Russia and elsewhere, and that Hillary was accused of having literally murdered scores of political adversaries by so-called “progressives” who regurgitated all of the above, because they’d rather see Trump in the White House than be cheated out of saying “I told you so” to those who didn’t support their candidate-of-choice in the primaries, HRC STILL WON the majority of votes cast.

A candidate has to be able to deal with these things. There are always outside forces at work, and a smart politician knows how to think on their feet and pivot at just the right moment. Instead, Hillary's campaign team spent too much time attempting to work on damage control, which by extension lead to this staying in the news cycle much longer than it should have.

I cannot think of another politician in our country’s history who could have withstood the constant onslaught of lies paraded as truth, three decades of scrutiny by those determined to vilify her, and a never-ending army of nay-sayers set on her destruction – while she STILL went on to win the support of the majority of her fellow citizens.

I can think of many. Our current president walked in on day one with the minority leader claiming that the only thing Republicans have on their agenda is to ensure that President Obama is on a one term president.

So spare me the “Hillary lost because …” bullshit. She didn’t lose – the country did. And so says the majority of those who bothered to vote, as opposed to those who spend their lives on websites bragging about their after-the-fact political expertise.

Hillary lost because of all of the above, and she did lose In January it will be, sadly, Donald Trump who is sworn in as President of the United States. The popular vote means jack in this country, and we all know it.

And just for the record, I did vote. Just to be perfectly clear, I voted for Hillary.

[ybbor]

189. Well said

Thanks

[mcar]

181. Thank you Nance!

This is spot on.

[ificandream]

193. This Salon article agrees with you

It wasn’t just “fake news” presenting a fake Hillary Clinton: She was held to impossible standards

Didn't make the connection with your post (which I replied to yesterday) until just now. But there it is.

[tarheelsunc]

194. I fully agree with your point but technically she didn't win a "majority".

A "majority" is 50%+, and she's sitting at 48% now. What she did win, is a plurality.

[jmg257]

198. Well she certainly cleaned house in CA and NY...

Won those 2 states by over 6 million.

[StevieM]

200. The Democrats lost this race when Barack Obama decided to be bipartisan and appointed James Comey

to be FBI Director.

That was the biggest mistake of his otherwise fantastic presidency.

[womanofthehills]

203. Hillary Lost because of voter fraud - CROSSCHECK run by Kris Kobach eliminating millions

of minority votes. Trump is considering Kobach for a cabinet post.

Check out Lee Camp interviewing Greg Palast - virginia scrubbed 41,000 voters - many states are involved

Greg Palast Reveals Massive Election Scam!

[cliffside]

231. The Dem establishment failed to realize the financial hurt people are feeling ...

and they have done so for years, Obama spoke of a $2500 reduction in premiums, yet they have increased instead.

As Sanders said, people do not care about the damn emails! They vote with their wallet, when will our party take notice as to what is happening and act on behalf of all people.

We need to stop casting blame on others and take a hard look within.

[Coyotl]

232. Hillary won by 2.5 milliion and Trump goes to the White House because cheating.

I'd count all the ways they cheated, but I have things to do this morning.



2.5 million is no longer a projection, it is the current tally as of Nov. 30.