The lead to my prewritten Clinton wins story explains a lot about why she lost

[portlander23]

The lead to my prewritten “Clinton wins” story explains a lot about why she lost
Matthew Yglesias
Vox

Since Election Day, I’ve heard this point of view — that Clinton is relatively weak at electioneering that this explains a lot about why she lost the election — primarily from people who supported Bernie Sanders in the primary.

And that makes a certain amount of sense. Clinton’s supporters argued early in the primary that she was the more electable candidate, and this was an important part of several major liberal interest groups’ stated rationale for endorsing her early. About midway through the primary, Sanders’s supporters began mounting their own electability argument based on him faring better in head-to-head polling matchups. So arguing that Clinton was, in fact, a weak candidate rather than a strong one continues an argument that was important to Sanders supporters back in February and March.

If the big problem with Hillary Clinton’s campaign was that she was a veteran politician in a country that likes fresh faces, a Washington insider in a country that likes outsiders, and a subpar orator in a country that prizes charisma, then there’s no particular reason to think that Democrats need to revise their policy agenda in any particular way. They just need a standard-bearer who is ideologically similar to Clinton but better at electioneering and prudent enough to avoid doing buckraking speeches in the lead-up to a presidential campaign.

Sanders supporters will, obviously, go to their graves believing that their candidate would have beaten Donald Trump. Given the narrowness of the result and the idiosyncratic nature of Clinton’s email troubles, they may be right. (But given the difficulties of selling a carbon tax and middle-class income tax hikes in the Midwest, they may also be wrong.)

I think Yglesias analysis is wrong in his analysis about why Sanders supporters think Clinton lost. Yes she had deficits in electioneering, but the primary complaint from the left is about policy. There are two very different views of what went wrong in 2016; Yglesias represents the view where Clinton's loss is primarily about Clinton the candidate and not about policy. The other view is that Clinton lost because of primarily due to policy, specifically ignoring populist and economic issues.

So what we have is one side who looks at the election and says this was really close; Clinton won the popular vote; the platform is fine. The other side looks at the election and claims there's no reason it should have been so close- especially against Trump, Clinton lost on policy issues, and because she couldn't be separate herself from the banal corruption that exists between industry, particularly finance, and the Democratic Party.

To make matters even worse, there's a contingent in camp one that believes the general election was stolen from Mrs. Clinton, and on the other side a contingent that believes the primary was stolen from Mr. Sanders.

The nature of the loss, being so slim, is probably the worst outcome. A win for Clinton, no matter how thin, would have established third way politics for another decade. A definitive loss for Clinton would probably have assured a progressive ascendancy in the Democratic Party. This narrow loss leads to two factions, that have already existed for years, each laying claim to the "right" interpretation and the way forward.

The Democratic Party is divided, and any Sanders vs. Clinton arguments we see are not re-litigating the primary, but a proxy fight about the future of the party.

[lapfog_1]

1. I haven't expressed an opinion here about why Clinton "lost"

But here is one microcosm illustration which is part of why she "lost".

During the 2008 election between John McCain and Barack Obama, one elderly "Fox News" listener got up and asked John McCain "Isn't Obama a Muslim?" and John McCain, no matter what else we might think of him, gently told her that "No Ma'am, Obama is a good man, a Christian".

In 2016, we had a candidate on the right who would encourage such talk and get his crowds to chant "Lock her up" as if she had committed all of the criminal acts that Breitbart and the far right (alt-right) conspiracy nuts propagandized constantly. Nobody stood up to the conspiracy theory insanity.

My mother (an elderly Fox viewer) was convinced that Obama was turning over the National Parks to the UN and that Americans would have to seek permission to visit them. I am certain that she voted for Trump. Nothing I could say would change her mind on this because she "heard it on the news".

[el_bryanto]

2. One question

How much of the concern over Clinton's policy was due to her actual platform positions and how much was due to her history? I think her proposals were oftentimes very good; but I was concerned at things she didn't address, and primarily concerned over her history as a middle of the road candidate who was comfortable with corporate america (particularly the financial industry).

Bryant

[portlander23]

3. I don't think there's a difference

If you're not happy with Mrs. Clinton's former positions on policy, it's going to inform your view of whatever stance she's taking today. Yes, this is a question of trust, but it's primarily one of policy. For all the talk about having the "most progressive platform", I don't think anyone takes the platform paper very seriously.

[el_bryanto]

4. Well I think many of those who supported Hillary Clinton took it

and continue to take it very seriously indeed. But I take your point.

Bryant

[zipplewrath]

5. Look at the two slogans

It's right there.

"Stronger together" was aimed at people who thought we were basically going in the right direction and wanted more of the same, only better.

"Make America Great Again" was aimed firmly at the pissed off.

Obama's original was "hope and change". Aimed at those who were unhappy, or unsatisfied. His opponent was "Country First" which was aimed at folks who wanted to maintain some sort of status quo.

Trump got "lucky". There were just enough "pissed off" in the right states to elect him. The majority of the people were satisfied enough to continue.