I just can't understand how the worst major party Presidential candidate in American history

[andym]

could have possibly won the election, albeit only in the electoral college. According to Polifact he only tells the truth about 15% of the time. He ran a divisive campaign and still won. He should have lost in a rout of the magnitude of Goldwater, Mondale or McGovern. Instead he won by 74 electoral votes (not counting the defections). The only good thing is that he did not have any coat tails, beyond preventing Democrats from taking the Senate and a few more seats in the House.

Yet this is the reality. He is the President and the GOP controls the House, the Senate and about 2/3 of the state houses and governorships in the USA. They also are about to control the Supreme Court. Many people have bought into the conservative agenda that freedom from government taxes, regulations and "interference" that the GOP is not going to be eclipsed anytime soon. Social safety nets and the principles of the New Deal have been demonized by the GOP for years. In 2009 DUers were babbling about a progressive majority. Many articles have been written even this year about demographic changes favoring Democrats and yet the Democratic Party is in retreat except on the West coast and Northeast. And now the country and the world will pay a heavy price.

So what are they practical next steps? What are the priorities? What really needs to get them accomplished? How to fight the power of the rich bent on manipulating the uniformed with misinformation, especially given Citizens United is not going to be struck down by a conservative Supreme court.

[Axolotls]

1. Because they both were highly flawed and unlikable

I know many are bewildered by the result, but I wasn't that taken aback. While I did think Hillary had the edge, I also felt Trump had a fair/decent chance to win. The fact that both of them had such huge negatives is reflected in the seemingly bizarre, schizophrenic result--but it makes sense given this was Hillary and Trump running against one another.

[HassleCat]

3. Clinton was not a bad candidate.

We failed to remind voters of her good points. We tried to fight Trump with, "I know you are, but what am I?"

[TCJ70]

18. This is true. In politics, perception is reality...

...and the perception of Clinton was not good. There seemed to be no effort to combat that, either.

[zipplewrath]

22. Well, she wasn't great

She's always admitted that she's not the best campaigner for a politician. And she may have hired badly too because her strategy badly backfired on her. Even Obama is hinting at that.

We do have to start with the reality that by almost any measure BUT the EC, she handily won over a lot of people, and even geography in a way. She only lost the EC by about 85,000 votes spread over about 4 states. It was another case of the minority getting control.

But she came in with heavy baggage. She was tied to NAFTA and the TPP in ways she'd never be able to shake. She was an establishment candidate in a "change" year. And she was trying for the "third term" for the party which is hard to do for anyone. In a way, the fact that she was able to get 3 million more votes is an accomplishment.

But, we can't ignore where she "lost". Those are important states and although she lost by very little, we should expect of our candidates that they win, and win decisively. It's not just about presidential elections, we need to be winning the senate in those states. We need the Congress critters to always be "in play".

[TransitJohn]

38. She lost to Donald Fucking Trump!

That means she was a bad candidate. What average or good candidate would have?

[HassleCat]

39. Trump was a good candidate.

He tapped into feelings of discontent, and he aytaked everybody on a personal level. For some readon, we thought we could beat him at his own game. We were wrong.

[TransitJohn]

40. He was a better candidate than Hillary in th GE.

He had as many unfavorables as her, though.

[Locrian]

56. by any stretch...

she was the worst candidate of the establishment, in an election focused on people sick and tired of the establishment.
In a similar way that obama appealed to the left's "idea" of a president - trump appealed to them as the idea of the "anti"-president.

[dionysus]

42. She was certainly able for the job... but charismatic and inspiring to a consumer society, she wasnt

And that's not a diss: most people aren't. Barack obamas are very rare.

[MFM008]

13. Maybe to you

There is no comparison except to disgruntled Susan Sarandon types.

[JudyM]

16. The new DUer is referring to favorability polls and the like, go easy...

[JudyM]

17. Welcome to DU, Axolotls!

[Axolotls]

59. Hi and thanks:)

[baldguy]

57. RW propaganda was allowed to falsely paint Clinton as highly flawed and unlikable

And some "progressives" allowed themselves to believe it.

[HassleCat]

2. How bad was he?

So bad that prominent members of his own party urged people not to vote for him. That is nearly magnificent in its badness, but people voted for him anyway, and they voted against our candidate, who was really quite good. Maybe we have descended into cacocracy.

[andym]

4. Absolutely correct. Mainstream GOP and almost every major newspaper in the country was aganst him

including staid conservative newspapers.

[Axolotls]

6. That was a mistake

The more the establishment gop ranted and railed against Trump, the more popular he became with the rank-and-file. Whereas if they had supported him (which of course wasn't going to happen) that very well might have been the kiss of death. The very fact so many of the "GOPe" were against him, endeared him to the base. He was the gop's counterpart to Bernie.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

35. You get it!

It was not racism, about 8% of those who voted for Obama in two elections voted for Trump, or his often nonsensical economic message, it was the fact that the establishment of both parties hated and still hate him. The base of the GOP had had McCain, and then Romney, forced on them. They saw a perfect opportunity to tell both parties to blow it out their collective asses...and they took it. The turnout for Republican primaries was higher this time around...they were determined to not be denied this chance to tell the fools in DC that "politics as usual" is no longer acceptable. Meanwhile it appears that the Democratic insiders, aided and abetted by their own base, are refusing to read the handwriting on the wall or they would be gearing up to clean out their own swamp before they suffer the same fate the GOP did this year...a revolt of the base which delivers a crazy man as their candidate.

[Garrett78]

5. I offer this as one reason:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512659983

And I highly recommend My President Was Black by Ta-Nehisi Coates. If you only read one more piece about the 2016 election, that should be it.

[andym]

7. My President Was Black is fantastic

President Obama is an amazing man.
This section is relevant to my op, because I feel the same as the President did:
"He was casual and relaxed. A feeling of cautious inevitability emanated from his staff, and why not? Every day seemed to bring a new, more shocking revelation or piece of evidence showing Trump to be unfit for the presidency: He had lost nearly $1 billion in a single year. He had likely not paid taxes in 18 years. He was running a “university,” for which he was under formal legal investigation. He had trampled on his own campaign’s messaging by engaging in a Twitter crusade against a former beauty-pageant contestant. He had been denounced by leadership in his own party, and the trickle of prominent Republicans—both in and out of office—who had publicly repudiated him threatened to become a geyser. At this moment, the idea that a campaign so saturated in open bigotry, misogyny, chaos, and possible corruption could win a national election was ludicrous. This was America."

[pnwmom]

8. The size of his electoral win historically wasn't very significant, as EC wins go.

Of the last 30 elections, he only beat 5 results.

And if one state -- Texas -- had gone to Hillary instead, DT would have lost.

[Bear Creek]

9. Do not discount

Putin and Russia played an important part. This pro putin cabal that has been put together by trump was not a last minute thing. The fake news the black money. Trump owes them. The conservatives consider themselves at war and will do anything and get in bed with anyone who will get them the win. Taking the high ground is not doing it.

[JI7]

10. Reagan and W Bush were pretty shitty also. and someone as great as Obama should have won by much

more .

[JI7]

11. he won for the same reason White Cops go free even when they are on video

attacking and killing black people.

[Bear Creek]

12. Corrupt

They will not arrest themselves.

[uponit7771]

14. Comey, Voter suppression, Russia... !!!!

[Coyotl]

15. Neither can the statisticians.

[beaglelover]

19. Because this country is full of a bunch of idiots, racists, and misogynists.

[ElementaryPenguin]

20. Theft.

Voter suppression, election results manipulation, Comey - Mainstream media coverup.

[True_Blue]

24. And Russia

I'm 100% positive they stole it.

[Wounded Bear]

21. Celebrity...

people voted for the one they've seen the most of, which is the asshole who dominated on The Apprentice. He played the tough boss, and people think he will be a "tough" president. That might be one of the most misunderstood qualitites a president will need. Much like "great," most people will recall an improper image when the term is applied/invoked.

[HoneyBadger]

23. Polls mean nothing

They were wrong even when they were right. There were so many polls that would swing by double digits in a short period of time. No consistency. Yet we constantly pointed to "our" polls as proof that we were on track. My winning suggestion for 2020. Do not look at a single poll. Work as if you are 10 million votes behind. 24x7. And that is how you win.

[uponit7771]

34. +1

[kudzu22]

25. One word - change

It isn't complicated. This was a change election, and Hillary was the status quo candidate. That's hard to overcome when the voters want change. Bernie represented change, but he was blocked by the party. Trump was also change -- terrifying change but change nonetheless.

And don't overlook how deeply flawed Hillary was as a candidate. Trump is deeply flawed as well but, again, he represented change. This is why I think Bernie would have won - because then you'd have two legitimate change candidates, one with deep flaws and one relatively unsullied.

[gvstn]

26. I think knowing him from his t.v. show got him a lot of help.

No one seems to mention that but I think he had a base from that show. So when he was obnoxious on the campaign trail people knew what to expect.

I too, have trouble believing that he won. Whether he truly is or not he personified the term "hater". Just so sad that the American people voted him in. And his picks for the cabinet are just terrible.

[TheFrenchRazor]

46. sadly, i think you're right. americans are so stupid they pick a reality tv star for POTUS.

[oldtime dfl_er]

27. Corporate Media

Unless you can change that, say goodbye to unbiased coverage forever.

[IADEMO2004]

28. Hate filled radio in the midwest. Christian, GOP, and Lunatic Fringe

People listen to that shit all day long at work and at home.

[forgotmylogin]

29. Some people are stupid.

Some of these people also harbor a gleeful misogynistic rage that is permanent - once they discover a woman who in their opinion has done "wrong", there is nothing that can be said nor done to stop or avert their hate, ridicule, and harassment against this target.

This is the pent-up base misogyny these people painfully harbor when required to be "civil", and discovering an effective outlet for it is like piercing a tank under pressure and all emotion will be vented in this manner to relieve and justify every bit of anger this type of person holds.

This deep-seated misogyny is not reserved to individuals of one gender, as both men and women of this type, upon finding a worthy scapegoat for their feelings, latch on and never release their victim because they consider it rare to find another one. They are happy to have found a justifying "reason" for all their deep-seated hatred against women and will direct even unrelated ire and blame upon their victim of choice.

Choosing a male victim of this directed rage is rare, because men stereotypically are considered able to ignore and shrug off extended bouts of invective. Misogynists who need this vampiric form of anger release may side-line some of their anger at a males they consider "weak", but will have a very special malignant preoccupation with the specific female target of their rage.

[TheFrenchRazor]

47. there was undoubtedly an element of that. nt

[duffyduff]

30. The blame rests squarely on CNN and Jeff Zucker.

Without them, Trump's joke campaign would have been gone before Iowa.

[TransitJohn]

31. Because the electorate preferred him to the alternative.

The Democratic Party ran a candidate the electorate rejected.

[LisaL]

32. Electorate didn't prefer him. He lost by almost 3 millions.

Electorate college preferred him.

[TransitJohn]

33. Zoinks!

Sorry for misspeaking.
Because the Democratic Party ran a candidate that couldn't hope to win enough electoral votes to win. The Democratic Party ran a candidate that the electorate in rural and swing states rejected.

[Garrett78]

36. 80,000 votes spread out over 3 states.

It's silly to say Clinton "couldn't hope to win enough electoral votes." She came extremely close to doing just that.

Unprecedented last minute FBI interference alone might have been the difference between winning and losing. Not to mention other shenanigans.

[TransitJohn]

37. Whatever you say.

Nobody misjudged anything, nobody did anything wrong, and we have a fantastic outcome!

[Garrett78]

44. Who said nobody misjudged anything or did anything wrong?

All I said was it's silly to suggest Clinton had no hope of winning.

[dionysus]

43. No. He was the worst candidate in history. Yes, it was close, but she should

have SMOKED his ass!

[Garrett78]

45. I don't know what you're saying "no" to.

All I said was that it's silly to say Clinton had no hope of winning. The race was super close, meaning any number of factors could have made the difference.

FBI, Russia, voter suppression, a pathetic media, Clinton's campaign doing more outreach to rural areas of purple states, etc. When you're talking about an incredibly close contest, any single factor could be the difference.

Had Biden been the nominee, I suspect he would have won. But he chose not to try for the nomination. Sanders would have gotten stomped. Not sure about O'Malley.

[dionysus]

50. Im saying she should have destroyed him... he should have been blown out

worse than mondale was. The fact she lost, is astounding. We shouldn't have to be talking about how it was close, that's ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. We blew the election. Yes, there was stuff outside of her control, and things that weren't her fault, but she should have been so far ahead that those things wouldn't have made a difference.

[JI7]

51. i don't know why you keep saying this . a large majority of white voters go for people like Trump

look at the republican controlled congress. look at people like louie gohmert, . david vitter who was reelected even with the prostitution thing. same for sanford and many others.

there are many things that "should be" but they aren't mainly because of bigotry.

people didn't like Clinton embracing black lives matter and defending undocumented children.

in 2012 the West Virginia democratic Primary gave a man in prison almost half the vote against Obama.

Even Obama won just under 53 percent of the vote in 2008 and 51 percent in 2012. when someone like him should have won a lot more .

[Garrett78]

53. Yep. Vitter of Louisiana, where more Republicans blame Obama than Bush for response to Katrina.

Never mind that Bush was president and Obama was a freshman senator at the time of Katrina.

Simply put, we're surrounded by batshit crazy people.

[Garrett78]

52. Huge percentages of Americans subscribe to patently false beliefs.

And a ratings-focused media is obsessed with spectacle while promoting false equivalencies, drowning out where candidates actually stand on issues.

And an FBI that unpredictably interfered in unprecedented fashion.

And voter suppression enabled by, among other things, the Shelby County vs. Holder decision of 2013.

And Russian hacking.

And 25+ years of vicious smears.

That's a hell of a lot to overcome. Yes, it's crazy that Trump was even competitive much less able to win. But we're living among crazy people.

[dionysus]

54. Yes but this is the first time sipportimg that level.pf crazy went mainstream, beyond a fringe

In the primaries.

[dionysus]

41. I sincerely hope it isn't going to be "triangulation 2.0"

[Rex]

48. This is the direction republicans want to take us.

They want a rich moron, so they can finish gutting the treasury. Obama fixed it, so now it is ripe for plundering! The DOW as well.

[andym]

49. The irony is that Hillary almost won in a landslide

After the Access Hollywood revelations she was about 10% ahead of Trump and at about 50% of the voters according to the polls. The biggest problem in the election was that Hillary Clinton remained a vulnerable candidate, because her favorability was around 35% due to a concerted effort by the GOP to neutralize her over several years with the Benghazi investigations and they then got very lucky (unfortunately for us) with the FBI investigation of the email server. That allowed the Comey letter and to a lesser extent the Wikileaks stuff to seriously hurt her campaign.

[bowens43]

55. He may be the most despicable and unqualified but he wasn't the worst candidate. He won.

that would make hillary the worst candidate i history

[Paladin]

58. Yet another Hillary-trashing thread. Enough, already.

It's past time for some healing and reflection to start at DU. That isn't going to start in earnest until the 2016 Postmortem forum is put out of its misery. Administrators, please do something.

[mtnsnake]

63. Do you ever do anything besides complain?

whenever someone posts any little insignificant thing that you don't happen to like?

[Paladin]

64. Yeah. Every once in a while I put people on Full Ignore.

Give me an indication that you've seen this, then I'll do us both an enormous favor.

[mtnsnake]

65. Knock yourself out

There you go. There's your indication I've seen it, lol

[Yavin4]

60. Here's where you're wrong and is the key to understanding how Trump won

You wrote:

Many people have bought into the conservative agenda that freedom from government taxes, regulations and "interference" that the GOP is not going to be eclipsed anytime soon. Social safety nets and the principles of the New Deal have been demonized by the GOP for years. In 2009 DUers were babbling about a progressive majority. Many articles have been written even this year about demographic changes favoring Democrats and yet the Democratic Party is in retreat except on the West coast and Northeast. And now the country and the world will pay a heavy price.

That's where you're wrong. Most people have not bought into the Republican agenda. Most people are under the delusion that ALL social spending by the government goes to Black and Hispanic people, and that the government spending that White people get will be protected by the Republicans.

[andym]

62. I took this from the Gallup polls

If you look closely you'll see that there is a kind of schizophrenia, in that people do want some progressive government programs. But look at these ominous numbers:

[Orsino]

61. When Washington becomes less and less responsive to the needs of voters...

...Washington is eventually going to lose to some nominal outsider, and a woman candidate is going to be uniquely vulnerable to appeals to fear.

Trump provided the illusion of strength to those with the illusion of education/information.