Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 12:52 AM Dec 2016

The electoral vote today showed why Democrats lose

After a month of a public campaign to get Republican electors to reject Trump, the only faithless electors turned out to be Democrats. Some 7-8 cast or tried to cast votes for Bernie Sanders, Colin Powell, and others.

Many Republicans despised Trump. The GOP bulit a movement around stopping him, but when push came to shove, on Election Day and today, they unified around their candidate. Meanwhile Democrats continue to nurture resentments from the primary and chose to allow an unstable narcissist with a cabinet full of billionaires take office because their guy didn't win the primary. That is why we lose.

Now people will respond to this thread insisting if the party weren't "corporatist," if only they picked the candidate I wanted, then they would be worthy of my support. That they don't do everything I want means they don't deserve MY vote. You aren't the only person on the planet, and if the party followed your exact demands, they would lose others. The problem isn't the politicians. It's us. It's the selfishness of people who insist if they don't get everything their way, they will throw the election to the GOP. It's PUMAs, BoBers, and idiots like me who voted for Nader in 2000. It's people who claim to be "real Democrats" but don't vote Democrat, who vote Third Party and then claim they bear no responsibility for the Democratic loss.

The party loses not because they don't make the perfect TV ads with the perfect messaging. We lose because ultimately too many Democrats or progressives care more about getting their way than the well-being of the country. As long as people continue to do so, the country will move increasingly to the right.

Faithless voters didn't teach the Democrats a lesson. They delivered the country to fascism. Everyone has the right to vote in an ultra right wing White Nationalist government if that is what they want. But don't for a second pretend it is because you're too "progressive" to vote for the Democrat the majority of the primary electorate voted for. Don't pretend it is because you care about money in politics, because if that were truly the concern those people would have voted for Clinton, who had specific policies to address those issues, rather than turning government directly over to billionaires.

The problem isn't messaging or campaign strategy. It's us. We act like losers, so we lose. And as long as we keep it up, we will keep on losing.

The only question now is do we wise up or stay losers?

134 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The electoral vote today showed why Democrats lose (Original Post) BainsBane Dec 2016 OP
There was never a serious electors campaign because no viable alternative was ever promoted. LonePirate Dec 2016 #1
They still tried to defect BainsBane Dec 2016 #4
Those might have been strategic defections exboyfil Dec 2016 #8
Quit looking for zebras when the goddamn horse is standing in front of us all. Maru Kitteh Dec 2016 #39
Thank you, Maru. n/t susanna Dec 2016 #47
Oh for fuck's sake. nt JTFrog Dec 2016 #61
I'm pretty sure it was strategic in some cases. OnionPatch Dec 2016 #64
So the Repubs talked the Dems into voting for a compromise candidate, and then the Pubs Nay Dec 2016 #90
Well, I can't recall exactly OnionPatch Dec 2016 #92
Thanks. I can't believe any Dems fell for that. Or offered the plan. Jesus. nt Nay Dec 2016 #97
Without a single viable candidate to receive defected electoral votes, it was not a serious campaign LonePirate Dec 2016 #13
This was not an attempt at defection. It was to ensure that if the choice got to the House Ms. Toad Dec 2016 #15
No. former9thward Dec 2016 #89
The geographic bias is interesting HoneyBadger Dec 2016 #126
There is no bias. former9thward Dec 2016 #132
It's time to try to get rid of the Electoral College. MovingForward2020 Dec 2016 #2
It's impossible to do within the system Calculating Dec 2016 #12
Unfortunately that's true at this time, but we need to work on it anyway. MovingForward2020 Dec 2016 #17
It can essentially be done by an end-around move. fleabiscuit Dec 2016 #21
How? WillowTree Dec 2016 #74
The interstate compact approach has pitfalls eniwetok Dec 2016 #81
States can choose their electors any way they want NobodyHere Dec 2016 #112
That's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact MovingForward2020 Dec 2016 #117
Link to Wikipedia article on the NPVIC MovingForward2020 Dec 2016 #118
Yes, or at least treestar Dec 2016 #72
Yes but Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2016 #85
Bill Clinton and Obama both won the popular vote, though. MovingForward2020 Dec 2016 #116
It's been tried before, and hopefully can be tried again at some point (article link included) MovingForward2020 Dec 2016 #119
There was never any real hope of changing the outcome The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #3
Not my point BainsBane Dec 2016 #5
Those were interesting defections. sfwriter Dec 2016 #11
Hillary wasn't a divisive candidate. Maven Dec 2016 #65
It probably wasn't a good idea to make a major part of the campaign an attack on... Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2016 #121
It struck me as more tactical than strategic. sfwriter Dec 2016 #125
Too many PURISTS DURHAM D Dec 2016 #6
I don't even think it's that BainsBane Dec 2016 #7
You are right. lpbk2713 Dec 2016 #9
It's gotten a lot worse since then. Nt BainsBane Dec 2016 #10
We all loved the video from the actors and celebs... Wounded Bear Dec 2016 #14
Yes. BainsBane Dec 2016 #25
they despise them because they are about inclusiveness. they love the Trumps, Reagan, JI7 Dec 2016 #27
They despise them blue cat Dec 2016 #99
Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #16
Case in point BainsBane Dec 2016 #34
Yes. Ideologues bought GOP lies Skidmore Dec 2016 #50
Wow! This is it exactly. radical noodle Dec 2016 #54
I think that we're going to stay losers. pablo_marmol Dec 2016 #18
This too Calculating Dec 2016 #19
It's not just a strategic point. A large % of the population recognizes that we are *LYING*. pablo_marmol Dec 2016 #22
Indeed Calculating Dec 2016 #31
If what you say were true, voters should have flocked to Bernie Sanders kcr Dec 2016 #60
Not exactly. A lot of gun nuts see the dems as the party of gun control. So even if an dionysus Dec 2016 #122
I'm perfectly happy to drop the gun issue. Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #120
We are way too fractured inwiththenew Dec 2016 #20
I agree, so how do we fix this? Nt Grey Lemercier Dec 2016 #123
i don't think these people are progressives, liberals etc. JI7 Dec 2016 #23
Thank you for your OP, BB. Tis true.. We lose because too many Cha Dec 2016 #24
The electoral system has a built in bias to overcome. That isn't 'acting like losers.' fleabiscuit Dec 2016 #26
Seems a bit off target to me. jimlup Dec 2016 #28
Dems don't cheat. That's why we lose. McCamy Taylor Dec 2016 #29
and we're incapable of effectively calling them out on it. unblock Dec 2016 #30
I'm still befuddled by how Clinton was supposed to win by a landslide... C Moon Dec 2016 #32
Yup. SunSeeker Dec 2016 #35
Blame the DLC for running losers.... Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #38
This is the problem. Election fraud and rainy Dec 2016 #52
The people want a revolution elmac Dec 2016 #33
What makes you think you know what "the people" want? BainsBane Dec 2016 #107
Glad they have a full block option on DU elmac Dec 2016 #110
K & R SunSeeker Dec 2016 #36
Why do Hillary supporters blame everyone for their lack of loyalty? Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #37
It's Easier... LovingA2andMI Dec 2016 #42
Fine BainsBane Dec 2016 #56
"Hillary supporters"? Maven Dec 2016 #66
Because if everyone else had gotten the fuck in line like the Repubs did GaYellowDawg Dec 2016 #106
Hillary Supportes are looking at REALITY. Cha Dec 2016 #40
If that were true they'd stop blaming Bernie. Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #45
Please stop insulting our integrity. Cha Dec 2016 #49
If it walks and talks like a spoiler..... JTFrog Dec 2016 #63
Correct. But they can never accept that he did anything wrong. Maven Dec 2016 #67
Did you vote for the nominee of our party? brush Dec 2016 #78
"Hillary Supportes are looking at REALITY." - perhaps, but still not understanding it. n/t PoliticAverse Dec 2016 #102
All you have are insults. Cha Dec 2016 #115
For God's Sake... DonaldsRump Dec 2016 #41
Look... LovingA2andMI Dec 2016 #43
And my point is... DonaldsRump Dec 2016 #44
according to the polls, WI and MI were in the bag pstokely Dec 2016 #68
+1! berksdem Dec 2016 #131
Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #46
I'm glad you're so optimistic about the future BainsBane Dec 2016 #58
Indeed.... nil desperandum Dec 2016 #70
Another utterly tedious Bernie-bash thread melman Dec 2016 #48
It quite clearly is not that. BainsBane Dec 2016 #55
Please allow me to respond with a different perspective menoz Dec 2016 #51
What an open-minded perspective! HoneyBadger Dec 2016 #128
If you think the Democrats are bad that way, you should see the British Labour Party LeftishBrit Dec 2016 #53
Don't forget a couple more factors MichMan Dec 2016 #57
Those nil desperandum Dec 2016 #73
K&R mcar Dec 2016 #59
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #62
Please try harder, and enjoy your stay. nt Maven Dec 2016 #69
Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #75
Yes, this! A thousand times. treestar Dec 2016 #71
Putting blame in the wrong place MrPurple Dec 2016 #83
Our diversity - and differences - are what... Whiskeytide Dec 2016 #76
If Hillary had 272 delegates, no one would have defected MrPurple Dec 2016 #77
That's not really the point BainsBane Dec 2016 #79
They were so "unified" that less people voted for Trump than people who voted for Clinton. n/t PoliticAverse Dec 2016 #104
It showed nothing oof the sort! man on the moonshine Dec 2016 #80
Your analysis isn't consistent with the larger trends zipplewrath Dec 2016 #82
What was third way or conservative about Clinton's policy positions? BainsBane Dec 2016 #86
Because it isn't driven by individual speaches zipplewrath Dec 2016 #87
So policy is irrelevant BainsBane Dec 2016 #91
Can be zipplewrath Dec 2016 #95
You are arguing the problem is that she was Third Way BainsBane Dec 2016 #98
Third Way message zipplewrath Dec 2016 #103
If that were true BainsBane Dec 2016 #109
You're trying really hard to avoid the point. zipplewrath Dec 2016 #113
We lose because ultimately too many Democrats or progressives care more about getting their way tha Ohioblue22 Dec 2016 #84
I could have sworn Democrats won the Presidency in 2008. That primary campain... PoliticAverse Dec 2016 #105
thank you. N/T. okieinpain Dec 2016 #88
The Democratic electors were not properly vetted Gothmog Dec 2016 #93
The Dems have to play hardball that way BainsBane Dec 2016 #94
I agree-I was just pointing out how the selection of electors was done in another state Gothmog Dec 2016 #124
Yes. The Democratic faithless electors need to pay a price Gothmog Dec 2016 #134
So in a properly vetted state, faithless electors will never exist? HoneyBadger Dec 2016 #129
K & R JHan Dec 2016 #96
This sums up the whole election season in a nutshell. Joe941 Dec 2016 #100
So much Hillary hatred Generator Dec 2016 #101
How did OBAMA fail her? Blaming him is a very tired tack. CakeGrrl Dec 2016 #133
The Republicans are masters as inciting division within our party. joshcryer Dec 2016 #108
Wow, we are in for it, for the next four years yuiyoshida Dec 2016 #111
intelligence can be a curse AlexSFCA Dec 2016 #114
Bane, I may have fought with you a few times, but DonCoquixote Dec 2016 #127
Unless Democrats can learn to pull on the rope together, we are doomed Kilgore Dec 2016 #130

LonePirate

(13,420 posts)
1. There was never a serious electors campaign because no viable alternative was ever promoted.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 12:57 AM
Dec 2016

Not to mention that ME and MN voided the votes of their faithless electors today and replaced them with Clinton votes.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
4. They still tried to defect
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:02 AM
Dec 2016

And in doing so they demonstrated the kind of divisions that keep us from winning. Multiply that by the millions who refused to vote for Clinton on Election Day, in an election decided by 55,000-70,000 votes.

There certainly was a serious campaign. Each elector got thousands of letters and emails.
Denial isn't a strategy for success.

exboyfil

(17,863 posts)
8. Those might have been strategic defections
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:09 AM
Dec 2016

to allow standing in case Trump electors defected sufficiently to throw the election into the House. After Election night there was no chance that Clinton was going to become President. The only hope would be for a relatively competent Republican (like Romney) even though there was only a 0.001% chance of that even.

Short of getting a hand audit of ballots which is just criminal that it did not happen, there was absolutely nothing that could be done after Election night.

Strategy now should be to ensure that Trump is the face of the Republican party. Hang his corruption and failure around the necks of the Republican's going forward. Just hope all the Justices stay healthy for four years, and we don't totally screw the country up.

Maru Kitteh

(28,340 posts)
39. Quit looking for zebras when the goddamn horse is standing in front of us all.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:52 AM
Dec 2016

"Strategic defections?"

Just . . NO.

OnionPatch

(6,169 posts)
64. I'm pretty sure it was strategic in some cases.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 10:14 AM
Dec 2016

I was listening to one being interviewed yesterday on Brad Blog, I think it was Michael Baca, who is a Colorado elector. He was saying they were trying to talk GOP electors into voting against Trump by agreeing to vote for a "compromise candidate". I don't know how he ended up voting but obviously it didn't work out. The point is, I don't think the Democratic defectors would necessarily have defected had Hillary had a chance of winning.

Nay

(12,051 posts)
90. So the Repubs talked the Dems into voting for a compromise candidate, and then the Pubs
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:32 PM
Dec 2016

didn't hold up their end and voted for Trump anyway? Jesus Christ. No wonder we always lose against these bastards. STOP BELIEVING THAT PUBS WILL EVER DEAL FAIRLY WITH OTHERS. JUST STOP.

This is a fucking war to end all wars, and we still act like those bastards are normal human beings. They aren't.

OnionPatch

(6,169 posts)
92. Well, I can't recall exactly
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:58 PM
Dec 2016

but it seems to me this plan was initiated by the elector, a Democrat, Michael Baca (or a group he is part of? ) not by any Republicans. My memory isn't the greatest, but Mr. Baca was interviewed on the Brad Blog radio show yesterday or the day before if you want to listen. It didn't sound like Baca was trying to screw over Clinton. He was doing this under the assumption that there was no way the Republicans were going to vote for Clinton, that she was a lost cause. So he was trying to get some sane Republicans (oxymoron, lol) to defect and vote for someone other than Trump by offering to do the same, the idea being that Trump is a danger to our country and anyone would be better than him, even a different Republican.

LonePirate

(13,420 posts)
13. Without a single viable candidate to receive defected electoral votes, it was not a serious campaign
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:23 AM
Dec 2016

Sure lots of communication may have been directed at the electors; but there was not one candidate for them to support. It was all bluster with no real momentum or clear goal. Simply defecting to throw the election to the House would also have been a losing strategy.

Ms. Toad

(34,070 posts)
15. This was not an attempt at defection. It was to ensure that if the choice got to the House
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:26 AM
Dec 2016

the House had an non-Trump option it would find palatable, since there was no way the House would vote for Clinton..

The House was required to choose between the top 3 voters. The 3 faithless electors who voted for Colin Powell guaranteed that if enough faithless electors defected from Trump that the House would be choosing between Trump, Powell, and Clinton.

former9thward

(32,005 posts)
89. No.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:18 PM
Dec 2016

By the time Washington voted Trump was nearly at 270 and it was obvious he was going to get that number.

 

HoneyBadger

(2,297 posts)
126. The geographic bias is interesting
Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:27 AM
Dec 2016

California is solid blue, but they vote at the end. The likelihood of Republicans hitting 270 before the EC reaches California is a form of bias. Wonder if that could get the EC ruled unconstitutional.

former9thward

(32,005 posts)
132. There is no bias.
Sat Dec 24, 2016, 04:55 AM
Dec 2016

CA could have voted at 12:01 am if they wanted to and been first. The states set their own voting time.

2. It's time to try to get rid of the Electoral College.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:00 AM
Dec 2016

The EC has given us Bush, and now Trump. It's time to work hard on trying to amend the Constitution in order to abolish it.

Calculating

(2,955 posts)
12. It's impossible to do within the system
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:22 AM
Dec 2016

The founders were truly sadistic when they created the perfectly rigged system. In order to repeal it, you need the states who benefit the most from it to vote for the repeal.

17. Unfortunately that's true at this time, but we need to work on it anyway.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:29 AM
Dec 2016

I agree with you about the rigged system. You might find this article by Paul Finkelman, entitled "THE PROSLAVERY ORIGINS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE", interesting: http://people.uncw.edu/lowery/pls101/wilson_chapter_outlines/The%20Proslavery%20Origins%20of%20the%20Electoral%20College.pdf

fleabiscuit

(4,542 posts)
21. It can essentially be done by an end-around move.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:45 AM
Dec 2016

States with enough total electors to elect a president, currently 270, can form an agreement to cast all their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest popular vote. That essentially ends the current system.

WillowTree

(5,325 posts)
74. How?
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 11:07 AM
Dec 2016

Not unlike the futility of trying to get an amendment to do away with it, how do you propose to get enough of the states that benefit most from the Electoral College to agree to such a scheme?

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
81. The interstate compact approach has pitfalls
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 12:04 PM
Dec 2016

Art 1 says Congress must approve all such compacts... and a GOP congress never will. And I suspect the first time a committed state cast an EC vote against how their state voted... there will be popular outrage and states will be forced to leave the compact.

117. That's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:26 AM
Dec 2016

Yes, I agree that this is an approach that should be pursued, keeping in mind that it may clear the way for the eventual abolition of the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
72. Yes, or at least
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 11:06 AM
Dec 2016

highlight as it was this time. And if we are using it, use it fully, i.e. put the electors on the ballots, not the candidates and vote for them knowing who they are before the election.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,412 posts)
85. Yes but
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 12:41 PM
Dec 2016

it also gave us Clinton (X2) and Obama (X2). And please, let's try to remember that if Hillary was PEOTUS and Republicans were running a similar campaign to get electors to deny/replace her, we would be outraged (rightly). I'm not happy about the fact that we had "faithless Electors" on our side voting for other candidates. Even with the hacked DNC e-mails by Russia and even though we all know here that Trump is going to be a disaster for this country, there was never any serious reason for us to believe that Republican Electors would deny Trump the Presidency and/or throw it into the House. Time for us to unite and resist the oncoming Trumpsaster. The Republicans were able to tie President Obama and Congressional Democrats in knots. We can do the same to Trump.

116. Bill Clinton and Obama both won the popular vote, though.
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:18 AM
Dec 2016

When I say that the EC gave us George W. Bush, and now Trump, I mean that it gave us them in spite of the fact that they lost the popular vote. As far as resisting Trump's damaging polices, especially his domestic policies that adversely affect the environment, education, and health care, yes, we must work hard to resist them.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,692 posts)
3. There was never any real hope of changing the outcome
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:01 AM
Dec 2016

by persuading enough electors to change their votes. I have also considered the possibility that even if some of the GOP electors were considering flipping, they knew they'd get death threats, or worse, if they actually did it.

 

sfwriter

(3,032 posts)
11. Those were interesting defections.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:20 AM
Dec 2016

They also didn't matter. Or are you saying our lack of lockstep party politics is at the heart of our losses? If so, you have to go back a long way to find a more unified party than we have seen the last eight years.

Hillary was just a divisive candidate. Fill in the reason of your choice from her stand on the issues, to the evil influence of Bernie Sanders to racism and sexism amongst the voters. Let's not forget a campaign against he that has lasted most of my adult life.

Its a mess. It has conspired to fuel this.

I wouldn't make more of it than it is.

Maven

(10,533 posts)
65. Hillary wasn't a divisive candidate.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 10:25 AM
Dec 2016

Her whole campaign, from her slogan to the embrace of Sanders' policy proposals to her efforts to bring disaffected Repubs into the fold, was an effort to bring people together and form the broadest coalition possible.

Calling Hillary "divisive" when the facts so obviously show the opposite is not a reflection on Hillary, but rather a reflection on you and many others who chose to adopt a fantasy version of her because it suited for one reason or another.

Trump, on the other hand, was the most divisive candidate ever and his party ultimately got behind him. Meanwhile the entitled brats among us (BoBers etc.) had to show their contempt for Hillary until the very last minute. They are why we lost.

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,327 posts)
121. It probably wasn't a good idea to make a major part of the campaign an attack on...
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:54 AM
Dec 2016

... Sanders supporters.

How many people do you think said fuck it after being called racist and misogynists and chair throwers etc.?

I'm sure it depressed turn out in places like Madison Wisconsin.

 

sfwriter

(3,032 posts)
125. It struck me as more tactical than strategic.
Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:18 AM
Dec 2016

The only value of a bloc vote at this point is strategic, unless it would have had some value I am missing. Those defections were tactical to call attention to causes or the EC itself. At least that's how I read them.

-

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
7. I don't even think it's that
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:09 AM
Dec 2016

Because the people they hold up as ideals aren't pure either. They simply refuse to look at their flaws. They create an idealized image and then demonize the other candidate, when neither view is accurate. I don't think that's about purity as much as insistence on getting their way.

lpbk2713

(42,757 posts)
9. You are right.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:10 AM
Dec 2016



Like Will Rogers said many years ago ... "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."

Wounded Bear

(58,654 posts)
14. We all loved the video from the actors and celebs...
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:25 AM
Dec 2016

The thing is, that is exactly the kind of people they despise. They are the faces of the "liberal elites." That vid probably did more to solidify Repub electors and not any good at all.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
25. Yes.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:52 AM
Dec 2016

When they made that video for the electors, I thought geez, haven't they figured it out this backfires? The GOP has elected two celebs for president, but that doesn't work for us.

JI7

(89,249 posts)
27. they despise them because they are about inclusiveness. they love the Trumps, Reagan,
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:53 AM
Dec 2016

and other "stars" they are always supporting for office.

blue cat

(2,415 posts)
99. They despise them
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:25 PM
Dec 2016

Because they aren't in their party. It would be different if they were...just look at how happy they were about Baio.

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
34. Case in point
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:35 AM
Dec 2016

Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2016, 09:22 AM - Edit history (1)

You repeat a narrative that whether you realize it or not was created in order to turn govt over to the GOP and put it directly in the hands of corporations. Trump has already started to raid the national treasury. They are planning to sell off park lands and turn SS and Medicare over to Wall Street. The Sec of Ed doesn't believe in public education; the Sec of Energy wants to abolish the Dept; and the head of the EPA is a climate change denier who has repeatedly sued the EPA. And yet you still manage to believe that swill about Clinton as a corporate lackey, evidence be damned. She got campaign contributions from Wall Street--like Obama, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and countless other presidents in history. Yet somehow only Clinton was untrustworthy.

The GOP managed to convince you the real problem was that a Hillary Clinton raised money by following the campaign finance laws they had set, that she was culpable for Citizens United, a case about a corporate film smearing Hillary herself. That's quite a propaganda feat. They convinced the Busters to vote against reforming the system and instead turn it over to billionaires. It's ironic that people talk about the white working class voting against their interests, when that is exactly what the Busters did-- against their interests and self-proclaimed values, all because they decided that disliking Hillary personally was more important than progressive policies.

Here is the other point. This entire narrative about what you think the party is supposed to be is based on historical mythology. When was the party not tied to moneyed interests? Under slavery, Jim Crow? This supposed to be in your head never existed. But the function of that rhetoric is to convince people to fragment so the GOP privatizes everything, and that is exactly what that propaganda has accomplished.

You didn't trust her because the GOP convinced you not to trust her, and they succeeded because people are disposed to see women as liars. People who claimed to care about progressive policies focused entirely on animosity toward one woman. It's not true that "nobody trusted her." 65 million Americans aren't nobody. The people you claim you want the party to represent supported Clinton in the primary and the GE, only now you dismiss them them as nobody.

"Too much footsie with rich shits", whereas FDR and JFK who were born into extreme wealth are heroes. Those who joined in smearing Clinton decided policy didn't matter. You and your friends didn't like her, and the Busters decided that personal animus was more important than reforming campaign finance and regulating Wall Street. And now the national treasury is about to be turned over directly to Wall Street, and the GOP couldn't have done it without the hard work of the so-called left in making absurdly false claims that there was any equivalency between Clinton and Trump.

The GOP wins with the complicity of the self-identified left who the Republicans convince to work against their own interests. Even as Trump is implementing unprecedented cleptocracy, you continue to repeat the nonsense that got him elected.

This is why we are a party of losers. The GOP doesn't have to do anything but plant some internet memes and watch us destroy ourselves.




Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
50. Yes. Ideologues bought GOP lies
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:39 AM
Dec 2016

wholesale and retailed them. Some on the left ended up doing the campaign work of the right for them, truth be damned.

Calculating

(2,955 posts)
19. This too
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:31 AM
Dec 2016

Gun control likely cost both Gore and Hillary wins. It's not very popular with the majority of the country, and is a net vote loser. Future Dem candidates shouldn't go near this issue if they want to win the GE. For better or for worse, Americans love their guns.

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)
22. It's not just a strategic point. A large % of the population recognizes that we are *LYING*.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:46 AM
Dec 2016

Over, and over and over again! Why should they believe that we're telling the truth re. global warming when we tell such obvious, stupid lies about simple mechanical devices?! Our position on gun violence is a YUGE credibility buster, and I'm convinced that it has the ability to turn multi-issue voters into single-issue ones. If you understand the basic principle behind the internal combustion engine, you understand how a SEMI-automatic rifle works: ( same dishonesty applies to "gun show loopholes", the "epidemic" of gun violence etc. etc. etc. Ooops.......and let's not forget "common sense measures". <SNORT!> )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512632995#post83

Edited to add link to post which confronts the "gun ownership is dropping" lie:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512632995#post100

Calculating

(2,955 posts)
31. Indeed
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:05 AM
Dec 2016

Many of the common arguments in favor of things such as an Assault Weapon Ban cannot stand up to the most basic critical thinking. Banning certain extremely popular classes of guns just because they're 'scary looking'? Come on, that isn't gonna bring in the voters. The dishonest language/terminology you mention also doesn't help matters. Calling semi-auto sporting guns 'assault rifles' is 100% incorrect and does nothing to improve the credibility of the left on the issue.

I've always felt that the Democratic Party's anti-gun tendencies have been comparable to the Republicans and their anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage/anti marijuana tendencies. It's an issue which will just lose votes while only appealing to the hardliners within the party.

kcr

(15,317 posts)
60. If what you say were true, voters should have flocked to Bernie Sanders
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 09:49 AM
Dec 2016

If that were the one thing that kept Americans from switching to Dem, every single gun nut Dem politician would see huge success when they go national, and the US breathes again because Dems finally dropped that one issue that held us back!. Funny how it never works out that way. The truth is your pet issue isn't nearly as popular as you think it is. It's just another industry that the GOP coddles and then uses to keep their base in line.

dionysus

(26,467 posts)
122. Not exactly. A lot of gun nuts see the dems as the party of gun control. So even if an
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:06 AM
Dec 2016

Individual dem isn't jumping up and down clamoring for gun control, they view ANY dem as being tied to the gun control party by association.

That's how the gun nuts I personally know view dems. Because of this, they'll never vote for a democrat.

Crunchy Frog

(26,582 posts)
120. I'm perfectly happy to drop the gun issue.
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:28 AM
Dec 2016

Just don't expect me to feel bad about it anymore when people get shot, unless they're part of my immediate family or friends. It's just Americans lying in the bed that they've shat for themselves. If it's the cost of winning elections, I'm fine with it.

inwiththenew

(972 posts)
20. We are way too fractured
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:36 AM
Dec 2016

We've got 35 different factions with 35 different demands marching to the their own beat.

Republicans with the help of talk radio and fox new march in lock step with each other. That's part of the reason they've absolutely blown us out at the state level.

Cha

(297,220 posts)
24. Thank you for your OP, BB. Tis true.. We lose because too many
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:47 AM
Dec 2016

are selfish and don't care about the well being of our Planet. Rather vote green and enable a perverted climate change denier in the WH.

The ones I've seen have money for health care, food, and shelter and don't give a rip about those who don't.

What's up with 3 WA electors voting for Colin Powell.. a repub who gave false testimony to the UN about Iraq?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/3-faithless-electors-vote-for-colin-powell-in-washington-state/article/2610011

Boney Hurdle Retweeted
Derek Lane ‏@dereklane09 · 12h12 hours ago
As Bernie's Caucus Director for the state of Maine, I condemn David Bright and his attempt to overrule the will of Maine voters. #mepolitics
28 replies 144 retweets 226 likes

https://twitter.com/dereklane09/status/810893924755787776

Overturning trump electors was not attempting to overrule the Will of the People.. indeed, it was in keeping with who the majority voted for.. and hoping to keep a moron from talking over the country.

fleabiscuit

(4,542 posts)
26. The electoral system has a built in bias to overcome. That isn't 'acting like losers.'
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:53 AM
Dec 2016

This isn't the first time it has failed us either.

jimlup

(7,968 posts)
28. Seems a bit off target to me.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:54 AM
Dec 2016

We lose because Republicans are heartless assholes who serve only themselves. We can't help it if we are sometimes reasonable and try to work for the common good. Yes we get burned for it but I sure as hell wouldn't choose the other side because of it.

I'd rather go down holding on to principles and caring about people than win. While Obama showed us these were not mutually exclusive Politicians like Obama don't come around that often.

C Moon

(12,213 posts)
32. I'm still befuddled by how Clinton was supposed to win by a landslide...
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:19 AM
Dec 2016

and the Democratic party was supposed to make gains in the house and senate. Instead, it went the other way.

And again (as they've been wrongly saying since 2000), the media was saying that the Republican party was dying, and wouldn't recover for many election cycles. It went the other way each election.

I'd hate to insert an overused cliche, but something's rotten in Denmark—and it's a dishonest voting system.

I believe the elections since 2000 have been stolen. We got lucky with Obama—the look on Romney's face after he lost shows that. But still, the house and senate races have always been favoring the GOP.

So, along with everything else you said above, we need to make sure our elections are honest, and that we have paper trails, AND that votes can be recounted if necessary. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what the hell the Democratic party does with its campaign strategies.

SunSeeker

(51,554 posts)
35. Yup.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:41 AM
Dec 2016

Funny how the polls were spot on with the results in CA, but off in the swing states Trump won.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
38. Blame the DLC for running losers....
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:48 AM
Dec 2016

You remember them, right? The likes of Harold Ford and other "Republican Lite" types who claimed they could make Wall Street more money than the Republicans,...for a price.

Meanwhile the Republicans didn't NEED to be bought. For many of them being a lapdog for Big Business is done in Reagan's Name, amen.

rainy

(6,091 posts)
52. This is the problem. Election fraud and
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 06:07 AM
Dec 2016

even with so much bs, 75,000 votes just sitting there uncounted in MI acording to Greg pallast, nothing is ever done about it. Lawyers are trying to do something but never any press coverage. This is the problem. Poll numbers were never so far off before electronic voting machines. There are too many ways to minuplate them and cast out ballots.

 

elmac

(4,642 posts)
33. The people want a revolution
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:32 AM
Dec 2016

they want the Democratic party to be as nasty, as cunning, as criminal as the fascists only working for the people, not the uber rich. There is no hope without change and as a party we need to hold nothing back, never cooperate, go medieval on the fascist asses. That will guarantee a progressive landslide in 4 years.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
107. What makes you think you know what "the people" want?
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:07 PM
Dec 2016

What you're describing is not revolution. It's gridlock, which is nothing new.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
56. Fine
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 08:45 AM
Dec 2016

Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2016, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

If you're happy with a Trump administration and all the policies he is poised to enact, keep it up.

I don't know why you decided not to actually read my post in which I explicitly identified myself in 2000 as part of the problem as well as PUMAs, but I guess it's easier to ignore that.

GaYellowDawg

(4,447 posts)
106. Because if everyone else had gotten the fuck in line like the Repubs did
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:36 PM
Dec 2016

And come the fuck out and VOTED, we'd be arguing over Hillary's cabinet choices.

 

JTFrog

(14,274 posts)
63. If it walks and talks like a spoiler.....
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 10:11 AM
Dec 2016

Sorry the truth hurts, but Bernie screwed us big time. I've never seen a more divisive campaign. From the "lock her up" bullshit at his rallies to his failure to concede when it was clear that he lost. All his bullshit innuendo ended up doing was turning young people off to the most qualified candidate to ever run for office in my lifetime. He fed right into all the shit they were seeing in the fake news flooding social media. His team was busted hacking voter models for fuck's sake.

He will go down in history as worse than Nader being as how he USED our party to do it.

Period. End of.

Maven

(10,533 posts)
67. Correct. But they can never accept that he did anything wrong.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 10:30 AM
Dec 2016

It's part of their entitlement. "If Bernie did it, it must be right."

DonaldsRump

(7,715 posts)
41. For God's Sake...
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:05 AM
Dec 2016

...it is what it is. Let's finally get together to make the changes rather than fighting among ourselves. Remember it was less than 100,000 votes that made a difference in just three states. Hillary could have easily won this with a little more....

Remember what President Obama said: let's not forget anyone in this country. As he said on Friday, and many times before that, he went to Iowa 87 times and met farmers and fair attendees etc and that's how he won. He said perhaps not all of them voted for me, but some did and everyone he met got to know him. He also said it is very hard to do this, but this is what you must to do to win. Did Hillary do this?

How can we possibly object to what President Obama said? While I was devastated with Hillary's loss, the fact of the matter is that, at least from what I can see, her campaign took several states for granted. For example, I had NO IDEA why she was in San Francisco in the fall, except to raise money. Why exactly was she not in Wisconsin etc during this time.

I do love America, and I would be quite certain that we should not give up on our country just because Hillary did not win. Just because the Donald won, please never give up hope. Yes, there may have been funny stuff, but can anyone doubt Hillary did not run the best campaign?

And for the Bernie Bros, seriously, give it a rest. Look what you got. Do you want to gripe about this or do you want to come together to make a difference from today onwards?

Today is the beginning of the rest of our lives.

LovingA2andMI

(7,006 posts)
43. Look...
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:16 AM
Dec 2016

You're correct. IF HILLARY would have visited Michigan and Wisconsin at least 8 times each starting September 2016 - November 2016 -- she would have won BOTH of this states. Point, Blank, Period.

Her lack of doing so was a CAMPAIGN DECISION. That's not anyone's fault but her Campaign Strategist.

Next, in Pennsylvania - if she would have visited that state 10 times from September - November 2016 -- she would have won there too.

Voters want to know you (the candidate) WANTS their vote. That does not occur by a "cute" commercial, phone banking or showing up with "A"- List singers, dancers and actresses at the last minute (as she did in Ohio which was a complete and utter waste of time - as Ohio was lost in August 2016).

They want to see YOU work it. As in work the ground. In Michigan, for instance, she should have held 8 Campaign appearances in this order or a mix in between: Detroit - Twice, Macomb County - Once, West Michigan (Grand Rapids) - Twice, Lansing -Twice - it's the Capital, Muskegon Area - Once.

If Hillary did that between September and November 2016 -- again, she would have WON Michigan -- again, Point, Blank, Period. She did not and thus she lost the State as Trump was outworking her big time in Michigan, during the same damn time.

So, personally screw the "less blame" this and that, Bernie Supporters, Activists, so-called "purists", Gun-Reduction Advocates, Corporate Dems or about 30-45 other individual groups.

Hillary Lost because she did not WORK her CAMPAIGN HARDER in the Last Two Months. Especially, in the states, she lost in totality by 77K votes: Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.



DonaldsRump

(7,715 posts)
44. And my point is...
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:24 AM
Dec 2016

...don't give up hope!

Please also don't blame Hillary! There were MANY MANY forces at work against her. I am appalled at Comey et al, but yes, the folks in the campaign who did not listen to Bill Clinton to reach every voter are also to blame.

We can keep playing the blame game forever, but my point is let's NOT blame, but let's change by coming together. We will get nowhere by griping. It's more than ABUNDANTLY CLEAR what WE need to do!

Let's get this party started right!

pstokely

(10,528 posts)
68. according to the polls, WI and MI were in the bag
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 10:50 AM
Dec 2016

but they didn't listen to the local Dems in WI and MI who asked for help way before Comey

Response to DonaldsRump (Reply #41)

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
58. I'm glad you're so optimistic about the future
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 08:51 AM
Dec 2016

Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2016, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

And what the Trump administration holds.

It is indeed what it is: fascism, and us on the other side as a party that loses because of division.

My point is about division generally, not "Bernie bros," since I also identify myself as a 2000 Nader voter and PUMAs.

It's the first day of the rest of our life, and if we keep it up we can be guaranteed the country will keep moving further right.

nil desperandum

(654 posts)
70. Indeed....
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 11:00 AM
Dec 2016

the words of Franklin come to mind here, "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately".

Division should be what the primaries resolve as a candidate is chosen, and once that is sorted out it is in fact, time to "hang" together or as you point out we will lose to the side that appeared to be able to hang together.

No one ever gets everything they want, the ability to compromise and build a coalition is important to winning nationally. I have some hope for the mid-terms, especially if Trump continues to be Trump.

The electorate is fairly fickle in the mid-terms if there is a perception of failing to deliver.

 

menoz

(6 posts)
51. Please allow me to respond with a different perspective
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:52 AM
Dec 2016

Imagine you are trying to take care of every variety of animal located around your property. Being a compassionate individual who believes that your presences does impact the ecological system around you, recognize it. I mean, that it is obvious no matter how inconvenient the thought of taking responsibility for your presence - right. So being who you are, you decide to take responsibility. Simply offsetting your impact by accepting a bit of sacrifice or give back seems reasonable. You start by observing your surroundings and take note of behaviors, habits and routines to determine where you can restore the disruptions you maybe causing. You plan to make changes to accommodate, assist and support your environmental neighbors while also reducing your own unnecessary negative contributions.

You have made a lot of changes and have been rewarded with measurably meaningful results. Things seem to balance well and all seem to be reasonably comfortable. At some point you notice that your environment is growing and as they do, every animal including you are having to make further adjustments to balance out the larger community. Every animal has different needs and the conditions for obtaining or meeting those needs has become less predictable as animals from outside of the immediate area have an easier time finding resources in your area than there own. They are not bad animals nor are they selfishly depriving others for their own needs, but they are consuming more in this area than they are contributing. Their contributions occur be in their community and some of those contributions are actually provided from your community's resources.

Now, some may think I am referencing a likely effect of illegal immigration or undocumented migrant workers. While that could fit the context, this is about those closer to us. You see, we really do want everyone to enjoy the blessings of our the country we can rightfully and jointly claim. But, despite the differing opinions of how to construct and environment that accommodates as many as possible, we often ignore the ripples we generated as if the returning echo will only be good for us. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Etc all to some degree develop these blinders that only confirm that they are doing it right and it is good and if it is not working, it must be due to those who want to do it different. We have all seen that happen in every area of our lives. A problem arises that affects some many that collectively we focus, analyze and brainstorm a solution. A small part of the group focuses tightly on the factors to nail down the most likely root cause. After all, just basing all of our solutions on wants, needs and emotions often generates large quantities of costly band-aids instead of long term solutions. So it is to the educated, the wise and the clear thinkers who seek the cause.

They nail down the root cause(s) and present a case that many can digest and understand. Then that group carries it down to a larger group where the discussion is translated into a more practical representation of their daily lives. And eventually we get a consensus that the majority understands, agrees with and can confidently support. But, along the way some concluded something from the same data that everyone else had read. They insisted that though they were certainly in the minority of the expert opinion, they saw a set of root cause(s) completely contrary to the consensus. Well you know how this plays out, right. They present their case to the same group and manage to find a minority of them to join their opinion and that group carries it downward until we have (at least) 2 groups trying to solve the same problem(s) for the betterment of all....You end up with the effect of external participants who consume from the (joint) results of both efforts. The problem is that they are only contributing to the success of their own group.

In the end,
You are left standing there looking at all of these groups and individuals wondering if they remember hat you even exist. They are so busy trying to Now, manage the complex balances that you had so carefully establish to limit your impact on them...But not it is them who are collectively affect you with overwhelming complexities and multiple negative impacts. None of them are behaving normally nor are they behaving effectively. In fact, they have been conditioned to expect that much of their experience was a natural course of organic events. Now they just blame each other for taking more than their fair share, not contributing enough, Keeping too much and wasting more than others. They turn against themselves competing for resources that seem increasingly scarce. Once again, you , your needs and your contribution have become invisible as their focus narrows to their own needs.

This is the state of the partisan identification demographics. The more we promise each group that they can have it all, they eventually demand every bit of it. And it does not matter if they need it or not. The fact that it was important enough to fight for is enough to drive hunter gathers to locate, collect and store enough to weather storms, seasons, depressions and catastrophes. And at yet some other point in the progression of finding someone to blame, they remember suddenly how you were the one who set the expectations. You were the one that convinced them that if they just lived their lives while you managed the complexities, all would be well for them. Many are about to blame you for neglecting them, dropping the ball, being a fraud or worse - corrupt!.

For the Democratic Party, is what you are going through right now. The Republicans had their own in 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014.... It was mostly republican voters who threaded the needle between rejecting the party and destroying it. You, everyone of you saw it. you commented and discussed how close they were to completely shattering the entire party into irreparable fragments of insignificant pieces of ideological debris.

So what happened? How did they manage reconstitute, align and pull together just enough to capture an astonishing amount of control throughout the nation from the local offices all the way up to the white house, the senate, the house of representatives and most likely the courts?

Uh, Trump....

He say they were hurting, angry and abused. You saw it to. The difference was that you diagnosed it as hate for Obama, Race, Sexuality, Democrats, Social Justice, Freedom of Speech, Civil Rights , You.......Trump saw they as injured spouses who were in the process of leaving a cheating, lying and unfaithful spouse..
The republican establishment say them as irrational and unable to understand the complex balance of politics required to produce bipartisan deals (especially when you don't want them to appear bipartisan). How do your get things done with constituents who (rightfully) think that their best interest are merely a convenient coincidence that occurs on the rare occasion when it aligns with the agenda of the politicians. Sound familiar?

You guys are ripping the place up as if your individual members are the problem, as if republicans or 3rd parties are the reason the a party with the popular vote has lost so much. Lets be brutally honest. It's time to
pull your members (not the party elites) together and reform your party. You guy are being misdirected for the sake of the party establishment. Had Trump not come along when he did, the Republicans would have succumb to the very same tactic being used on your, Right Now.

Hillary lost.
We can not deny the enormous amount of facts were true even though peppered with falsehoods,
We can not ignore the facts that the DNC conducted itself in a way that disappointed and disgusted many democratic voters.
We can not deny that states that traditionally support democratic candidates this time have risked so much to improve their circumstances by voting for Trump, which requires a lot of lost trust or confidence for the Democratic Party.

So, that tactic being used on democratic voters I mentioned....
The one that Trump, seemed to yank republican voters from it's snare...

Right now you are being triggered by the the Party Elites to "look over there".
You are looking at Protests, Republicans, 3rd parties, recounts, faithless electors, Russian hacking, disloyal members, meddling FBI directors, look over there , and there, and there,etc. Look at these hurting souls who are telling their story on youtube, twitter and facebook. Tune into to these equally outraged commentators who share your pain.... Look anywhere, everywhere and say whatever you feel. Just do not pay attention to your party's elites as the reorganize, regroup and reestablish themselves while you focus on blaming anyone but them.... They are banking on you draining all of that energy on "not them". In time you will remember the event, the anger and the enemy. Otherwise, what ever disappointment you had from them, well you'll just get over it and return home. After all, it's not like your enemy will offer you what "We Do".

You guys are smarter than that, you are stronger than that and you have the power to take back you party and re-establish and restore it to what you were promised it would be. Or you can hope that by pure chance an synchronicity that your own political Trump will show up "again" to draw you back into the party in hope of reform. I say again, because you already had Obama and I will admit to suspecting that the Elites of the party did more harm to him than Republicans ever could. I think he had a Once in A lifetime opportunity that got hijacked by elites who wanted raise their credibility on his image, work and political capital. As harsh as it will sound, they treated him like a slave whom they worked hard, capitalized on and used for their own political gain. Obama is a smart man. I'm sure he was not unaware. But instead turning it back onto them, he took the smart path and just kept working to stay his course. A course that should have lead to a legacy as historical as his election. A legacy that appears now destined to be unraveled. Which could have been avoided, had only the democratic party elites had not practiced a calculated political rationing to delay of finality Obama's most meaningful initiative. No they hoped to wait until after the 2016 election and 2017 inauguration of Hillary were they could claim credit for finalizing the whole thing and toss Obama a grand legacy for a work begun though left undone until they completed it....

This is something you already knew. It was right there to watch unfold. But when you are constantly experiencing frequent sound of shattering dishes, it's hard not to conclude that the number of fingers point at the bus boy might be onto something. Despite the debris of broken plates around the feet of the person who extended the first pointed finger....

LeftishBrit

(41,205 posts)
53. If you think the Democrats are bad that way, you should see the British Labour Party
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 06:33 AM
Dec 2016

And yes, this sort of infighting only benefits the Right.

MichMan

(11,924 posts)
57. Don't forget a couple more factors
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 08:46 AM
Dec 2016

A couple other factors that IMO played a big role.

1) Very seldom does the same party win three elections in a row. It has only happened once in my lifetime(1988)

2) Many people were just tired of someone named Clinton or Bush being president again. Jeb was considered the frontrunner and got whipped early on.

Even at that, Trump should have been easy to beat. I think the HC campaign got complacent thinking they had it won and tried to sit on the ball & run out the clock to use a football metaphor.

nil desperandum

(654 posts)
73. Those
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 11:06 AM
Dec 2016

are good points, it's important to remember it was a change year and HRC was a status quo candidate as portrayed by her campaign and the media. In a change year it's always dangerous to run as a status quo choice.

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Response to Maven (Reply #69)

treestar

(82,383 posts)
71. Yes, this! A thousand times.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 11:03 AM
Dec 2016

Repukes stick together.

I've talked to Repukes who actually believe Bush was too liberal! But unlike people who think someone like Hillary is too conservative, they get out there and vote. They do not talk about the lesser of two evils. They get out there and at least make sure it is the lesser, not the greater of the two evils that wins if they can help it.

It is all about coalition and working together, not about the earning of my vote. People who put it like that just don't get it. And it ends up hurting them, not the "oligarchs."

MrPurple

(985 posts)
83. Putting blame in the wrong place
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 12:22 PM
Dec 2016

There were Dems who thought Obama compromised too much with the R's, wasn't hard enough on Wall St., was too militaristic with the drones, too slow to come around on gay marriage - but they still turned out and voted for him in 2012 against the greater foe, just like Republicans do.

There appears to have been more of a problem in this election with people lacking enthusiasm for Hillary. She would have helped herself with a more straightforward answer about the email earlier on, so that she seemed more credible. I don't think the problem this election was with disloyal Democrats as much as independents, who (very wrongly, IMO) became convinced that Hillary was as corrupt or more corrupt than Trump and that saw their bad qualities as a trade off.

The media had a lot to do with this, and the legions of fools who see the Washington Post, NY Times as less trustworthy than the BS sources they get online. But, because there was a kernel of truth to Hillary handling her email server inappropriately and she didn't own up to that early, the right was able to piggyback a boatload of narrative on top of it and lots of independent voters bought into that perception.

A "cleaner" Democratic candidate like Biden, would have carried this election easily. I don't think it was about Hillary not being progressive enough and progressives not being enthused. It was the independents who saw a false equivalency of Hillary and Trump both being bad choices.

Whiskeytide

(4,461 posts)
76. Our diversity - and differences - are what...
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 11:24 AM
Dec 2016

... make us who we are -Democrats. I think we give something up if we adopt the universal like-mindedness of the republicans.

MrPurple

(985 posts)
77. If Hillary had 272 delegates, no one would have defected
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 11:40 AM
Dec 2016

If Hillary won the electoral college, but barely, delegates wouldn't have defected and cost her the election. Since Hillary didn't have a chance to win, some delegates chose to vote their heart, and the couple that voted for Colin Powell were probably trying to get Republicans to come along and compromise with them. Remember, they meet in 50 separate state capitols, so a Democratic delegation doesn't know in real time what a Republican delegation in another state is doing. They were hoping for some compromise Republicans, who didn't join them. Reince Priebus canvassed the Repub electors repeatedly and was focused on keeping them in line. The DNC didn't care as much because there was no chance of getting 270 anyway.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
79. That's not really the point
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 11:51 AM
Dec 2016

The Democrats are plagued with division because a certain percentage is more concerned with getting their way than policy and the overall direction of the nation. I'm not just talking about Bernie or Busters. This has happened in previous elections, and the overall result has been that we lose and the GOP takes the country ever more sharply to the right. The division destroys us.

Republicans didn't consider Trump perfect. Substantial number disliked him, but they still united, while we tear each other apart and doom ourselves to losing.


zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
82. Your analysis isn't consistent with the larger trends
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 12:16 PM
Dec 2016

Your analysis rests entirely upon the outcome of one race. But it doesn't explain all the races lost in the last 8 years or more. It doesn't explain the lost House or Senate.

We've been losing, and continue to lose, because the message that has been crafted by candidates such as Clinton, and the larger Third Way, conservative wing of the party isn't playing anymore. Really, it hasn't played in 16 years. Gore was moving away from it for goodness sakes. Obama won running to the left of that message. Some of us have been warning for years that we were losing the lower middle class. "Losing" doesn't mean the majority, it means that minority/plurality that wins elections in specific states. Obama just lectured that you have to go into the "red" counties and work to get a minority of those voters, to help you win the whole state. You can try to blame this on Bernie or whomever, but the bottom line is that the larger message loses in too many places.

And Obama said recently that part of the democratic weakness is the tendency to focus on national/international issues and not work nearly as much at the state level. There is a lot of truth in that. Unfortunately, I think Obama has had a hand in that problem that he won't admit.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
86. What was third way or conservative about Clinton's policy positions?
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 12:49 PM
Dec 2016

And if you're analysis is correct, why did Feingold and Teachout lose by bigger margins than Clinton?

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
87. Because it isn't driven by individual speaches
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:08 PM
Dec 2016

The larger point is that the party message is hard to shake regardless of who you are. If you are seen as one of the people that built the historical message upon which democrats have been running for a couple of decades you're gonna take a hit. It's the message that is a problem.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
91. So policy is irrelevant
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 01:54 PM
Dec 2016

And it had nothing to do with what she actually ran on.
You decided she was an appendage of her husband and not worth considering in her own right. You can then hardly claim her proposals weren't progressive enough when your yourself didn't care enough about issues or policy to even consider them.

How can you expect the electorate at large to care about policies and issues when you don't?

It turns out third way is not about ideology or policy. It mean she's a woman--she was married to a third way pol from the 90s, so why concern yourself with her plans for the nation? She just didn't have the presidential look.

Your post shows why this country is fucked. You focus exclusively on image and association and not one bit on substance. And I'm supposed to agree to vote as people like you tell me to, when you don't even care about what a candidate actually proposes and are content to throw around derogatory labels based on what amounts to nothing? No. I will continue to examine candidate's policy positions and voting record and make my decisions based on actual evidence. And I certainly will not agree to allow a faction of the party who cares about none of that to dictate how I vote.

This is why we now have a fascist government about to take power, not because Clinton was too centrist but because voters don't actually care about policy. You just undermined your argument about progressive vs. centrist ideas by admitting you focused entirely on image. With an electorate that cares about nothing, we get a government that does nothing for them. This is exactly why we have Donald Trump about to become president.

Third way is not something the broader electorate contemplates. It is a label used by a certain segment of progressives. When you talk about not being able to shake a third way message, you mean to voters like yourself, not the general electorate. Everything you have said undermines your claims that the party wasn't progressive enough. For that to be a factor, people have to actually give a shit about policy and issues, and you just admitted it wasn't about that.














zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
95. Can be
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:02 PM
Dec 2016

You can count the number of times that policy mattered on one hand, and that isn't just presidential races. Florida is one of those states that has a senator of each party. You think that's because their policy is so similar?

And don't try to blame this on me, I voted FOR her. I'm not sure why you're so mad at me. I'm just trying to explain why she lost. If you don't want to hear it, don't post here.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
98. You are arguing the problem is that she was Third Way
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:11 PM
Dec 2016

but that wasn't the problem because she isn't Third Way. Even you couldn't point to a Third Way position she took. Rather, her husband had been Third Way. Moreover, average voters don't think about such things. That is something a segment of the Dem party does. You can't argue that both that the party isn't progressive enough and that policy doesn't matter. The two points are fundamentally incompatible.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
103. Third Way message
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:08 PM
Dec 2016

I'm saying the Party has the remnants of the Third Way message still in the ears of the voters. Candidates can try to walk away from that, but especially someone so closely associated with it will struggle to succeed. Especially among a population looking for "change". There is little "trust" in politicians at all in this country, and that makes it difficult to accomplish it with a position paper, especially after all the money making from speeches. Look even Feingold had the problem of being "last years answer to this years problems". Like I say, you have states that flip their senate parties year after year. You think that is because of their policy positions? It's the reputation they have built over years. Parties do that to, they build reputations. Among a minority of the voters, the democrats have built a reputation and their message has failed. "Failed" with a minority of the voters in a limited region of the country. But it has failed anyway.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
109. If that were true
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:24 PM
Dec 2016

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Why did Obama win in 08 and 12? His wins were closer to the era of the Third Way.

You still haven't said what a third Way message is or how Clinton delivered it. You are talking about a historical memory of the third way. Do you have any evidence a majority of voters even know what the third way is, let alone care?

Democrats bore the burden of incumbency, which is different from the Third Way. That is an obsession of yours and those looking the smear Clinton without having to talk about policy or anything substantive.

I doesn't look to me like you actually know what Third Way means. It sounds like you're just repeating something you've heard. It hasn't nothing to do with trust or being yesterday's news. It was a political strategy and ideology that emerged at the end of the Reagan era as an effort to make Democrats competitive in a conservative political climate.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
113. You're trying really hard to avoid the point.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 09:09 PM
Dec 2016

Obama won by running to the left of Clinton the first time around. He distinctly avoided association with the DLC and that whole wing of the party. He was successful in the primary because of many factors including his association with the Iraq war and he benefited at that time from the "no more Clinton" democrats. His second run benefited greatly from many aspects including a GOTV that turned out minority votes in numbers we many never see again.

I agree that the burden of incumbency was significant in the Presidential, it doesn't speak to the other races over the last 8 years. The democrats find themselves in the worst place compared to where they were 8 years ago than anytime since FDR. I'm suggesting it is because that "strategy and ideology" long ago stopped working and candidates that can be smeared with it because of past association have trouble getting elected. And I'm not just talking the presidential race.

 

Ohioblue22

(1,430 posts)
84. We lose because ultimately too many Democrats or progressives care more about getting their way tha
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 12:31 PM
Dec 2016

We lose because ultimately too many Democrats or progressives care more about getting their way than the well-being of the country.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
105. I could have sworn Democrats won the Presidency in 2008. That primary campain...
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:32 PM
Dec 2016

was even more divisive than the 2016 one with much more acrimony between the candidates.

Heck one of the candidates even implied the Republican nominee was more qualified than her
primary opponent.

Gothmog

(145,231 posts)
93. The Democratic electors were not properly vetted
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:00 PM
Dec 2016

In Texas, electors are elected at the state convention from each senate district and some at large. The grass root Clinton groups and the Clinton campaign had a program to vet both electors and persons for various key committees as the state convention. To my knowledge,no Sanders delegate was selected as an elector to avoid the problems that happened yesterday. We had an idiot young lawyer/sanders delegate run in my Senate District and we voted him down in favor of a past county party chair who was well known in the party. Again, the man who won the race was vetted in advanced and was someone we trusted.

It appears that many states did not carefully vet their electors. You got to take the process seriously and it is clear that Sanders supporters are not really democrats and cannot be trusted.

BTW, I have heard from my sources that the four Texas GOP electors who were replaced were told that that if they voted for someone other than Trump, then they would be persona non gratis in Texas GOP politics. The Texas GOP electors were allowed to not show up and be replaced. Again, the Texas GOP vetted their electors and made sure that their electors were faithful.

If these other state parties are like Texas, these faithless electors are in for a surprise. These electors will not be trusted in the future and state party types hold grudges.

Since I knew how the process worked, I never had any real hope that the Elctoral college would not vote for Trump. The vetting process and the threat of retaliation by the state party are both very effective tools.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
94. The Dems have to play hardball that way
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:01 PM
Dec 2016

Just like the GOP. There is far too much accommodation of ratfucking.

Gothmog

(145,231 posts)
124. I agree-I was just pointing out how the selection of electors was done in another state
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:55 PM
Dec 2016

The decision was made to not allow any Sanders supporters to become electors in Texas. This was a good decision

 

Generator

(7,770 posts)
101. So much Hillary hatred
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:53 PM
Dec 2016

And here my post can get deleted again: I do not think that Obama stood up for her enough. He didn't fire Comey (yes he could) he barely defended against the Russian interference-he knew about it in September but didn't want to be "political" . If our number one Dem isn't really all the way in our corner, what the fuck do you expect from the voters?

Oh and he was urging her to concede early on election night. And then he comes out to paraphrase we didn't get out the votes-implying she wasn't "liked" enough. She did amazingly well considering everything.

She stood against the beast that is scum of the planet Trump. She showed so much courage and grace with all that was thrown against her. "Both equally hated" BULL. Sanders couldn't be bothered to CALL her after the election. She is the only one I still respect. Obama has been pathetic in response to the Trump win.

And you are correct the only faithless electors were for Dems. It's pathetic. And YES I do blame "identity politics". Women are treated so much differently and unfairly.

I came to have love for Hillary and I never even could stand her eight years ago. I look at what people do. I forgive mistakes. I paid attention. THE NATION WAS/IS as stake. And Obama/Sanders and all the rest failed HER. (and the country)


CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
133. How did OBAMA fail her? Blaming him is a very tired tack.
Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:44 AM
Dec 2016

He, and Joe, and Michelle, and Jill, turned out.

Not to rehash 2008, but even then, he stayed high while she went pretty low.

And unlike PUMAs whom I KNOW did not vote for him in 2008 or 2012, I voted for her this election.

If President Obama had lost either time, I'm sure the blame would be placed solely on how HE ran HIS campaign.

While SoS Clinton confronted a perfect storm of contributing factors, President Obama is NOT one of them.

joshcryer

(62,270 posts)
108. The Republicans are masters as inciting division within our party.
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:11 PM
Dec 2016

Trump literally invoked Sanders in his speeches repeatedly to cause that division. Many on the left brought it hook line and sinker. It is what it is. Nothing can be done about it because Democrats tend to be rationally thinking and not one cohesive unit.

yuiyoshida

(41,831 posts)
111. Wow, we are in for it, for the next four years
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 06:27 PM
Dec 2016

if this country even survives. I don't think Trump wants to rule like a President, more like as a dictator, so you have to wonder, how is that going to work, if he does? IF he clears the house and Senate of Democrats, and replaces them illegally, with Right wing Republicans, who will rule his way, we are just going to be so screwed. The Republicans un-doing every single bit of legislation over the past 50 years that represented progress.

Imagine, taking away voter rights from everyone who is not a White rich Republican, and that's not even the worst of it...the things he has planned, will turn us into a Banana Republic with a Right wing dictator at the helm.

He doesn't even want the Secret Service, but his own Thug security force. Ya gotta know the second he gets into office, things are going to change fast. The Law and Order President will only follow his own Laws...those he makes up to enforce.

Seriously, I hope California breaks away and becomes its own County.

AlexSFCA

(6,137 posts)
114. intelligence can be a curse
Tue Dec 20, 2016, 09:21 PM
Dec 2016

Our intelligence is our own shortcoming. We don't have republican sheepness to blindly follow whatever they throw at us. We need to have a movement within our party for the common good, higher goals. I have many friends who were Bernie fans and even though they voted for Clinton they still don't care for her, they killed enthusiasm. Those are the people who always like to blame somebody else but themselves.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The electoral vote today ...