A pessimistic prediction from Joy-Ann Reid. Read it anyway: she could well be right about everything

[DFW]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/17/president-elect-donald-trump-gets-to-work-betraying-his-backers.html?via=newsletter&source=DDAfternoon

Chilling, but hard to dismiss. I hope she's wrong about a lot of this, but find a lot to agree with--unfortunately!

[frazzled]

1. I disagree

The people who voted for Trump knew exactly what they were voting for, and they either agreed with his extremist views on all these subjects Joy has mentioned, or they turned the other cheek on the false and/or scary stuff and voted for him for some other reasons.

They will not be betrayed: they will get exactly what they deserve. The rest of us don't deserve it. Neither does the nation.

[DFW]

2. Well, I'm with you halfway

Last edited Thu Nov 17, 2016, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)

They will not be betrayed--well, not in Trump's eyes, but that's only because he buys into the Republican mantra that "if you're rich, you deserve it, and if you're poor, you deserve it."

I think he somehow managed to convince half the Rust Belt that he was going to bring back the 1950s, mainly because they wanted to be convinced of it. I think he also tapped into a darker side of the equation that discloses that lots of people in a bad or hopeless situation feel better when they can be mean to someone else. This does not die out with bullying at school.

They will get exactly what they deserve--100% correct, but they THINK they deserve the opposite, and they will somehow find a way to rationalize that fact that they got conned as someone else's fault--usually "the Libbruls."

I think only some of the people who voted for Trump truly knew what they were voting for. The rest hadn't the faintest clue.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Blanks]

5. You're right on the money on this...

"I think has also tapped into a darker side of the equation that discloses that lots of people in a bad or hopeless situation feel better when they can be mean to someone else."

My conservative friends on FaceBook are all over drug testing welfare recipients, and taking away food stamps (even though many of them are on, or have been on food stamps).

Just as Reagan successfully blamed the small business failures (particularly small farms) on Carter during his administration, we will see the Trump crew successfully blame all of his failures on Obama.

[nashville_brook]

3. she's been wrong about mostly everything

why stop now?

[Raven]

4. why do you think that? She's

an excellent journalist. The only thing she's been wrong about lately is the election and most everyone was wrong about that.

[heaven05]

8. to hell with that

a majority of us democrats were wrong. Did you call it for the trumpfuhrer to be POTUS? If so, okay. But Ms. Reid has been a breath of fresh air given the total capitulation of MSM to the New Nazi Party of AmeriKKKa and their fuhrer.

[DirkGently]

6. It could be that bad, but Joy Reid is a terrible analyst.

She lost her mind during the election, screaming about Soviet-era communism on Twitter (Did you know that Trump, Sanders, Putin, Snowden, and the Green Party are all commies in league with the Soviet Union, which has not existed for 25 years? Joy-Ann Reid did!) and snapping at Trump surrogates on MSNBC in such a childish way that she actually looked like the less reasonable person.

I do agree with her to the extent that it's not Trump himself, who has few ideas that are even within the realm of possibility, but with the Ryans and Boltons and so forth he's surrounding himself with that may become the real power once he gets bored or overwhelmed with a job I think he never really thought he would have that we have to worry about.

[MADem]

11. You might benefit from a perusal of this article.

I want to point out that this article is STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth, as it were--the government controlled, government constrained, Putin mouthpiece RT:


https://www.rt.com/politics/340158-most-russians-regret-ussr-has/

Most Russians regret USSR collapse, dream of its return, poll shows

On the one hand, he doesn't want to bring it back, on the other, the collapse of the USSR was THE major geopolitical disaster of the previous century, according to Vlad. And of course, there's this poll...mmmm hmmmm.


You can, of course, choose to NOT view that as a harbinger, if you'd like. But then, maybe you might want to give this a glance:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26769481

Vladimir Putin: The rebuilding of ‘Soviet’ Russia

.

.."He does not understand that the collapse of the Soviet system was predetermined, therefore he believes his mission is to restore the Soviet system as soon as possible," he says.

As a middle-ranking KGB officer who loved the Soviet Union, Putin lacked the perspective of senior officers, who knew full well the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own inefficiency rather than because of Western plotting, Bukovsky says.

"It leads him exactly to… repeat the same mistakes. He wants this whole country to be controlled by one person from the Kremlin, which will lead to disaster," he says.

Putin's decision to invade Crimea was taken quickly and impulsively, by a small group of his favoured top officials. That means Putin has no one to warn him of the long-term consequences of his actions, and until he finds out for himself, he will maintain his course. That means relations with the West will remain uncomfortable, especially in areas he considers to be his "zone of legitimate interests".

But we can't say we weren't warned.

And now, he's got a puppet in the White House....


But wait, there's more: It's not the revived USSR--it's just Fascism! No worries!

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/05/26/Putin-Isn-t-Reviving-USSR-He-s-Creating-Fascist-State

[DirkGently]

12. Well, no. Poor Joy-Ann literally thinks there is still a Soviet Russia.

And that the Green Party, Snowden, and Sander are all into it, somehow! COMMIEEES! COMMIEESS EVERYWHERE! AIIEEEEE!

Follow

Joy ReidVerified account
‏@JoyAnnReid


Joy ReidVerified account
‏@JoyAnnReid
That said, for most Americans it's shocking to see an American presidential candidate openly touting authoritarian, communist Russia...


Even Jill Stein, who's taken the socialist Green Party full Putinite, and the Putin-tilting Snowdenistas haven't been nearly as successful.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/joy-reid-roundly-derided-for-tweeting-that-russia-is-still-a-communist-state/

You can paint Trump as sympathetic to Putin, and Putin as a product of the Soviet era, but that doesn't get you anywhere near even Trump touting communism itself, much less Sanders, Snowden, or the Green Party.

Most people recognized that.

In addition to taking her to task for the anachronism, many accused her of drawing spurious connections between communism and modern Russia in order to demonize the far-left.

“I imagine the old time American Communist Party is spinning in its collective grave with envy at what Trump is accomplishing,” Reid tweeted.

She drew explicit comparisons between Putinism and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who she claimed had “taken the socialist Green Party full Putinite.” She also took aim at “the Putin-tilting Snowdenistas.”

Danielle Ryan ✔@DanielleRyanJ
Level of knowledge American journos have of today's Russia

When did Russia become "communist" again, @JoyAnnReid?

Gary Johnson's knowledge about Syria vastly outpaces Joy Reid's understanding of Russia

@JoyAnnReid you do realize formal communism in Russia ended in 1991, right?

Follow

Anya ParampilVerified account
‏@anyaparampil Anya Parampil Retweeted Joy Reid

Does @JoyAnnReid know the Soviet Union collapsed? Why does it all come back to commie bashing?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/joy-reid-roundly-derided-for-tweeting-that-russia-is-still-a-communist-state/

And even as for that, Putin is running a distinctly capitalist kleptocracy. You might look into his eyes and see "KGB," but he won't be turning over the means of production to the state any time soon.

Joy-Ann simply lost her damn mind at some point, and either forgot that the Soviet era ended 25 years ago, or just thought "commie" was the worst thing you could call anyone, and therefore should apply to anyone she disagreed with. To be that misinformed, and that unhinged, should disqualify her as a professional commentator anywhere in the public sphere.

[MADem]

15. I think she's using the word as shorthand for "old school USSR, only with BMWs and high fashion"

One big strongman, rubber-stamp legislature, no Pravda in Isvestia and no Isvestia in Pravda, that kind of thing. And he LOVED the KGB, Pootie did--that's where he got his "mindset" about the powerful Soviet Union with influence across a wide swathe of the globe. Same shit, but no food shortages and you can buy UGGs at the (more than one) department store(s). He's consolidating power like mad, and he does want to bring back the Old School Empire, under a "wise leader" (himself) who is both strong and charismatic.

Twitter does not lend itself to verbosity.

As for Assange, I think Putin has been paying his bills from the get-go. Funny how all those Russian docs somehow never got released, but never mind that, eh?

Same with Snowden--I think he's been on the Russki take for years. Personally, I believe Snowden was turned when he was working in Japan, and the deal was sealed when he vacationed in Hong Kong during that assignment. That's why he was able to find the Russian consulate in that rather obscure high rise so easily--he'd been there before.

I also think our intel services KNOW this, but they don't want to let us know they know, for reasons that are obvious to them but perhaps not so to the rest of us.

I don't think he's America's Kim Philby, either--I think he got in it for the money, and was caught out when they actually started looking at clearance renewals and found out that he lied-lied-lied with regard to his education (which is a massive crime--that and debt are real no-no's). He told them he'd get the documentation, that it must have been a mistake, and then he claimed to have epilepsy and needed to see a specialist....and then "POOF" ... he disappeared to HK. I do not believe he "tried" to blow any whistles, but I do think he took money from Pootie's boys to improve his lifestyle. He may have been making north of 120K a year, but only 80 of that was from US government coffers. IMO, anyway.

Joy Reid is not misinformed or unhinged. That's just not a valid assessment of her at all. She used poor shorthand, is all.

As for Sanders, he liked the old USSR, which was a bit weird. His kibbutz basically worshipped Joe Stalin, they sang the Internationale and hoisted the red flag. Weirder still, he claimed to have "forgotten" the name of the kibbutz when he remembered it easily a few years earlier when talking to an Israeli paper. Hmmmm. And he did go to USSR on an "exchange" as mayor of Burlington, and cheaply turned it into his honeymoon as well. He schlepped off to visit Daniel Ortega and went to Cuba, too, when most people weren't doing that. He touted it like it was a paradise rather than an improved shithole (it was up from awful, but that's about all you could say about it) and also opined that he thought waiting in line for food wasn't so bad, and that people had too many choices in US markets (remember the "deodorant" whine?). Some of his writings had that old school "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" vibe. So, I don't think she was off the mark on that at all. At this stage of the game, though, he can live like a high ranking Politburo member--he's got his dacha at the shore...not quite a "regular" guy. Like Nader. And wealthy suburbanite Stein (who also is has visited Putin's Russia and listened attentively to him while he spoke at some dinner).

[Grey Lemercier]

31. Read the OP, lightweight dart toss guessing/projection, and your

post confirmed for me she is slightly daft. I really dont see what all the hype is about with her.

[BainsBane]

43. She isn't daft at all

either you have never listened to her, read her, or have awful judgment.

[Grey Lemercier]

46. I stand by daft

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/774287115815387136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


“I imagine the old time American Communist Party is spinning in its collective grave with envy at what Trump is accomplishing,”



but, to each their own

[BainsBane]

44. screaming?

Since when is one tweet "screaming"? Do you know how many DUers (most of them Busters and now Pinebaggers) insisted that Putin was some leftist hero? They act like Putin is some socialist champion. She was talking about his authoritarianism. She used the wrong word. Can you honestly say you've never used a mistaken word in your life?

[heaven05]

7. I agree

on EVERYTHING she said about the upcoming tenure of the leader of the New Nazi Party of America and his minions. House, Senate? We are the minority. I'll wait and see but things seem to be shifting in a manner by people mentioned by Ms. Reid in the direction she pointed out. AmeriKKKa is on the greased slide to total decline, except for the rich. They will get richer. May they choke on their riches and golden, gilded toilets. New Depression, for the common person, on the way. Get ready to eat dandilion leaf salad again.

[DinahMoeHum]

9. Bill Gross of Janus Capital had this to say the other day. . .

https://www.janus.com/insights/bill-gross-investment-outlook

(snip)
His tenure will be a short four years but is likely to be a damaging one for jobless and low-wage American voters. They were the force for Trump's flipping the Midwest into a Republican Electoral College victory. But while the Fox promised jobs and to make America great again, his policies of greater defense and infrastructure spending combined with lower corporate taxes to invigorate the private sector continue to favor capital versus labor, markets versus wages, and is a continuation of the status quo.
(snip)
Populism is on the march and a Trump victory will do little to halt its advance in future decades. If anything, it is demographically baked in the cake. Investors, as The Economist astutely pointed out, face a possible no-win situation. Unless the worker's share of GDP reverses its downward trend, and capital's share peaks, then populists worldwide will reject establishment parties in almost every future election – initiating in some cases growth-negative policies revolving around trade, immigration, and yes, in Trump's case, lower taxation that may lower GDP growth, not raise it.

Global populism is the wave of the future, but it has taken a wrong turn in America. Investors must drive with caution, understanding that higher deficits resulting from lower taxes raise interest rates and inflation, which in turn have the potential to produce lower earnings and P/E ratios. There is no new Trump bull market in the offing. Be satisfied with 3-5% globally diversified returns. The Wall Street, finance-led hegemon is fading. The Populist sunrise has barely broken the horizon.
(snip)

[yallerdawg]

10. Good perspective and analysis.

Ms. Reid writes:

...an openness to the aspirations of racial, ethnic and religious minorities will always produce a fierce backlash among the country’s majority population and cost the party dearly, have proven thrice true in the modern era—in the bloody political aftermath of Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama. All three marched the country forward on race, culture and economics, only to cede federal and state governmental power for years to the Republican right, which quickly proceeded, each time, to reward the rich and the powerful on the backs of their working class supporters who just wanted to feel like winners again.

[Grey Lemercier]

32. The US was a shitshow at the end of Johnsons term, and

she then posits the great white 3rd way welfare cutter Clinton, who brickbatted all but the nubs of the old fashioned Johnsonian Great Society programmes, as achieving her claims via similar linkage.

I rate this a logical disconnect.

[athena]

13. Democrats always move right after a loss.

I said this to Bernie supporters who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton, but they would have none of it. Those of us who lived through Gore v. Bush remember only too well that the Democratic Party moved way right after Gore lost, and did not move back to the left until after Bush had become extremely unpopular. But no, those Bernie supporters knew better than the rest of us! I hope they enjoy the next eight years. (Yes, I said eight. Naderites also said W. would be a one-term president.)

[DirkGently]

14. Democrats move LEFT after a conservative wrecks things.

Obama was no wild-eyed liberal, but that was largely how he was perceived. After eight years of Bush, left is exactly where Dems (theoretically) went.

We will not be running another neoliberal in 2020. Not successfully, anyway.

And Sanders supporters didn't lose the election for us. Clinton got six million fewer votes than Obama, and the movement was in lack of black and Latino support.

[MADem]

16. LOL--most of the "Obama Scolds" here (most of whom have departed or been tossed over the side)

spent the last eight years screeching that he was slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.

I perceived Obama as a moderate on most issues, and a bit leftish when it came to societal issues. I don't think I was alone in that assessment.

And they're still counting, she could get close to Obama's total:

The uncounted votes aren’t going to change the final outcome of the election (they’re not clustered in swing states) but, because millions are in the blue state of California, they could increase Hillary Clinton’s popular vote totals to historic dimensions. Around the country, various state races and issues – such as marijuana legalization propositions and the North Carolina governor’s race – could be affected. Clinton could come closer to Barack Obama’s overall 2012 popular vote total.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/popular-vote-clinton-trump-hillary-2016-2012-2008-uncounted-ballots-electoral-college-presidential-election-results-california/

[DirkGently]

17. Obama was left of Hillary, and America chose him

over her. It's true he wasn't liberal enough for liberals, but at the time he was hailed (and attacked) as "the most liberal Senator in America."

That is who won for Democrats after the last Republican disaster.

If we're lucky, Trump will bring Republicans crashing to the ground (with whatever part of America he takes with him).

But we won't be looking to the right wing of our party then either.

[MADem]

18. Hillary's not terribly "right." She's a product of her times, and has a JFK attitude on defense.

I agree with it, actually. She's not a warmonger but she doesn't believe in taking any crap from anyone. And socially, she's long been tracking with or to the left of Obama.

People seem to forget that her FIRST effort was for that Universal Health Care, when she was FLOTUS.

It's fiction and a shit meme with misogynist roots that paints HRC as a rightie. But she's spent three decades or more being lied about. It's a shame when her own people pick up those lies and repeat them.

[DirkGently]

19. She's right of Obama, and Obama WON.

Is the point. No one here said she was a right-winger, but supporting the war in Iraq and adopting Kissinger as your guide to foreign intervention is one of many reasons progressives don't care for Clinton.

Why anyone thought we could race back to the 1990s, when the Clintons formed their national political identity, and "liberal" was thought to be a dirty word, is anyone's guess.

[MADem]

20. I don't think so. I think she is left of him on social programs, particularly women/kids issues.

And that whole Kissinger dog just doesn't hunt. Read her book. Stop perpetuating those right wing lies that were seeded out there in Bernieland to disaffect the masses.

[DirkGently]

21. She signed off on Iraq and opposed

marriage equality for years. She called abortion "tragic," and argued it should be "safe, legal, and RARE."

I think her health care efforts overall were among her most admirable accomplishments, but those were not "left" in any way.

She ran right of Obama in the 2008 primary and lost. Obama won a second term and will maybe land as the most popular president in our lifetimes.

The theory that the Dems could slide back to the right was a mistake backed by hopeful corporatists who correctly saw Clinton as someone would never get in the way of monied interests.

That theory was wrong.

[MADem]

22. Her state is where three thousand people were murdered.

Her constituents--whether or not they will admit it now--WANTED her to vote the way she did. They didn't care who the fuck "did" it, they wanted a head on a pike.

She explained her vote at the time, and acknowledged later that it was a mistake to trust GWB. But hey, that's important now? Yeah, sure. So damn important that the only one who gets scolded for a bad vote is Clinton. Everyone else, it seems, gets a pass. So stow that Sarandon - level nonsense (she who couldn't support Clinton FOR THAT REASON, yet managed to support John Edwards, who cast the EXACT SAME VOTE). Too obvious.

Obama opposed marriage equality too--where's your poutrage for him? It's just HILLARY that gets gigged on that -- funny how that shit works. Hmmmm.

You know, politicians that don't do a fucking thing, despite decades in office, never ever make mistakes. Give me someone who strives and learns over someone who sits on their ass and tries to take credit for signing on to the work of others.

I think most sane people would call the need to have an abortion tragic. It's not like getting a zit popped, it's a significant medical procedure that is not without risk and one that does present a whole "road not taken" thought process for some (not all, but some). I think most people who have gotten abortions would have greatly preferred to not have to have been in the position to need one, but they were glad that the procedure was available to them. And "safe/legal/rare" doesn't mean anything more than that. Would you prefer the opposite? Hmmm? How's about "risky/illegal/common as peanuts at the ballpark?" I mean, come off it. That's just wingnut FUD. She has expressed a clear and unwavering support for a woman's right to control her own medical decisions, so trying to drag up that shit is -- AGAIN -- that right wing bifurcation that was stirred up out in Berniestan, created for the faithful to vomit, meaninglessly, where there's no damn difference, and yet, you're persisting in trying to create one, well, it's bullshit--and obvious.

If you're so concerned about "moneyed interests" you probably should check to see who's Trump's frontrunner for Treasury. Talk about something to cry about... HRC would have included Betsy (her childhood name) Warren in her inner circle--probably as an informal advisor initially, with an eye towards FED CHAIR when that gig opened up. Alas, not to be. Ironically, the most sanctimonious assholes who smugly voted Green or Libertarian rather than vote for the GIRL will probably be the worst screwed by the Trump adminstration. They can pay their bills and do their grocery shopping with that sense of "Ah HA! I showed HER and her supporters!!!" that they got.

I don't think the party should kiss their asses--I think they should just tell them that they can go where their racist hearts take them--to the GOP. Because THIS is the bottom line:

https://vimeo.com/191751334


It is a MUST WATCH. And I agree with

every.

single.

word.

[DirkGently]

25. You seem angry. But Hillary is still right of Obama of course.

I showed you examples of her policy positions that show it; it's not really even a question. I have noted with others that Obama did not publicly back marriage equality, although he has said he privately always did; whereas Hillary could only choke out a non-answer about "the country having evolved."

Iraq was a bad, hawkish decision by everyone who made it. Maybe the most critical foreign policy mistake in modern history. More than a trillion dollars. Thousands of dead and many more disabled. It was based on an obvious set of lies and made things worse. We're still paying for it terms of fallout and continuing wars. It counts.

We didn't pick a Dem as conservative as Hillary the last time we were stuck with a terrible Republican, and it was frankly a bad idea to think we should move backward this time.

It's neither likely nor a good idea that we do that again.

[yallerdawg]

33. Oh, snap - Hillary did this?

And we passed on this obviously all-powerful, omnipotent being?

Who profoundly changed America while holding no office!

We really screwed up.

[MADem]

35. And you seem like you want to characterize me. Rather obviously, too.

But you continue to dither about unimportant policy issues that have resolved themselves. HRC is pro-equality. Sorry that you can't handle that, but that's the truth. You keep crabbing about the past, and it only matters to you.

You seem to forget that Lefty Bernie was against marriage equality as recently as 2006. He came right out and said he did not approve of marriage, that he wanted to go along and get along with civil unions. He's on video saying that. But hey, that's the Bold Left? GMAFB.

Iraq is history, and whining about it isn't going to change anything. We don't know how Obama would have voted on that matter, he wasn't around for it. Real easy to take the "right" stand after the fact--not that I blame him. Who wouldn't play the hindsight 20/20 game if they had a chance?

If you think the Democratic party is going to march leftward in 2020 like they did in 1972, I have a rickety bridge to sell you. Wear your water wings when you cross over it.

[JTFrog]

34. I applaud your stamina.

I can't take all the blithering idiocy around here seriously anymore.

All those who enabled Trump can fuck right off.

[MADem]

36. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

It can't be said too often:

All those who enabled Trump can fuck right off.

[DirkGently]

40. It can't be that the institutionally-annointed candidate failed, eh?

There was an attempt this time to build an ugly coalition around the idea that a Wall Street friendly, status-quo candidate who simply wasn't a frothing moron would win because she was more socially acceptable. Corporate Dems thought they had an unbeatable "coalition" in that everyone socially offended by Trump would rush out to avoid the specter of his election.

But Hillary promised to change nothing for people. The minimum wage should go up, but not too much. Education should be more accessible, but not universally acceptable. Wall Street could just be told to "cut it out."

Not good enough. Bad pie-in-the-sky beat "No we can't."

We could learn something from this, but a lot of people are really invested in 90's-era triangulation that leaves wealth blissfully intact as long as we're nicer to people.

[JI7]

38. Obama was not left of Hillary on economic issues

[athena]

23. So let's just let the conservatives wreck things. Brilliant.

Absolutely brilliant. I suppose that was why so many Bernie supporters stayed home or voted for Jill Stein. Good job. Now we can wait eight years for the Democratic Party to move left.

It will be eight years, by the way. I guess you weren't around when Nader supporters were making exactly the same point you're making now: that W. would be a one-term president, that four years of W. wouldn't be the end of the world, and that the Democratic Party would learn its lesson and move left. Some of us learned our lesson. Others, it seems, have not.

[DirkGently]

24. Wait. Who's "letting the conservatives wreck things?"

Trump's already been elected. We're going to go somewhere, and the point is simply that history doesn't suggest another neoliberal Dem is the way we'll go when the time comes.

Hillary lost because she pulled between 7 and 10 million fewer black and Latino votes than Obama.

Sorry, but teeny tiny "Jill Stein" and the Bernie supporters who backed a candidate who actually could have won aren't the problem here.

Good lord. Take a breath, maybe.

[athena]

26. Attacking Hillary and letting Trump win was not the way to move the Democratic Party left.

If you really think the Democratic Party will run a true liberal in 2020, you're dreaming. Read some history. Read the article that the OP linked. The Democratic Party will move to the right and abandon women and minorities until all hell breaks loose and there is a clear backlash against Trump and Pence. Don't count on that to happen in the next six years.

When Democrats lose, the Democratic Party concludes that it is too far to the left of the public. If you wanted a true liberal to run the presidency, you should have supported Hillary like your life depended on it. A Hillary win would have indicated to the Democratic Party that the public is becoming less conservative. Trump's win indicates to them that the public is still extremely conservative.

But I'm wasting time arguing with a Bernie supporter. Enjoy attacking and hating Hillary. That will make things so much better.

BTW, "teeny tiny" Jill Stein got more votes than Trump's margin in both Wisconsin and Michigan.

[DirkGently]

27. Uh? Now it was liberal Dems who defeated Hillary in the general election?

C'mon, now.

You'll pardon me if I question the logic of that.

Is your position that there shouldn't have been a primary, or that people who preferred another candidate had a duty to pick your candidate immediately, in case she won the primary, to provide a greater aura of support ... or something?

I didn't beat Hillary. I voted for her. My spouse, who dislikes Hillary much more intensely, also voted for her. If you want us to go back in time and apologize for not liking her for all the reasons she did not in fact win the election, that's unreasonable and frankly a bit weird.

I'm a little annoyed myself with her supporters for failing to own the fact they backed a candidate with too much baggage to win, with polls showing her far less likely than Sanders to beat Trump head-to-head, and dismissing even the possibility we might consider ideas other than hers, for the perfectly valid reasons people gave.

You should at least admit we nominated the wrong person, but short of that, you have absolutely no basis to blame other Democrats for her loss.

As for who we'll nominate to fight Trump next time, again, we followed the Bush years with Obama, who was at least claimed to be "the most liberal Senator in America," and who is in fact a bit to the left of Clinton. There's no reason for neoliberals to presume we will return with their failed approach "next time."

[athena]

29. We did nominate the wrong person.

We nominated a woman in a country that is so hatefully misogynistic that it can't even recognize its misogyny. We should have known the level of raw hatred that the candidacy of a smart, capable, and ambitious woman would induce in the populace. I predicted this when Hillary first decided to run. I knew that her campaign would bring all the misogynists out of the woodwork, and I was afraid she would lose the election as a result.

But go on believing that Hillary lost because of Hillary and that some other woman would easily have won.

You continue to miss my original point: it is not about what will happen four or eight years from now. It is about what will happen in the next four years. You appear not to have lived through eight years of W., or at least not paid attention. If it weren't for W., there would be no ISIS today. There would be no extreme right-wing movement in Western Europe. Hundreds of thousands of people would be alive who are dead today. Afghanistan and Iraq would not be a mess. The environment would be much healthier. The economy would be much better.

But who cares about all that, when you can run a sufficiently liberal white guy in four years?

Enjoy the next four years. I'm sure feeling right about Hillary not being the right candidate will make it sooo much better for you. The rest of us who are not white men are not so lucky as to be able to ignore what is happening in real time.

[DirkGently]

30. Back up. You said, "Democrats always move right after a loss."

I responded to that with the fact that it's simply not true. Where you get the temerity to turn that into an accusation that people who don't think Clinton was a great choice are happy about Trump is a mystery and you ought to walk that back a few yards.

Dems you don't agree with didn't make Hillary lose. SHE JUST LOST.

I have always thought misogyny played into the general conservative hatred of Hillary Clinton. But they have had 25 years to turn an obvious leading Democratic contender, with publicly stated Presidential ambitions, into a bogeyman. They could have done that to anyone, and would have tried. Her negatives were a known problem, and however much of that was unfair, it should not have been ignored.

But there was no massive outpouring of white or male votes for Trump. Most states lost turnout, and Trump got fewer votes than either McCain or Romney. The data indicates she lost due to a massive decrease in black and Latino votes; something you cannot blame on liberal Dems or Jill Stein or Comey or anything else.

She did not drive the numbers we needed to win. We needed a better candidate.

However, although Trump fared little better among blacks and Hispanics than Romney did four years ago, Hillary Clinton did not run as strongly among these core Democratic groups as Obama did in 2012. Clinton held an 80-point advantage among blacks (88% to 8%) compared with Obama’s 87-point edge four years ago (93% to 6%). In 2008, Obama had a 91-point advantage among blacks.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/


Clinton was a step in the wrong direction; she lost, and we need to find someone better, and yes-that-means-more-liberal next time. That's only an opinion of course, but SHE lost. Bernie didn't lose it for her; the Greens didn't lose it for her, and I'm sorry, but the numbers don't show that racism or sexism lost it for her either.

[MADem]

39. Bingo--well said. nt

[MADem]

37. He wasn't "the most liberal Senator in America" though--that was right wing framing.

Why do you always argue your points from the POV of the right? That was a GOP talking point--not one aimed at the faithful in the Democratic Party. That was wingnut scare talk. It was code for "In case you haven't noticed, HE IS BLACK."

Very weird that you keep doing that.

He was FAR from the "most liberal Senator in America." What little record he had, and his public pronouncements, made it clear that he was to the right of a number of Senate members.

[MADem]

45. Oh, please. It's obvious you've bought the smears. nt

[peggysue2]

28. Spot on

What Athena said!

[BainsBane]

42. We're already seeing signs on both sides of the isle

of what she describes. I will do my best to not allow Democrats to continue it. I can't, however, do much about Trump.