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

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 01:28 AM Nov 2016

Ten Reasons Why Hillary lost - And they are probably not what you thought

The following are the ten reasons why I believe that Hillary Clinton lost the election. None of them infer that she was a bad candidate, because that just isn’t true. I didn’t try to come up with a nice round number like 10; I just started listing the factors that contributed to the loss and that is the number I came up with. I frankly don’t believe that any one of these alone was responsible, or any combination of two or three for that matter. Rather it was a perfect storm where all or at least most of these factors led to a very surprising and most unpleasant result the evening of November 8th.

1) The Economy: Many people have been hurting for the last 8 years while the country slowly recovered from the worst economic downturn since the great depression. When compared to the rest of the industrialized world, our country is in great shape, but trying telling that to Americans who have had to work part time jobs because there is was no other work or those paychecks haven't increased most of the last 8 years. And remember whose policies caused that cataclysmic economic downturn. It wasn’t the fault of Barack Obama. The economy is finally getting back to full employment and wages are starting to rise again, but there has been a lot of pain in the mean time. People were looking for something or some one to blame it on and along comes a con artist ready to blame their favorite bogymen and willing to promise absolutely anything to get himself elected.

2) Trump lies: Fact checks revealed that Trump lied on 71% of the major statements he made during the campaign. His strategy was a lot like that of basketball team whose coach teaches his players to attack on ferociously on defense under the assumptions that the referees can’t call every foul. The under educated and ill informed bought the majority of Trump’s lies because they don't read fact checks and they didn't have background information to know when he was lying, which was most of the time. So like hungry fish taking the bait, they believed him because he was telling them what they wanted to hear.

3) Trump's appeals to deplorables: Unfortunately that there is a very large portion of our population that falls into the deplorable category. Racism may be less obvious in this country than in the past. but it still has deep roots in this country and not only in the South. While they may not be white supremacists, it is still far too easy to convince ordinary working people that immigrants are after their jobs, or may rape their wives and daughters, or may plant a bomb where the work or play. So how did Obama get elected twice you may ask. That's because no legitimate Republican politician like McCain or Romney would have ever lowered themselves to appeal the deplorable nature of too large a segment of our population. Donald J. Trump has no such scruples taking advantage of gullible people and lying to inflate his image is a big part of who he is.

4) Republican attacks on Hillary over the years: This doesn't even require an explanation. Ask yourself this, would an identical email problem of any other politician with Hillary’s record of service and achievements been held in false equivalency to the many outrageous things that Donald Trump has said and done? And why do the Republicans hate Hillary. They really hate Bill Clinton because he made them look like fools so many times during his eight years as President and they view Hillary as an extension of Bill.

5) Hillary is a woman: My wife told me a long time ago that she believed Trump would win because down deep the majority of the men in this country are not yet ready to elect a women President. I told my wife that she was mistaken, but I now have to admit that I was the one who was wrong. It is certainly no accident that non college educated white men cast the highest percentage of votes against Hillary. It is this demographic that is the least likely to want a woman in charge. This list isn’t in order of importance to the results of the election, but if it were this one item would be listed much higher.

6) A cranky government computer system: The Republicans tried like hell to make Benghazi a major issue, but even after 11 congressional investigations, they couldn’t really make it stick. It was the email issue with its drip, drip, drip of information that hurt Hillary far worse. And why did she set up her own server – because the state departments non classified email system, after years of Republican budget cuts, worked so poorly that almost no one in the entire department used it any more than they absolutely had to.

It was so bad that of the recent Secretaries of States used their private email accounts for non classified government business. Colin Powell used an AOL account and you can’t tell me that some of the data that flowed through that insecure account couldn’t have been retroactively classified. Government emails ended up on Anthony Weiner’s computer precisely because his wife and Hillary’s top aid, Huma Abedin, had to send government emails to her private email account to print them at home because she found that it was almost impossible to use the government system to print long emails.

And give the Republicans in Congress credit – they are very good at using their investigative power to blow up small trifles until they appear to be sins against the entire human race. If the State Department would have had a modern email system no one would have given a damn what was on Hillary’s emails.

7. Bernie Sanders: Sanders initially entered the Democratic primaries for two reasons. No, one of them was not to win; at the time he entered he did not believe he had a chance of doing that. The realization that he might have a chance to win and the calls for a Revolution came later. The two reasons were: 1) No one was running against her – remember how he claimed should have primaried Barack Obama in 2011. 2) He wanted to push Hillary further to the left before she contested the general election.

While he failed to attract a majority of Democratic Party members in nearly primary, he attracted enough independents – the most liberal of all voters and young people who rallied to his promises of a free college education and an escape from crushing college debt – to make the primaries very competitive. His supporters grew very excited; it was the dawn of the Revolution. Once he was convinced he had a chance to win, Sanders was not only just pushing his ideas, he was attacking Hillary with a vengeance. Many of his more successful attack themes were later happily adopted by the Trump campaign which relished the task of continuing to pound them into the heads of the American voters. In the process Bernie was able to convince many of his supporters that Hillary was unfit to be their President.

When Sanders finally bowed out, many of his followers were devastated and resentful. The excitement was gone, their hero was defeated and, in their eyes, only a distasteful Democratic candidate remained. Some of Bernie’s supporters later enthusiastically supported Hillary, some held their noses and voted against Trump, but others, many of them young people, just weren’t interested anymore since that their champion they had worked so hard to elect was gone. In my opinion Sanders’ candidacy was a large net negative for Hillary Clinton.

8. Putin was in bed with Trump: It was apparent throughout the campaign that Donald J. Trump and Vladimir Putin were having a public bromance. Putin pulled every string he could try to assure that Trump was victorious. (His reasons should be obvious by now.) Some computer scientist trying to protect the election from hacking accidentally discovered a server in Trump Towers which was dedicated solely to transmitting human conversations back and forth with two servers in a Russian bank with very close ties to Putin. After the election, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that the Russian government had been in close communications with many of the key Trump staffers throughout the campaign. (Now we know what the Trump Towers server was used for.)

The Clinton campaign emails which were hacked by the Russian military intelligence agency and released by Wikileaks were made available during the final stages of the campaign, were aimed specifically at undermining Hillary’s chances of being elected. They revealed nothing more sinister than a campaign staff plotting as usual to win an election. However, the drip, drip, drip of hacked materials fed into the illusion of false equivalency between Clinton and Trump in the minds of under informed voters. And let’s not forget that Trump encouraged Putin to do more hacking on his behalf. The two of them need to get a room.

10) Poll errors: Many of the state polls were inaccurate. This might have been because the pollsters underestimated the percentage of undereducated whites, especially men who would participate in the election. Or perhaps it was because people were embarrassed that they supported Trump so they lied when they were asked by pollsters who they would vote for. Perhaps their were other factors, but for whatever reason both the public state polls and those performed internally by the Democratic campaign gave Hillary’s people a false sense of security about three states which would prove critical – Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Consequently the Clinton campaign didn’t expend as much resources in those states as they should have.

It’s easy to be a Monday morning candidate, but look at the facts. During the entire general election period Hilly was never behind in the polls of any of those three states. According to Nate Silver’s weighted poll averages, on November 7th Hillary had 5.2% lead in Wisconsin. In Michigan she led by 4.2% and in Pennsylvania she led by 2.3%. Silver gave the following probabilities that Hillary would win those three states: Wisconsin – 83.5%, Michigan - 78.9%, and Pennsylvania – 77.0%. If you know your statistics you can calculate that Trump’s chances of winning all three states was only 0.8%. His chances of taking the easiest two, Wisconsin and Michigan, while losing Wisconsin were only 4.9%. I would take those odds going in any day.

However, those statistics are only as good as the polls on which they based and for some reason or another the 121 polls which Silver used to calculate his probabilities for those three states were systematically off. I am sure that the Clinton campaign’s internal polling showed similar results as the public polls. Campaigns have to make choices were to invest the limited resources they have available, and I wouldn’t have put a lot money into those three states either.

10) Comey - The final blows were of the campaign were administered by the FBI Director who just happens to be a registered Republican. Normally at the conclusion of a FBI investigation, the FBI has little to say. If the investigation does not yield evidence of criminality, the FBI puts out a notice saying just that and nothing more. Whether he was trying to tilt the election in favor of Trump or to cover his ass in the face of what he knew would be intense pressure by Republican Congressional investigations, on July 5th while clearing Clinton of any charges, James Comey took the unprecedented step of adding that Hillary was “extremely careless” with government secrets.

The Clinton campaign called on Comey to declassify the emails and allow the public to judge the seriousness of the subject matter for themselves, but of course that never happened. I am willing to bet a lot of money that when those emails are finally released years from now, we will find that the emails in questions didn’t include deep dark secrets at all, but were classified after the fact by over zealous operatives in one of the intelligence agencies who would consider my aunt’s shoe size to be sensitive information or by government employees out to embarrass Hillary.

Instead of being able to finally put the email issue behind her, Hillary was subjected a new barrage of accusations by Trump and his allies which again brought the false equivalency problem to the forefront. But Comey wasn’t done with meddling in the election. On October 28th, just 11 days before the polls opened on November 8th, Comey wrote a letter to his Republican buddies in Congress saying that he had reopened the Clinton email investigation because some of Clinton emails had been found on Anthony Weiner PC. (The letter was of course instantly leaked to the press.) In the process Comey broke two cardinal rules of FBI protocol – the FBI never comments about an investigation in progress and never reveals anything that could affect the results within 60 days of an election. Of course nine days later, just 48 hours before the election, the FBI Director had to admit that nothing incriminating had been found.

At the time that Comely had his letter delivered to Congress, Donald Trump was drowning in a sea of public disgust resulting from the airing of an old video showing him bragging about sexually assaulting women with impunity. Following his claim that it was just “locker room” banter (“boy talk” in the words of his wife), he was sinking deeper and deeper as one after another 12 women came forward with verified stories of Donald’s assaults on their bodies. With his letter to Congress about the reopened investigation, Comey not only threw Trump a life ring, he also reeled him back into the boat. The FBI Director’s revelation completely changed the election conversation. Rather than sinking with the concrete boots of sexual assault encasing his feet, a reinvigorated Trump had new ammunition to fire at Clinton in the closing days of the campaign. When Comey eventually came out and said, “Opps, never mind. My bad”, it was too late, the damage had been done and Hillary never recovered.

This was the final blow to the Clinton. The polls which were widening in her favor started to seriously tighten again. However had she not been weakened by the other early onslaughts it probably would not have been fatal, but since she was already weakened by all of the other blows which had preceded it, Comey treachery proved to be the knock out punch.

The article was originally published on my blog:

Ten Reasons Why Hillary lost


122 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ten Reasons Why Hillary lost - And they are probably not what you thought (Original Post) CajunBlazer Nov 2016 OP
Excellent analysis radical noodle Nov 2016 #1
I obviously haven't given this as much thought as you have... CaliforniaPeggy Nov 2016 #2
There were others running against her too JonLP24 Nov 2016 #3
He was 74 and had a lifetime to contemplate R B Garr Nov 2016 #29
plus infinity JTFrog Nov 2016 #30
plus 1000! DemonGoddess Nov 2016 #48
I think after 8 years under Obama JonLP24 Nov 2016 #62
Wrong, he couldn't name one person he would prosecute regarding Wall Street, so R B Garr Nov 2016 #67
If you paid attention to his career JonLP24 Nov 2016 #70
Bernie Sanders originally was all about pushing Hillary to the left, period. CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #71
Like I said at the time when he was JonLP24 Nov 2016 #72
Sanders was a leading progressive voice - who never got anything done CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #73
"the only state with two Senators and only one Representative. " Wabbajack_ Nov 2016 #109
You're right - my bad! CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #113
The Senate has got to be Wabbajack_ Nov 2016 #114
You will have to blame the founding fathers for that one CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #115
In the case of the Senate Wabbajack_ Nov 2016 #121
Wow, I didn't know about that one. Thanks CajunBlazer Dec 2016 #122
What smears? He campaigned on Ideas, he never attacked her personally. jg10003 Nov 2016 #82
Here the tell... stevebreeze Nov 2016 #55
You're absolutely right CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #56
Agree. but also yes and stevebreeze Nov 2016 #60
The problem with just adopting Bernie's platform... Blanks Nov 2016 #76
I can't exactly remember the timeline JonLP24 Nov 2016 #61
Some analyst predicted Trump would win because he wasn't the incumbent party LeftInTX Nov 2016 #4
The bad economy is a bit of a myth. Unemployment in battleground states: ucrdem Nov 2016 #5
1, thank you the UE rate in those stats are past full employment and now DPurtin says uponit7771 Nov 2016 #14
Do you think that those who went without full time jobs for years or.... CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #58
The electoral college treestar Nov 2016 #6
this Freddie Nov 2016 #27
Lots of MSM mythology here too. No mention of fiddling the vote in any way, though. Ford_Prefect Nov 2016 #7
Post removed Post removed Nov 2016 #8
Lol, all they have is Bernie Duckhunter935 Nov 2016 #10
Are you aware that she is almost two million votes ahead of trump? lunamagica Nov 2016 #35
Yep, and she lost Duckhunter935 Nov 2016 #40
No she didn't. Every day it becomes more and more clear that she won and lunamagica Nov 2016 #41
Funny, that's Trump's line Duckhunter935 Nov 2016 #42
Oh, come on don't be like that. The election was stolen. Is that better? Do you approve? lunamagica Nov 2016 #43
the GOP and media would have killed Sanders Fast Walker 52 Nov 2016 #11
No dont think so because Bernie Sanders had a huge Majority of the INdemo Nov 2016 #25
Lol. Those have to be the rosiest color glasses I've ever seen. JTFrog Nov 2016 #34
the millenial/youth vote is never something solid to base a presidential campaign on Fast Walker 52 Nov 2016 #37
1. JudyM Nov 2016 #97
They can't accept that Bernie would have flamed out R B Garr Nov 2016 #31
he would have been attacked mercilessly on that Fast Walker 52 Nov 2016 #36
No question Bernie would've landslided Nazi-Don the Con...as we shall see in 4 years!! InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2016 #13
No. Sorry but the truth hurts. JTFrog Nov 2016 #33
Looking at this in relation to tRump, who would've been his opponent, it wouldn't work mattered. JudyM Nov 2016 #98
Lol, ok. nt JTFrog Nov 2016 #103
All this is very true. I would just add: "voter suppression." pnwmom Nov 2016 #9
Beat me to it... should be the #1 reason!! Need an investigation into this NOW by Executive Order while Obama is still in office. InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2016 #16
I'd like to see the Prez do more to oppose the RW takeover while he's still Prez. Ligyron Nov 2016 #24
1 Martin Eden Nov 2016 #17
#1 is a bullshit lie, 4.9% UE rate with rising LFPR and falling U6, the part time recovery is a myth uponit7771 Nov 2016 #12
Can't you disagree with someone without accusing them of lying? n/t pnwmom Nov 2016 #18
Oh, that's okay CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #26
You totally misinterpered the article CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #32
I think you're relieving Hillary of all blame and that isn't fair either. Vinca Nov 2016 #15
Hillary was up against an opponent who got free network coverage for everything he did. pnwmom Nov 2016 #20
Hillary wasn't nearly as good a campaigner as Obama or her husband was. mtnsnake Nov 2016 #19
Hillary had enough magnetism to get 1.7 million votes (and counting) more than DT. pnwmom Nov 2016 #21
She did, but look who she was running against. I think Elizabeth Warren would've clobbered trump. mtnsnake Nov 2016 #22
She was running against a super salesman. "Believe me," Bernie or anyone else would have pnwmom Nov 2016 #44
Excellent post. athena Nov 2016 #50
I think Joe Biden would have beaten Trump LeftInTX Nov 2016 #38
You are of course entitled to your opinion; you are are also entitled to be wrong CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #46
No Democrat running a campaign based on logic and reason pnwmom Nov 2016 #51
Agree CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #68
People were happy saying Clinton's campain was brilliant when Trump seemed to be in her dust Tom Rinaldo Nov 2016 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #45
I would re-title #1 as "Wage Attrition" or re-write it as "Income Disparity." I take issue with #5. Auggie Nov 2016 #28
If by DemonGoddess Nov 2016 #49
It's not that, though I totally understand her need to be on guard Auggie Nov 2016 #52
I have come to the conclusion that Michael Moore was never a big Hillary fan CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #53
Authenticity is my suggestion and only one of several -- perhaps dozens -- of debatable reasons ... Auggie Nov 2016 #54
BTW, it was Moore who warned Trump could win. Auggie Nov 2016 #59
In the South we have a saying: CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #63
Most of the Trump supporters that I've encountered absolutely DO cite the economy. hamsterjill Nov 2016 #39
Disagree about #7 Retrograde Nov 2016 #47
I wouldn't waste my breath if I was you. VulgarPoet Nov 2016 #94
Good analysis! mcar Nov 2016 #57
Thanks, it took a while to get my thoughts together on this one CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #65
Good summary, I'm guessing most here don't find this collection unreasonable Dem2 Nov 2016 #64
The Goring/Swiftboating (choose your term) covered years. CBHagman Nov 2016 #66
Great post. I think that at least 60% goes to the amount of airtime he got underpants Nov 2016 #69
The candidate is blameless? zipplewrath Nov 2016 #74
I agree. potone Nov 2016 #78
And who started the "Hillary is trustworthy" attacks? CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #84
You can't hold him responsible for that. potone Nov 2016 #88
Hillary was considered 'untrustworthy' long before Sanders entered the race. Marr Nov 2016 #92
Nice try zipplewrath Nov 2016 #99
there is one reason that you left out: Corporate owned MSM played a crucial role of Bill USA Nov 2016 #75
She had too few campaign commercials talking about what she would do for America... dubyadiprecession Nov 2016 #77
The Democratic political demise was easily avoidable. It was our own party's fault. Oneironaut Nov 2016 #79
And who was a better candidate - Bernie Sanders??? CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #85
Who else ran? MicaelS Nov 2016 #93
Yes. What's so funny about losing? Oneironaut Nov 2016 #95
No, my problem is that the ultra liberals ..... CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #107
More viable zipplewrath Nov 2016 #100
Bernie was in it to win, and would have except for the Reid machine in NV. jg10003 Nov 2016 #80
BS! - How soon they forget CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #83
TOTALLY agree!!! nt Raine Nov 2016 #86
I kept saying she really needed to come out and talk about how she planned to fix Obamacare costs NoGoodNamesLeft Nov 2016 #81
Yep, I'm sure that would have turned everything around... CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #87
That would have made a difference with enough people to change the outcome NoGoodNamesLeft Nov 2016 #108
Okay, what plan would you have suggested that Hillary should have pushed? CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #111
Isn't that exactly what we thought? LisaL Nov 2016 #89
Post removed Post removed Nov 2016 #90
Bernie was the far stronger candidate in the general election. cpwm17 Nov 2016 #91
Oh jeez. LisaL Nov 2016 #96
Hillary was always close to Trump in the polls. cpwm17 Nov 2016 #105
On item #5, I know women who aren't prepared for a woman president. citood Nov 2016 #101
1 of 1. Same reason she lost the 2008 primary: she ignored too many states. ieoeja Nov 2016 #102
This. alarimer Nov 2016 #104
Spoken like a true ultra conservative CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #106
She failed ramapo Nov 2016 #110
Oh so you think Hillary was a bad candidate? CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #112
If you're being Honest you have to admit Hillary had major flaws quantumjunkie Nov 2016 #116
Yet another ultra liberal Bernie Supporter who was part of the problem CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #117
She lost the E.C. / JHan Nov 2016 #118
i think... djsunyc Nov 2016 #119
The economy is doing very well oberliner Nov 2016 #120

radical noodle

(8,000 posts)
1. Excellent analysis
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 01:49 AM
Nov 2016

There were some other things like the vast amount of money the NRA quietly spent against her, but your list covers most of it. It breaks my heart that the most experienced candidate who was known to be able to get things done lost the electoral college to a person like trump, but still won the popular vote by so much.


CaliforniaPeggy

(149,611 posts)
2. I obviously haven't given this as much thought as you have...
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 01:51 AM
Nov 2016

But even a quick reading tells me you're most likely right.

It makes me sad to read it, but ...We must acknowledge the facts and opinions that you stated here in order to fix the situation so that next time, these won't happen again.

Thank you.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
3. There were others running against her too
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 01:57 AM
Nov 2016

And I remember Bernie Sanders in the beginning when the media gave him no shot kept asking him why and he is not someone to bullshit made it clear he was in the primary for serious reasons not some bullshit about hoping to pull her to the left. He kept it on policies but he was serious for his reasons for running.

R B Garr

(16,950 posts)
29. He was 74 and had a lifetime to contemplate
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 11:09 AM
Nov 2016

a run for President. Nothing was stopping him... right? He saw an opportunity and slid in. How else do you explain why he sat out 11 prior elections.

And he certainly didn't stick to policy. Hating billionaires is not a policy. He attacked our nominee without being accountable for any of his smears. He was a self-serving opportunist. Shameful what he did.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
62. I think after 8 years under Obama
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 11:10 PM
Nov 2016

He was concerned about both parties in bed with Wall Street, I think he ran to give someone an option.

I don't think he hated billionaires but their influence in politics and wealth distribution.

When the media kept asking about Clinton in the beginning he said his decision to enter wasn't about her and focused on his platform or policies.

R B Garr

(16,950 posts)
67. Wrong, he couldn't name one person he would prosecute regarding Wall Street, so
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 01:59 AM
Nov 2016

he obviously wasn't *that* concerned. Wall Street was eight years ago, so surely he could have named one person in those eight years since George Bush left office.

He also couldn't name one policy that Hillary exploited for Wall Street.

So truth in messaging wasn't a big concern for him, and it's time to quit badgering people with those phony talking points in light of his obvious grandstanding.

He slithered into the race because he thought Hillary was vulnerable. Actually, his platform was mainly concern for the white vote. People got posts hidden here for quoting Bernie's exact words about his platform.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
70. If you paid attention to his career
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 11:15 AM
Nov 2016

He has consistently voiced his concerns on Wall Street and generally in favor progressive policies.

My talking points aren't phony but based on memory.

Tell me what Bernie Sanders' words are that would get you banned. He may have not done well outside of white males but he has always had a strong record on civil rights.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
71. Bernie Sanders originally was all about pushing Hillary to the left, period.
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 11:57 AM
Nov 2016

Then when he figured out he had a chance to win, it was all about pushing his REVOLUTION. With Bernie it is still all about the REVOLUTION - he is a true believer and very late in his career he final has gained some attention to his life long quest.

What is strange about Bernie's revolution is that much of its support comes from white people, many of them in good financial shape, who would least benefit from it. On the other hand, those who you would think would most benefit from it, blacks, Hispanics, etc. are not really on board. As revolutions go, it has to be among the strangest ever.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
72. Like I said at the time when he was
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 12:09 PM
Nov 2016

Finding out how much support he has before he declared he said repeatedly this wasn't about Hillary Clinton who he praised at the time and when asked if she supports similar policies hevsaid "you'll have to ask her".

As far as his support I can't say why others didn't favor him as much except to say lack of name recognition and his record was likely unfamiliar for voters who never heard of him until the primary election coverage.

To me I think he has a record anyone can get behind.

Sanders has built a reputation as a leading progressive voice on issues such as campaign finance reform, corporate welfare, global warming, income inequality, LGBT rights, parental leave, and universal healthcare. Sanders has long been critical of U.S. foreign policy and was an early and outspoken opponent of the Iraq War, the First Gulf War, and U.S. support for the Contras in Nicaragua. He is also outspoken on civil liberties and civil rights, particularly criticizing racial discrimination in the criminal justice system as well as advocating for privacy rights against mass surveillance policies such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance programs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
73. Sanders was a leading progressive voice - who never got anything done
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 02:32 PM
Nov 2016

He was a voice, that was all, a voice that few heard and even to whom even fewer paid. He represented tiny sliver of the US population - a state, tiny in size and tiny in population - the only state with two Senators and only one Representative.

He lacked name recognition because he never got anything of any substance done during his time in the House or the Senate. He was not a leader in the chambers despite his longevity, in large part because he wouldn't compromise and wasn't the best when it came to working with others. He has always been on the far left, a socialist, when the country is center left or center right, you choose.

The minority heard about Bernie's proposed programs, how could they not, and they just weren't interested. He wasn't talking in language that appealed to them. He had never established relationships with the blacks, Hispanic national communities. Sure, he marched in the original Civil Rights marches, but they saw little evidence that anything he had done recently to improve their lives. That was in stark contrast to to Hillary's relationship with the minority communities over a long period of time.

Perhaps all of this was a product of the constituency which Bernie represented for so long. In Vermont the voters are predominately white and Bernie's supporters predominately very liberal except for their love of fire arms. They apparently loved the lone wolf who represented them, though he rarely got anything of substance done, especially when he was willing to forgo his liberal values when it came to protecting their 2nd Amendment rights and to bring big military contracts to their state.

However, when he tried to parley his record into a Presidential campaign, it was not surprising that he appealed to people who are like his Vermont constituents and did not appeal to people who are not like his constituents.

Wabbajack_

(1,300 posts)
109. "the only state with two Senators and only one Representative. "
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:26 PM
Nov 2016

The only state, besides Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Delaware.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
113. You're right - my bad!
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:58 PM
Nov 2016

Okay then the Vermont is that state with the 2nd smallest population - 626,630, after Wyoming - 582,658, and both have have smaller populations than the District of of Columbia which has no Senators and no voting Representatives.

Wabbajack_

(1,300 posts)
114. The Senate has got to be
Fri Nov 25, 2016, 12:27 AM
Nov 2016

The most unrepresentative legislative body in the world. Cali and Wyoming having the same representation is just ridiculous.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
115. You will have to blame the founding fathers for that one
Fri Nov 25, 2016, 03:36 PM
Nov 2016

Many of the states which had small populations were afraid of being totally marginalized by states with large populations both in the election of the executive branch and most notably in Congress, so they insisted on equalizers before they would sign the Constitution. Hence we have the Electoral College and the Senate where each state has equal representation regardless of size.

Neither are going to change because it takes three quarters of the states to pass an amendment to the Constitution and the smaller states will never sign off on losing their power.

Wabbajack_

(1,300 posts)
121. In the case of the Senate
Wed Nov 30, 2016, 09:47 PM
Nov 2016

Apparently even a constitutional amendment couldn't reform it because there's a line in Artcle V, what's called an "entrenched clause" that says you can't pass an amendment to ..well I'll just copy/paste it'

" no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate"

So it would have to be a unanimously agreed to to ratify that amendment.

We may one day have the interstate popular vote compact idea render the EC moot but it looks Senate reform won't ever happen.

jg10003

(976 posts)
82. What smears? He campaigned on Ideas, he never attacked her personally.
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 10:08 PM
Nov 2016

Is this what a self-serving opportunist would say:

stevebreeze

(1,877 posts)
55. Here the tell...
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 08:04 PM
Nov 2016

If Bernie had been in it to win it from the start he would have started a year earlier. He would have been in AK and LA making contacts with people down ballot and raising his profile.
But no Bernie didn't get in until Warren dropped out, very late in the game.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
56. You're absolutely right
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 08:44 PM
Nov 2016

Early on he was not "in it to win it". Interviews on CNN before he threw his hat in the ring indicated that he was concerned that Hillary wasn't far enough to the left, but he gave absolutely no indications what so ever that he thought he could beat her. So there is only one conclusion that I could draw.

And he was very non combative with Hillary early on. However, I think he was legitimately surprised by the support he got, not only from very progressive voters (that was a given), but also from very enthusiastic young people excited about his college loan promises and, as usual, eager to rebel against older generations and the status quo.

Suddenly Bernie figured he had he actually had a shot and that's when he started attacking Hillary personally, claiming that she was unfit to lead, a message that stuck in the mind of many younger voters after the primaries. It should also be noted that Hillary never went after Bernie personally because she didn't want to alienate his supporters that she would need in the general election. Bernie, being the big underdog, had no such qualms.

stevebreeze

(1,877 posts)
60. Agree. but also yes and
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 10:14 PM
Nov 2016

Hillary would have done herself a big favor to take the mostly Bernie crafted party platform, and take it out for a spin.
You can't just give people a negative reason to vote, you have to give them something hopeful.
I don't think the general was a well run campaign. It should not have been close enough for a lot of this marginal stuff to matter.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
76. The problem with just adopting Bernie's platform...
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 07:49 PM
Nov 2016

IMHO is that so few of the things he talked about were actionable. If you're thinking ahead, and you don't expect to have huge majorities in the house and senate. You don't promise that you're gonna take a whole bunch of steps that the republican controlled congress is gonna go for.

The concern would be you'll lose even more control in congress in 2018 when you haven't accomplished anything.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
61. I can't exactly remember the timeline
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 11:05 PM
Nov 2016

A year and a half ago or so he was determining what kind of support he may have spent a lot of time in Iowa, once his poll numbers were climbing he started to go other places notably Minnesota.

LeftInTX

(25,305 posts)
4. Some analyst predicted Trump would win because he wasn't the incumbent party
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 02:01 AM
Nov 2016

And I believe there is some truth to this.

He said the odds are against the incumbent party after 8 year. Add everything else to the mix. There was a lot to overcome which the state polls didn't pick up.

The same analyst predicted Trump will be impeached.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
5. The bad economy is a bit of a myth. Unemployment in battleground states:
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 02:03 AM
Nov 2016

WI: 4.1%
MI: 4.6%
OH: 4.8%
PA: 5.7%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/200017/state-unemployment-rate-in-the-us/

But to hear the pols and their ads you'd think it was 1930.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
14. 1, thank you the UE rate in those stats are past full employment and now DPurtin says
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 08:52 AM
Nov 2016

.. he can make them better!?

I'd like to see him try at that

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
58. Do you think that those who went without full time jobs for years or....
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 09:14 PM
Nov 2016

... those who worked without raises for seven or eight years while the little inflation we had pecked away at their take home pay are happy today? What about the union workers who actually took losses when they had to renegotiate their contracts in a atmosphere which favored employers, do you think they are happy? What about those who lost their manufacturing jobs to automation and had to take lower paying jobs to get by. Do you think they are happy?

Now none of that falls on Obama's shoulders; he managed to bring the country back from the brink of a deep depression, but don't tell me that everything was warm an fuzzy on the jobs front for Hillary. There was plenty of misery and anger for the con man to tap into.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
6. The electoral college
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 02:04 AM
Nov 2016

She won by standards of normal countries. This one has a system that can allow the loser to get the office.

Ford_Prefect

(7,895 posts)
7. Lots of MSM mythology here too. No mention of fiddling the vote in any way, though.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 04:02 AM
Nov 2016

No matter how you want look at it the vote in several states doesn't add up, and there were the purges of registered voters in GOP run states prior to the vote. No one is talking about either of those influences and everyone seems to be trying real hard to find excuses and conventional answers for the outcome. In those states the numbers for President and for Senate are well out of line with similarly contested races for Governor and other state wide positions. How ever it happened it does not make sense historically or statistically.

Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
10. Lol, all they have is Bernie
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 07:30 AM
Nov 2016

They can never accept her flaws. Maybe if she actually campaigned in Wisconsin and Michigan. Take voters for granted. ....

INdemo

(6,994 posts)
25. No dont think so because Bernie Sanders had a huge Majority of the
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 10:14 AM
Nov 2016

millennial vote.He would have drawn the minority vote plus he would have drawn some Republicans that voted for Trump becasue it was a vote against Hillary and not for Trump.Bernie Sanders would have brought with him a Senate Majority and would have possibly taken control of the house..because Bernie Sanders would addressed the issues, the issues that Hillary did not and Bernie Sanders would have went to the voters in PA,Wisc,Mich that Hillary took for granted...(which was mostly the fault of her incompetent advisors)
Also Bernie Sanders would have gotten those Democrats that voted for Trump.

I think Karl Rove tried to rig the 2012 election.Remember how Romney and Rove were shocked because Obama won Ohio?

 

JTFrog

(14,274 posts)
34. Lol. Those have to be the rosiest color glasses I've ever seen.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 12:02 PM
Nov 2016

I'm sorry, but this is a spectacular delusion.

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
37. the millenial/youth vote is never something solid to base a presidential campaign on
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 12:49 PM
Nov 2016

same with far left wing politics.

that's what happened with McGovern, to disastrous consequences.

R B Garr

(16,950 posts)
31. They can't accept that Bernie would have flamed out
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 11:25 AM
Nov 2016

as a socialist. Rural America is not voting for a socialist.

And I haven't seen Bernie hating on Donald because he's a billionaire and all his other Bernie bingo smears .

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,122 posts)
13. No question Bernie would've landslided Nazi-Don the Con...as we shall see in 4 years!!
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 08:52 AM
Nov 2016

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

 

JTFrog

(14,274 posts)
33. No. Sorry but the truth hurts.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 11:28 AM
Nov 2016

Your candidate was a failed opportunist who would have been skewered by the two foot tall pile of opposition against him that they never had to use because he was busy beating up Hillary for them.


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

Excerpt:

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it – a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.


For fuck's sake.

JudyM

(29,236 posts)
98. Looking at this in relation to tRump, who would've been his opponent, it wouldn't work mattered.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:02 AM
Nov 2016

TRump did far worse things, and people are just not that concerned about socialism, based on the polls while he was running. It's a favorite big false trope of the DNC to paint socialism as a big ogre because that's all they really had on him. None of that other stuff would have had legs, either, minor in comparison to the other candidates' weaknesses.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
9. All this is very true. I would just add: "voter suppression."
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 04:09 AM
Nov 2016

Vote purges, new voter ID requirements, reduced number of polling places, reduced number of early voting days, etc.

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,122 posts)
16. Beat me to it... should be the #1 reason!! Need an investigation into this NOW by Executive Order while Obama is still in office.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 08:55 AM
Nov 2016

Ligyron

(7,632 posts)
24. I'd like to see the Prez do more to oppose the RW takeover while he's still Prez.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 09:42 AM
Nov 2016

He has real power now to bring all the points made here more public and to start the DOJ investigating election irregularities. Of course, Trump and team would kill any efforts in this direction after the inauguration and instillation of his Cabinet, but the DOJ and other arms of the administration could at least bring all this to the forefront in the public's eye.

At least they could friggin' TRY.

Back in the 80's Reagan would ask for airtime, and get it, anytime he wanted to make an important point or to ask the American people to engage their Congress people to support or oppose some issue facing legislation, etc.

But to my horror, I saw a running news banner on MSNBC this AM that claimed Obama would not criticize Trump's administration publicly even as they dismantle his legacy. WTF!!!!

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
32. You totally misinterpered the article
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 11:28 AM
Nov 2016

And its premise is itself misleading. What it said was that the percentages of low paying jobs, medium paying jobs, and high paying jobs have remained relatively the same. This is not surprising and indeed would be expected under any economic conditions.

Working for McDonald's is not like to ever move from being a low paying job to a medium paying job, and being an elementary school teacher is not likely to become a high paying job. The number of jobs in each of the three major categories cited in the article are likely to remain the same. Even the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour, working at McDonald's would still be a low paying job.

What happens during a recession is there are less jobs in every category and virtually no one gets a raise because there are plenty of others who will take a job without a raise.

What happens at the top of an economic recovery is that the pay of most people will go up because when the country reaches full employment there aren't enough people to fill the jobs available. So employers have to compete for good employees.

However, just because wages are rising almost universally, doesn't mean that a guy working at McDonald's going to make a salary anywhere near that of a teacher or that a teacher will start making salary in the same third as a doctor.

In my humble opinion the article is simply a useless restatement of the obvious and contributes absolutely nothing to your argument..




Vinca

(50,269 posts)
15. I think you're relieving Hillary of all blame and that isn't fair either.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 08:55 AM
Nov 2016

In the final days of the campaign I remember the orange blob having hate rally after hate rally and Hillary would be headed to the west coast for a fundraiser. Her campaign should have been following things closer in the upper Midwest and scheduling more appearances up there. Maybe if something significant had been done for Flint things would have changed in Michigan. In the end, it was a convergence of lousy things.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
20. Hillary was up against an opponent who got free network coverage for everything he did.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 09:07 AM
Nov 2016

She needed to raise money and not just for herself -- she was raising money for the party and downticket races, too.

Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to make no mistakes when you wear your special hindsight glasses.

mtnsnake

(22,236 posts)
19. Hillary wasn't nearly as good a campaigner as Obama or her husband was.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 09:05 AM
Nov 2016

I believe that either one of Obama or Bill Clinton would have run away with it, winning most of the swing states along with it. They had a magnetism when they ran that Hillary didn't have, unfortunately.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
21. Hillary had enough magnetism to get 1.7 million votes (and counting) more than DT.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 09:16 AM
Nov 2016

Her margin is now greater than 24 of 45 Presidents. Her only problem was that her supporters were in the wrong states, because our votes don't count for as much.

And Hillary was the only Dem who had to run for President after the 2013 court decision that dismantled the voting rights act. Millions of voters were purged across the country, and others couldn't vote because they lacked the ID. Polling places in Democratic districts were systematically eliminated, and early voting days cut back -- all in the successful effort to suppress Democratic votes. We're never going to succeed again if we don't address the real problem of voter suppression because we're too busy blaming Hillary for lack of "magnetism."

mtnsnake

(22,236 posts)
22. She did, but look who she was running against. I think Elizabeth Warren would've clobbered trump.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 09:39 AM
Nov 2016

Sorry, but as smart and qualified as Hillary is, and as good a president as she would probably have made, I just don't think she's a natural when it comes to campaigning. For example, whenever she's talking, she always sounds like she's giving a speech. Not that that's the reason she lost or anything. Just an example.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
44. She was running against a super salesman. "Believe me," Bernie or anyone else would have
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 03:16 PM
Nov 2016

had a difficult time, too. (Not only against Trump's sales techniques but against the 2 foot thick folder of opposition research that Kurt Eichenwald reported on.) I read about the techniques in the manual for the salesman at Trump University. Trump used them successfully in the national campaign. Two points stood out. One, he said to make the sale all about FEELINGS, not reason. Two, he said to keep the potential buyer on an "emotional roller coaster." That's what he did throughout the campaign. No Democrat in my lifetime has reduced their campaign to feelings and emotions, but that's what Trump did.

With regard to our candidates,, even though she won the popular vote,, you are convinced that she wasn't "magnetic" because her style didn't appeal to YOU. That is subjective. I, in my own subjectivity, found her speeches and rallies much, much easier to listen to than Bernie's, with the scolding and finger wagging.

You should read the posts of the almost four million Hillary supporters who joined Pantsuit Nation just before the election. They LOVE her but formed a secret group because they wanted a place to speak about her and what she meant to them without being harassed by naysayers.

athena

(4,187 posts)
50. Excellent post.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 05:44 PM
Nov 2016

I, too, found Hillary much more likable than Bernie. Anyone who didn't find her likable should look inside themselves to try to figure out exactly why she did not excite them. We're never going to conquer bigotry if we're not strong enough to look inside ourselves and see clearly the bigotry that is in there. We all have it. The difference is that some of us recognize it and fight it, whereas others wallow in denial and are therefore ruled by their bigotry.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
46. You are of course entitled to your opinion; you are are also entitled to be wrong
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 04:52 PM
Nov 2016

Biden didn't run because he was in no shape to do so after his son's death; he simply wasn't up to it. Also consider that had Biden would have thrown his hat into the ring earlier, Sanders probably would not have run. I wouldn't have liked Joe's chances against Hillary.

Biden would have been in the same category as Sanders, if you can't win your party's nomination you can't win the Presidency.

Enough with the couldas, wouldas, shouldas. Enough with the idle speculation. Hell I could state that Mark Cuban could have beat Trump and no one could prove me wrong, but for a number of reasons that wasn't going to happen either.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
51. No Democrat running a campaign based on logic and reason
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 06:18 PM
Nov 2016

would have been prepared for the con man's onslaught.

Trump followed the plan in his own manuals for Trump U. He says that his shysters should not sell products, but should sell FEELINGS. And they should put the potential buyers on an "emotional roller coaster."

That's exactly what he did. Now we have to figure out how to counter this evil without becoming evil ourselves.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,912 posts)
23. People were happy saying Clinton's campain was brilliant when Trump seemed to be in her dust
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 09:41 AM
Nov 2016

We have to be open that there were failures in her candidacy also when she failed to decisively defeat a candidate as unpopular as Trump. No where on you list do you even hint at Clinton being a less than ideal candidate or running a less than ideal campaign, or being in any way responsible in part for the outcome.

I wrote the following in my DU journal on September 30th:


Beware of Overconfidence

Trump is having a melt down this week, he's had them before. Any breaking frightening hard news could wipe the slate clean and trigger another reset. Hillary has been smart to focus on what a disaster Trump is, but she needs to keep broadcasting a strong message of change also. This is a restless public election year.

In a nut shell, give Obama credit for rescuing our economy from the chasm and restoring us to growth - but stress that the mission now is making sure our economy works for all of us. Argue that the failed Bush economy set us back a decade. Now though we finally have the chance to do what Democrats historically do best - fight for and deliver economic well being for all Americans - not just the well connected. That is the change most urgently needed. We crawled our way back out of the pit - it's time to start building our future again.
Posted by Tom Rinaldo | Fri Sep 30, 2016, 03:56 PM (4 replies)

Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #23)

Auggie

(31,168 posts)
28. I would re-title #1 as "Wage Attrition" or re-write it as "Income Disparity." I take issue with #5.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 10:32 AM
Nov 2016

I wasn't gender. It was Hillary. She's not a great campaigner and IMO she struggles with authenticity. She couldn't connect with many people because of this. She lost Michigan by just 11,000 votes, but 90,000 voters failed to vote for either her or Trump. That's telling.

Good analysis. Thanks for sharing.

Auggie

(31,168 posts)
52. It's not that, though I totally understand her need to be on guard
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 06:37 PM
Nov 2016

I felt like she never showed us the real Hillary. I thought it was me at first but then Michael Moore brought it up two days after the election. It's not a big deal to me but I think it affected her likability on a grand scale. Why else would 90,000 Michiganders not be able to vote for either her or Trump?

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
53. I have come to the conclusion that Michael Moore was never a big Hillary fan
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 07:50 PM
Nov 2016

Also some of the things he has said lately makes me believe that he is more concerned about the "Revolution" then he is about the Democratic party.

For those reasons, I am not sure he is the best authority to to be commenting on why Hillary lost the election.

Auggie

(31,168 posts)
54. Authenticity is my suggestion and only one of several -- perhaps dozens -- of debatable reasons ...
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 08:03 PM
Nov 2016

Moore and I are not the only ones to mention it. Neither of us claim to have all the answers, especially me.

I think your "being guarded" thought is an excellent observation. Hillary Clinton was about as unfairly and rudely treated by the media and her opponent as anyone could be. It was a disgusting display.

hamsterjill

(15,220 posts)
39. Most of the Trump supporters that I've encountered absolutely DO cite the economy.
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 01:19 PM
Nov 2016

They are incapable of seeing that things were bad when Obama took office, and have been steadily improving. They cannot fathom that change on a nationwide level just might actually take a few years. They want it NOW!!!

They also saw a black man in power and that scared them because it's something that hadn't ever happened before. The fact that Hillary was a woman scared them even more. They can't handle change and like the security of the status quo. They need their security blankets and need to be amongst the other idiots telling them the big bad Democrats are going to take their lives away.

That said - I am going to state here that I think this list is correct, but I think it is a very sad thing that Dems are simply more enlightened than the rest of these idiots. It's like arguing with a freaking brick when you try to use facts to aid in a discussion with a Trump supporter. They can't see beyond the three feet around them and their world. They are incapable to understanding the bigger picture.

They are in for a rude awakening as Trump takes hold and throws their little worlds into the toilet. But they won't be capable of seeing that.

Hillary now has over 1.5 million MORE votes than Trump, and by george, the next time around, the Dems - you, me and all of us - need to make sure that THOSE votes count. For the sake of the country and for the sake of the world. We have GOT to get control away from these morons. Our very survival depends on it.

Retrograde

(10,136 posts)
47. Disagree about #7
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 05:13 PM
Nov 2016

IMHO, Sanders' showing - especially in the Midwest - was a symptom of dissatisfaction with the DNC candidate that was as far as I can tell given short shrift after Clinton got the nomination. While I think that Sanders would have been creamed in a GE, the mere fact he was running and did so well was a sign that a lot of people, the ones we needed, were not happy about Clinton being rammed down their throats as inevitable. He brought up a lot of baggage, such as the Wall Street speeches, that stuck and secured Clinton's image as an Eastern insider.

As much as we laugh at it, Trump's red hat sent a subliminal message to blue color voters: I may have been born with a silver foot in my mouth, and I've got more money and stuff that you can imagine, but deep-down I'm just an Ordinary Joe who knows how to get his hands dirty.

VulgarPoet

(2,872 posts)
94. I wouldn't waste my breath if I was you.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 09:34 AM
Nov 2016

The hardline centrists will bash on Sanders till the sun comes up.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
65. Thanks, it took a while to get my thoughts together on this one
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 12:57 AM
Nov 2016

It took several days because I kept thinking of new ones when several time I thought that I was done.

Dem2

(8,168 posts)
64. Good summary, I'm guessing most here don't find this collection unreasonable
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 12:38 AM
Nov 2016

I live in a deplorable area and have heard a lot of these opinions expressed.

The only glaring exception that I heard that's not included is the Supreme Court and 2A.

CBHagman

(16,984 posts)
66. The Goring/Swiftboating (choose your term) covered years.
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 01:55 AM
Nov 2016

It wasn't just that the Republicans made certain the Benghazi investigation took four years, until -- oh, look! It's a presidential election! It's that Hillary Clinton has been demonized one way or the other for years.

The media's chosen talking point this year was that she had high negatives, but actually her reputation has gone up and down over the years, and she always had her fans...and critics of the harshest variety. All this for a Methodist and an overachiever who's been known as an advocate for women and children.

But as Marlo Thomas put it years ago, to be considered ruthless a man has to be Joe McCarthy. All a woman has to do is put you on hold.

underpants

(182,789 posts)
69. Great post. I think that at least 60% goes to the amount of airtime he got
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 10:25 AM
Nov 2016

But the 10 reasons you posted, in weighted amounts, made up the rest.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
74. The candidate is blameless?
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 06:48 PM
Nov 2016

I agree with most of your points. But it can't be ignored that we picked a nominee with huge negatives. And the party has been ignoring the lower middle class through the last two Dem Presidents. We saved the bankers, and their bonuses, but although we "saved" the auto industry, there has still been a slow bleed of the associated manufacturing jobs. And we have allowed the decline of the unions and did little to address that through two administrations.

Trump lied like a rug about his ability to do anything about these problems, but he spoke to them. We picked a candidate that was playing catch up on the TPP and trade in general, not to mention had all of those "hidden" speeches. The democrats have been exposing their flank with the blue collar voters and I've been waiting for some GOP candidate to figure that out. I just never anticipated it'd be Hughey P. Long.

potone

(1,701 posts)
78. I agree.
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 09:18 PM
Nov 2016

Poll after poll after poll showed that people didn't trust Hillary, and that Bernie had a better chance of beating Trump than she did. There wasn't the sort of excitement generated by her campaign that both Bernie and Trump generated. Too many Hillary supporters found it inconceivable that people would vote for an unqualified man who spouted bigoted and sexist remarks over a candidate with years of experience in public service. But Hillary represented for Trump supporters a continuation of the same economic priorities that we have had for decades that elevate corporate profits over the economic needs of the majority of Americans. People are sick of that; they quite literally can't afford it. That is how we have ended up with this false populist in office. Those who voted for him will soon realize that he is not their champion, but it will be too late. If we are lucky, it will only be four years of hell instead of eight.

God help us all, for Trump surely will not.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
84. And who started the "Hillary is trustworthy" attacks?
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 11:25 PM
Nov 2016

That would be the attacks which Trump observed, copied, and used to his advantage. Oh, that would be her fellow Democrat...hnmmm.... friendly rival - Bernie Sanders. With friends like him you don't need enemies.

potone

(1,701 posts)
88. You can't hold him responsible for that.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 12:40 AM
Nov 2016

Hillary did that to herself by her changing positions and her refusal to release the text of her Goldman Sachs speeches. That made people think that her campaign promises weren't sincere. The simple fact that she seemed so close to Wall Street was a red flag for many Americans, who still have not recuperated their losses from the 2008 crash. If the Democratic party doesn't start addressing the economic concerns of working-class people, we will continue to lose elections. This election result should be a wake-up call for the DNC.

Trump was not the choice of the Republican party establishment; they thought that they could continue to run candidates that ignored the economic needs of their base as long as they championed a hard line on social issues. His nomination and election is a sign that that coalition of religious conservatives with those advocating trickle-down economic policies is no longer working for the Republican party. Both parties are in trouble and in need of reform.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
92. Hillary was considered 'untrustworthy' long before Sanders entered the race.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:27 AM
Nov 2016

Enough with this blaming everyone else.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
99. Nice try
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:15 AM
Nov 2016

That started way back when Vince Foster died. The GOP has been singing that song on and off for a couple of decades. The Benghazi hearings weren't because of Bernie. Neither was the fuss over her emails. Heck, he tried to END that part. Primaries are always tough. Obama was hard on her too. Progressive opposition to Hillary dates back to the Iraq vote. And Hillary's negatives predate Berni's entrance into the race at all.

She lost because of things like NAFTA and the TPP. She lost because she's a main line democrat in a time when the lower middle class white voter only was focused on jobs and the economy. She lost because Obama saved the bankers straight out of the gate (and the top 20%) and watched as the lower middle class lost their homes and their jobs and struggle for 8 more years. The democratic party has abandoned the lower middle class and labor unions for the better part of 30 years. That isn't Hillary's fault alone. To a great degree, she had very little direct hand in it at all. Rumors had her furious with her husband over some of the things done, especially to children. But she inherited a democratic party that was committed to markets and investment, and thought that in exchange, they could do things for children, and minorities, and the LGBT community.

They got the balance wrong.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
75. there is one reason that you left out: Corporate owned MSM played a crucial role of
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 07:37 PM
Nov 2016

lending credibility to the primary GOP Big Lie: that Hillary was the anti-Christ and lied about classified information in her emails.

When Comey was questioned by the Congressional Committee M$M dutifully played the question from Trey Gowdy, was there any emails with classified information in them? To which Comey of course, replied: yes, there were emails with classified information.

BUT, nowhere on M$M was the questions Rep. Matt Cartwright asked re the lack of Classified Headers on the emails to be seen. Comey had to admit that none of the emails had classified headers on them. Then Cartwright asked would it not be a reasonable inference for Sec. Clinton to make that there was no classified information in any email that did not have Classified Heaader on it. Comey said that would have been a reasonable inference for Sec Clinton to make..

These questions and Comey's answer confirmed that Clinton did not lie when she said she didn't send or receive anything marked classified. But I'll bet only about 2% of the population knows about Comey's answers to these two questions.

Also not reported by M$M is the fact that NONE of the emails purported to contain classified information were initiated by Clinton. Every one was sent to or forwarded to Sec Clinton. But M$M did not report that.

M$M played a very important role in helping 'sell' the GOP Big Lie that Clinton was a liar and not trustworthy.



dubyadiprecession

(5,708 posts)
77. She had too few campaign commercials talking about what she would do for America...
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 08:04 PM
Nov 2016

and far too many of Trump making outrageous statements.

If she had competent people on the ground in the rustbelt (who were worth a shit!), She might have been able to speak to those voters and convince them to vote for her!

Oneironaut

(5,493 posts)
79. The Democratic political demise was easily avoidable. It was our own party's fault.
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 09:25 PM
Nov 2016

They chose the worst candidate at a time when the zeitgeist was anti-establishment. It was a foolish mistake. Any other candidate would have won.

The Democrats were arrogant and complacent. Trump didn't win - we lost. If the Democrats don't learn from this, they deserve to lose.

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
93. Who else ran?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:31 AM
Nov 2016

No one. Too much ASSumption that Hillary was the annoited one, just marking time to pick up her crown.

Oneironaut

(5,493 posts)
95. Yes. What's so funny about losing?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 10:47 AM
Nov 2016

Your attitude is the problem with our party. Only career politician corporatists get taken seriously, and everyone else is forced out by the system. We need to either change or keep losing.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
107. No, my problem is that the ultra liberals .....
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 09:53 PM
Nov 2016

.... who make up minority of the Democratic Party feel that they feel that they ought to be running every thing and that everyone else should bow to their wishes. When they don't get their way in their attempt to drag the party as far to the left as possible (and in the process scare off the independent decide Presidential elections), they sit on the sidelines and pout for awhile while bitching about rigged election.

Some never get over their anger and vote third party or sit home on election day and suck their thumbs. Others "hold their noses" or otherwise unenthusiastically decide to vote for the Democratic candidate as the "lesser of two evils". Only a few transfer their loyalty totally to the Party's nominee. Do all of the other contribute money to the general election campaign - no, of course not! Do they contribute their time and talents to the campaign - definitely not! Heck they think it is a major sacrifice if they just vote for the Democratic nominee.

Then after the election they come back to DU and loudly proclaim, "our candidate could have won" or in other words, "see, next time you non progressives better vote for our candidate or we will lose again".

I have but three words to describe those ultra liberals - self absorbed hypocrites

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
100. More viable
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:19 AM
Nov 2016

Arguing better is pointless. But data suggests that Bernie was more viable, especially against Trump. He under cut Trumps jobs message, as well as his comments about trade and fiscal policy. He was the "system isn't fixed" candidate that was needed to oppose Trump. Hillary was weak on all that. It may not be fair, but it is the reality of politics.

Hillary beat Bernie predominately because of her strong support in the AA community, which she earned. He had a huge weak spot here, which progressives would do well to think about long and hard. But unfortunately for her, that demographic did not show up at the general in the numbers she needed, in the states that she needed, to put her over the top. And the "angry white lower middle class voter" did.

It was economic issues that helped Trump, and she had a weak reputation on those subjects, earned or not.

jg10003

(976 posts)
80. Bernie was in it to win, and would have except for the Reid machine in NV.
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 09:53 PM
Nov 2016

And Bernie attacked Hillary's positions, not her. He never "attacked Hillary with a vengeance" or said she was "unfit to be president". Just the opposite; He, and Hillary, campaigned on ideas. After he lost he campaigned enthusiastically for her.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
83. BS! - How soon they forget
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 11:05 PM
Nov 2016

When the primaries were over the Republicans had watched the Bernie's attacks on Hillary and were making their plans to use his most successful attacks. Here are some of their observations:

While Sanders' endorsement of Clinton today is sure to be filled with sunshine and smiles, there is no forgetting the contentious primary between the two rivals that has left many of his supporters unwilling to back her.

Sanders Attacked Clinton For Being Unqualified To Be President On The Grounds Of Her Wall Street Ties And Foreign Policy Record.

Sanders Claims That Hillary Clinton Doesn't Have The Judgement To Be President, Partly Due To Her Iraq War Vote.

Sanders even went so far as to term Clinton's use of the term "super predators" as being "racist" and saying she knew the use of the term was racist as well.

https://gop.com/the-top-15-sanders-attacks-on-clinton/

Meanwhile Trumps was taking notes:

And for his part, Trump has begun incorporating Sanders into his stump speech, repeatedly asserting that he'll attempt to build on Sanders' characterizations of Clinton.

"Bernie Sanders has a message that's interesting," Trump told "Morning Joe" last month. "I'm going to be taking a lot of the things that Bernie said and using them."

He continued: "I can reread some of his speeches and I can get some very good material."


Bernie Sanders is escalating his attacks on Hillary Clinton — and Trump is taking notes

 

NoGoodNamesLeft

(2,056 posts)
81. I kept saying she really needed to come out and talk about how she planned to fix Obamacare costs
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 09:56 PM
Nov 2016

When those premiums went up and she didn't come out and acknowledge it was a problem and talk about how she would fix it that it would hurt her. That in combination with Comey and the people who refused to unite for the greater good to defeat Trump is what really hurt her.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
87. Yep, I'm sure that would have turned everything around...
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 11:29 PM
Nov 2016

...and she would have won by the a landslide in the electoral college

 

NoGoodNamesLeft

(2,056 posts)
108. That would have made a difference with enough people to change the outcome
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 10:03 PM
Nov 2016

There are a lot of states whose governors did NOT create their own marketplace because they were trying to block Obamacare entirely. I live in one of those states. The insurance offerings SUCK...and they suck bad. The costs for the premiums are high and sure, the tax credit would pay for that part...but the coverage was not good. The deductibles alone would prevent average people from ever bothering to use it. Not all states expanded Medicaid, either. In those states having those already high premiums go up even more when people already can't afford the damn deductibles made a HUGE difference. Hillary should have come out right away after the media started reporting the premiums going up and tell people she recognize this was a problem and she had a plan to address it and reassure people. Since Trump was promising to repeal it the people hurt by the rising premiums and outrageous deductibles most likely voted for Trump only because of their pocket book. Hillary never came out to address the issue and then shortly after that is when Comey came out about finding Huma's emails on that computer of her estranged husband. If she had of eased people's mind about Obamacare then the Comey letter would not have hurt as badly.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
111. Okay, what plan would you have suggested that Hillary should have pushed?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:47 PM
Nov 2016

Not easy is it.

The costs of the AHCA policies are going up for two reasons:

1) Young people who think they are immortal and bullet proof aren't signing up for insurance because they would rather spend their money on having fun. They aren't being responsible and since they are the biggest risk takers, when they get into accidents and can't pay their medical bills, all of us pay more when medical facilities and doctors have to absorb loses on their care.

2) Insurance companies are having to pay out more than they expected because they are having to insure older and sicker populations which are not balanced out by healthier young adults.

My solution is already written into the law. This year and from now own the penalties for not having insurance will really kick in for those who can afford insurance yet refuse to enroll in a plan. Since the penalties come due when they pay their taxes, this April a lot of people are going to be in for a surprise because they will have to have proof of health insurance or they will have pay their fines.

The slackers will figure out that their penalty will rise to 2.5% of of their total household adjusted gross income, or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, to a maximum of $2,085. For many it will make sense to get insured immediately. If they are going to have to pay anyway, they might as well get something for it.

By the way - the high deductible plans you call useless aren't in place to pay for ordinary medical expenses, and they aren't useless. They are designed to prevent people from being bankrupted by the expenses resulting from catastrophic illness and accidents. This type of coverage is getting less and less unusual - many large companies are going to this kind of coverage for their employees, including my employer.

LisaL

(44,973 posts)
89. Isn't that exactly what we thought?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 12:55 AM
Nov 2016

At least I did.
But don't forget the press that was like a dog with a bone about email nonsense.

Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

 

cpwm17

(3,829 posts)
91. Bernie was the far stronger candidate in the general election.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:01 AM
Nov 2016

After the candidates were known, Bernie always polled far better than any other candidate for either party. Don't blame Bernie.

Hillary has been unpopular for a long time. The more people see her, the less people like her. She lost to a very unpopular Republican candidate. She might have gotten more votes (Republicans do have an unfair advantage), but her weakness as a candidate caused her to lose.

In the next presidential election don't support a candidate that gets rich on the corrupt Washington DC system while promoting a neocon foreign policy and caring little about the average American - really not a good idea.

LisaL

(44,973 posts)
96. Oh jeez.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 10:51 AM
Nov 2016

Bernie polled better than any other candidates? Well, Hillary always polled better than Trump. How did that turned out? Looking at hypothetical polls months before an election and claiming that means something is ludicrous.

 

cpwm17

(3,829 posts)
105. Hillary was always close to Trump in the polls.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:23 PM
Nov 2016

Bernie was not. Hillary's loss should not come as a surprise to anyone that had any idea what was going on. Hillary's supporters were warned that there was a good chance that she could lose.

This is malpractice by the Democratic Party. People chose selfishness over country, and that includes Hillary.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
102. 1 of 1. Same reason she lost the 2008 primary: she ignored too many states.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:44 AM
Nov 2016

She ran two horrendous campaigns.

We have been losing pretty consistently the federal legislature, state houses and state governorships since the Third Way revolution. We keep losing. Everywhere. We keep putting all our eggs in the Presidential basket to the exclusion of all else. Third Way policy is guaranteed to lose in 90% of this country.

It may still get enough votes to occassionally elect a President, but there is no sign that it will ever win anything else. And its failure in 90% of the country starts us with an electoral college disadvantage. We can win every big city in the country and still lose the EC.

In fact, I think we just did. Again.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
104. This.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 12:08 PM
Nov 2016

The Democratic Party has some real issues they need to address. I, of course, think they need to be more progressive and ditch the corporate appeasement. But it's also what you said: they need organizations in every state and they need to run candidates and develop their bench. There is no one currently like Elizabeth Warren anywhere that I know of. All the up and comers are milquetoast middle of the road types like Corey Booker.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
106. Spoken like a true ultra conservative
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:38 PM
Nov 2016

Last edited Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)

When are you folks going to realize that you are not a majority in the Democratic Party. Note that in almost every primary (and their were more than 50 of them) that the majority of Democratic Party members voted for Hilary - who you refer to as a "third way" candidate.

In addition your group makes up a small percentage of the American voting population, maybe 10% or 15%. (It is a very loud, active and enthusiastic 10% to 15%, but it is still as a small share of the votes.) When either of the two major parties nominate candidates from their fringes, their chances of winning the White House are diminished because Americans are primarily center left or center right in their orientation.

So, the ultra left have three choices:

You can form your own political party I'm sure you can get the tiny groups of Greens and Socialists to join you. But be aware - if you do so you will marginalize yourself to the sidelines and will likely ensure that Republicans will permanently occupy the White House.

You can continue to be unreliable allies of the Democratic Party: In other words you can continue to act exactly like you have been acting - running candidates who will likely lose in the primaries or very likely will lose in the general election if they get that far. You also continue to act like like you have when a more center oriented progressive wins the Democratic nomination - either unenthusiastically supporting him/her, holding your nose and voting for him/her, not voting (your conscious, etc.), or voting 3rd party.

You can join with the rest of your progressive brethren in an strong coalition which is likely to win by also appealing to the independent centralists who decide most Presidential elections: The fastest growing demographics are on our side - blacks, Hispanics, unmarried women, and the young. If we stick together it will grow ever more and more difficult over time for Republicans to win the White House unless they totally disavow many of their current policies.

This was an an exceeding odd and strange election. Trump had populist message which also appealed to the worst elements of our society, but he is in for a very rocky road as he tries to govern. He will be revealed as the con man, the charlatan that he really is. His lying will catch up with him and, for various reasons, he will be unable carry through on many of the promises he made. And he won't have the excuse of having opposition Congress. He is already backing away from some of his more impossible commitments and he hasn't even taken the oath of office yet. Trump is destined to give populism a bad name.

However, Trump has already made it all but impossible for the Republicans to take the difficult steps to deal with the demographic changes which will become more and more difficult to ignore. They need to soften or even reverse their stances on immigration, abortion and law and order but with the nomination and election of Trump, he has made those tasks impossible for the time being.

In 2020, I believe that the country will be ripe for a change and together we can take advantage of that, but only if we stick together. However, if the ultra left chooses again to go its own way, we may have to endure Republicans in control of the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court for sometime to come.

ramapo

(4,588 posts)
110. She failed
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:35 PM
Nov 2016

1. Did not notice the success of Scott Walker in Wisconsin and didn''t bother to campaign there

2. Had a lousy campaign message. Wait, what was it? We all know Trump's.

3. Was a victim of a multi-year campaign by Republicans.

4. Was she the best candidate? She was the only candidate. Bernie is not a democrat.

I hate Trump. But democrats blew it, big time and I contend it goes back to the firing of Howard Dean.

Time for reinvention.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
112. Oh so you think Hillary was a bad candidate?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:51 PM
Nov 2016

Evidently you didn't hear her positive messages because the media mostly reported on negative campaign messages and you evidently weren't paying enough attention to hear them.

 

quantumjunkie

(244 posts)
116. If you're being Honest you have to admit Hillary had major flaws
Fri Nov 25, 2016, 03:48 PM
Nov 2016

You make valid points but you purposely left out that Hillary had major flaws.

1. She became very arrogant and did not campaign that much (or at all) in those specific states that are the focus of recounts. Obama brought this up as a radical departure from what he would have done.

2. She didn't have a message. I'm with Her is not a message. All she did was say to vote for her because Trump was worse. Not smart

3. She refused to embrace Bernie's supporters which were the young and Independents because as she said in the Primaries she did not need them.

4. She was and still is very much tied with the very things that voters despise which is pay-to-play politics. This is the key reason the young and Independents were not excited by Hillary. This is quite possibly the biggest reason why Trump was able to beat her. She was viewed as the establishment while Trump was viewed as the Change candidate this round. Sure Trump is a heavily corrupt and is very much establishment but he kept bangining the message that Hillary was the establishment not him.

It was not about her being a woman (for democratic voters). Elizabeth Warren would have won this (polls showed Bernies supporters would have overwhelmingly supported her). Obama would have won a 3rd term even though he too is a flawed candidate (another pay-to-play type) but at least he is a tad left of Hillary.

I donated several times to the recount with some hope that it might put Hillary in the WH but make no mistake it is only because she is the better alternative, not because she is good.

CajunBlazer

(5,648 posts)
117. Yet another ultra liberal Bernie Supporter who was part of the problem
Fri Nov 25, 2016, 10:59 PM
Nov 2016

Catch me if I'm wrong here because I'm just guessing, but let me see if I can describe you during the general election campaign: 1) You either voted for Jill Stein, or didn't vote, or you voted for Hillary with absolutely no enthusiasm, and only to keep Trump from winning. You contributed to Bernie's primary campaign, and maybe even volunteered, but you didn't contribute a nickle to Hillary's general election campaign and you certainly didn't volunteer to work for Hillary's election.

When some of your friends decided to vote for Stein or not vote vote at all, you did nothing to persuade them to vote for Hillary. You hated it when Trump won, but you believed that Bernie would have won if only he had been nominated. For you in the big dark Trump cloud you cling to a sliver of a silver lining because of Hillary's defeat that the Democrats will be more prone to nominate a "real progressive" in 2020.

Okay, now tell me, how close did I get? I figure that if you don't respond, I am dead on.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
118. She lost the E.C. /
Fri Nov 25, 2016, 11:50 PM
Nov 2016

by 60,000 votes.And Obama should be wary of clear cut comparisions - he never really won rural voters either. But yes HRC needed to tend to her firewall. That doesn't explain the vitriol towards her.

2) I don't know what more she could have done, offer blood perhaps, because she adopted some of Bernie's ideas.

3) And that is a massive lie. No where did Hillary ever say that, and no where did you ever hear it from her mouth. No doubt some Clinton supporters have been antsy but Hillary never said that herself.

4) The Establishment message was utter nonsense and voters fell for it. Every administration needs an establishment- I bet some of the anti-hillary progressive crowd , looking at the hot mess of people Trump has lined up for government, are wishing Obama's "establishment" could stay on right? That's the problem with demonizing people, you end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Hillary would have made a great president if she had the support. She has more than demonstrated throughout her public service career that her intent is sincere. She really wanted to improve the lives of Americans - if that doesn't make her "good" enough for you, I don't know what will. The fact this goodness could not be seen is the tragedy, a competent woman - with flaws yes, who doesn't have them? - was dragged down to the level of a vulgarian, smeared by both the left and the right. I'm amazed she still managed to win the popular vote by millions.

djsunyc

(169 posts)
119. i think...
Sat Nov 26, 2016, 12:59 AM
Nov 2016

there's only 1 real reason why it was close to begin with...people decided to vote by their gut and not their head.

trump was able to access enough people's gut/emotion to win it. it really shouldn't have been close at all - hillary should've amassed over 300 electoral votes but trump kept it close and that was good enough.

the comey letter was the end all be all.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Ten Reasons Why Hillary l...