First OP since the election..."Fool me once, shame on you...

[Barack_America]

"...Fool me twice..."

I am still shell shocked over the election. I'm having trouble speaking to and forgiving people I know who likely voted for Trump. I doubt many of those relationships can be salvaged. I can't even hear these people out, "I voted for him, but I am certainly NOT a racist/bigot/sex abuser..." Whatever, you are what you vote for. Own THAT, sit with THAT, and then maybe we can talk.

But, as an early Obama primary supporter in 2008 and a fervent Sanders supporter this year, there's a particular pain in realizing the slow-motion train wreck I've been dreading for more than 8 years has finally happened. And it was just as brutal and horrific as I was fearing.

You are more than welcome to check my posts from 8 years ago, but I supported Obama early in 2008 because I witnessed, and understood first-hand, the visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton amongst the white working class of Michigan. I never felt comfortable in her ability to win this region in a general election, which is a big reason I again supported her rival this year.

Therein lies the frustration and anger...if I could see it, then how in the hell could the Democratic Party not have? And if they did realize Hillary's weakness in the rust belt, then why on God's green earth did they work so hard to sabotage a candidate that was compelling here? To secure their own influence and futures is the answer I'm left with.

And how does Hillary not campaign in WI once in the general election after being so soundly beaten there in the primaries? The arrogance of that decision in particular is astounding.

We can complain about Putin and Comey, and sure, their influence in this election is bullshit, and I am utterly baffled that Washington is not (metaphorically) burning over it.

But, if we cannot reconcile the fatal mistakes that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party brazenly committed not once, but twice, and with intent, then this party will never achieve a majority again.

Enthusiasm matters, the Midwest matters, populism matters, distance from Wall Street matters. Recognize this now, finally, or fade into obscurity.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Thank you for articulating many of my same thoughts.

[elleng]

2. THANK YOU! 'I supported Obama early in 2008 because I witnessed, and understood first-hand,

the visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton amongst the white working class of Michigan. I never felt comfortable in her ability to win this region in a general election, which is a big reason I again supported her rival this year.

Therein lies the frustration and anger...if I could see it, then how in the hell could the Democratic Party not have? And if they did realize Hillary's weakness in the rust belt, then why on God's green earth did they work so hard to sabotage a candidate that was compelling here? To secure their own influence and futures is the answer I'm left with.

And how does Hillary not campaign in WI once in the general election after being so soundly beaten there in the primaries? The arrogance of that decision in particular is astounding.

We can complain about Putin and Comey, and sure, their influence in this election is bullshit, and I am utterly baffled that Washington is not (metaphorically) burning over it.

But, if we cannot reconcile the fatal mistakes that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party brazenly committed not once, but twice, and with intent, then this party will never achieve a majority again.

Enthusiasm matters, the Midwest matters, populism matters, distance from Wall Street matters. Recognize this now, finally, or fade into obscurity.'

The Hubris Of The Clinton Ground Game 'helped' mightily.

This piece was first published in Jacobin under the headline ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out.’

'It is now becoming clear that Clinton’s ground game — the watchword for defenders of her alleged competence — was actually under-resourced and poorly executed. Like so much else in this election, her field strategy was hostage to the colossal arrogance and consequent incompetence of the liberal establishment.

At the heart of the failure was the notion of the “new emerging majority.” According to this argument — pushed by, among others, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira — women, Latinos, blacks, and skilled professionals who support the Democrats were becoming the demographic majority. Thus the traditional white working-class base of the Democratic Party could be sidelined.

Back in July Chuck Schumer summed it up: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

From this theory and strategy flowed a deeply flawed set of tactics, and a badly fumbled get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort.

A labor organizer in Ohio, who wished to remain anonymous, reports that Clinton’s early GOTV effort there focused on Republicans in the mistaken belief a significant number of them could be peeled away. This play largely failed. And it also involved serious opportunity costs: traditional Democratic constituencies like African Americans and the white working class were neglected, and Clinton ended up badly under-performing Obama among both groups, especially in the Rust Belt.

Only in the last two weeks, according to this labor source, did the Democratic Party outreach effort really switch back to traditional Democratic voters. By then, it was too late. Due to lack of preparation, the voter lists guiding the effort had not been updated. Because poorer voters tend to relocate more frequently than home-owning suburbanites, many addresses were wrong. And for lack of more frequent contact the campaign was often unsure about the voters’ current political attitudes.

And when the campaign finally showed up in the African-American, Latino, and white working-class areas they got lots of “so you only come by once every four years?”'>>>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-hubris-of-the-clinton-ground-game_us_5831cebce4b099512f835e78

[Punkingal]

3. Why didn't the super delegates see it as well?

Are they so out of touch with their own electorate?

[Barack_America]

7. Because they are their own electorates.

Is the simple answer.

[TCJ70]

25. When some of them voted opposite their states...

...yes, they're entirely out of touch. I'm thinking specifically of Washington state which went heavily towards Sanders in the primary yet all 17 of it's superdelegates threw their support behind Hillary.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

35. The superdelegates KNEW that Bernie would NEVER win a general election

While he has powerful appeal to the far left and most of the left and liberals like him he would need MORE than those groups. He would NEED moderates and swing voters. Guess what...moderate swing voters are scared shitless of "socialists" and Bernie's positions are pretty radically left and moderates aren't comfortable with those kinds of policies. He would have lost even worse than Hillary did. There is no way he'd get all the needed swing voters to win. Hillary WOULD have won if all liberals united against Trump, but some didn't care if Trump won and wanted to be able to say "I told you so." Bernie is not and was not electable, and that's just how it is.

[TCJ70]

40. They also KNEW Hillary would win...how'd that work out? /nt

[MyNameIsKhan]

4. This election is a death wish come true for me...

[guillaumeb]

5. A question:

When you posted:

I supported Obama early in 2008 because I witnessed, and understood first-hand, the visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton amongst the white working class of Michigan

If you witnessed and understood, please explain to me why you think there was such visceral hatred for Hillary Clinton. Her policy positions were generally consistent with President Obama's positions. Why the difference?

[Barack_America]

6. It's not something that is easily explained...

...so to say that I "understood" is perhaps incorrect. It is a fact that I "knew".

The easiest thing to say is that is has nothing to do with policy. Nothing at all. It is also deep-rooted, extending back to the 1990's. Her personality, mannerisms and tactics are simply off-putting to working class whites.

On a deeper level, I suspect she, her success and her position somewhat, mirror the decline of male influence and confidence, and reflects that back at them. "She" has come to symbolize something greater than herself. "She" means that men, and white men in particular, don't matter anymore. That's what stirs the white working class against her.

[guillaumeb]

9. So does "it" reduce to misogyny?

Because that is what the elusive "it" sounds like.

Because when I hear talk about personality and mannerisms and tactics, that sounds like coded language.

And I recognize that you are talking about how you perceived that these working class whites perceived her.

[Barack_America]

11. It certain reduces to that, but there is something else there too...

...in my opinion.

As working white males have also scapegoated based on ethnicity, geography, etc., she embodies (in one person!) the scapegoating of women for their "plight".

[guillaumeb]

13. Nicely put. And agreed. eom

[Garrett78]

29. Exactly, it has nothing to do with policy.

Nothing Clinton could have said or done would have made a difference. She just needed higher turnout, and she may have gotten it if not for voter suppression.

I'm not convinced Sanders would have done any better. He may have done better with one demographic and worse with another. Or he may have been completely crushed under an avalanche of anti-socialism scare tactics.

[mtnsnake]

8. Let me try. Obama had none of her baggage, was way more likable, and was a much better campaigner

People were taught by the right wing to hate the Clintons since the 1990's. Hillary just couldn't do anything to win her naysayers over. Obama was a master of winning people over, as fantastic a campaigner as there ever was. Obama and Hillary might share many of the same values, but they are soooo different when it comes to campaigning. His smile alone could have won over the swing states.

[guillaumeb]

10. All about the messenger rather than the message?

If so, that is a sad indictment of whoever shared this view.

[Garrett78]

30. It must be pointed out that Obama ran prior to the Shelby County v. Holder decision.

Voter suppression was easier to wage than it was prior to 2014.

As for all the talk about white working class voters: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512627709

[Fast Walker 52]

12. I agree, to some people, Hillary was fatally flawed

sad, but true.

But everyone has their weaknesses.

And I think Bernie had major weaknesses, and obviously O'Malley was not ready for prime time, and neither was anyone else ready.

Hillary was our best shot, and that's it. It's done.

I don't think primary voters care about who is going to be popular in Michigan and Wisconsin in the GE, is the problem.

"...if I could see it, then how in the hell could the Democratic Party not have? And if they did realize Hillary's weakness in the rust belt, then why on God's green earth did they work so hard to sabotage a candidate that was compelling here?"

THEY DIDN'T sabotage Bernie. That's a false premise. They didn't "rig" the primary, although I can understand you thinking that with all the disinfo out there. They DID try to protect Hillary because they assumed she would mathematically be the nominee.

[mtnsnake]

14. I disagree that Hillary was our best shot. I think she was the most vulnerable of all our candidates

Having said that, I'm not going to sit here and claim that Bernie would have won, but I think he would have handled Trump's outrageous lies and accusations much more aptly than Hillary did. Besides being smart and so likeable, Bernie is tough and doesn't take shit from the right wing so lightly.

[Fast Walker 52]

15. Bernie vs Trump would have been really interesting

It would have been very different, but probably still ugly though in a different way. I suspect the GOP as a whole would have come on board to go after Bernie as a communist and poke endlessly at his weaknesses.

[mtnsnake]

16. Yes, for sure the GOP would have labeled him a Commie immediately

and convinced their sheep that it would be unpatriotic to vote for him. Yup, it would have been ugly, but I think Bernie would have handled the propaganda in a much different way. I think he would have been much tougher in his response. Would the outcome have been different. Who really knows?

[LisaL]

17. Republicans were ready to go after Bernie.

Bernie supporters think Bernie would have won but I don't believe that for a second.

"So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers."
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

[Barack_America]

18. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to your post.

With respect, I disagree.

First they came for the socialists, and we said nothing...then they came for the liberals, and we said nothing...then they came for the Democrats...

The point being that Bernie is uniquely positioned to (finally!) push back against the notion that liberalism or (ye gads) socialism is nothing to be ashamed of. Accusations of "socialist" or "liberal" roll off of Bernie, because they hold no shame for him. He has never shied away from what he believes in. Even the weak-willed ardent Trump supporters can respect that. And Bernie would have reeled them in, making them detail exactly what social programs are "radical" and "communist".

He would have been successful against Trump, IMO.

[Fast Walker 52]

23. It's certainly possible! I think it would have been a great and better debate than what we had...

and I'm sure Bernie is mad as hell that he didn't get the chance to take on Trump directly.

But the problem is not so much Bernie, he could communicate the issues as well as anyone, it is the media. I just don't think they would have given him a fair shake.

[liquid diamond]

19. Yet another

Long winded I told you so post. Sanders couldn't even win a primary contest. Even if he did, the racist working whites would never vote for a Jewish candidate.

[Barack_America]

20. He won Michigan and Wisconsin.

And, yes, many Sanders supporters did recognize this as a "change" election, which the Dem establishment unfortunately ignored.

[SaschaHM]

22. Yet he lost PA, VA, OH, NC, FL, NV.

So winning MI or WI in the general would be nullified by losing those. Enthusiasm couldn't carry him to a primary win. Did you expect the millions of more people that went for Hillary to just fall in line after seeing the nomination being passed to the runner up?

[TCJ70]

24. "Did you expect the millions of more people that went for Hillary to just fall in line"

Hillary supporters rolled the "fall in line" garbage out every chance they could get...were they not going to follow their own advice? It's a foolhardy position to take that anyone owes you a vote or that you'll just automatically get a vote...

I also don't see where the OP advocated giving the nomination to the runner up...

[SaschaHM]

21. I love how they assume that everyone that supported Hillary during the primary would have come out..

for Bernie after having their will overturned at the convention. Frankly, I'm tired of these long winded posts, but it shows that they have learned nothing about reaching out to other democrats since the primary and that is what will doom them in contests to come.

[Lotusflower70]

26. Spot on

I supported and campaigned for President Obama in 2008 and 2012. Clinton had no chance in 2008. This election demonstrated how truly out of touch the Super delegates were with the rust belt. The lack of actual appearances in the Midwest was ridiculous. The lack of acknowledgement about the jobs issues was sad. I saw the appeal and love for Sanders. The DNC ignored it.

[SoCalMusicLover]

32. No Visits To Wisconsin

It's hard to schedule trips to Wisconsin, when you are spending so much time traveling to CA for fundraising.

She could have visited CA 0 times, and still won the state by 20 points.

[Lotusflower70]

34. Mind boggling

I don't know who advised her against coming to the Midwest but they totally underestimated and miscalculated the situation.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. I brought up that exact same thing here today

and was told it made no difference, that the voters in Wisconsin weren't keeping track of how many days it had been since she had been there (April? May?).

I completely disagree. When a population already feels that their government isn't listening to them, and they hear on the radio or see on TV that Trump has been there 6 times in 4 months, they start thinking "Where's Hillary?".

Surrogates are fine, and Hillary had some of the best, but candidate visits make a difference. If they didn't, candidates would sit in their campaign headquarters and make commercials.

[randome]

27. It may sound like ageism on my part but I think we need to rid ourselves of the oldsters.

Obama inspired people because of his youth and energy. I'm hoping Pelosi retires next. It's time for new blood and for the oldsters to step aside for the good of the team.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

28. While Hillary had her issues with appealing to some voters, Bernie had far bigger issues...

The DNC was expecting Democrats to fall in line to oppose Trump. But they did NOT expect swing voting moderates to vote for Bernie because his positions and policies are TOO EXTREME for those in the middle. I know this because I am a moderate swing voter and if not for me living in Vermont for a decade and being familiar with Bernie there is NO WAY I would have voted for him. I'm not a Democrat, I'm a registered Independent who always votes for the candidate with the most moderate position. I would have voted for Bernie against Trump BECAUSE I am a hardcore political junkie. I'm informed. IF the GOP had of nominated Rubio, Kasich or Bush I would have voted for any of them over Bernie because they are more moderate.

So before anyone should insist that Bernie would have won they should stop and think twice...while Bernie would have gotten the votes of the BOBs he would have lost twice as many moderates, if not more. The DNC and superdelegates understood this and THAT is why they worked to make sure Hillary was the nominee.

[RBInMaine]

31. You are spot on! Enthusiasm, populist economics, rural America, and fighting the oligarchy WINS!!!

[joshcryer]

33. Nothing Clinton ever did was good enough.

I think that's why, even with Bill's protestation, that she didn't go to WI or MI or PA. Trump was blitzing those states and if she went there you know what the news would've been? That she's afraid. That she has a reason to. That she's behind. That she's scared, etc.

I think she still would've lost those states even with a blitz.

[Barack_America]

36. I think so too, I think they were unwinable for her...

...which, unfortunately, strongly suggests she should never have been the nominee.

[joshcryer]

38. She won four million more votes in the primary.

And 2 million more in the general.

It is what it is.

[TheKentuckian]

39. Bullshit, if she had been campaigning in the area the whole time instead of a last ditch reaction

then it would be just more campaign stops and who the fuck cares what pitiful nonsense the media would come up with? It would at least be a break from emails and pay to play so even that back biting would have been a little win.

[DanTex]

41. Why do you think the "white working class" doesn't like Hillary?

Hint: it has nothing to do with Wall Street.

[Barack_America]

43. See post #11.

It's a little bit personality (lack of "folksiness&quot , but mostly that.

[Arazi]

42. Agreed 100%. Wisconsin resident here and it was obvious to me as well