Who should have been the democratic party nominee for president?

[mike_c]

I ask because I'm seeing lots of disdain for Senator Bernie Sanders in this forum, much of it claiming that he would never have been able to defeat Mr. Trump. I don't actually believe that-- the Sanders campaign generated huge voter interest and enthusiasm despite a virtual media blackout and Clinton's primary victory depended largely on her control of party establishment super delegates-- but let's accept it for arguments' sake and remove Senator Sanders from consideration because he would not beat Mr. Trump. Unlike Senator Sanders, who is unsuitable because we *presume* he would not defeat Trump, Senator Hillary Clinton actually failed to defeat Trump in real life, at least decisively, so if we apply the "won't win" standard to Sanders, we must certainly apply it to Senator Clinton as well.

Martin O'Malley was an also ran from the very beginning, IMO, but I'd certainly like to hear from anyone who thinks otherwise.

So if not Clinton or Sanders, neither of whom could beat Trump, who should the democratic party have nominated instead?

[underpants]

1. Hillary

[mike_c]

10. you would prefer to run a losing candidate (and have a Trump presidency)?

I mean, of all the candidates the democratic party could have nominated, you prefer the one who actually lost the election to Trump?

[Applan]

52. Nobody could have beaten Trump

Nobody. Trump is the greatest con man who ever lived and he just pulled the greatest con in history. He was always going to win the election no matter who the Democratic candidate was.

[stevenleser]

76. It would have been difficult to beat any of the last 3 GOP hopefuls. People forget how bad GOP

Presidents are. They get complacent with how good things are under a Democratic President and they want to change thinking it would get better.

They need a reminder every once in a while. They're about to get it.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

117. Cruz would have been a very weak candidate

Kasich was never a serious candidate and his religious ambiguity would have been a problem even if some sort of consensus formed behind him.

[stevenleser]

138. Cruz and Kasich both polled better against Hillary than Trump

I suspect they would have done well just because they weren't Democrats. I think that is as much a part of Trump's success this time around as anything else is.

[TDale313]

128. He was totally beatable. But not by her.

[SpareribSP]

157. I guess we should just give up 2020 then too

Unless we run a lying cheater who can lie to the American people better!

I think this is a terrible takeaway, and the exact opposite of what the thought process should be.

[lapucelle]

90. Hillary lost the election to Comey.

Any other Democratic candidate who had faced the manipulation of the election by both the Russian hacking/propaganda machine and a politicized FBI would have lost as well.

[hueymahl]

2. Joe Biden is the easy answer

He had broad appeal, especially in the rust belt areas where Hillary lost the presidency. Of course, he refused to run.

Like you, I think Sanders could have won.

[mike_c]

15. I agree with you-- Biden would have been a good nominee...

...had he wanted to run for the nomination.

[get the red out]

33. YES!!!!!

[mainstreetonce]

51. I agree Biden

I don't think Sanders would have won.

[Duckhunter935]

86. Would have been a great one

[lapucelle]

98. There were issues with Biden.

Republicans would have hung every mistake (alleged or real) that Obama has made around his neck, and while Biden has populist appeal, some of us remember what he did to Anita Hill in the service of helping the Republicans to put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

104. Biden, Bernie, or Elizabeth would of won easily... but, it was Hillary's turn and, as they say, the rest is history.

[mike_c]

107. this

[LanternWaste]

168. Who's turn is then coming up next?

Who's turn is then coming up next? Or does prophecy not apply to that one?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

191. It's Bernie's turn, of course... just like it was Hillary's turn after she lost to Obama.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[tinrobot]

126. Biden, absolutely.

He threaded the line between Hillary and Bernie.

I do wonder if he had run, how the primaries would have turned out. Not sure if a three-way race would have favored him.

[NCTraveler]

3. The one who won by millions of votes. nt.

[MADem]

4. The one who won the primary by MILLIONS of votes. Really, you're going down this road?

I think it will end poorly, but that's just me.

One more time: She won the primary AND the general election popular vote by MILLIONS of votes.


And the jury is still out if she didn't actually win the electoral college, too.

[Exilednight]

49. The jury returned their verdict. It's over. It's done, she loss, move on. This is as pathetic as

Sanders supporters who held out hope for some crazy miracle, and I say that as someone who supported Sanders.

The popular vote doesn't matter. Someone else said it best when they said: my football team still won, sure we didn't get more points, but we touched the ball more. We needed 270 points to win, and we didn't.

Yes, this is a topic worth exploring, and for the record I believe Biden could have beat her.

[MADem]

53. You plainly don't understand the purpose of this recount.

Let me try to explain it as simply as I can.

There was something amiss. It was subtle, but it happened.

If Trump's EC "victory" can be maligned, impugned, and made to be viewed as suspect, it de-legitimizes him as POTUS and hamstrings him for the duration of his term.


This benefits OUR team - that would be the Democrats.

The popular vote DOES matter if you're a Democrat. FOUR TIMES the EC has overridden the will of the people--FOUR TIMES. On every occasion, the benefit went to the GOP.

Nice bash at the end of your post, there--Biden couldn't have been elected dogcatcher. He's run and failed MISERABLY twice and he has way more baggage. Neil Kinnock, anyone?

Lastly, you need to make up your damn mind. You start out saying there's no point, and conclude with "this is a topic worth exploring...."

smdh. Not at all subtle.

[Exilednight]

65. I don't understand the recount due to the fact she will not get the required EVs.

People who believe this belong in the same column as those that believe that aliens land in their backyard and probe them or those that believe the illuminati are real. It's pure conspiracy theory that belongs on the X-Files.

The popular vote doesn't matter. It's not, no matter how wrong, the way we choose our president.

No where did I say this topic doesn't matter. I inferred that the recount doesn't matter because it doesn't change anything.

[MADem]

69. And you think that's the ONLY goal?

How about free and FAIR elections?

I think that's worthwhile. YMMV. Instead, you toss shade and insults with aliens and illuminati bullshit.



You're all over the page with your comments. AND over the top, too.

Why are you trying to tout the process of disenfranchisement? Seems rather odd to me. Trump is taking this tack on twitter, but I expect better here.

You know, once upon a time, we traveled by stagecoach. It's the way we always traveled. But guess what? It's not how we travel nowadays.

There is such a thing as progress--in transportation and elections.

Once upon a time, "we" didn't pick our Senators--our GOVERNORS did. There were no votes to count, if you were a pal of the head guy, you could get the gig. It's not how we do it anymore. We've evolved.

We didn't let women and black people vote either--once upon a time, it was just property owning white men who were allowed to do that. We CHANGED that.

We can evolve on this issue, too. It's past time. And this recount highlights the utter bullshit that the person who gets the most votes doesn't get the gig. And the person screwed over in the four times this has happened has always been a Democrat.

Starting to smell the unfairness of it all? If not, you need to recalibrate.

And you watch--in your lifetime, the popular vote WILL matter. You don't have to help make change, but plenty of us have that fight in us, even if you don't. Off to the sidelines if you don't want to help.

[Exilednight]

71. Unfair as it is, with Republicans in control there will be no amendment to change the EC.

A recount has nothing to do with wanting an amendment.

[pnwmom]

113. Biden didn't choose to run. It's easy to fantasize about him and Warren. nt

[Exilednight]

118. No worse than those thinking about a Hillary presidency.

[pnwmom]

120. Hillary was chosen by 2,350,000 more voters than DT. (And her lead is still increasing.)

It is only the electoral college, rigged to make white rural votes matter more, that produced this outcome.

[Exilednight]

122. How does a person become president?

A. Popular Vote

B. Securing 270 Electoral Votes

C. Neither

D. Both

Here's a hint, it's not A,C or D.

[pnwmom]

123. The fact remains that the strong majority (54%) voted against Trump.

There is no evidence, only wishful thinking, that any other candidate would have done a better job than Hillary.

And neither Biden nor Warren had the heart for the campaign this year; it is silly to say that either one "should" have been the nominee.

[Exilednight]

127. No more ignorant than thinking Hillary still has a shot.

And it's sad that I have to point this out, but if Hillary had won the EC, the same could be said about her. A majority of voters didn't vote for her either.

Yes, she won a plurality, bit she didn't win a majority.

[pnwmom]

130. I don't think Hillary can win now, and that's why I didn't donate to Stein's

self-serving action.

If Hillary had won the Electoral College, she would have done it more than 2.35 million votes ahead of Trump. And the only thing keeping her from more were the votes going to third party candidates. Any time there are major third party candidates they are going to make it very difficult for a Democrat to win a majority.

[Exilednight]

170. Third party candidates was not why Hillary lost the election.

It was her ability to appeal to the masses.

She couldn't turn her negatives into positives. When Bill was impeached his popularity soared, and it wasn't because people saw through the GOPs attempt at sliming him. It was Bill's ability to appeal to the masses.

Hillary, in her own self admission, isn't a gifted speaker.

[pnwmom]

171. The 7 million third party votes had a huge impact. If about a hundred thousand of them in key states

had been afraid enough of Trump to vote for her, then she would have won. But they weren't. They were fine with him winning.

[Exilednight]

175. If they voted 3rx party they were never going to vote for Hillary.

[pnwmom]

177. If they were never going to vote for Hillary they were willing to let Trump win;

they weren't willing to take the single action they could have taken to help stop him, and there is no excuse in the world good enough for that.

[Exilednight]

181. And they did let Trump win.

[pnwmom]

183. And the Greens proved once again what phonies they are,

pretending to be progressives when they really set themselves up as spoilers --just as in 2000 when Nader lied about Gore being as bad as Bush.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

125. Any serious nomination challenge to Clinton would have been a bloodbath

People like Cuomo, Emanuel or Warner are young enough to have comfortably sat this one out. Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton hate each other, it would have been a very ugly, personal and bruising campaign. Joe Biden obviously had his own reasons but getting between Clinton and the nomination would have been very ugly and charged for him too.

[Exilednight]

129. No worse than Obama vs Hillary.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

135. No, I think it would have been a lot worse

It would have been Spring 2008 all over again except it would have lasted a year and a half. The person who limped out of that with the nomination would have already been so publicly damaged as to be doomed and the party would be at war with itself.

[Exilednight]

137. The party is at war with itself now.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

139. That is because we lost the election

Other than a few tantrums at the convention everyone who mattered dutifully fell in line.

[Exilednight]

140. It wasn't just that we lost the election, it's because we nominated an establishment candidate

And lost to a moron.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

141. Any number of "establishment" candidates could have won

The problem with Hillary Clinton was that the Clinton brand just isn't today what it was twenty-five years ago and they appeared to be oblivious to that fact. Clinton-Gore won six of the Solid South states in both elections. Clinton-Kaine won only one of them when they seemed to think that against Trump they might have bested that.

[LisaM]

5. Look, we've had three terrific nominees since 2000 (four, with Obama)

Last edited Tue Nov 29, 2016, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton would all have made absolutely first-rate presidents. I'm not going to fault any of them as nominees. Perhaps we didn't deserve them, but they all would have made Presidents we could have been enormously proud of. And all of them recovered from bruising losses and still went about the task of trying to make the world a better place.

The problem of a flawed system has been staring us in the face for a while - not just the Electoral College, but the gerrymandering, voting suppression, and evisceration of the Voting Rights Act. And that doesn't even get into actual tampering.

The right is not winning on messaging. They are winning on tactics. I stand behind all of those nominees and I'm very proud to have voted for all of them.

[Hoyt]

11. Excellent.

[TwilightZone]

66. Agreed...

on all counts.

[DemonGoddess]

67. This!!!

Agree wholeheartedly!

[zipplewrath]

78. gerrymandering doesn't affect presidential elections

Each state gets a fixed number of EC votes. The vast majority of them are decided by popular vote in each state. You can't gerrymander your way out of that.

I'm afraid that we keep losing frequently because we refuse to listen to the voters and pay more attention to donors. I've been worried since he first Clinton administration that the union/blue class voter was ripe for the picking by the GOP. They finally found a candidate that saw that. The Rockefeller republicans joined the Democrats decades ago and have shifted us away from the lower middle classes. It's finally caught up with us.

The most disturbing fact out of this election was that the GOP had upwards of 17 people that thought they had a chance in the primary, and the democrats had 3, maybe 4 if you include Biden. Our bench is thin. We can argue why, but none the less our two most dominate candidates both qualified for Medicare. We haven't been developing the talent we need. Furthermore, fuller primary fields with more debate produce better GE candidates. It forces them to hone their message and prepare better, not to mention gets them more exposure.

We need to develop a deeper bench. We need to encourage, not discourage, more competition and challengers. Oh, and we need to stop running the same losing candidates over and over, regardless of how much we like them.

[LisaM]

94. But gerrymandering DOES affect things like how many polling sites there are in a district,

how busy they are, whether a state has early voting, and so on. It can also create situations that cause onerous voting requirements. So it can depress turnout. And, it can depress the ability to put together the "bench" you rightly say we need.

We do have rising stars, but they can't get any traction in their states (people like Wendy Davis). Not all politics is local, but a lot of it is, and if there's mischief and suppression going on at the state level, I think it will have a natural effect on national races, too.

[zipplewrath]

161. Hard pressed

I get your point, but you'd be hard pressed to show how that caused 6 million people, who could find a way to vote in 2012, to not be able to vote in 2016.

Face it, she lost because she was a "weak" candidate for the race she was in. It is probably unfair why the perception was that way amongst a "perfectly" distributed minority of voters. But that's the reality. One thing we do have to keep repeating, he is a "minority" president. And I've taken to reminding many people what happened the last time we had one of those.

[LisaM]

164. According to Dana Millbank, there were possibly millions of suppressed votes.

Not that we needed that many to push over the top. A couple hundred thousand suppressed votes - assuming they were in the right places - would do it.

[JaneQPublic]

6. Hillary. (nt)

[rzemanfl]

7. Apparently we should have run, wait for it-

Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho

[hueymahl]

28. Thread winner!

[Lucky Luciano]

146. I actually refer to the little fuhrer as president Camacho sometimes too! nt

[MineralMan]

8. We had a candidate, chosen in the primaries.

She did not receive enough votes in enough states to win in the Electoral College. It is that simple, really. If more people had voted for her in just three states, she would be President-elect. They didn't. Enough people skipped voting for President or voted for a third party to have changed the election results.

There is your answer. Go ask those voters. I have no freaking idea what led them to do that.

[Wellstone ruled]

12. Agree with your statement.

The last four days was the turning point.

[zipplewrath]

160. 6 million

"enough people skipped" is no over statement.

And if you don't have any ideas, a lot of the rest of us do, but they aren't real popular around here about now.

[MineralMan]

163. The election is over. I'm not really interested

in fighting over what is now history. Not one bit.

[zipplewrath]

173. He who does not study history

You know the rest.

[JI7]

9. Hillary

[katsy]

13. I supported SBS during the primary

& happily supported HRC during the general.

HRC is and was an awesome candidate. She accomplished more than anyone in any general save one PBO. All 3 of the primary contenders are great leaders & i hope we see MOM in 2020. Or... HRC for that matter.

Stupidity, sheer fucking misogynistic xenophobic self-pitying ignorant rust belt voters in states that supressed the vote/gerrymandered districts won the EC, a remnant of our racist roots.

I don't think any of our candidates could have won save one that wouldn't run... VP Biden.

On edit: did i make clear my everlasting thorough disdain for the fucking rust belt? Poor fucking wittle dimwits who can't manage a fucking coherent rationale for voting for this monster they elected? Did i get my hatred across for these maggots? They are the inly ones to bkame may they choke on their confederate flags and apple fucking pie.

[Skinner]

14. I think people need to understand that this can't ever be resolved.

Because we will not get a chance to try running alternate nominees in the 2016 presidential campaign.

We got a chance to test "Clinton vs Trump in 2016." Clinton failed, so we know how that one turns out. But we'll never know how the others might have done. In a way, those who supported alternate candidates in the primary are kind of lucky, because they can still hold the belief that their candidate might have won. There won't be an opportunity to actually test the proposition.

[mike_c]

19. DU needs a "like" button....

Like.

[Lotusflower70]

16. I agree

Bernie Sanders should have been the the nominee. He won the background states in the primaries. I believe he would have won the general election. He doesn't have anywhere near the baggage Hillary or Trump does.

[marybourg]

54. He has lot of baggage, including the simple fact

that's he's burdened with the title "socialist" which, rightly or wrongly is anathema to much of this country, especially those over 50.

But he has much other baggage besides. You're just unaware of it yet, because he was not in a position to be attacked by Publicans yet. He has been in the public sphere for many, many years and the Publicans know how to put the worst possible spin on every vote he's ever cast, some of which are frankly, easy to put a bad spin on, and every opinion, and he's voiced many of them, that can be taken out of context.

No, the only politician who has no "baggage" is the one born yesterday. Not the 74-year-old.

[Lotusflower70]

56. Socialist

It's too bad the Socialist title gets such a bad rap while others are totally ignored.

We'll just agree to disagree on the baggage part.

It's time to move forward on focus on someone new.

[marybourg]

92. Agree. nt

[liquid diamond]

91. All the bullshit

He promised would require significant tax increases on the middle class. That platform is political fucking suicide. The GOP would have slaughtered him. Don't even get me started on how they would have brought up his being Jewish to the racist fucks who elected the fuhrer. It's been 3 weeks after the election and you Bernie supporters just won't stop fantasizing.

[Txbluedog]

17. Does it matter?

Hillary was the nominee for better or for worse.

Discussing hypothetical nominees is not going to change the outcome or help us move forward

[mike_c]

20. I think it will certainly help us move forward...

...because the party needs to examine its mistakes and learn from them.

[Txbluedog]

23. I agree that the Party needs to learn from it's mistakes

and learn from them but it does not help to rehash the past. A more appropriate question would be who would be a better nominee in 2020

[liquid diamond]

96. This is

a pitch to run Bernie again in 2020. I hope the DNC updates its rules to prevent an outsider from running on our ticket ever again.

[el_bryanto]

18. I don't think we can have a productive conversation on this subject

It's going to turn to a referendum on whether or not we should have run HRC and that gets into a very angry making discussion. HRC should have won, but she lost, and understandably people are still pretty raw about that. If you supported HRC in the primary than you are probably upset at how she was attacked and criticized during the primary process, and still upset that your candidate lost. If you supported Sanders than you are probably upset that he didn't get the nomination when he might well have won, and then upset that you supported HRC in the general election and she lost (if you didn't support HRC in the general election than, well, to hell with you).

Talking about O'Malley or Biden might be more productive, but that conversation would probably eventually turn back to Clinton vs. Sanders and all of the anger and frustration of the last years just blossoms back up.

Bryant

[Txbluedog]

32. Excellent post!!!

[Calculating]

21. Bernie Sanders

He really only lost the primary due to shenanigans and southern states that were never gonna vote Hillary in the general. Even Martin O'Malley may have been better if he had been given the chance.

[RKP5637]

29. Debbie Wassermann Schultz rigged it so Bernie was marginalized right from the beginning and

anyone else. Now here we are.

[BobbyDrake]

30. There's that "Southern states" horse shit again. Democrats in every state get to vote in the primary

so enough with the racist dogwhistles already.

[SaschaHM]

38. This 1000 and he should have just said black voters.

And you know, after this primary, I'm fine with guys like him not realizing the outreach problems with their candidate and/or revolution.

[BobbyDrake]

42. Me too. They've earned a heaping serving of "Right back at you" from now on.

Either their progressive heroes appeal to me 100% or they can forget earning my vote. Time for progressives to feel the sting of "progressive" tactics; let's see how they like it.

[greymattermom]

22. Mark Dayton

Just look how well Minnesota is doing, and they have a large Muslim community too.

[Grey Lemercier]

193. Minnesota doing well? The Rethugs just won control of both Chambers of the State

Legislature and Clinton barely beat Trump.

[Azathoth]

24. Who knows? That's why we needed a truly open and competitive primary

Last edited Wed Nov 30, 2016, 02:52 AM - Edit history (2)

Say what you will about the GOP, at least they had the entire freak show run for their nomination. Their voters had an ample choice, and the candidate with the most organic support won.

The Dems went in the opposite direction. The DNC, the superdonors, the superdelegates, and frankly the White House, all worked together to discourage and shut down potential candidates so that Hillary could be installed as the nominee. As a result, the only guy who stayed in the race was the quixotic socialist.

Who knows who would have jumped into the race and gained momentum if the process had not been structured against them.

[Merlot]

102. Agreed. Remember when we had 8 candidates running?

And when we didn't hide our debates from the American public so they could actually see what democrats stood for?

[tecelote]

136. Most reasonable post I've read in awhile.

You're right. It's not who we should have run. It's how.

Thanks!

[Lucky Luciano]

147. Yup. nt

[Gram Parsons]

154. Exactly!

[SpareribSP]

159. "the only guy who stayed in the race was the quixotic socialist."

And he was very competitive! I think the red flags here were pretty blaring, good analysis.

[Tatiana]

184. Fantastic and astute analysis. I completely agree. n/t

[doc03]

25. What is the point in all this bullshit hashing over the primaries

get over it we lost. There is no way of knowing who would have been the best choice. Better be worrying about the here and
now instead of dwelling on the past.

[mike_c]

109. actually, I'm hoping that we can learn for the future

[JudyM]

149. You may have stepped into the wrong forum, doc.

[vi5]

26. Someone who could have beaten Donald Trump.

No way of knowing who that would have been, one way of knowing who that wasn't.

[RKP5637]

27. Sadly, Hillary had a lot of baggage. I think Joe Biden would have done better. n/t

[Madam45for2923]

31. Hillary Rodham Clinton

[BlueMTexpat]

34. The Democartic nominee should have been

- and was - the candidate who received the most votes in the Democratic primaries.

That candidate was Hillary Clinton, who won over SBS by some FOUR MILLION+ VOTES.

I am so sick and tired of this f**king revisionist history posted by people who still can't GET OVER the primary results!

Hillary also has won the popular vote by some TWO POINT THREE MILLION VOTES and counting. There is simply NO other Democratic candidate who could have done as well in 2016.

The problem was NOT the candidate. It was the voting in the primarily GOP-controlled key states that used various voter suppression methods, strict voter ID laws and X check voter purges, etc. to make it difficult to impossible for Hillary-supporting voters to vote. Added to that was the idiocy of those in rural areas who are proud of not being able to think.

Period.

[hueymahl]

36. So many things wrong with this answer

But a lot of people agree with you. And if enough continue to agree with you, we are destined to lose every election going forward.

[JudyM]

150. This.

[Ken Burch]

44. It has never been about refighting the primaries.

n/t.

[mike_c]

105. this isn't about refighting the primaries....

It's about owning mistakes and learning from them.

[StevieM]

35. Whoever the party nominated would have been viciously smeared based on lies

that the American people fell for.

Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley would also have turned out to be awful human beings if they were the people that the GOP were running against.

Just like Al Gore and John Kerry were supposedly bad people. Don't you remember when Al Gore tried to trick America into believing that he went to Texas with the Director of FEMA, James Lee Witt, when, in fact, he had actually gone with the Deputy Director of FEMA?

[David__77]

37. Not Clinton or Sanders.

I supported Sanders over Clinton, in part because I thought that Clinton would be a disastrous candidate for the Democratic Party. I also didn't think that Sanders really was committed to winning and exercising political power - he struck me as a chronic oppositionist.

I think that Biden would have made a good candidate. I don't know much about O'Malley - maybe he would have made a good candidate.

What might be a good question is: who should be the candidate in 2020? I know it's a long way off - still, I think it's a valid question. Maybe Sen. Kamala Harris will wow the country and be ready by then!

[mike_c]

112. I'm very happy she won Barbara Boxer's seat in the Senate....

Kamala Harris is a great asset for California and she will be a great Senator.

[SaschaHM]

39. The winner of the Democratic primary. Period.

If you can't win the primary, you shouldn't be the nominee. Are there others that could have ran and potentially won, sure. And let's just stop with the revisionism that control of party super delegates led to your guy getting blown out in state after state among PoC and registered Dems.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Sanders, of course. Don't confuse the DU consensus for the real world. n/t

[LeftInTX]

41. Joe Biden

But hindsight is 20/20.

Although Joe was prone to gaffes, that would not have mattered against Trump. I could just see Joe, the former football player, putting Donald in his place. He would have exposed Trump as a prima donna.

Of course, Joe didn't want to run.

I think Bernie could have beaten Trump. But it is hard to say.

[Ken Burch]

43. I think Hillary could have won, if only she had treated the fall campaign as a partnership

between her supporters and the Sanders movement, a partnership in which both sides would have some sort of a say.

This wouldn't have required changing the platform much, if at all.

It would have meant including lines like THIS in the stump speech:

"And let me say this to those who campaigned so hard for my main opponent in the primaries-I hear you, I respect you, and you did an amazing job of bringing the issues you care about to the forefront. As president, I will always listen to you and will work hard to implement the proposals you added to our great platform. What you did mattered and I respect it".

Many of these people are young voters. They are always going to be turned off by older people shouting "you HAVE to!" at them. The need was and is to keep them engaged and to establish their loyalty to OUR party...a loyalty they haven't had much reason in their own lives to feel.

It's not about appeasing anyone. It's just about doing what we need to do to get people to the polls...especially people who aren't yet in the habit of voting. And doing that doesn't disrespect or slight any of the people who already vote for us.

Had we found the way, we wouldn't be in this situation.

[Skinner]

46. Something like this...

And… I want to thank Bernie Sanders.

Bernie, your campaign inspired millions of Americans, particularly the young people who threw their hearts and souls into our primary.

You've put economic and social justice issues front and center, where they belong.

And to all of your supporters here and around the country:

I want you to know, I've heard you.

Your cause is our cause.

Our country needs your ideas, energy, and passion.

That's the only way we can turn our progressive platform into real change for America.

We wrote it together – now let's go out there and make it happen together.

[Squinch]

48. Too equivocal for the "I do whatever the GOP tells me to do" Democrat.

And it turns out there are a lot of them.

[Ken Burch]

55. Exactly.

That would have been a brilliant campaign ad.

[Skinner]

58. It made for a pretty good acceptance speech at the DNC.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-text-hillary-clintons-dnc-speech-226410

[Ken Burch]

68. I know she said it there, Skinner. But after that, she never spoke like that again.

If that had been used in the ads, rather than banging away endlessly on the "Trump is a bastard" thing, it would have made a difference. Focusing so much on trying to delegitimize Trump(he deserved delegitimization, but that was never going to be enough) created the false impression in a lot of voters' minds(especially younger voters, I think), that we weren't offering anything, that we thought it was enough to call out our opponent's odiousness.

In my recollection, as soon as the convention was over, the implicit message to Sanders supporters was "You lost. Nothing you did mattered. You have no right to expect anything, and you owe us your vote anyway. They were attacked for continuing to fight for their principles. They were attacked for trying to stay together organizationally.

A partnership message has to be repeated over and over to be retained in voter consciousness. And it has to be based on respect.

[mcar]

74. Aww. She didn't say it enough.

Or exactly the way BS supporters wanted to hear it. Or she wasn't wearing the right clothes. It goes on and on and on.

[Ken Burch]

83. Repetition of the message matters. The way we appeal to voters matters.

Whatever our pitch is needs to be said again and again and again.

And validating the younger Sanders supporters and what they care about matters because this election was their introduction to politics and we needed(and failed to some degree) to keep them in the game after the convention. You would have preferred that those people went to the polls, right? Well, it's as much our responsibility as it is theirs to get them to do that. A strategy based on demanding that people vote only alienates people. We had good things to offer. Why NOT keep reminding people what those good things were?

And if it gets people to vote, what's the harm in validating them? What is so intolerable about reinforcing the message that what they did made a difference, that it wasn't wasted effort, that it's worth their effort to work with us for the long-term? It's not as though we have anything to gain from driving them away and treating them as failures and a nuisance.

We've never prospered as a party by telling new people to "shut up and get in the back of the line". When we treat them like that, it sounds to them as if we don't WANT them to be part of what we're doing and that we don't think we need them. And then they give up on politics and we lose the new blood and the new votes we need.

All I'm doing here is arguing for approaches that would bring out more voters, and do so without disrespecting any of our existing voters at all. What do you think we have to lose from encouraging people to vote rather than simply demanding that they do so?

[BainsBane]

79. So her ad budget should have been directed at The Busters?

Rather than the general public. How many millions should she have spent filling the coffers of media conglomerates to satisfy them? Bernie campaigning with her wasn't enough. What matters is how much she spent on corporate media to win over those who claim to oppose both corporations and big media? There is no end to the irony.

She never mentioned it since, because you listened to all her speeches every single day, yet somehow didn't know what she said in her convention speech?


You're right about one thing. She underestimated the self-entitlement of the bourgeois "revolutionaries" who put their egos ahead of the nation and its citizens. It's really difficult for a person who thinks about politics in terms of public service to imagine that kind of mentality. They did have psychological consultants helping her prepare to debate Trump. Her failing was in imaging that was the only narcissist she had to worry about.

[Ken Burch]

131. The ads could be directed to both.

There was never much of anything that Bernie supporters wanted but nobody else wanted.

And this isn't about narcissism. It's about increasing the number of people who work for and vote for this party-estabishing bonds with people new to politics.

You seem to see it as Sanders people being diametrically opposed to everything you support. That's tied to the myth that we can't fight for social justice and economic justice at the same time-or that those causes have no common points.

Why are you so sure of that?

All I'm trying to do is help us do better next time. Is that such a horrible objective?

[Gothmog]

144. Great post Nance

[BainsBane]

158. This is the third time you've called me Nance!

I'm BainsBane.

[Gothmog]

194. I am sorry

[emulatorloo]

119. Always moving the goalposts

[Gothmog]

142. You are Wrong

I saw several speeches with similar themes

[pnwmom]

143. Yeah she did. At rallies you didn't attend and weren't covered on TV. n/t

[BainsBane]

81. Well played.

[Hekate]

153. Oh, snap! Well played, sir!

[emulatorloo]

60. Well done, Skinner!

[George II]

72. Ooops. Good memory sir. That was in mid-July, Sanders finally "got out there".....

....about six or seven weeks later.

But he did find time to buy an island "summer" home worth roughly twice his reported net worth during that time.

[Tatiana]

185. If she had said anything close to this, we'd be looking at President-elect Clinton.

The stunning arrogance of the Clinton campaign just kills me. It seems like they learned very little from the 2008 primary against Obama. You can't take anything or anyone for granted. The whole "experience" theme was tone-deaf, in retrospect, given the fact that this was a change Presidential election.

On edit: And apparently she did say this. I honestly do not remember this, but I didn't follow her campaign very closely since I knew she would be the Democratic nominee. That being said, clearly this was not a message that was received by a significant plurality of the Democratic electorate.

[TwilightZone]

192. She did.

It's a quote from her acceptance speech at the DNC.

[BobbyDrake]

62. That entire suggestion is nothing but infantile appeasement.

"You did an amazing job?" GTFOOH with that nonsense. HRC voters helped their candidate win the primary and you don't see us whining for a pat on the back about it. People who treat voting like a hobby or worse, like a trend, are the problem here, and making sure they feel appropriately participation-trophied is not a valid argument for how to treat voters going forward.

[Ken Burch]

70. Appeasement is a totally inappropriate term.

For one thing, it equates the Sanders movement with the Third Reich. For another, it implies that what we were fighting for was unacceptable in American politics and decent society. What I'm actually talking about is respect-respect is important in building political alliances.

If Bernie had been nominated, I'd have spent the whole fall urging the Sanders campaign and Sanders supporters to treat Hillary and her supporters with respect-to strongly address the issues they prioritized(issues Sanders supporters all agreed with Hillary supporters about anyway-if you're on the left, you're GOING to be a committed anti-oppression activist, that is simply part of the thing) and to make sure they knew they would have a say in what Bernie did as president. I'd have called for THAT sort of partnership too. Would you have objected to my doing that if that situation had existed?

And this election proved anything, it proved that it never works to simply DEMAND that people vote. The appeal must be positive.

[tammywammy]

111. The word appeasement equals Third Reich?

GMAFB

[Ken Burch]

133. Neville Chamberlain and Munich.

It implies that the Sanders movement is evil, is something the party has to stop, has to defeat. If you disagree with Sanders people, that's your call, but why treat us as the enemy? There wasn't anything evil or illegitimate in what Bernie did. Or in his supporters showing enthusiasm for the guy and what he fights for.

We should have seen the Sanders phenomenon as a chance to renew the party and bring it into a new era, even if Bernie wasn't going to be the nominee.

[synergie]

155. Appeasement is not a word used solely by Chamberlain regarding Nazis.

You're the one making that implication, and frankly, it's a ridiculous assumption to make. Why create a ridiculous implication, and then take offense at something you made up on your own? Why falsely victimize yourself to pretend that we're the enemy?

There is something evil and illegitimate with taking a common English word, used properly in context and then creating some ridiculous Godwin drama out of it. Your entire point here is that you felt that you and your fellow Bernie supporters were not appeased to a level that you wished, and you're upset about it. It's perfectly legitimate to call that nonsense out for the pure bunk that it is.

There was no phenomenon, the party didn't need "renewing" in the image of those who spent all their time attacking it and its members in pretty abusive terms, it was already in a new era, but those who were upset that they didn't get their way were too busy throwing around abuse and utter lies as to why not getting enough votes for the "phenomenon" meant that there was rigging, and that those who took the time to register, to do their homework and to vote were somehow the epitome of all evil.

You seem to forget the level of animosity from sore losers in the primary, and how the rest of us were treated as the enemy, pounced on, abused and otherwise harassed. Why did you turn your back on the party, why all the poutiness and all the rooting for Trump or candidates that hurt the party and the country? Why all this drama now?

Bernie isn't even the Democrat he assured us he'd be when he was in the primaries, he can't even keep his word or even his principles. He and his followers called HRC and the party "evil" for stating that a fight for a $12 minimum wage was feasible, but wasted no time clasping hands with Trump and crowing about "working with" Trump for $10. Not consistent, not phenomenal, and not really "renewing" much in this new era where facts don't matter and lies rule.

[mtnsnake]

45. Considering how elections are won by 2016 standards, someone who is a bigger liar than Trump

Maybe we can get Frank Abagnale to run as a Democrat against Trump in 2020

[Squinch]

47. Hillary won the popular vote by a wider margin than any candidate, win or lose, since the 1870s

Bernie never would have beat that.

She was the right choice.

People are stupid.

[duffyduff]

50. She did beat Trump but for the EC.

There was nobody better.

[Retrograde]

57. The big problem, I think, is that we haven't been grooming young candidates

And for that I place a lot of the blame on the DNC and Ms Wasserman-Shultz. In 2008 we had a field that included Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Edwards and I forget who else. This year we had Clinton and maybe O'Malley - until Sanders jumped in (I don't think Chaffee or Webb were serious contenders).

We should have been promoting talent from Congress, from the states, from the cabinet, but didn't. We could have let some of the younger members in Congress spearhead the fights against McConnell and Ryan, giving them more national exposure. But it's not too late to start looking at 2020 (and 2018 as well): the Democratic party needs to go on the offensive. At this point, what do we have to lose?

[geek tragedy]

64. Democratic party tends to atrophy when we win the White House.

Think Clinton and Sanders were uninspiring choices? Try Gore and Bradley in 2000.

Democrats do best when we're playing offense. We tend to play defense once we win the Presidency.

[zipplewrath]

88. Bingo

I think it is associated with the dominance of the party structure. Too much "who's next" attitude. We had a think bench this time around and ultimately it worked against the nominee because there was too much of the "inevitable" kind of talk. Strong primaries make for strong candidates. And it's a bit sad that we have to dust off candidates that came in second the last time and let them "have their turn".

[mythology]

59. Of the candidates who ran, I think none of them would have done better.

I don't know if Biden or Warren would have been better. Warren would have been my preferred candidate if she had entered the primary (even if it would have risked another Scott Brown here in Massachusetts).

But counterfactuals are hard. There are so many other variables that would change. Not just who the VP candidate was, but also the general campaign strategy. Not just which states, but how they campaigned, what ads were made, what outreach to different groups.

People who argue that Sanders would have automatically won the same voters in the general election that he did in the primary never account for the fact that he lost black and Hispanic voters and by the same logic he would have done less well in the general for example.

[geek tragedy]

63. Elizabeth Warren seems like an obvious answer, but she didn't want the job

I think the truth is that Sanders and Clinton are getting blamed for what ails the party as a whole. The fact that the choices were as unsatisfactory as Clinton and Sanders--two career Washington insiders--in a change election (every open election is a change election) speaks volumes about the condition the party is in.

No outsider voice was there to challenge. Sanders did strike a change agent theme, but it was really more of that old time religion--more government spending, higher taxes, etc without addressing job creation.

[jodymarie aimee]

93. Jesus God, there is only one answer Eliz Warren

She was my dream candidate all along. Can you imagine she and Cheeto debating.....if he circled he like a shark she would have nailed him to the wall..no shimmy shaking....whacked him good.

[Vinca]

73. What is the point of rehashing this?

It's been 3 weeks. Three long, miserable weeks. It's time to look forward. If Democrats are going to get anywhere ever again we need to start winning local elections and state elections as well as national elections. They start now, not in 2020.

[mike_c]

95. I'm rehashing it to emphasize the absurdity...

...of continuing to defend the nomination of Senator Clinton by arguing that Senator Sanders would not win the GE. Hello? Who couldn't win the GE?

[djsunyc]

75. who's a celeb

everybody would love?

let's nominate dwayne the rock johnson.

[Historic NY]

77. Should of's, could of's when it started Trump wasn't even a fart....

his empowerment grew as he ticked off the gazzillion Gop'ers lining up for the job. He ran on the cheap and provided the blood lust entertainment for folks. The blame rest on the media's shoulders and the polling.

[Lil Missy]

80. Hillary.

Bernie and O'Malley both lost the Primary, so they would be bad choices. We pick the winners, not the losers.

[still_one]

82. The Democrats were so stupid. If only they had nominated Kirill Shamalov, it would have been a

landslide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirill_Shamalov

[MyNameIsKhan]

84. Joe Biden... most honest person in politics... he would have defeated any R...

[George Eliot]

85. You're brave to ask on this forum.

Emotions still driving responses.

[Buzz cook]

87. Hillary won the nomination without the supers

That pretty much means she should have been the nominee.

What cost her the election was Comey and the media putting their thumbs on the scale. That is what we should be addressing; not recriminations against Clinton, Sanders or wish making about a more perfect candidate.

[Gothmog]

89. Hillary was the only real choice

Hillary was taken down by Comey and Putin.

[mike_c]

99. Senator Clinton lost because she was the wrong candidate at the wrong time....

The only Americans who seemed eager to elect a party establishment insider were Senator Clinton's most ardent supporters. The broader electorate wanted a populist outsider so badly that they willingly went along with the most unfit candidate in our lifetimes. During the primaries Senator Sanders attracted huge crowds despite a virtual media blackout of his campaign. You tell me: if American voters were that adamant about wanting a populist outsider, how could Senator Clinton possibly be a good choice? She was yet another case of the party establishment telling the electorate what's best for them.

[Ken Burch]

145. What about Warren? She had all of Hillary's good points, but nothing Trump could attack her for.

Last edited Wed Nov 30, 2016, 01:15 AM - Edit history (1)

That would have made a big difference.

(Please note that I WANTED Hillary to win, once she'd been nominated. We all did).

[jmg257]

97. Hillary won NY & California by over 6 million votes.

And won the popular vote by 2.whatever million.

She was very close.

[mike_c]

100. she was a close second to the most unfit candidate in American history....

She came "this close" is a pretty low bar, given the candidate she lost to. Surely democrats could have found SOMEONE more in line with the electorate's demand for a populist outsider rather than a party establishment insider.

[jmg257]

101. Yep - it was a bit surprising, but in th eend understandable. nt

[JI7]

156. they didn't want a populist outsider. they wanted a bigot who would ban and kick out "those" people

[BeyondGeography]

103. Warren

Obviously.

[Exilednight]

108. If she wanted it, she could have. My pick for 2020.

[BeyondGeography]

114. Me too

I don't care how old she is. Until someone better comes along, I'll stick with her. Trump's older anyway.

[shenmue]

106. Limberbutt McCubbins the Cat

[mike_c]

110. "I'm with Limberbutt...."

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

116. Biden, Warren or Jerry Brown in that order

I won't say anything about Bernie Sanders because I have been alert stalked for the last year. Despite being every bit as critical of Clinton only one of my posts critical of Hillary Clinton was deleted while nearly all of my posts critical of Bernie Sanders were deleted.

[David__77]

132. Jerry Brown might have been good indeed.

...

[lunamagica]

121. Hillary Clinton. She was the best qualified for the job, and would have made an excellent president

I deeply believe that not having her as POTUS is a terrible loss for us.

And there is no way that I will believe that being 2.5 million ahead in votes and losing an election is legally possible. Something really dirty went on. She won

[Polly Hennessey]

124. Tim Ryan n/t

[emulatorloo]

134. Hitler/Satan could have defeated Trump/Pence

Hitler could have out Hitlered Trump, and Satan would have gotten more conservative evangelical support than Pence did.

[Starry Messenger]

148. The voters nominated the winner. Hillary.

[saltpoint]

151. Oddjob. The guy from the 007 films

with the steel hat.

Regrettably, the man who played Oddjob, Harold Sakata (Toshiyuki Sakata), died some years ago.

Second choice would be former Browns' quarterback Brian Sipe.

[Hugin]

166. You read my mind two hours before I posted it.

Clairvoyance! Amazing!

[saltpoint]

167. Hot dog, Hugin -- we got them ol'

cosmic blues again!

[Corey_Baker08]

152. VP Biden!

[jman0war]

162. Bernie

In the primary, Bernie won both Wisconsin and Michigan over Clinton.
Both states where Trump won in the end.
Had Bernie been the nominee, he could have carried those states.

[Hugin]

165. Apparently, some c-rated wannabe reality show celebrity.

It doesn't matter what they have done or with whom.

Experience not needed.

Must like guns.

Know anyone like that?

[TSIAS]

169. Jim Webb

Seriously, if you only cared about having someone with a D after their name, Webb would have been a good option. While he is definitely not progressive or liberal, he would have energized the angry white voter that went for Trump.

I should say that I don't like Webb and don't agree with his politics. But if the name of the game is win at all cost and just get someone with a D, Webb is your is man.

[WMDemocract]

172. The scrapper from Scranton

He could have held those rustbelt states and even his most bizarre statements would look normal when compared to Trump's headless chicken drivel.

[shawn703]

174. If we can't choose Sanders, I would say Biden would have won

I don't buy that Sanders wouldn't have won. As qualified as Hillary was, it was impossible for her to shake 30 years worth of smears in an election season. She had something like a 59% unfavorable rating to Trump's 60%. The Republicans at least had the right idea, trying to keep someone with such a high unfavorable rating from getting their nomination. The brain trust at the DNC thought it was a great idea to put their thumbs on the scales to ensure that someone with such a high unfavorable rating got our nomination. Now all of us have to suffer the next four years for that gamble.

[Grey Lemercier]

176. Biden would have won. Sanders would have gotten crushed. Hillary was my 2nd choice. I had no 3rd.

I was all in Hillary as soon as Biden said he was not running.

I would have preferred to have a President Hillary Clinton over a President Biden, but I was going for the more likely win.

As long as we are playing hypotheticals, Kasich also would have beaten Sanders. Cruz, no, Sanders would have won.

Kasich versus Biden would have been a tough call. I think Biden in a squeaker. It is all so speculative.

All this is predicated upon actual votes not being stolen. The suppression was real, I am still not convinced there was massive actual theft, we shall see.

[ret5hd]

178. Bernie.

[RKP5637]

179. I'm concerned now about 2020 wondering who that might be! Trump was/is a superb con artist, but

I think millions, even those who voted for him, are going to be extremely miserable. By the time 2020 comes, the nation will want a significant change, I think, as they are reminded of the shambles republicans make when in full power. Relative to 2016, I think Biden would have been a significant candidate against Trump and Joe well might have won.

[randome]

180. As much as I am now coming down on the septuagenarians, I think Warren could have won.

She is the exception because she clearly has the energy and smarts to tell it like it is.

But since she didn't run, I don't know who else, but for 2020 it needs to be someone younger.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[iscooterliberally]

182. I don't think we're asking the right questions.

There's no one candidate that's going to lead us. We have to lead the candidates. The Democratic party got shellacked in this election from the ground up. Florida was always considered a swing state, but it's solidly republican now. When I showed up to vote in Broward County, it was all Trump signs and not much of anything else. Broward county has way more Democrats than Republicans, go figure. The Democratic party has to decide what it really stands for as a whole and start getting local politicians elected. The republicans control almost all of the state legislatures and governor ships. Republicans have been working on this for decades now, while the Democrats were looking for their new hero. It would have been great for Hillary to win the presidency, but she still would have been up against the republican congress. Perception is reality. It seems that most of the people in this country are so angry that they can't see straight, let alone make a reasonable decision. Now we have a raging dumpster fire in the White House. We need an overhaul.

[DemonGoddess]

186. So, I stepped into this

mess of thread for shiggles, because I'd already decided that it's pretty useless, this supposition of yours.

We had the nominee we VOTED for. Anything else is if onlying, and does nothing but stir hard feelings.

Personally, I'm very glad we chose HRC. Had she won, she would've been an EXCELLENT President. But, between voter suppression, misogyny, the white-lash, it didn't happen.

Now, we suffer the consequences of the purists being too damn "good" for the rest of us, and either not voting, voting 3rd party, or voting for Trump.

[Dems to Win]

187. Senator Elizabeth Warren. She can speak to the Occupy Wall Street generation, she can get a crowd

of firefighters on their feet cheering for her.

I sent her a Run Liz Run postcard before the primaries started. Wish she'd gone along with our pleas.

[mike_c]

190. welcome to DU....

[Warren DeMontague]

189. Personally I would have preferred Sanders- that's why I voted for him in the primary, of course- but

realistically I think Joe Biden would have been a shoo-in. He would have carried PA easily and he could have spoken to the concerns of the larger Rust Belt.

I've had my issues with Biden- his history as a drug warrior, for one- but he's been a stellar Veep. I think he would have won easily.

[LP2K12]

195. Hmmmm

Sanders
Biden

Those two were my first choices.

[Blackbottle]

196. Jim Webb

The only candidate who would of beat trump resoundingly. Ironically he was the first to get the boot.

[MADem]

197. He was a lazy candidate who couldn't campaign his way out of a paper bag.

He did no press, had no organizational structure, and was too indolent to even fundraise.

He was not serious at all, and it showed.