Did Hillary Clinton lose because she was forced too far to the Left?

[Tom Rinaldo]

Was she pushed to adopt positions too extreme for the American electorate? If so, which planks turned off the American electorate and hurt her in the Fall? At the time of the Convention there was broad agreement that the platform that Democrats adopted was an excellent one. By all accounts, Hillary ran on the most progressive platform the Democratic Party has had for decades. Her delegates ran the platform committee that adopted that platform. She proudly ran on that openly progressive platform. So is that why Trump is now President, and why Hillary only won the popular vote by three million?

Mostly I've seen it argued that Hillary lost because of racism, Russia, voter suppression, and Comey - but should the left be blamed instead? That would be the logical extension of the premise being promoted on several OPs on DU over the last few days blaming the left for most of the electoral shortcomings of the Democratic Party in recent years. So the question is, one that holds important implications for the future of the Democratic party, should Hillary have hugged the center stronger in 2016, or even shifted right, closer to the platforms that her husband once ran for President on? Would that have helped or hurt her with the outcome?

Last summer, though the Sanders delegation would have preferred a few more leftist platform tweeks, Hillary didn't give them everything they wanted. Still Hillary showed flexibility where that was consistent with her vision, and Sanders then united with the Clinton people in praising the platform that emerged. So was that attempt at unity ultimately Hillary's downfall? Was Hillary pushed to far to the left in the rust belt, for example, where Trump squeaked out his Electoral Party victory? Is that why so many previous Obama voters there turned to Trump instead? Were they turned off by Clinton's overly radical economic message, consistent with our platform: a $15 a hour minimum wage, free public college for middle class students, a stronger economic safety net. Did those turn out to be unpopular views that repelled voters who Democrats count on?

Or is it the tiny leftist holdout minority who gathered behind Stein to be blamed for Trump becoming President? If so, would anyone argue that Hillary have won more of their votes by running on a more moderate platform instead? Jill Stein won 1,457,216 votes in 2016, or 1.07% of the total vote. Meanwhile the Libertarian ticket, composed of two ex Republican Governors, won 4,489,221 votes, or 3.28% of the total. Millions of votes go to third parties in every American presidential election. You might remember that Jill Stein has run for President before. In 2012 she got 469,628 votes, so she got about a extra million this time around. By comparison it has been estimated via several studies that Hillary Clinton picked up about two million 2012 Romney voters, and lost about 8 million Obama voters, a net negative shift of about 6 million voters, that's a number six times larger than Stein's increase.

Meanwhile thee are studies that indicate that in Wisconsin alone the Republican enacted "Voter ID Law" suppressed 200,000 Votes in 2016 (Trump won there by 22,748 votes). The vast majority of those vote can be assumed would have been Democratic. THAT, I believe, is the smoking gun nation wide: targeted voter suppression.
https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/

I see no evidence that "leftist pressure" on our presidential nominee pushed her into taking political positions that were in any way detrimental to her chances for victory in 2016. I would argue the opposite. I see plenty of other factors to explain how Donald Trump ended up in the White House - but the behavior of the Democratic Left is not one of them.