HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Democrats say they now kn...

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:02 AM

Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost

A select group of top Democratic Party strategists have used new data about last year’s presidential election to reach a startling conclusion about why Hillary Clinton lost. Now they just need to persuade the rest of the party they’re right.

Many Democrats have a shorthand explanation for Clinton’s defeat: Her base didn’t turn out, Donald Trump’s did and the difference was too much to overcome.

But new information shows that Clinton had a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later.

Those Obama-Trump voters, in fact, effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group’s analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton’s failure to reach Obama’s vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters.

In recent months, Canter and other members of Global Strategy Group have delivered a detailed report of their findings to senators, congressmen, fellow operatives and think tank wonks – all part of an ongoing effort to educate party leaders about what the data says really happened in last year’s election.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html

214 replies, 39467 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 214 replies Author Time Post
Reply Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost (Original post)
brooklynite May 2017 OP
AngryAmish May 2017 #1
mopinko May 2017 #72
Eliot Rosewater May 2017 #202
monmouth4 May 2017 #2
Tanuki May 2017 #3
monmouth4 May 2017 #6
TheFrenchRazor May 2017 #162
ananda May 2017 #5
Pacifist Patriot May 2017 #21
ginnyinWI May 2017 #104
Phoenix61 May 2017 #80
spooky3 May 2017 #99
dsc May 2017 #102
YoungDemCA May 2017 #199
ginnyinWI May 2017 #103
SomethingNew May 2017 #152
MountCleaners May 2017 #153
Proud Liberal Dem May 2017 #113
Orangepeel May 2017 #193
treestar May 2017 #133
RobinA May 2017 #205
WellDarn May 2017 #4
edhopper May 2017 #7
BumRushDaShow May 2017 #20
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #85
WellDarn May 2017 #91
NunnesBuznat May 2017 #163
BumRushDaShow May 2017 #96
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #107
frankieallen May 2017 #129
BumRushDaShow May 2017 #138
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #143
BumRushDaShow May 2017 #145
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #148
BumRushDaShow May 2017 #151
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #168
BumRushDaShow May 2017 #181
ymetca May 2017 #207
Ligyron May 2017 #141
certainot May 2017 #49
PatrickforO May 2017 #52
pnwmom May 2017 #56
PatrickforO May 2017 #66
pnwmom May 2017 #71
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #89
nil desperandum May 2017 #118
PatrickforO May 2017 #189
BertNEarnie May 2017 #63
Kirkwood May 2017 #65
BertNEarnie May 2017 #77
Kirkwood May 2017 #84
BertNEarnie May 2017 #115
Kirkwood May 2017 #119
BertNEarnie May 2017 #195
spooky3 May 2017 #101
PatrickforO May 2017 #68
BertNEarnie May 2017 #106
PatrickforO May 2017 #188
BertNEarnie May 2017 #196
Hell Hath No Fury May 2017 #108
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #112
SticksnStones May 2017 #69
Proud Liberal Dem May 2017 #125
brush May 2017 #60
frankieallen May 2017 #169
brush May 2017 #176
Kirkwood May 2017 #62
edhopper May 2017 #155
bettyellen May 2017 #159
frankieallen May 2017 #170
csziggy May 2017 #120
spooky3 May 2017 #136
Bettie May 2017 #8
Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #17
Bettie May 2017 #30
Phoenix61 May 2017 #79
Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #97
JudyM May 2017 #109
lunasun May 2017 #114
Caliman73 May 2017 #157
crazylikafox May 2017 #98
diva77 May 2017 #130
spanone May 2017 #9
oasis May 2017 #14
blueseas May 2017 #51
Still Blue in PDX May 2017 #105
TheFrenchRazor May 2017 #164
ehrnst May 2017 #10
NewJeffCT May 2017 #39
JHan May 2017 #53
Justice May 2017 #197
NewJeffCT May 2017 #198
JustAnotherGen May 2017 #11
Bettie May 2017 #19
tiredtoo May 2017 #40
NewJeffCT May 2017 #42
brush May 2017 #192
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #212
brush May 2017 #213
get the red out May 2017 #12
cwydro May 2017 #13
bettyellen May 2017 #160
progressoid May 2017 #15
pnwmom May 2017 #55
progressoid May 2017 #111
pnwmom May 2017 #166
progressoid May 2017 #187
pnwmom May 2017 #190
redixdoragon May 2017 #16
WePurrsevere May 2017 #18
joeybee12 May 2017 #22
geek tragedy May 2017 #23
loyalsister May 2017 #161
yallerdawg May 2017 #24
NoMoreRepugs May 2017 #25
Va Lefty May 2017 #27
KingCharlemagne May 2017 #33
Ligyron May 2017 #156
NoMoreRepugs May 2017 #34
NewJeffCT May 2017 #59
L. Coyote May 2017 #26
Buckeye_Democrat May 2017 #28
progressoid May 2017 #116
Caliman73 May 2017 #175
Buckeye_Democrat May 2017 #182
KingCharlemagne May 2017 #29
PoliticAverse May 2017 #58
KingCharlemagne May 2017 #61
Kirkwood May 2017 #88
bucolic_frolic May 2017 #31
bigbrother05 May 2017 #32
Tribalceltic May 2017 #35
Progressive dog May 2017 #36
pnwmom May 2017 #37
Tom Rinaldo May 2017 #38
Buckeye_Democrat May 2017 #45
vi5 May 2017 #46
m-lekktor May 2017 #54
Kentonio May 2017 #75
Buckeye_Democrat May 2017 #87
andym May 2017 #150
LeftInTX May 2017 #121
pnwmom May 2017 #167
Tom Rinaldo May 2017 #186
Dem2 May 2017 #209
Dem2 May 2017 #208
blm May 2017 #41
diva77 May 2017 #154
CanonRay May 2017 #43
SunSeeker May 2017 #44
brush May 2017 #67
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #117
brush May 2017 #122
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #123
Buckeye_Democrat May 2017 #142
brush May 2017 #147
Buckeye_Democrat May 2017 #180
Deb May 2017 #183
Buckeye_Democrat May 2017 #184
Deb May 2017 #191
frankieallen May 2017 #171
SunSeeker May 2017 #194
PatrickforO May 2017 #47
BlueMTexpat May 2017 #48
rock May 2017 #50
mountain grammy May 2017 #57
IronLionZion May 2017 #64
marieo1 May 2017 #70
ucrdem May 2017 #73
Snake Plissken May 2017 #74
ucrdem May 2017 #76
HelenWheels May 2017 #78
yallerdawg May 2017 #110
hurple May 2017 #81
brush May 2017 #124
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #128
delisen May 2017 #82
still_one May 2017 #83
Justice May 2017 #139
rtracey May 2017 #86
standingtall May 2017 #90
tonyt53 May 2017 #92
moriah May 2017 #158
okieinpain May 2017 #93
SpankMe May 2017 #94
Jake Stern May 2017 #149
ismnotwasm May 2017 #95
Tom Rinaldo May 2017 #100
elleng May 2017 #126
SMC22307 May 2017 #131
dchill May 2017 #127
Tom Rinaldo May 2017 #135
dchill May 2017 #179
Tom Rinaldo May 2017 #185
YoungDemCA May 2017 #200
dchill May 2017 #204
treestar May 2017 #132
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #137
treestar May 2017 #173
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #174
treestar May 2017 #210
AtheistCrusader May 2017 #211
treestar May 2017 #214
YoungDemCA May 2017 #206
jalan48 May 2017 #134
Justice May 2017 #140
uponit7771 May 2017 #165
andym May 2017 #144
lovemydogs May 2017 #146
tblue37 May 2017 #172
marybourg May 2017 #177
YOHABLO May 2017 #178
YoungDemCA May 2017 #201
Post removed May 2017 #203

Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:05 AM

1. It was the Russians, dammit!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #1)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:07 AM

72. who went after slim margin obama areas just to rub salt in the wounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #1)

Tue May 2, 2017, 02:38 PM

202. The Russians and the GOP convincing people Hillary couldnt be trusted, because

you know, woman, so those folks just didnt vote or voted for the unthinkable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:09 AM

2. How does one go from Obama to Trump? IMO this is nonsense..n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth4 (Reply #2)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:12 AM

3. Hackable touch-screen voting machines?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tanuki (Reply #3)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:16 AM

6. Ahh, forgot about that. TY..n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tanuki (Reply #3)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:58 PM

162. correct. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth4 (Reply #2)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:14 AM

5. Agree

I'm getting tired of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth4 (Reply #2)


Response to Pacifist Patriot (Reply #21)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:04 AM

104. see post #103 . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth4 (Reply #2)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:27 AM

80. They are both men

African American men got the right to vote before women did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #80)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:56 AM

99. Yes. To the extent that the study was well conducted

and included all relevant factors (e.g. Comey, Russian interference, third party increase) these findings suggest that sexism/misogyny was an even bigger factor than previously known.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #80)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:00 AM

102. that is pretty misleading

in a technical sense it is true and in the Reconstruction period it was actually true, but once Reconstruction ended in the South, the number of blacks who could vote plummetted. The rules the South put up essentially disenfranchised blacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #80)

Tue May 2, 2017, 02:36 PM

199. ....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth4 (Reply #2)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:03 AM

103. my brother would be one of these.

He probably is usually a Republican voter but doesn't really say. That's how we all grew up. He voted for Obama the first time, because he wanted change. Then at some point he got disillusioned and did not vote for his second term. I'm assuming he went back to the GOP for this last election too, because he again wanted change!

This is a white man in his early 60s with a high school education who worked in a factory his whole life and recently took an early retirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ginnyinWI (Reply #103)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:19 PM

152. I know two people who switched Obama to Trump.

Both seemed to have nearly identical thought processes to what you described. Weirdly, both are smart and highly educated. Just easily caught up and political winds, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ginnyinWI (Reply #103)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:20 PM

153. Obama was perceived as a fresh, new face

He would pick up some votes from the "anti-establishment" crowd. I'm guessing some whites voted for Obama to squelch their white guilt. Then they could tell themselves that they're not racist. After all, they say it all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth4 (Reply #2)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:22 AM

113. IKR?

That's.........a pretty large ideological leap. OTOH I heard people on this board talk about how his supposed stances on NAFTA, military intervention, etc. might be populist-sounding enough to bring in a few left-wing voters (whom probably voted for President Obama in 2008/2012), which might have actually happened. I know at least one former DU member (and previous Obama voter) whom voted for Trump because she seriously believed that Hillary was a warmonger and would take us to war with Russia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #113)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:32 PM

193. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth4 (Reply #2)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:17 PM

133. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth4 (Reply #2)

Tue May 2, 2017, 03:03 PM

205. I've Often Wondered This

Here in PA we hear a lot about these people. In fact, I live in an area that flipped like this. It was obvious in the polling place that I have frequented for decades that there was a whole different bunch of people there. I basically think Obama pulled some people out and Trump pulled a different bunch. It wasn't the same person voting for Obama, then Trump, it was different people turning out. At least that's my speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:12 AM

4. OUCH! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:19 AM

7. She won the popular vote

in a rigged election.

Russians, Comey, voter suppression, and who knows what else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #7)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:46 AM

20. THIS

Without the electoral college, she would have won by almost 3,000,000 votes, which was a historic record. The "loss" was due to the setup of the electoral college and a resultant net loss of just a small % of votes in each of those flipped states enough to make the difference.

IMHO, they are over-estimating what they consider a "loss" based on the winner-take-all state system vs based on actual voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #20)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:32 AM

85. Campaigns for the presidency are built to navigate the Electoral College.

I presume we were aware of that early in the process.



It was a loss. Period. We don't get to pretend 'well gosh we won if we just used this other system that we never use'. Popular vote is a meaningless construct in the United States for this particular political office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #85)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:44 AM

91. I know it seems like a great talking point

 

to say "Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million votes." However, given that our spectacular showing in California accounted for virtually all of that margin, it leaves us vulnerable to the argument: "Without the Electoral College, a landslide in one state can veto the ("popular vote" decision of the other 49."

We lost, we need to adjust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WellDarn (Reply #91)

Mon May 1, 2017, 03:02 PM

163. Yeah and? Why is that bad?

 

Why does geography need more representation than people? Maybe when it still took 20 years to reach California, but now? When it takes a few hours from everywhere in the country?
"Boo-hoo a populous state with the highest GDP overturned the decision of a bunch of empty lots and abandoned fields that would be a 3rd world country if not for support from these populous states"
I really don't care and I live in one of these bumblefuck states. We aren't a country that needs tribal councils to handle power like in Afghanistan. We aren't different enough that we need to split the country into tribal states that fundamentally want different things. That's ludicrous. If CA needs to pay federal taxes then they should be getting 12 senators and fair representation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #85)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:49 AM

96. Correct

but it is a FALSE assumption to say that the "message" was wrong when almost 3,000,000 more voters agreed with it. THAT is my issue. "Navigating" the electoral college is but a work-around tactic due to the system but then it also means you sometimes focus on the wrong things.

I know years ago many folks trashed the party for actually playing to the electoral system by attempting to "hold" something like 16 "blue states" and maybe pick up one or 2 purple ones along the way. Then the 50-state strategy came about with Dean to actually open up more paths and that expanded the map. But then it also caused other dynamics that were unpredictable and needed to be followed up on.

Now it seems that the argument is to move back to a different twist on the old strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #96)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:06 AM

107. Outrage voting doesn't mean we were actually on-message.

Here's how I break it down. Catholics handed the election to Trump. White non-Hispanic Catholics went massively for Trump. Hispanic Catholics massively went for Hillary. Why? because trump is so outrageously shitty on race relations, and such a fucking bigot, the non-white Hispanic Catholics turned out in droves to vote for the opposition candidate; Hillary. That, in a nutshell, explains the entirety of California. Same catholic population explains a liberal blue state like California voting for Prop-8. Remember that?

Winning +3 million votes over average in California is not an endorsement of our platform. That doesn't say we were on-message. That just says or leaves open the possibility that Trump was a horribly offensive fucking bigot, that garnered a massive reaction vote for the other candidate.

Get back to the rest of the country, and what have we delivered?

I keep raising this warning, and I don't think anyone takes it seriously.

2010:
Union leaders warn that the Democrats' lackluster performance in power is sapping the morale of activists going into the midterm elections. 
"Right now if we don’t get positive changes to the agenda, we’re going to have a hard time getting members out to work," said United Steelworkers International President Leo W. Gerard, in an interview. 
“There’s no use pretending any longer.” 
The biggest threat, of course, is apathy from a Democratic constituency that has a history of mobilizing for elections. 
"You're just not going to be able to go to our membership in the November elections and say, 'Come on, let's do it again. Look at what the Democratic administration has done for us!'" Gage said. "People are going to say, 'Huh? What have the Democrats done for us?'" 
Kim Freeman Brown, the executive director of a D.C.-based nonprofit called American Rights at Work, acknowledged "frustration" with the lack of movement. 
"I implore Congress to listen to the voice of their constituents who want change, and so far we haven't delivered good enough on that promise," she said. "To the degree that we don't address these real bread-and-butter issues, we will have failed America's workers." 


http://www.politico.com/story/2010/02/unions-bash-dems-warn-of-fallout-032781

Ok, so that was 2010, right? 7 years later, maybe not the issue anymore? Explain the non-Hispanic white working class vote then. What have we, as Democrats(TM), delivered for working class labor in the last 8-10 years? The ACA? I feel, overall that it was a benefit for them, but it has a lot of painful realities, and people don't always think of you fondly for administering terrible tasting medicine they needed, but didn't know they wanted.

What else have we delivered? I'm at a loss. No massive jobs bills. No massive infrastructure bills. Trump said he would. He's lying of course, but he's made noises about infra, and if people don't give US the benefit of the doubt, the snake oil he's peddling sounds a lot more enticing. People can switch brands on us. If they don't think we're delivering, maybe try the other guy.

We're behind the 8 ball now. We're in no position to actually start delivering for people like Labor Unions. We missed the opportunity.

I hope the anti-trump outrage vote is enough to see us through in 2018 and 2020, because without some political capital, we're spent. Votes are solidified and earned by delivering on interests. We've been soft on delivery for as long as I can remember, and at some point, people just stop believing in you.

Edit: This one is an anecdote, but my mom is a Union Democrat. Quite proud of it. But she, and my brother, historically Democratic voters, voted for Trump. Mostly because of Hillary's position on the TPP, and the linkage to NAFTA that the republicans were able to (whether it's based on fair analysis of the TPP or not) forge in the press. She made up her mind on pretty much that single issue, and hid her position from me, because she didn't want to argue about it. 'Free trade' was a bright red line for her, and she actually voted for Trump over it.

I'm still fucking flabbergasted over it, but I do think the signal is there, in the noise. If we look closely. If we look beyond the issues of this one single election. If we look for clues why a huge chunk of our base didn't turn out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #107)

Mon May 1, 2017, 12:53 PM

129. Excellent post, i could not agree more. While many are just chalking

 

this election up to Russian interference, there are some real issues we need to address before the voters are willing to put us back in power.
We lost to Trump?? Are you kidding me?? This election should of been such a landslide, that no amount of outside interference could of switched the winner. If this election was truly stolen, the Russians and the republican co conspirators must be the greatest hackers of all time, covering there tracks so well they left no clear proof that we could use to prove it.
The fact remains that our party has taken the white working class voter for granted, and it has come back to bite us in the ass.
If we continue to believe we are doing everything right, and blame the voting machines and not the strategy, we are going to continue to lose elections.
So before you start with the personal attacks, this is just my humble opinion, and if you don't agree I respect your opinion, please respect mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #107)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:31 PM

138. "Explain the non-Hispanic white working class vote then."

Democrats haven't won the "white working class (male) vote" since Johnson. Even Jimmy Carter got less white vote than Ford - https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1976/

And surprise surprise what happened after the 1964 vote? A little something called the Voting Rights Act AND the 24th Amendment, where a whole demographic was given protections to vote. And there began the white flight.

You have "the south" with states that have between 25% - 40% black population, yet those states are hardcore "red" (although some like GA are finally starting to soften). No one seems to want to address THAT issue.

This "TPP" bullshit that became endless fodder on DU is something that probably 90% of Americans have no idea of what the fuck it was. In 2010, you had Democrats running away from Obama regarding the ACA, where all of a sudden it's "popular" now. The ODS here on DU was just a magnification of the same sentiment nationwide. The election of a black man who had come out of a white woman's body was too much for the senses of millions in this racist fucking country and we are seeing the "white lash" effect of that.

And when you denigrate a state like California, that has embodied the heart and soul of the Democratic party platform across all of its planks, it makes one wonder what the real agenda is.

As Johnson famously noted -



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #138)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:48 PM

143. Please be very specific about where I "denigrated" California?

And the TPP branding was linked over and over to NAFTA, and I guarantee any union worker in the US can tell you roughly what it was, and they likely have a negative opinion of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #143)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:53 PM

145. Here

Winning +3 million votes over average in California is not an endorsement of our platform.


As I said - California essentially embraces everything the platform stands for and has even, at their state level, implemented legislation to support liberal and progressive causes.

And again - you ask the average person on the street what "NAFTA" or "TPP" is and unless they are politically astute or active in leadership roles in a union, they will not know what the fuck you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #145)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:04 PM

148. You may not know what 'denigrate' means.

den·i·grate
[ˈdenəˌɡrāt]

VERB
criticize unfairly; disparage:
"there is a tendency to denigrate the poor"
synonyms: disparage · belittle · deprecate · decry · cast aspersions on · criticize · [more]


That's not disparaging California. I said the signal of a massive uptick in that one state, is a reflection of the Hispanic Catholic vote, of which there is a very high concentration, rather than a signal that our platform/message is solid and resonating with voters. If the motivation is 'holy shit, Trump is a racist and hates Hispanics', the signal isn't that we are good on Abortion, or the Minimum Wage, or funding Planned Parenthood. The signal is 'not Trump'.

The demographic can be observed multiple ways, which is why I referenced Proposition 8, in which a voter prop banned same sex marriage in a otherwise solidly Democratic blue state.

"As I said - California essentially embraces everything the platform stands for and has even, at their state level, implemented legislation to support liberal and progressive causes. "


Everything except Same Sex Marriage I guess. Whatever, didn't come here to quibble with you on that.


Your dismissal of the TPP doesn't work for me. Sorry. I've talked with MANY union workers. Even steel workers and electrical workers. They ALL know what the TPP is, and every last one of them knows what NAFTA was, and what it did, and they view the TPP as an attempt to pass more like it.

It was not just a 'du' phenomena that it was not a popular thing.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/labor-unions-oppose-trans-pacific-partnership/

Labor unions talk to their members, constantly. Something WE should be doing too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #148)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:15 PM

151. Your dismissing those votes IS denigrating

And your dismissal of Hispanic votes is even MORE alarming.



You need to quit while you are struggling to be ahead. Your post is exactly why we keep saying that there is one faction out there who has trivialized everyone but white males.

And as a note, I was a Union VP for 2 years and President for 3 years for an AFGE Local way before I had become a Supervisor, so I very much know about "unions" (and I helped bargain a local agreement at that time). But I also know that many unions were very much anti-black and other POC and for decades, did their very best to keep POC out, so there is going to be some issues from that standpoint that need to be resolved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #151)

Mon May 1, 2017, 03:57 PM

168. It's not a dismissal. Feel free to stop making things up.

I didn't dismiss Hispanic votes. I identified the origins and demographics. How you read 'dismissal' into identifying WHY there was a huge spike in one state and whether it is RELEVANT to our ground game in other states, like Wisconsin, is not a dismissal. What is true of California is not true of Wisconsin. What is true of New York, is not true of Georgia, etc. That's reality, not dismissal.

We need to be able to FLIP electoral votes next time. Do you not understand that?

Not once did I say 'it didn't matter' or 'they don't matter' or any other dismissive nonsense. I simply highlighted that that one high turnout rate doesn't mean our platform and message is on target ANYWHERE ELSE. Meaning, I objected to YOUR assumption. I appreciate what happened in California. I am simply cautious using that state's results to assume the message/platform is sufficient at the national level. It's not. Within the context of that ONE specific question, the answer 'we won by three million votes' is fully meaningless. Not a slam on California. Not a slam on Hispanics. California can't win the national election for us. They couldn't have turned in a sufficiently stellar result to overturn it, because that's not how the Presidential race works.

We took a pounding nationwide at state level offices. Our message was NOT sufficient. Our platform either isn't delivering, or isn't good enough. We need to fix that NOW. You want to argue points I didn't make, talk to someone else. I'm not interested.


YOU said "Correct but it is a FALSE assumption to say that the "message" was wrong when almost 3,000,000 more voters agreed with it."

I'm saying 'that might not be what that 3 million person signal means'. You're assuming it's an endorsement of our platform. Our platform includes civil rights like same sex marriage. One that didn't resonate with said demographic when Proposition 8 was passed. If we can identify a group that turned out in huge numbers, and a reason why, and it explains that three million vote tally and an electoral LOSS, then maybe that three million votes isn't an endorsement of our platform at all. Maybe it's people reacting in well-justified fear that a bigot and a racist is about to take the white house while targeting YOU as part of HIS platform.


We CANNOT assume our message was right, or on target, or resonated with voters. 304 electoral votes say we didn't. We cannot lay all of that at the feet of one FBI director, or 'Russia', who of course meddles in all our elections just like we meddle in everyone else's, or Bernie bros, or Jill Stein, etc...

it's suicide to assume right now that we were ok on platform and message.



You might guess, if you read my user name, that non-Hispanic white Catholics are a problem for me. They rolled for Trump in this election, statistically speaking even in California, but fortunately not in sufficient numbers to flip the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #168)

Mon May 1, 2017, 06:39 PM

181. Again the short-sightedness is breath-taking

There is a long game and that game is demographics. And the people you are chasing are going to slowly be extinct in the next couple decades and that fear of annihilation is coming to a head.

I understand how the electoral college works and people have posted over and over and over in thread after thread that the "flipped" states (like mine) were only "flipped" by less than 1% of the vote - e.g., here in PA, by about 70,000 votes, which were distributed across the state out of 6,000,000 votes.

You did dismiss as a "spike" in voting, a demographic that has been increasing faster than the one you chase and who are in other states outside of California like say... Texas? Yet you are apparently not attributing this increase of voters to platform ideas that are relevant to that demographic.

All of the arguments from the JPR crowd such as what you are professing, continue to dismiss voter suppression in areas where solid Democrats reside and attribute things to "messaging" that have nothing to do with "messaging" and everything to do with white privilege and a last gasp from people who have been brainwashed to believe that their "problem" is "immigrants and minorities who have taken their jobs". They look around their all-white communities now running rampant with opioid addiction yet see on teevee that POC "grifters" are at fault and are the drug-dealers and criminals, because that is how they have been programmed to think.

I have been posting ad nauseum that the Democratic wealthy need to get up off their $$$ and BUY AM radio stations (when they become available) located in those rural areas that have no cell or TV access so that we can get them programmed with our message... the one that they don't "hear" because they "hear" nothing but RW bullshit on their radios.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #181)


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #107)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:38 PM

141. Good post.

Very interesting.

I just know the TPP thing turned a few people into Trump voters .

First she was for it and then she was against it.

Conclusion? Hillary is wishy-washy. Checks the polls and political wind for current position.

Trump tells it like it is and sticks to his guns.

We're dealing with simple people here folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #7)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:19 AM

49. never be close enough to steal if not for the talk radio advantage

and it's an advantage only because democrats and left ignore it. biggest political mistake in history.

most of the russian hacking/soc media work re hillary piggybacked 25 years of unchallenged talk radio and i'll bet this is one more 'study' that doesn't even mention talk radio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #7)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:24 AM

52. It wasn't just about Hillary's loss, though.

It's about 32 states having GOP controlled legislators and 33 Republican governors, and God knows how many lost local government offices. The old term 'long coat-tails' applies here.

Yes, Clinton did win the popular vote, and yes, only a small group in key electoral college states did it for Trump, but at the local, state and national levels, our party got pasted.

I don't know what is wrong with enlarging the tent to include the working class. Hey, it is a class war that the rich capitalists have successfully waged on us for the last 70 years, and we are losing.

Trump is a liar, but the working class wants some things. Reasonable things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #52)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:30 AM

56. The vast majority of black and hispanic working class voters DID vote for Hillary. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #56)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:46 AM

66. Of course they did! The problem is the white ones didn't, and

up to the 1980s they were a very strong Democratic constituency that could be counted on. But then we started seeing wage stagnation, good jobs leaving the country with 'free trade,' watered-down healthcare where you pay out the nose for very little, deterioration of Social Security and raising the retirement age.

Safety standards on the workplace have gone down the tubes because our people have been coached to think about regulations as being 'job-killing.'

K-12 has deteriorated on two fronts, privatization (vouchers) and 'creationism.'

College costs have now reached the stratosphere.

And the new 'gig' (read powerless wage-slave) economy has created a constant sense of economic insecurity, as has the 'lay them off at the drop of a pin because shareholders have primacy' philosophy in corporate boardrooms.

Then, of course, the GOP 'fixed' the bankruptcy laws so it is harder to start over.

So, basically, in a white worker's eyes, things have gotten worse, there's a huge amount of economic stress and fear every day, and finally...

I can cite numerous instances where Democrats at the state and national level have NOT had workers' backs.

So how can we be surprised this huge group opted for a con-man who ran as an 'outsider,' a 'populist.'

The people are hungry for a populist message. Start talking about using OUR tax dollars to rebuild the infrastructure, Medicare for all Americans, expanding Social Security, and raising wages, and watch these folks stampede the polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #66)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:04 AM

71. But what you said was:

"I don't know what is wrong with enlarging the tent to include the working class."

The working class overall DID vote for Hillary. Only the white segment didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #71)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:41 AM

89. Precisely the problem.

"Non-Hispanic whites account for 69.1 percent of the U.S. population, according to the 2000 Census data. However, because the non-white population is heavily clustered in relatively few counties, the average U.S. county has a population that is 79.6% non-Hispanic white."

http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhwhite.html

And then we have 40% of that non-Hispanic white population identifying as working class.
http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/americas-invisibleand-very-diverseworking-class

That's more than half of every county. So 'only the white segment' is actually the single largest segment, and yeah, we're not going to win without them solidly on-board. That's the posters point.

This is where economics, race, class, geographical location with respect to political boundaries, and even gerrymandering (at sub-presidential political race levels) come together in a massive train wreck.


If we can't carry the single-largest working class demographic, we're in deep shit folks. Russians or no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #89)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:33 AM

118. Your last line

is the right answer, and it ties into what Carville said back in 1992....it's the economy.

It always has been and always will be, people vote their paychecks. They vote for whom they think will secure that paycheck and perhaps increase it. The voters might be wrong in their assessment, but the average person doesn't care about larger issues if they can't pay their mortgage/rent because their paycheck is unstable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #71)

Mon May 1, 2017, 07:41 PM

189. But that's who I'm talking about in my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #52)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:36 AM

63. When has the party not supported the working class?

I am not sure your argument is tenable. What policies is the democratic party pursuing, that is not including the working class? Trickle down economics don't exactly help the working man.

As working class person, what is it you are saying that I want from the democrats, that Trump is giving or going to give me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BertNEarnie (Reply #63)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:39 AM

65. What policies for the working class have been pushed by the Democratic party in the last 20+ years?

 

I agree that the Democrats are much better than Trump and the GOP on everything, but you have to give the voters a reason to vote for you - not just reasons to vote against the other guy or gal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kirkwood (Reply #65)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:22 AM

77. I have reason, and all working class voters do too

Off the top of my head:

FLSA - expansion of eligibility for overtime and the patient protection and affordable care act
Auto bailout and Recovery Act
Dodd Frank
National
Home Refinancing

How many efforts to help the working class, lime COLA, have Republicans blocked? It's hard to bring the nation forward, when the landed gentry is blocking you at every turn.

Okay, so back to my original question; how have the democrats not helped the working class? How are the Republicans helping the working class?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BertNEarnie (Reply #77)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:32 AM

84. The Republicans suck. We all know that. But, this isn't about them.

 

Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

The Democrats need to start fighting for the working class like they did when I was a kid in the 70's. They were not ashamed of fighting for unions. They wore it proudly.

When was the last time you heard a Democrat talk about unions?

They used to fight hard for a strong living wage. Now, they can't even get a majority to support a bill for one.

I want more than just 'helping' the working class when they can. I want to see a fight, even when they don't have Congress and any proposals will be blocked.

They used to be that way. Now, they seem to be too afraid to hurt anyone's feelings. The only thing that has gotten us is losing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kirkwood (Reply #84)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:25 AM

115. Unions

I guess I disagree that the democrats lose in rural areas because of unions. Honestly, where do unions draw their greatest support, and how do those areas vote? Is Trump going to support the Davis-Bacon Act?

Trump could hurt us on pipelines. Do you want to support pipelines, is that what you are saying? Unions are not always in the right. Some of them have been anti-newcomers, based on racial lines. We can't support unions just to support unions.

Unions can be beneficial if r a hindance.

So we are back to this, how much are you going to sacrifice to get their votes? Many, lime the NEA, are probably never going to support the republicans anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BertNEarnie (Reply #115)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:34 AM

119. It's not about Unions.

 

It's about fighting.

The Democrats don't seem to do want to do it anymore.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kirkwood (Reply #119)

Tue May 2, 2017, 10:27 AM

195. I disagree with you

I feel Pelosi and Shumer and doing a good job of fighting right now. I do thank you for having the conversation with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BertNEarnie (Reply #77)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:00 AM

101. Plus Obamacare, Lily Ledbetter Act, numerous executive orders,

Consumer Protection, minimum wage changes, etc etc etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BertNEarnie (Reply #63)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:01 AM

68. I'm not saying Trump will give us crap.

I would much rather Clinton won.

However, she did not.

Yes, I KNOW trickle down doesn't work.

But, hey, how about the Democratic party instituting, with much hoopla, a 'Contract with the American Worker!'

That would be pretty good.

I want single payer. Period. Medicare for all Americans. Fuck the MIC - they can do without a few billion so our people can have that.

I want corporate tax loopholes closed to ensure corporations DO pay their fair share of taxes.

I want more of OUR tax money that WE pay in used for infrastructure.

I want expanded Social Security.

I want my kids to do better than I did, so I want OUR tax dollars that WE pay in to subsidize free postsecondary education at state schools.

Without workers there can BE no profit, so corporate charters need to be changed to hold the workers, consumers and the environment equal to shareholders in terms of corporate strategy and operations.

Those things would be a damned good start, and before you say, "Oh, the Dems want all that," think about what they have actually DONE to get us on the right track? How many Dems have gone all the way with us on Medicare for all Americans, for instance? Or made the moral case to FIND MONEY to expand Social Security? I've paid full boat into SS since I started working at 15, and now the thing is I'll get a lousy $2K a month and I can't retire until 66 and 9 months. That's BULLSHIT. Where were the Dems when this shit was coming down?

Sorry...didn't mean to rant. But most workers are f**ing tired of living in fear of layoff, not being able to make ends meet consistently and not being able to save anything for retirement because you get nickel and dimed to death.

So...what do I want on behalf of workers? ENOUGH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #68)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:04 AM

106. Rant

Okay, so I just repied to Kirkwood above, but for the record, Saying that democrats have not pushed for infrastructure, how bout the American Jobs Act, is not accurate.

The rest... look, most people I know on Medicare, supplement it with other insurance. My parents probably pay close to $900 a month in insurance, and they are on Medicare. I want health care for all, but if you look at succesful healthcare, you can find other ways to accomplish that; look at Switzerland, they dont have a single payer health system, and they're doing well. I don't believe the NHS covers mental health, but I could be wrong... so yeah, while I want single payer, denying that it too won't be perfect, and will not be free, is only being truthful and honest. Also, how many people are currently employed by Health Insurers? I don't like them either, but if you are paying your rent working for these organizations, it us a huge deal to lose your job.

There is no free college, and if we do subsidize college, we either have to increase revenue or take something away. Also, post-secondary education is not the same in Denmark as it is here. At least here, if you have the grades, you have some opportunity to pursue the field you want to pursue through student loans. Is that always a good idea, heck no, but it is definitely not an option for say, students in Denmark, you want a certain skill set, you have to place well above other students to get there. College is set up differently, three years, I believe, and the graduation rates are stilll not exceptionally high. Hoe many college graduates currently work in the field to which they graduated from? I don't know, but it seems lime Forbes and Salon have articles about this every year; they never read well.

That might be a few reasons why people are not able to get this through. It is not honest to say these things will solve our economic woes. They may not work, and citing another country, where these institutions act differently, and perhaps, may not even be better than we are, is disenguine as well.

I strongly support the use of the estate tax to achieve some of this, but even so, how much of that is realistic? What kind of burden are you going to put on people paying 300-500 a month on student loans to also pay for ALL of this?

I dont know what generation you are, but the baby boomers good fortune was probably a one off, and other than recognizing that as soon as mankind created laws to protect property instead of people, it was all over, what are you gonna do? Until we get to Star Trek level, we are stuck putting our fingers in dams, and the dems have worked hard to do that, whether or not you agree with them.

I want all of these things, but I don't know if what you are describing is going to fix everything or anything for that matter. I need better answers, and a far more in depth plan, than what I saw in 2016, before I jump on ALL of this.

Both Hillary and Bernie loved NY's "free college". I note that plan does nothing for people who have to work to survive and still want to go to school. How are these people benefiting from this, and god forbid, they later lose funding for programs that help them in the long run, or face higher taxes, because then they have nothing to show for it. That said, I still think both Hillary and Bernie have fought for the working class, even if I am appalled by some of the things they have said or supported. It wouldnt be honest of me to say otherwise.

I didn't vote for the kid in sixth grade who promised cutting school days and free soda from the vending machine either. Just because the dems are not in lock step with you, doesnt mean they have been twiddling their thumbs.

Apologies in advance for my incohrrent thoughts and poor grammar. I am a working stiff, and it was a pleasure conversing with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BertNEarnie (Reply #106)

Mon May 1, 2017, 07:36 PM

188. Nah, you're cool! No problem.

I'm actually a baby boomer - tail end of that generation. But why should our success be a 'one-off?'

I'm also an economist, so I can tell you a couple things based on your reply. And, yes, I'm quite aware I'm an idealist. You bet. I've been called a unicorn and lots of other not-so-nice stuff, but I keep plugging. Because you know, every little bit makes some difference.

So, to your statements: for sure single payer won't be perfect. Anything run by humans won't be. But if you look at the Brits, their NHS is structured around regional General Practitioners who control access to the system. So, that's a problem. Most of the wealthy people I know who have lived in UK hate this system because of that. But here's the thing - Brits don't die because they can't afford health care or lifesaving drugs. Oh, I'm sure Joe the Plumber might come up with one or two cases where they did, but those are aberrations in the system, not the norm.

I'm glad your parents have Medicare. $900/mo is cool. I work my ass off, and I pay over $14K per year for shitty, rationed healthcare with financially crippling copays. And it's an HMO so I do not get to choose my doctor. So, yeah, I don't like that much at all. And, if you've ever owned a business, which I have, healthcare is the biggest expense short of the labor itself. It is a huge line item. If all of a sudden we went to single payer, businesses across the USA would immediately have much lower operating costs. The only people who would be affected are the 400,000 people working in the health insurance industry now. And, possibly big pharma. To put this in perspective, the US labor force is just over 200 million people. And we have training programs that can help these people retool and get back to work in a different industry.

As to the free college - I pay tens of thousands in taxes every year - I'm middle class, middle earner. Why, I ask, does this money I pay in have to be routed to 'defense' contracts, or the NSA, when instead it could be used to make my life better? Government is a service, and it costs money to live in a society like this. Not only that, but corporations have this loophole in the tax code that allows them to 'offshore' profits without paying taxes on them. Result? The nominal tax rate all the Repubs say is 'the highest in the world' is, but that isn't the effective tax rate, which is the actual amount paid after deductions. So far, big companies like GE have salted away over $2 trillion offshore that is untaxed. In fact, during a couple years of the last decade, they paid no US income tax on billions in profits. How is that fair?

And, one last question, and it is rhetorical - not aimed at you, just throwing it out there: If the national debt is money we owe ourselves for service we have given ourselves, then why are we paying it back to bankers with interest? The Fed is NOT quasi governmental like they tell you. The companies that have the biggest position in it now are the same ones who had the biggest position back in 1912 - Citibank and JP Morgan Chase.

We always talk scarcity, like there just isn't enough for you and me. But you know what? There's plenty of wealth in the world. It's just concentrated in too few hands.

If you want an interesting read, I recommend Ellen Brown's 'Web of Debt' and check out public banking systems. We'd be SO much better off if we got rid of the Fed and printed our own money. But if you read Brown, you'll find out what the shyster bankers did to Abraham Lincoln in retaliation for him going with government issued greenbacks. (hint, the Secret Service was formed in 1865 not to protect the Prez, but to battle the counterfeiters - over a third of the greenbacks in circulation that year were counterfeit, courtesy of European and American bankers who didn't like getting left out of that loop.

Capitalism sucks, doesn't it?

Anyway, nice talking to you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #188)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:27 AM

196. Will read 'Web of Debt'

Thank you for your patience with me. Most of my economic knowledge, which would pale in comparison to your own, is garnered from Public education. That whole, "Goldn Age" as I was taught, end of coal, transition to oil, Marshall Plan, Seemed to be a perfect storm, but as a gen x'r, and naturally prone to negative thinking, I find it hard to believe that sort of growth is possible today. I could be wrong. Capitalism and insurance companies do suck. I will read Ellen Brown and thank you for the head's up.

I agree with you, concerning taxation and college. I just didn't see how helpful our candidates plans were for people already up to their neck in college debt. I was a non-traditional student, went back to school with the millennials, and I have a real soft spot for people who work and go to school full time. My sister, in Bay Ridge, does that, and Cuomo's plan isn't that helpful. She can't go to school full time to reap those benefits, and my parents can't support her, and her story isn't uncommon. That seems to be the plan being pushed... I agree wih you about millitary spending and taxation, but at the same time, budget reconciliation is a nightmare, and I wonder how we ever achieve this. It is not something I would give up on the party over, but felt like our leaders, don't necessarily have an answer for this. Maybe there isn't one.

That said, after moving to the Midwest, my wife and I have bought a hoise, and the ACA has basically save my mother's life. I can't say the party hasn't done anything for me. Could be a lot better, could be so much worse.

Thanks again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BertNEarnie (Reply #63)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:09 AM

108. Seriously??

 

NAFTA was the biggest FU to the American worker in my lifetime. There is also a disturbing trend of anti-Union behavior and rhetoric that is becoming too familiar in the Party. Neoliberals in the Party determined the future lay with Corporate Campaign Cash and depend on Labor to stay with them because there is no other political option. At some point the Party will have to make a choice as to who they work for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #108)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:20 AM

112. And Republicans successfully linked media noise about the TPP to Hillary, and NAFTA.

That was fucking genius on their part, and I was horrified to watch it happening.

It didn't matter that Hillary was involved in an early draft of the TPP. It didn't matter that it wasn't her call. It didn't matter that NAFTA was signed by her husband and doesn't prove what she would or would not do in the same position, or on these trade issues today.

It doesn't even matter that practically every thing Trump sells is made in China.


They made the connection, and the media didn't question it, and ran with it. It was basically the only thing before the election (when I believed that Hillary was a shoo-in) that gave me pause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #52)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:03 AM

69. Who says the working class aren't included?

if enlarging the tent means Dems changing their platform on being pro Union, pro gun regulation, pro choice, pro LGBT rights, pro environmental stewardship, pro separation of church and state...if that's what the working class are waiting for then we will never be that segment of the working class's party.

It's a two way street, a participation sport, if you will.

Democracy is not a product to be sold, the Democratic Party shouldn't have to exist as a brand in search of a better sales pitch...

The Democratic Party is an organization that lays out its core values and aims toward realizing greater communities strengthened by those values.

If we keep framing democracy and politics like its entertainment, the masses will vote for that which entertains them the most.

The tent is already open. What are they waiting for? A parade with a band to lead them in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SticksnStones (Reply #69)

Mon May 1, 2017, 12:18 PM

125. +1

I would add that, in terms of messaging, and attracting voters, Republicans have it way easier than Democrats because they are not above lying, smearing, and spreading falsehoods about their Democratic opponents, playing into age-old prejudices, not to mention being able to whip their voters and a few "low-information voters" into a blind hysteria over (often) imaginary fears. It's hard to compete with that but I don't want Democrats to act the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #7)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:34 AM

60. Exactly. What are these idiots drinking? There's a huge elephant in the room named Comey/Putin...

and they don't want to see it, just want to blame the campaign and some phantoms who supposedly switched from Obama to trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #60)

Mon May 1, 2017, 04:06 PM

169. That kind of thinking is the problem. "We did everything right, Comey

 

and Russia stole the election".
We're doomed if the decision makers in the party agree with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frankieallen (Reply #169)

Mon May 1, 2017, 04:53 PM

176. We're doomed if they don't. If you don't think Comey Putin had something to do with it...

Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 10:06 PM - Edit history (1)

I have a bridge to sell you. Also add in Interstate Crosscheck, voter ID laws, broken voting machines in POC districts and all the repugs other dirty tricks.

The first thing Perez should have done was to set up a permanent committee tasked with combating their cheating. It should be funded well with party funds, donations, however. There should be the best legal help, the best private investigators and volunteers to get after the cheating.

The committee should also have media liaisons to loudly and constantly publicize its progress and findings.
This will add to the messaging effort as it will let people know what the repugs are up to and that we are fighting it.

Don't know why this hasn't been done. Is should have been done long ago.

Also a certain senator needs to be reigned in to curtail the constant attacks on the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #7)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:35 AM

62. She was running against an orange buffoon.

 

She should have won it by 10 million votes+.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kirkwood (Reply #62)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:28 PM

155. That says more about the people

who voted for him, than about her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kirkwood (Reply #62)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:36 PM

159. I've been shocked with seeing how many men enjoyed that buffoon and cheered him on.

 

There is something disgusting and primal about his appeal to them. Honestly they need to grow up and get over looking at women as arm candy or ex wives. Such a bunch of sad asses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kirkwood (Reply #62)

Mon May 1, 2017, 04:07 PM

170. Correct

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #7)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:41 AM

120. Without suppressed votes, broken machines in strategic districts, and lack of audits

Hillary Clinton would have won.

I think it was something like 70,000 voters in Michigan who were affected by broken voting machines in mostly black districts. An unknown number of voters whose registration was challenged who may not have been able to vote across the country. Unknown numbers of voters who were not able to vote because of strict voter ID laws and inability to get qualifying identifications.

Oh - back to Michigan which has the insane law that if voting machines are broken no recount or audit is allowed.

Those factors alone probably would have pushed the election more to the Democratic side.

We need to register people to vote but we also need to make sure that once registered they have access to voting. We can help people get the IDs that are required in so many states - including helping them to pay for the documentation required to get those IDs and to pay for the IDs themselves (Florida for instance charges $25 for a state photo ID - on top of the amount required to get a certified birth certificate, and for women the cost to get marriage/divorce/death certificates if they changed their names when married).

In addition, we need to advertise this stuff - how voting machines are not secure, what IDs are required to vote, and how to get their IDs. We also need to push for changing the laws so our voting is verifiable and so real in depth audits are possible and will be done for every election. We also need to bring back the provisions of the Voting Act that protected voters from the abuse they have gotten since parts were overturned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #120)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:21 PM

136. Well said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:23 AM

8. Two words:

Voter Suppression

Why does no one even address that there were wide ranging efforts in many states to disenfranchise legal voters?

Crosscheck and voter ID laws, broken/too few machines in precincts that lean Dem.

Then there are the no-paper-trail voting machines in which there is no possibility of a legitimate recount.

I will never believe that the results of this election were not tampered with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #8)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:38 AM

17. Gerrymandering allows unnatural state Republicon majorities that make Voter Suppression laws. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #17)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:01 AM

30. Yes, it is

and that needs to stop too.

We need a standard and politically neutral method of apportioning congressional districts.

We also need a standard number of people in each congressional district, which means we need to add to the HOR in order to ensure that representation is more, well, representative than it is now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #17)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:25 AM

79. Gerrrymandering has no impact on presidential elections

It's total votes for each candidate in each state. It does have a huge impact at the state level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #79)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:50 AM

97. Gerrymandering has large impact on Presidential Elections. 2024 depends on 2021 depends on 2020/2018

Gerrymandering --> Republicon state majorities --> Voter Suppression laws --> Electoral College swings --> Trump-Putin-Bannon-Jarvanka

The 2020 census is the lead-in to the 2021 redistricting that will have a large impact on voter suppression laws that could have a big impact on the 2024 election, just as it has had in the past.

A swing of only 3 Electoral College votes would have elected President Al Gore in 2000.
A swing of only 18 Electoral College votes would have elected President John Kerry in 2004.
A swing of only 70,000 votes in 3 states would have elected President Hillary Clinton in 2016.
  Michigan, 0.23%
  Pennsylvania, 0.72%
  Wisconsin, 0.76%

Republicons know this. You should too.

The Democratic Party needs to win state legislatures each one individually in 2018 and 2020. All Democratic state legislatures need to lock redistricting into permanent independent commissions that work according to rational principles for the most democratic (small d) representation possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #97)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:11 AM

109. Clear and informative post, thank you, Bernardo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #97)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:22 AM

114. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #97)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:35 PM

157. Thank you for that.

When I saw that, "Gerrymandering has no impact on ..." I could not believe I was seeing that. Elections, even National elections, are executed locally and at the state level. Allowing for voter suppression laws in an of itself shows that gerrymandering can have an absolute effect on national elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #79)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:54 AM

98. Not true. It gives Repubs control of state legislatures. And the power to supress votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #8)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:00 PM

130. Yes, this +1000 I'll never forget that Karl Rove's IT guy died in a "plane crash"

Here's a possible reason why dems aren't speaking out about stolen elections...


https://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/republican_it_specialist_dies_in_plane

snip...A top Republican internet strategist who was set to testify in a case alleging election tampering in 2004 in Ohio has died in a plane crash. Mike Connell was the chief IT consultant to Karl Rove and created websites for the Bush and McCain electoral campaigns. He also set up the official Ohio state election website reporting the 2004 presidential election returns.

Connell was reportedly an experienced pilot. He died instantly Friday night when his private plane crashed in a residential neighborhood near Akron, Ohio.

Michael Connell was deposed one day before the election this year by attorneys Cliff Arnebeck and Bob Fitrakis about his actions during the 2004 vote count and his access to Karl Rove’s email files and how they went missing.

Velvet Revolution, a non-profit investigating Connell’s activities, revealed this weekend that Connell had recently said he was afraid George Bush and Dick Cheney would “throw [him] under the bus.” Cliff Arnebeck had also previously alerted Attorney General Michael Mukasey to alleged threats from Karl Rove to Connell if he refused to “take the fall.” snip

...snip...he seems to have been present at the scene of every dubious election of the last eight years. We’re talking about Florida in 2000. We’re talking about Ohio in 2004. We’re talking about Alabama in 2002. He seems to have been involved in the theft of Don Siegelman’s re-election for governor. There’s some evidence that links him with the Saxby Chambliss-Max Cleland Senate race in Georgia in 2002. To be Karl Rove’s IT guru seems to have meant basically setting it up so that votes could be electronically shaved to the disadvantage of the Democrats and the advantage of Republicans.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, “electronically shaved”? I mean, you’ve got all these precincts all over Ohio. They’re counting up their votes. What does he have to do with this?

MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Well, specifically, there’s a computer architecture setup called “Man in the Middle," which involves shunting the election returns from, you know, the state in question — in this case, Ohio — shunting them to a separate computer elsewhere. All of the election returns in Ohio in 2004 went from the Secretary of State’s website — this is Ken Blackwell — to a separate computer in a basement in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which was under the control of another private company called SMARTech...snip

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:24 AM

9. this democrat says it's russia and comey. clear that up and i'll listen to anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #9)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:32 AM

14. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #9)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:23 AM

51. +1001

YUP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #9)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:04 AM

105. EXACTLY!!!!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #9)

Mon May 1, 2017, 03:09 PM

164. undeniably. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:25 AM

10. One of many studies of the election.

 

Russian trolls on left wing sites, Russian hacking of statehouse servers for microtargeting of voters with misinformation, the Comey Sabotage, voter suppression in key states....

I'm not seeing that the data here weighted for these things.

And this much repeated smear of Hillary makes me think that there may have been a bias there:

“We don’t need to be Republican-lite,” Canter said.


Even though the take, from some quarters, on social justice issues seems to be headed that way...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #10)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:07 AM

39. Cambridge Analytica played a huge role in suppressing the vote

It was really scary how easily and how well they can determine if you are a liberal/conservative/moderate; male/female; gay/straight; married/divorced/single; likely voter or not; race/religion; etc; etc; And then they can send you targeted Facebook ads designed to discourage you from voting. They specifically targeted single young women, African American voters and one other demographic group with ads to dampen their enthusiasm for voting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #39)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:27 AM

53. Yes, those posts were effective. Seems they targeted me because I saw those "dark posts".

many of them went viral.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #39)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:30 AM

197. It would be very enlightening for their Facebook ads to be available for everyone to appreciate

how bad they were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice (Reply #197)

Tue May 2, 2017, 12:23 PM

198. Not sure

I know the Clinton quote about super-predators was played a lot for African American voters

I also remember seeing an article about the fake news story of The Pope endorsing Trump that was shared well over 1 million times, while the article debunking that fake news was shared like 25,000 times. That would play well with working class Catholics and some other religious types, I would think. (Meanwhile, in reality, the Pope criticized some of Trump's proposals, and Trump slammed the Pope...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:26 AM

11. Interesting

After the 'we have to do both statement' -ie turning out the base simply isn't enough - there's this:

Democrats are quick to acknowledge that even if voters switching allegiance had been Clinton's biggest problem, in such a close
election she still could have defeated Trump with better turnout. She could have won, for instance, if African-American turnout in
Michigan and Florida matched 2012 levels.


They are conceding that they can't count on us - however - they seriously cannot COUNT on our votes. Certainly not in Michigan.

I think the party can't take a one fits all approach.

Looking at DU - we have folks who are really seriously considering going for white working class votes. Not a bad strategy.

But there are those of us seriously concerned about or ABILITY to vote (black folks) who need to get off our asses and go help people that look like us have their say. I cannot worry about welders in Ohio who are white. They have the Republicans and Democratics on their side.

Me - I gotta help my own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #11)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:44 AM

19. I'm white and grew up among the white working class

they have changed in my lifetime. Become more mean spirited than they used to be.

So many seem to think that improving civil rights for anyone but them means they get less. That is so stupid, I can't even...but the point is that they are never going to vote Democratic in large numbers again. Evangelical religion, hate radio, and Faux News has tainted them to the point where there is no coming back.

And they used to be basically decent people. Not anymore.

I'm related to so many of them and I can't even look them in the face anymore, I'm so ashamed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #11)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:08 AM

40. Two facts regarding African-American voters in Michigan

A week before the election I gave a young (19) African-American male a ride home. I asked him about voting, he told me he was not registered. I then told him it was too late for him to get registered and vote this year but make sure his family votes. He replied "We think it does not really make a difference." (Republican lite?)
At local Democratic party meeting after the election a senior African-American man spoke up saying... "Don't come knocking on my door once every two years."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #11)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:11 AM

42. You can't expect African American turnout to be the same

when you go from the historic first black president to a white candidate, male or female. Democratic turnout was up overall in Florida, but Republican turnout was up even more because Trump was able to get those rural white voters to the polls en masse for the first time since George W Bush got them out in 2000... remember Florida was called for Gore, but those late closing polls in the panhandle swung it back to the disputed level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #11)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:20 PM

192. Don't fall for those trying to blame AAs for the loss. 90+ percent of AAs votes were for Hillary

Last edited Wed May 3, 2017, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)

No other ethnic group came within 15 percentage points of that number.

Anybody who thinks there wouldn't be a slight fall off from Obama's numbers are not too smart.

The first, black major party presidential candidate of course is going to get a record voter turnout.

But again, no other ethnic group came got anywhere close to the 90+ turnout we delivered for Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #192)

Wed May 3, 2017, 10:33 AM

212. Right!?

Atheists/agnostics dropped 2% between Obama's re-election and the 2016 race, and WE got fingers pointed at us too.
Seriously? From 74 to 72% in favor, for 6% of the population? WTF point fingers elsewhere.


And with AA's at ~15% of the population and 90% in favor... shouldn't even be a talking point beyond 'how can we replicate that in other demographics?'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #212)

Wed May 3, 2017, 10:39 AM

213. Exactly. Your last paragraph says it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:27 AM

12. Interesting take

I think it was a combination of factors, personally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:27 AM

13. Kinda tanks the racism angle.

Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cwydro (Reply #13)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:37 PM

160. Yet we saw DT get huge applause for all the racist crap he spewed. But it's ignored.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:33 AM

15. Duh.

I know many want to blame Jill Stein, Bernie Bros, hacking, etc. But on the ground, the lack of enthusiasm was palpable. Our GOTV campaign didn't work. And we didn't just lose the White House, we lost congress, state houses and local seats too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #15)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:28 AM

55. Except Hillary got only 70,000 fewer votes than Obama in 2012 -- despite all the new voter ID laws,

and the new purges with the Cross Check system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #55)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:15 AM

111. Only?

Gee, and Trump only got 2 million more than Romney in 2012. With arguably their worst candidate in a century, they managed to get off their asses and vote for him (or against her). While, for whatever reason, Democrats and Independents didn't bother to vote for our team. I lost track of the number of doors I knocked on last year where the registered voter said, "well, I don't know if I'm going to vote this year."

I can say with 99% certainty that voter ID laws and purges made no difference around here. It may have been a problem in some districts but it does us no good to use that as an excuse for the entire nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #111)

Mon May 1, 2017, 03:37 PM

166. Those GOP voters were much less likely to be affected by the new voter ID requirements

or by Cross Check which impacted minority voters more than white voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #166)

Mon May 1, 2017, 07:25 PM

187. There is no doubt that those laws/practices are designed to disenfranchise POC and the poor (Dems).

And we've known about this since 2000.

But none of that matters if people don't care enough to try to vote. The one good thing that has come out of the election is an energized public. We have more people coming to our local party meetings now than I've seen for a looong time. Still not enough, but it's a start. We're going to need more liberals in ALL offices to undo the last two decades of RW bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #187)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:02 PM

190. How do you know they didn't try? And what about the Russian microtargeting of black voters?

Did you hear about that? About the dark ads on Facebook (invisible to everyone else) where they spread anti-Hillary memes targeted to African Americans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:35 AM

16. We didn't fail you

You failed us.

That's what I can take from this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:39 AM

18. Results are arrived from the data put in.

If some data is overlooked or is slightly skewed (unintentionally or not) the results will only reflect what the person or group wants it to and may not accurately reveal the whole truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:49 AM

22. Over analyzing will be the Dems downfall. This is crap

 

Come and Russian hacking. Don't buy this BS narrative

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:50 AM

23. A lot of voters prefer change, regardless of what kind of change.

 

Clinton was the status quo candidate in 2008, let alone 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #23)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:57 PM

161. Exactly

45 was the worst candidate in the GOP field. The worst in most of our lifetimes. BUT, he was also the perfect candidate to win. After the oppositional congress that produced a conflict driven government, people were sick of politics and by extension- politicians. We got played in a big way as we were thinking they would be sick of republicans. Unfortunately it would a appear that a new-to-politics presidential candidate running against one who has been on the national stage for the entire adult lives of many voters.

We will continue to lose if the party does not take a serious look at every single mistake, miscalculation, and flaw in order to resist and recover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:54 AM

24. 96% of Trump voters have no regrets.

10 million more voted for not Trump in 2016!

Do we have to get Trump voters?

“There’s an active conversation within the party about whether persuasion was the problem or turnout,” said Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, vice president for social policy and politics at Third Way, a center-left Democratic think tank.

“There’s still a real concern that persuasion is harder and costs more than mobilization, so let’s just triple down on getting out the people who already agree with us,” she said. “And I think there’s a lot of worry that we don’t actually know how to persuade anymore, and so maybe we should just go talk to the people we agree with.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:54 AM

25. The intelligence level of a large number of

American voters has been grossly overestimated IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreRepugs (Reply #25)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:57 AM

27. Agreed. History will not judge us kindly

This Country had choices and as a people, we proved incapable of making rational choices. Not just talking about Comrade casino, but the fine Americans who keep sending assholes like McConnell, Ryan, Goodlatte etc. back to Congress time and again.

All that is assuming we have a history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Va Lefty (Reply #27)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:03 AM

33. 3 million more of of us chose rationally. Hillary lost because of a vestige of

 

the deal with the devil we made with the slave states back in 1787 (the Electoral College). So she lost because of racism in both senses of the term (individual voters' and institutional).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #33)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:32 PM

156. Good point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Va Lefty (Reply #27)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:03 AM

34. Agreed VL - I'm in FL - Scott is our leading yahoo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreRepugs (Reply #34)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:33 AM

59. Scott may appeal to the yahoos

but, he does have a JD, which is far more than Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 08:56 AM

26. Clinton won, but the Russians and Republicans stole the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:00 AM

28. I see lots of denial here despite how polls leading up to the election...

... indicated it was dangerously close between Clinton and Trump. Perhaps that's the way this issue should be framed to get past some of the accusations of vote tampering?

The fact that someone as unqualified as Trump was even close in pre-election polls should make more Democrats question themselves.

I personally think many of those Obama-Trump voters simply didn't "like" her. She was the only candidate with higher than 50% unfavorable ratings late in the 2008 primaries too. A hypothetical election against McCain at that time showed her easily losing while Obama was ahead by about the same margin as the actual results months later.

She's been the target of the right-wing for many years, and there's many voters who will think "where there's smoke there's fire" after being deluged by it for so many years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #28)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:28 AM

116. Yup. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #28)

Mon May 1, 2017, 04:49 PM

175. Except that her approval ratings were pretty high until she announced

Then all of the attacks started. You personally think that many Obama-Trump voters didn't like her? Okay, she was also the only candidate that was targeted almost exclusively for the last 30 years for basically being a female Clinton.

Many people think where there is smoke there is fire, except that there was no fire and the smoke was coming out of machines to create that illusion.

I would think that the fact that someone like Trump could compete should make Americans question the entire political process, not just the Democratic Party. Trump would have never made it as a Democratic Candidate. The problem is that the Democratic Party is the party of government. Democrats think that government, when used properly, can be a force for the average citizen and a shield against powerful single interests or industries.

The problem is that this idea has been under attack since the 1970's beginning with Nixon, but really taking flight with Reagan in the 1980's, the rise of right wing libertarians like the Koch brothers at the same time, and the general idea that government is the problem. Republicans have been systematically dismantling the public faith in government for decades and because Democrats are the defenders of government, the blame has been attributed to the Democratic Party. Our education system has been failing by not teaching critical thinking skills and we as a society have succumbed to a certain extent to emotional advertising. Instead of looking at a politician's voting record, understanding their positions on policy, we have a "gut feeling" about them.

I was excited about Bernie. I voted for him in the primary. I was upset that he was not nominated. I thought that his voting record was most consistent with my opinions on issues. I did not agree with his focus mainly on economics without more attention to racial factors within the economic problems. I don't think Hillary did herself any favors by not just disclosing the transcripts of her speeches, but again, that is the past. Hillary Clinton did not lose because she was a bad candidate. The Democratic Party did not lose because we are "out of touch". We actually got more votes across the board but lost because votes are not tallied on an individual basis. We lost because there has been a concerted plan for the last 30 years to arrange for the actual minority party (the party of the Rich) to maintain electoral competitiveness and win at the local levels.

We as a party can definitely do better at promoting ourselves, but there are inherent obstacles. Our message is one of working together and giving up a little (in taxes, effort, etc...) so that everyone can have enough. We want to take care of the planet by moderating our disposable society (again, sacrifice consumption so that we can all live and breathe clean air and have clean water). We want regulations to stop the excesses in accumulation of wealth and the unfair use of wealth and power to influence others. We are fighting against some of the base instincts that many of us possess, which again, is the correct thing to do, but also a harder sell.

How do you suggest we message the above ideals and have corporate media support our message by giving us air time and a platform from which to tell everyone that we have to work together, that we have to make decisions for the good of everyone, and the like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caliman73 (Reply #175)

Mon May 1, 2017, 06:52 PM

182. What do I propose? A "fresh face" with that message.

Someone like Obama in 2008.

I think there are too many people who vote on gut instinct, as you mentioned. Once they've committed or leaned toward an opposing candidate, or against your candidate, it's tougher to win them.

A high-profile criminal trial in which the accused is absolutely cleared of all charges should give him/her a clean slate with the public, but that's often not how it works. In a similar way, the Clintons were harassed by numerous investigations by Republicans in the past.

I like Hillary Clinton and I think she would've made a great President. I voted for her in the general election (and all Democrats on my ballot) and I didn't vote in my primary. I was worried that Sanders might be "too liberal" to win, so I decided to stay out of it and let others decide who won the Democratic ticket.

However, I cringed a little bit when she ran for President again because I feared she would lose the general election. I cringed in 2008 too, but thankfully Obama came along that time (voted for him in the primary and general).

I was laughing about Trump winning the GOP nomination! I was also relieved because I assumed that even Hillary Clinton, who initially worried me as a candidate for the reasons stated above, would crush him in the general election. It obviously didn't turn out that way. A nightmare happened instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:01 AM

29. Secretary Clinton won by some 3 million votes. - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #29)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:32 AM

58. Actually Trump won by 77 votes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #58)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:35 AM

61. Sigh. Ignore. - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #29)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:37 AM

88. Why do people keep saying that?

 

She won nothing for getting 3 million more votes.

It's like saying we won the 7th game of the World Series because we got more hits instead of more runs. It would be a stupid thing to say. Why isn't stupid to say it for the election?

BTW, she lost to an orange buffoon. She should have gotten 10 million more votes and actually "won" the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:03 AM

31. Obama voters became Trump voters because of 8 years of cultivated hatred

that blinded voters to issues and self-interest beyond jobs and race

The right's culture war became a Crusade against perceived demons,
a mental shadow-boxing of paranoia and blistering righteousness.

It was very hard to run a campaign of returning to recent harmony of
the Bill Clinton years while running against an angry outsider

During the campaign I kept asking myself, why is Trump in all these rural
MI PA WI outback towns? What's he up to? Something that we're not
understanding.

HRC was too suburban upscale to connect with small town folks in the
brassy paternal way Trump did. We needed an attack dog like Joe Biden
in the race to back her up.

In many ways HRC played a woman's strategy, reasoned, stiff upper lip,
conciliatory at times, but also was left to attack Trump. He throaty, strident
voice turned off many voters that I talked to. "I couldn't stand her" they said
to me. I think men still dominate politics, HRC was in a bind on both sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:03 AM

32. Heard again this morning how Trump connected with those left out of the economic recovery

We all know he was selling snake oil, but when you are hurting, you sometimes will grasp at any slight chance.

Bernie's primary message was aimed at those hurting economically and HRC was late to the table to sweep up that cohort. Trump is nothing if not an opportunist and exploded in that seam to become the "populist".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:04 AM

35. Hogwash

This is an incredibly simple theory to explain a very complex set of problems.

Russian Hacking
Russian Social media hacking
False narrative from M$M
Gerrymandering
Voter Suppression
Sanders/Stein campaigns and Russian/Trump manipulation of them

The lies about Secretary Clinton continue even from her own side. this is disgusting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:05 AM

36. So it really had nothing to do with Putin

according to "Democrats." Other "Democrats" do have different opinions on what happened in the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:06 AM

37. It seems odd that vote purging, new voter ID laws, and other forms of vote suppression

weren't mentioned anywhere in the article.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-w435890

When Donald Trump claimed, "the election's going to be rigged," he wasn't entirely wrong. But the threat was not, as Trump warned, from Americans committing the crime of "voting many, many times." What's far more likely to undermine democracy in November is the culmination of a decade-long Republican effort to disenfranchise voters under the guise of battling voter fraud. The latest tool: Election officials in more than two dozen states have compiled lists of citizens whom they allege could be registered in more than one state – thus potentially able to cast multiple ballots – and eligible to be purged from the voter rolls.

The data is processed through a system called the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, which is being promoted by a powerful Republican operative, and its lists of potential duplicate voters are kept confidential. But Rolling Stone obtained a portion of the list and the names of 1 million targeted voters. According to our analysis, the Crosscheck list disproportionately threatens solid Democratic constituencies: young, black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters – with some of the biggest possible purges underway in Ohio and North Carolina, two crucial swing states with tight Senate races.

http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

Crosscheck in action:
Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922

Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824

Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:07 AM

38. So far the replies here are as interesting as the report

"His firm’s conclusion is shared broadly by other Democrats who have examined the data, including senior members of Clinton’s campaign and officials at the Democratic data and analytics firm Catalist"

It's almost as if people prefer to believe what the want to belief and therefor the data must be flawed if any other conclusion is pointed to. It's just one report, but it's a thorough one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #38)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:15 AM

45. Yes.

I don't disavow all of the accusations regarding purging of voter rolls and the like, but the fact remains that many polls prior to the election were very similar to the results (popular vote).

That alone should have made more Democrats question themselves because Trump was one of the most disturbing and unqualified candidates to come along in a long time.

If you noticed, many people here also attacked Nate Silver because his projections at 538 weren't as optimistic as they liked. Same kind of behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #38)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:17 AM

46. Yep

 

And it completely ignores the fact that Clinton wasn't the only one to lose. I realize that everything is supposed to revolve around the Clinton's in the modern democratic party, but the fact is that we've been losing pretty regularly at every level of government. If we had a party infrastructure that worried as much about state houses, and gerrymandering the house races and other areas of government as we did the presidency then we might be in much better shape than we are. But the very smart people who supposedly know what is best put all our eggs in the White House basket and we all ended up fucked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #38)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:28 AM

54. Yep. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #38)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:14 AM

75. Exactly

 

The way people are responding to this is extremely worrying. When people do in-depth studies using real data we're supposed to read and consider and evaluate. If the only response people can muster is to ignore it and double down on their pre-existing opinions then we're in real trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #75)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:36 AM

87. Agreed.

I'm also worried when I see anecdotes given greater significance than general trends.

A story about someone's neighbor supposedly voting for Trump, but who now weeps and gnashes his teeth about it, will too frequently get more rec's and replies than a poll that shows most Trump voters still support the idiot.

I'm not knocking DU or Democrats in particular. It's behavior that I've observed among many people.

Understanding reality is usually a critical step toward meaningful improvement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #87)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:14 PM

150. Have to follow the real data wherever it may lead.

The numbers are incontrovertible that enough Obama voters switched to Trump to give him the election, according to at least this stuyd and one by the NY Times. In many precincts it's simple arithmetic to see that this must have happened. The why part is more difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #38)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:57 AM

121. It is important to determine what we need to do as a party

It won't do much good to blame it all on someone else.
Republicans are not going away. There will still be Voter ID laws. There will still be Russian hackers. There will still be dirty tricks. If we blame it all on factors that we cannot control, then what can we do to improve the outcome of future elections?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #38)

Mon May 1, 2017, 03:50 PM

167. That data is true -- those factors were enough to turn the election. But it's also false.

The factors in the article weren't the ONLY things that were enough, by themselves, to turn the election.

Comey's letters, according to 538, drove Hillary's lead from 6 points to 3.(She won by 2.1). If Comey hadn't sent his letters she would have won.

We also know that the CrossCheck system purged millions of voters and disproportionately affected minority voters.

We know that new Voter ID requirements impacted poor and minority voters.

Gerrymandering hurt minority voters.

The margins in the 3 states were so close that each of these factors in and of itself might have changed the outcome of the election. Any article that says it was only one thing that led to the loss is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #167)

Mon May 1, 2017, 07:25 PM

186. I agree with you. I talked more about the bigger picture in post #100 below

I don't find any fault with anything you wrote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #167)

Tue May 2, 2017, 04:40 PM

209. Comey's affect on those same voters is undeniable

In states like NH that has almost no minority vote, Hillary barely barely won due to the factors mentioned in the article and the Comey effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #38)

Tue May 2, 2017, 04:37 PM

208. denial

People seem as yet still not ready to believe what happened out here in the 'burbs - too many white guys and gals succumbed to the peer pressure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:09 AM

41. Canter makes $$$ selling STRATEGY not from shining light on Crosscheck, Dem voter purges, increased

voter restrictions targeting Dem voters.

This is how GOP stole another election and 'strategists' like Canter ignore it because there is no money to be made by telling the truth about GOP's success in manipulating the electoral outcomes in swing states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #41)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:26 PM

154. He might be faced with threats if he were to include Crosscheck, computerized voting & tabulating

and all of the other evidence of stolen elections

see my other post #130 on this thread about Mike McConnell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:12 AM

43. Voter suppression, hacking, Russian interference

IMHO. The data points to a fictitious Obama-Trump voter. If there are hundreds of thousands of them, show them to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:13 AM

44. OFFS. It was the COMEY LETTER. These "experts" need to ponder this graph:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #44)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:53 AM

67. That's it exactly. WTH is going on? Is there a memory block or something? Clinton was well ahead...

in the polls before the Comey letter.

Those claiming the election was dangerously close and we failed miserably by not being able to pull away from trump are forgetting that. It's only 6 months ago and so many are regurgitating this "Hillary and the Dems failed" meme.

Come on people, don't fall for it.

The election was stolen — Comey, Putin, Assange, Interstate Crosscheck, vote suppression laws, broken voting machines in minority districts, tampering — it's what the repugs do and until we set up our own mechanisms to combat and expose their cheating it'll continue to happen.

We concentrate so much on getting out the vote while they concentrate on stopping our vote.

We have to stop them from doing that and not continue with this negativity of blaming our candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #67)

Mon May 1, 2017, 11:32 AM

117. The analysis in the OP included top elements of Hillary's own campaign.

Ponder that.

Presumably the Russians didn't hack the brains of Hillary's own campaign staff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #117)

Mon May 1, 2017, 12:02 PM

122. It's strange, in fact it's getting ridiculous. Dems are attacking each other now. Look at Warren...

and Sanders going after Obama and now other top Dems are agreeing with the narrative that they ran a horrible campaign despite what we know about Comey/Putin.

Circular firing squad here we come. Woohoo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #122)

Mon May 1, 2017, 12:08 PM

123. Ain't that the truth.

I don't understand the attack on Obama over the speaking fees. I like Sanders and Warren, but man... Not on board with that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #67)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:44 PM

142. It was "stolen" many years ago when right-wingers...

... started smearing the Clintons unfairly.

That graph, which came from the overly optimistic Sam Wang, showed an overall drop of about 2% after the Comey letter. That was enough because Clinton's lead wasn't larger.

Democrats got behind an unpopular candidate, so unpopular after years of attacks that she managed to lose the electoral college to a hateful, psychologically dangerous, lying moron.

Who's next? Al Gore? I personally like him (like I did Clinton), and he's obviously qualified for the task with many beliefs that I support, but it would be just as foolish to get behind him in 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #142)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:55 PM

147. I'm thinking we'd also be foolish to get behind a certain attack dog senator as well

And I'm beginning to wonder about Warren with her back-t-back attacks on Obama in the last week.

The man is a private citizen now and one of the few recent candidates we can look back on as having defeated the repugs — twice.

No way should we be attacking him.

Not rocket science, people.

trump is available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #147)

Mon May 1, 2017, 06:23 PM

180. I'm hoping for someone "new" on the scene.

A candidate that more "independent" voters will consider with more of an open mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #142)

Mon May 1, 2017, 07:03 PM

183. This is exactly what I saw coming

Younger voters grew up hearing that crap, it became ingrained. Obama voters that voted for trump did so because they refused to vote for Hillary. A tragedy. And that's all I'm ever going to say about it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deb (Reply #183)

Mon May 1, 2017, 07:19 PM

184. I was thinking...

"Isn't there another fresh face to oppose her again?! I'm not sure that she'll win a general election!"

Well, she did win the popular vote. However, she also ran against one of the worst persons to ever run for President.

Bernie Sanders worried me too, unfortunately. I thought he might be considered too liberal/socialist to win enough independent votes. I always try to keep the general election in mind.

I know this won't happen, but I wish Democrats ran against Republicans at the national level right away to get a better idea of which candidates were most appealing across the country among all voter types. Then run the top Democrat against the top Republican in the actual election. Again, that's surely a fantasy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #184)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:50 PM

191. I wish we started a party campaign first, then the person

It has always seemed backwards, so many outside the party have no idea what we really stand for and the competition fills that void with hate. How unfair to our candidates that they must fight to explain who we are, defend who we are, before even getting to their own hopes and ideas. We could teach it, in their face, one word at a time, one State at a time, now.

And if it was stolen again, our party would still be the stronger for it. oh well, what do i know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #44)

Mon May 1, 2017, 04:21 PM

171. The polls this election cycle were crap, and your using them to

 

prove something??
No thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frankieallen (Reply #171)

Tue May 2, 2017, 12:40 AM

194. The polls were actually not too far off. They were spot on in CA.

Are you sating the Comey Letter did not hurt Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:18 AM

47. Yep! Economic justice.

That would have won us the election. And would have won us better, more secure, happier, less stressful lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:19 AM

48. Did these people

also factor in things like voter suppression, 30+ years of relentless smears, hate bots (all one had to do was to type "Hillary Clinton's name into Google for some of the most nasty, vile smears and lies ever), a media that collaborated with her enemies, an FBI director who collaborated with her enemies, the Russians, and a LOT of hanky-panky in red areas? It's not just data - it's also the daily smears and relentless erosion.

According to most sources, Hillary received roughly as many votes in 2016 as Prez O did in 2012, just not in some of the same states. Here's one example: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-election-final-20161209-story.html

In addition to the above, I frankly blame at least some of this loss on those who are proud to call themselves "progressive" rather than "liberal," because they consider themselves so much purer than "liberals." Right now, I am very wary of anyone who tells me that they are "progressive" rather than "liberal" because what I have seen from too many such people is the kind of rigid authoritarianism that is characteristic of the right.

I will be a "liberal" to my dying day - and VERY proud to be. Most of my stands are exactly what self-styled "progressives" say they believe. But that particular descriptor has lost all its attraction for me after 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:20 AM

50. Her base didn't turn out

And she won by 3 million + votes. Too bad that's not enough to get the prize (for a Democrat).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:31 AM

57. I know these guys are way smarter than me.

They have data, statistics and all that good stuff. But I will sit here in my bubble, acknowledge their take on this, give it some thought and still come to the same conclusion. The 2016 election was stolen. Just my old lady view of everything vs the Global Strategy group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 09:38 AM

64. People move for jobs: rust belt to sun belt

There has been a migration from the rust belt to the sun belt that has changed the electoral map. Dems picked up some red states in the south and west while Trumpster fire got the great lakes states the job creators have abandoned.

States that have been losing jobs of course saw the appeal of an orange racist lying and promising them lots of jobs and to blame immigrants and globalization/trade and of course Obama. Many of them understand that America was greater when certain Americans knew our place and didn't compete with the entitled people for good jobs we don't deserve.

States that have been gaining jobs and people have also gotten more diverse and got younger people who lean left and feel good about Obama's policies working out for us. We know that America has been getting greater through progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:03 AM

70. Clintons Loss

These guys are all wrong!!!!! She lost because the media has never told how much she did for our country and complimented her for it or thanked her for it. All the media did was repeat every single bad thing the republicans said about her or Bill Clinton, over and over again. They hammered on it. And....they always praised DJT and he couldn't utter a word but what the media just reported it over and over again. I wonder how much money DJT's cronies paid the media to do that. I quit watching most news because I got so sick and tired of hearing how great DJT was!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:11 AM

73. Just another official conspiracy theory

that doesn't make any sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:11 AM

74. Hillary lost because she had the worst campaign manager on the planet

Even worse that the idiots Trump had to keep firing

He was so confident that Hillary would win he did nothing but waste a billion dollars on campaign ads nobody watched.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Plissken (Reply #74)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:15 AM

76. Sanders outspent Clinton 2-1 on Michigan TV and we know how that turned out.

Maybe those old-school ads aren't so useless eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:22 AM

78. She ignored Wisconsin

She never visited Wisconsin and had no presence here. She lost WI by 30.000 votes. Jill Stein got that number of WI votes. I believe if she had put only a little effort into WI she would have won the state and the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:27 AM

81. GODDAMMIT!

CLINTON DID NOT LOSE!

2,865,075

As long as the party keeps thinking, "Oh, woe is us, we lost." without acknowledging the reality that HILLARY CLINTON WON BY (almost) 3,000,000 votes, they'll keep screwing everything up.

The *only* place their analysis matters is the 6 "swing" states. And, in those, they need to examine the tallies and tabulators before looking at anything else. The data in those states is "off," something isn't right. The votes don't match the exit polling, and in the two counties in Michigan where the final tally sheets were slipped out, the total votes for all candidates does not match the total number of ballots pulled. Something is off. Those machines (tabulators) WERE HACKED!

Plus, the Democrats have the message. Poll after poll shows that. The *vast* majority of Americans agree with their policies when asked in a blind poll. However, when you add party to the poll, then Democratic policies lose.

It's an image problem, not an issues problem.

They need to find a way to combat the Fox 24/7 image trashing machine. Not change their policies.

Dear God it's so maddening!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hurple (Reply #81)

Mon May 1, 2017, 12:09 PM

124. You're so right. We can't fall victim to the "oh we ran such a horrible campaign...

no wonder we lost BS.

It was stolen.

We concentrate on getting out the vote while the repugs concentrate on stopping our vote.

THAT is what we have to combat and expose loudly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hurple (Reply #81)

Mon May 1, 2017, 12:36 PM

128. Those three million votes might have been on the moon for all the good they do us.

We don't elect the president by popular vote, and if you added a whole decimal place to that lead, make it 30 million, it doesn't change the outcome if all the extra votes were in CA/WA/OR, etc.

On the other hand, I agree with the 'issues' comment, around image. The ACA has an image problem. People don't understand that it applies, and don't understand how it helps them, for instance. We passed the ACA, but we didn't 'sell' everyone on it.

A lot of people who rely on it for their lives, actually hate it because they don't understand it. That's a branding/message/image issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:28 AM

82. Have they analyzed the 1000+Dem seats lost since 2010?


The facts about Russia are going to change all these narrow analyses.

The big picture is scary and it may be natural for those who don't want to look at the big picture to instead narrow their focus.

Even if Trump did not get into office in 2016, we would still be under attack from what is a great identity tide rolling down from Russia and rolling over democracies in Europe, North America, and probably South America.

Election 2016 cannot be analyzed by comparing one presidential candidate to another (the every four year focus does not show a full picture).

Election 2016 cannot be analyzed without the data from the Russian interference and the results of the ongoing investigations.

Election 2016 can't be understood without understanding why Democrats have put up with voter suppression.

Election 2016 can't be understood without knowing why so many Democrats who had vital information decide instead of acting transparently, to let the Republican Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell make the decision for secrecy -for not trusting the people with vital information.

Election 2016 can't be analyzed by ignoring the 8-10 year pattern of loss of Democratic seats. One has only to look at Wisconsin to grasp what the trend has been for 8 years.

Since the election groups have jumped to put their desired spin on why-much of this is self-serving. Some of it is a a genuine fear on the part of white male politicians of losing white voters; some is a refusal to look at the changing economic forces before us and deal wisely with them-meeting the future instead of railing against the past

It is not time to retreat into what worked in the now-distant past. It is time to double down on where we are heading.

















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:32 AM

83. f*k Mcclatchy and this sudden media coverage telling us why Hillary lost, conveniently ignoring how

they staked the deck themselves with their double standard coverage, and distortions. Let's not talk about how when Comey sent the letter to Congress, the MEDIA falsely characterized it as the "FBI reopened the email investigation":

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/28/media-freak-out-fbi-letter-disregard-facts-and-run-gops-false-description-clinton-email-review/214184

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-chaffetz-fbi-investigation-lies-e9fff5359102

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/30/ny-times-floods-front-page-fbi-letter-stories-while-acknowledging-it-didn-t-reopen-clinton-server/214202

and it isn't a coincidence that immediately after the press FALSELY characterized that event, Hillary's poll numbers dropped from her lead to dead even. There is no doubt in Nate Silver's mind that this caused Hillary's lost.

Of course they also ignore the Russian interference

This isn't rocket science.

In a New York Times article, what Hunter Thompson described regarding George Wallace has a pretty good handle on what happened:

"For the television networks the spectacle became irresistible, particularly since rallies often erupted into violent chair-throwing confrontations between Mr. Wallace's supporters and angry demonstrators. Hunter S. Thompson understood that George Wallace's followers were not interested in position papers on banking regulations or the pros and cons of thermal energy. Watching the Alabama governor perform was awe-inspiring to the gonzo journalist, who likened the rallies to a Janis Joplin concert "in which the bastard had somehow levitated himself and was hovering over us."

The article then goes on to describe a part of America that many would like to ignore:

"Both George Wallace and Donald Trump are part of a long national history of scapegoating minorities: from the Irish, Catholics, Asians, Eastern European immigrants and Jews to Muslims and Latino immigrants During times of insecurity, a sizable minority of Americans has been drawn to forceful figures who confidently promise the destruction of all enemies, real and imagined, allowing Americans to return to a past that never existed."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/campaign-stops/what-donald-trump-owes-george-wallace.html?_r=0

Well the media should be real proud of itself because with their help their ratings should be going through the roof with trump in the WH. Hell, maybe they can try to push us into war with NK as they did Iraq. Do you realize what that would do for their ratings or readership?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #83)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:31 PM

139. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:35 AM

86. oh oh oh

 

Call on me call on me (hand raised waving in the air).... Complacency? , fat assed shits not getting off their asses and going out to vote?, split support for the democrats..Bernistas, Steiners, and whoever that other guy was? remember him?.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:41 AM

90. Hilary nearly matched Obama's vote totals from 2012

it's is not far fetched to think theoretically she could've matched or even exceeded Obama's vote total from 2012 and still lose if the extra vote was not in the right States due to the electoral college. To ensure a victory she probably would've needed Obama's vote totals from 08 not 2012. Also Russian hacking along with all the other things republicans do to cheat in elections is why Hilary didn't win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:44 AM

92. The Democratic Party ignored its most faithful - white middle class voters aged 45-65.

 

Our Party platform had something for everybody except that group. At least Trump was talking about their concerns and the rest is history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #92)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:35 PM

158. I suppose....

.... that preserving Medicare and Social Security for them and the elderly parents they might be taking care of is "nothing".

Or a tax plan that didn't mean we'd go bankrupt as a country before they died.

Or an increased minimum wage.

Whereas the only thing Trump offered those voters was a giant plate of bigotry and xenophobia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:45 AM

93. so what are the dems going to give up

abortion rights, gun control, taxes. how do you compete with an entity that lies as policy. how do you convence you base to stay with you when were losing our minds because a former leader is getting a hefty paycheck from the supposed bad people.

by the way how do you make the person that hands out the paychecks the bad person. if you punish them and vilify them how do you expect them to listen to your complaints.

there is a lot of work to be done in a very short period of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:46 AM

94. I absolutely agree with this and have been saying it since the election.

Sure, you cold point to multiple factors - all of which contributed to the loss (lack of enthusiasm for Hillary, "Bernie would have been better", Russian interference (incl. fake news), Republican voter suppression laws, etc.). All of these and more conspired to erode enough votes to result in a loss.

But, the proximate cause was simply that liberal-leaning voters just didn't get out there and vote. This is a huge problem. Conservatives and older voters vote in droves - like lemmings moving in herds toward the cliff. But left-leaners and thinkers don't seem to take the initiative to fill out a ballot and send it in. Apathy is a part of it. Another part of it is that many thought Trump was such an unsuitable candidate that there was no way he could win. They figured so many people would vote against Trump that the result was pre-ordained and their vote wasn't necessary. So, they let poker night take precedence.

We need a bunch of psych folks to delve in to this and figure out a way to get non-right voters to fill out a fucking ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpankMe (Reply #94)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:05 PM

149. Why are they lemmings?

Perhaps they came from a generation when voting was seen as a civic duty and whether we agree or not they felt that was the ideology that best represents their values.

I have watched elderly people standing in line in the rain to cast their ballot.

Why can't we seem to build that kind of enthusiasm? That sense of duty?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:46 AM

95. Kind of useless

Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

As it doesn't say WHY particular groups Defected or didn't turn out. People, yes, even focus groups and strategiest-- do not understand the psychology of sexism or racism, and tend to de-value it in data. Voting for Obama does not make someone free from racism anymore than voting for Hillary frees one from sexism. There were other factors of course.
Improving the party message to reach out to the disaffected is fine. Chasing the votes of racist pricks is not--and it won't work as long as Trumps Keeps doing what he's doing, which is essentially creating an enormous cult following. I notice that individual Democrats are chasing some of Sanders platform, as he DID energize certain groups. Perhaps this data explains why.

Priorities USA released a poll last week, conducted in part by Canter’s firm, that found the Democratic base – including voters who usually sit out midterm elections – was unusually motivated to participate in the next election. Officials with the group have preached in recent months that Democrats can both reach out to white working-class voters and their base with a strong message rooted in economic populism.

Still, the data says turnout was less of a problem for Clinton than defections were. Even the oft-predicted surge of new voters backing Trump was more myth than reality: Global Strategy Group's presentation included a study about Ohio, conducted by Catalist, that found Clinton actually won a majority of new voters in the state. (Global Strategy Group examined North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada as part of its analysis)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:57 AM

100. It's never one reason. That doesn't mean individual reasons don't matter

There is always a stew of reasons why one person wins and another loses, especially when looking at an at least somewhat close election, with tens of millions or actual and potential voters.

The first job of Democrats after losing an election we should have won is to identify what changes we could have made regarding that election that might have led to better results.

The second job is to identify what contributing factors were beyond our direct control but which we can better inoculate against their reoccurring in a toxic way in future election.

The third job is to uncover and work to change any flaws or bugs in the election system, intentional or not, that worked to skew the results against us.

All of that matters because winning really matters because losing threatens millions of lives.

It is impossible to say that Hillary lost solely because of A B or C. or any one subset of any of those. It is more possible to identify issues that may have cost us a number of votes equal to or greater than the margin of victory/loss. They can't be looked at in a vacuum however, especially when resources are somewhat finite. More energy put into turning out base voters will likely turn our more base voters, but could also reduce the amount of energy devoted toward winning over swing voters thus losing us some swing voters; and vice versa.

There are usually some unforeseen (by one side anyway) bomb shells during an election cycle that help swing an election. There is often also dirty politics. Dirty politics of any sort will cost at least one side votes, but those votes lost can often be offset by a skillful campaign playing its cards well.

Personally I believe that had any one of these three factors not occurred Hilary Clinton would be President today. Had Republicans not systematically cultivated voter suppression techniques for decades Trump would have lost. Had Comey not intervened in the last two weeks of the election with a "reopened" FBI investigation Trump would have lost. Had the Russians not used cyber warfare in collusion with Trump, he would have lost as well.

Even so it was a close election. So it can equally be argued that had the devastating bombshell Access America tape about Trump's pussy grabbing not emerged in the last month of the election, that Trump might still have won even if Comey didn't "reopen the FBI investigation" in the final weeks. Had Hillary won Republicans might be arguing today that Trump wouldn't have lost if he hadn't directly insulted Ted Cruz's wife and insinuated that his father was involved in the assassination of JFK, thus effectively sidelining a Republican with strong conservative support from his side during the heat of the campaign.

Democrats knowingly nominated a candidate who had been battered, rightly or wrongly, by a prolonged FBI investigation into her. She had, rightly or wrongly, historically low public approval numbers for a Democratic candidate for President. Granted, she most likely would have made an over all excellent president, light years better than Trump. In hindsight she still might have won the White House, even with the Russians, even with the FBI, even with voter suppression, even with racism and misogyny, had she, for one thing, more aggressively campaigned in the rust belt. America twice elected an unseasoned black politician with a Muslim sounding name, against two highly seasoned Republican opponents in years, unlike 2016, when the Republican Party wasn't openly at war with itself throughout most of it. We lost the votes of too many people who helped us win in 2008 and 2012. That's not a controversial statement, it is simply a fact. "Too many" because that shift alone was enough to cost us an election we could not afford to lose. It is just one of many pieces of the puzzle, but each and every one of them should be examined. And that, it seems to me, was the over all purpose of this report that the Democratic Party itself commissioned.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 12:33 PM

126. 'Much of the debate over how to move forward has centered on whether the party should try to win

back working-class white voters – who make up the bulk of Obama-Trump voters – or focus instead on mobilizing its base.

Turning out the base, the data suggests, is simply not good enough.

“This idea that Democrats can somehow ignore this constituency and just turn out more of our voters, the math doesn’t work,” Canter said. “We have to do both.”'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #126)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:13 PM

131. Article after article about former Obama and current Trump voters in PA, MI, WI, etc...

with many "Democrats" claiming they don't exist. The claim is being made in this thread. They DO exist and I've been saying so since the election. I'm from PA and it makes me ill that my home state went to Trump, but I understand the ECONOMIC reasons as to why it did.

You're right -- we can't win by relying on "the base." And no one on this board will answer how we get win back the electoral votes of PA, MI, and WI (former Democratic strongholds). Dems keep winning big on the coasts? Big deal. Winning the popular vote doesn't put someone in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 12:36 PM

127. Clinton didn't lose. Get another clue, "Strategists."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dchill (Reply #127)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:20 PM

135. Right. And Trump wasn't sworn in as President

I'm not sure how many more victories like this one I can take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #135)

Mon May 1, 2017, 05:55 PM

179. Well, if THAT'S gonna be your metric...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dchill (Reply #179)

Mon May 1, 2017, 07:22 PM

185. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dchill (Reply #179)

Tue May 2, 2017, 02:36 PM

200. Not sure if this is trolling.

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #200)

Tue May 2, 2017, 02:53 PM

204. Who, me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:16 PM

132. Is there any polling proof

That anyone who voted for Obama voted for Donald !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #132)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:30 PM

137. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #137)

Mon May 1, 2017, 04:43 PM

173. Where?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #173)

Mon May 1, 2017, 04:45 PM

174. Did you read the article in the OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #174)

Wed May 3, 2017, 07:16 AM

210. No real proof

according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group’s analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton’s failure to reach Obama’s vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters.

In recent months, Canter and other members of Global Strategy Group have delivered a detailed report of their findings to senators, congressmen, fellow operatives and think tank wonks – all part of an ongoing effort to educate party leaders about what the data says really happened in last year’s election.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html#storylink=cpy


Why not share the actual poll? Or was there one? Seems they want to sell their "analysis" but haven't really done a poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #210)

Wed May 3, 2017, 10:30 AM

211. Jives with all the exit polls I saw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #211)

Wed May 3, 2017, 12:06 PM

214. that does not say anything about people who had voted

for Obama. It's is his analysis and still showed Hillary with a greater percentage chance.

The newest polling analysis from celebrity statistics whiz Nate Silver shows Donald Trump in a tight race against Hillary Clinton as the 2016 race grows ever closer.

Previous analyses from FiveThirtyEight showed the former Secretary of State with a reasonable edge over the bombastic real estate mogul, even as recent troubles started taking their toll on Clinton’s numbers. With recent shake-ups in the electoral map, current projections give Clinton a 57 percent probability of victory, while Trump’s chances are pegged at 43 percent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #132)

Tue May 2, 2017, 04:16 PM

206. Google "2012 presidential election county maps" and likewise for 2016. Look at the Rust Belt states.

 

I think you'll find the numbers and percentages eye-opening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:17 PM

134. Great to see some introspection and analysis taking place instead of just playing the blame game.

This is how we will get back to winning elections again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:34 PM

140. Incomplete analysis: Tell loss in terms of #s but voters switched from Obama to Trump


Of course get that Trump won EC. Got more votes in key states.

To me, the question is why did those voters switch from Obama to Trump?

What messages did they hear?

Who did they hear them from?

What persuaded them to support Trump?

Those messages - what was true, what was fake news, what was Comey effect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice (Reply #140)

Mon May 1, 2017, 03:27 PM

165. +1, every analysis that does NOT address Comey, Russia and voter suppression SHOULD be taken with

... a grain of salt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:52 PM

144. It's not matter of opinion, this is a statistical analysis of the data, and they have a lot

They absolutely know who (by name) is registered in pretty much every district/precinct (public record) and who voted (by name and address), often what their party affiliation is (not always available), and they have this data historically and they know how the precinct/district voted now and in the past. That's how they can infer what happened to a large degree. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of statistics. For example, if they know a precinct has 5000 voters in 2016 and 2012 (for simplicity), and Obama won 3000 to 2000, but Trump also won 3000 to 2000 and there were only 100 voters who were new in 2016, and 100 who voted in 2012, but not in 2016, then even if you assume all 100 voter differences favored Trump, you can still state that at least 900 Obama voters must have shifted to Trump.

They can also assess quantitatively if voters were unethusiastic (did not vote) or suppressed (removed from the voter rolls).

The opinion comes in as to why it happened (Comey, misogyny, Russians vs desire for change, etc). So I take this analysis very seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 01:55 PM

146. I just posted about this, only from Salon, discussing the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 04:32 PM

172. The article says WHOM they lost, but NOT *why* they lost those voters.

My guess is that some Obama voters who switched to Trump are simply "novelty voters." They get bored with the familiar and look for something new and different. They might couch it in " outsider" vs. "establishment/insider" terms, but really they just want to try something new.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 05:05 PM

177. "Her base didnt turn out, Donald Trumps did and the difference was too much to overcome."

That's not a "reason". That's a re-statement of the problem. A "reason" would tell us why that happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 05:43 PM

178. We can rehash this till the cows come home. There were a lot of variables

 

at play here. One of which was the malfeasance on behalf of the Republican Party. Until we fix our electoral system i.e. voting machines, the electoral college, super delegates, campaign financing, ''citizens united'' etc.. we're going to continue to ask ''how did that happen''.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Tue May 2, 2017, 02:37 PM

201. She lost because key parts of the Obama coalition either stayed home or voted for other candidates.

 

And that's on her and her campaign.

Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Reply to this thread