DNC chair candidates say Clinton lost because she talked too much about Trump

[DonViejo]

By James Hohmann February 13 at 10:05 AM

THE BIG IDEA:

BALTIMORE—Every leading contender to take over the Democratic National Committee believes Hillary Clinton focused too much on attacking Donald Trump at the expense of articulating an affirmative case for holding the White House. During their final showdown before the chairman’s election in Atlanta on Feb. 25, there was consensus that the party’s problems derive mainly from subpar organization and communication – not anything fundamental.

“We forgot to talk to people,” said Tom Perez, who was secretary of labor until last month and a finalist to be Clinton’s running-mate last summer. “I’m a big believer in data analytics, but data analytics cannot supplant good old fashioned door knocking. … We didn’t communicate our values to people. When Donald Trump says, ‘I’m going to bring the coal jobs back,’ we know that’s a lie. But people understand that he feels their pain. And our response was: ‘Vote for us because he’s crazy.’ I’ll stipulate to that, but that’s not a message.”

Many Democratic leaders remain in a state of denial about the lessons of the election. They have only been in the wilderness for a few weeks now, and Clinton won the popular vote. The mass protests of the past four weekends and Trump’s sagging popularity have added to their overconfidence that they’ll easily win again in 2020.

It was striking during a two-hour forum here in Charm City that not one of the 10 candidates for chair suggested the party should moderate in response to last year’s losses. Indeed, there was no substantive discussion about policy at all during the Saturday evening event. It was taken as a given that all the aspirants are committed liberals. This is a stark contrast to the ideological debates that enveloped the party following similar setbacks in 2004, 1988 or 1972. It reflects the degree to which the Bernie Sanders wing is ascendant, and Blue Dogs have left the party.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/02/13/daily-202-dnc-chair-candidates-say-clinton-lost-because-she-talked-too-much-about-trump/58a1023ee9b69b1406c75cac/?utm_term=.50904b7d3d4b&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

[beachbum bob]

1. clinton lost because of the FBI and Comey....Putin and Russian hacking and 3rd party voters

and voters who didn;t vote...all combined with a media protecting trump...and giving unfettered access and a platform to talk bullshit

she didn;t lose because of talking about trump too much

[Chipper Chat]

9. I agree the Comey announcement was the tipping point.

But I WAS dismayed the last week as I watched Hillary mostly bash Trump at her rallies instead of giving the murcan people a little more "hope." and positive talk.

[yeoman6987]

10. I don't get this whole primary type thing with the dnc pick

Repugs picked a woman from Michigan and that was that. No fuss. Just picked and done. I don't get the long drawn out process at all. And while dnc is still in the process, the RNC is getting a head start again.

[Kingofalldems]

14. Because we are actually democratic, yeoman6987.

This is about the 4th post from you on this subject. Looks like GOP talking points from here.

[brush]

2. If all of them think that's the reason Hillary lost we're in deep shit. Did anyone even mention ...

Comey and Putin and Interstate Crosscheck?

And what action they're going to take to stop vote suppression, which should be paramount?

What the hell is with this "blame Hillary" crap when we know the election was stolen?

God! We are fucked if that's all that's coming out of the potential DNC leaders' mouths.

Talking about registering more voters and getting out the vote and appealing to 3rd party voters, all are orthodox Dem tactics that we all agree on, but nothing new.

How do we stop repug cheating that cancels out all of that? What are their solutions? That's what I want to hear from them?

[2naSalit]

11. Indeed! ...nt

[DURHAM D]

3. The Stupid It Burns nt

[HoneyBadger]

4. If you read the article, it is a hit piece on Ellison

He is the only one that did not do as the article title states.

He embraces Dean's strategy.

The article talks about his suit not fitting and claims that Perez is the one to beat.

Article is ridiculous.

[Chakaconcarne]

5. Wrong candidates then...

Go back and try again.

[yallerdawg]

6. "He's crazy!" didn't resonate with voters?

I bet it does now!

The Big Idea: Many Americans are really stupid. Start there.

[alarimer]

15. It does now, but it seemed like an exaggeration at the time.

It was literally unbelievable that he could be so bad. And so it didn't resonate. Maybe with an little,"Well, could he really be so bad?" We knew the answer was yes, but politicians lie and exaggerate almost as much as they breathe, so it's no wonder people didn't believe it.

[delisen]

7. The reality is so glaring they can't see it. Why did Dems lose 1000 seats in 8 years?

Why did Kerry lose? Why did Gore lose?


Senate. -10%
House -20%
State Legislatures -19%
Governorships -38%


We did not lose these seats because a of talking too much about Trump.

[dae]

16. Exactly, if they can't figure out the problem they are part of it!

[frazzled]

8. I think that's crazy

First, Clinton talked policy and plans for everyday Americans a lot--I mean LOTS. As well as accomplishments and experience. As well as big-picture values. Had she not also focused on Trump being "temperamentally unfit for office" she would have been criticized for that as the reason she "lost" (remembering, of course, that she won the popular vote by a historically significant margin). And, of course, she'd have been talking too much about policy.

This Monday morning quarterbacking is so useless, though I suppose they have to say SOMETHING. But it's stupid. Let's be clear about one thing. If you were looking for a winning strategy during this particular election period, it would have to consist of emulating the strategy that actually did win. Namely:

(a) Lies and bombast
(b) Crazy talk
(c) Insults
(d) Bigotry and hatefulness

Those four things were the big winners. People apparently loved it (though not as many people as loved what Hillary Clinton put forward; but they did love the lies and crazy talk by a tiny slim margin in 3 rust belt, large electoral vote states; the rest of the country not so much). We should put forward crazy-ass lies like "we're bringing back coal and steel everywhere, everywhere, it will be yuge," and that would have shown empathy. Really? That's crazy talk itself.

Sorry, but this is pretty nuts. And it doesn't take into account just how pandering to the disaffected steel workers by telling them falsely that we would bring back the jobs they've been losing since the early 1980s, and blaming their woes indirectly on black and brown people, would play out: black and brown people, a huge part of the Democratic base, would have been disaffected and stayed home. And we would have lost big time. We saw that during the primaries, where Sanders' focus on bringing back the good old days for "working class" (meaning white) people did not sit well at all with minority voters.

Let's be clear. What we saw was partly the cyclic whimsy of the public to give the other side a try, which happens after every two-term presidency of one party; and partly misogyny and attacks--yes endless repetitive attacks of email and Benghazi--from the other side. Why do attacks work for them and not for us? Oh yes, and misogyny.

So you (male) candidates for the DNC chair job (the importance of which is way overplayed anyway): remember, misogyny.

[Blue_Tires]

17. +1

[Moral Compass]

12. I agree

This was the central mistake in my opinion. She failed to talk about what the Democrats would do in office. She spent much of the campaign focused on how unsuitable Trump is for the Presidency and on her decades of experience in politics.

But she only occasionally spoke about what she and the rest of the Democratic establishment would do to make life better for those that felt abandoned and forgotten.

She was running against someone that kept telling the electorate that he was going to make America great again, bring the jobs back, drain the swamp. It was all BS but Trump knew that he just had to keep the rubes believing until the deal was closed (sad thing is is that most of them still believe in spite of the last few weeks).

Clinton is a sincere, sober realist who couldn't bring herself to make promises she might have been unable to keep. It cost her the election.

[hollowdweller]

13. Trump was a total hypocrite

Yet Clinton was unable to effectively convey that to the US voters.

It wasn't she spent too much time attacking him. It was she spent too much time doing it in the wrong way.

Her attacks were too general. They were about his temperament. She could have totally undermined his populist stuff with a little work.

Still would have been hard though. In the areas where we always won that Trump won, Hillary Clinton is really hated. Nobody would trust her. People on the coasts just didn't realize this. So we as democrats sort of have a blind spot about how to run campaigns in the middle of the country sadly.

If I was democratic chairman, as long as we are going to deal with the electoral college I would get a democratic version of Frank Luntz to do polling and focus groups in a lot of the states we used to win reliably, and find out which issues we should be focusing on more.

[Paladin]

18. I want a DNC Chair who recognizes how Goddamned ANGRY the party is.

And who can harness that anger to effectively rebuild the party and save this nation.

I am underwhelmed by what I'm hearing from the current crowd of candidates, so far.