Democratic Party Has No Earthly Idea Why Hillary Clinton Lost

[discocrisco01]

[OKNancy]

1. this person and the videos should not be allowed on this site

advocating third party ... he's a creep

[truebluegreen]

2. This person and his videos

are of great importance to reinvigorating the left. Or we could just keep doing what we have been doing, because that is working So.Well.

Of course, if we don't want to be "the left" that is another option.

[RKP5637]

3. Bottom line, there is something definitely wrong with the modus operand of the democratic

party to lose to someone like Trump, and all of the other loses across the country! The democratic party needs some real soul searching. Business as usual is not going to work IMO.

[truebluegreen]

6. I agree.

Hillary herself asked the question during the campaign, "Why am I not 20 points ahead?" IMO the only possible answer is we are doing it wrong.

[George II]

19. If only "the left" voted for Clinton she would have gotten less than 100 electoral votes.

[truebluegreen]

20. Interesting.

How do you define " the left"?

And by the way, if no one on "the left" (as you seem to define it) voted for her she would also have gotten fewer than 100 electoral votes.

[George II]

25. You're the one who referred to "the left". How do YOU define it?

[truebluegreen]

28. Nice attempt at a dodge, but I'll play anyway.

I define "the left" as anyone who puts workers over owners; the environment for all over the greed of the few; the dignity and security of all over advancement of the few. Rule of law that applies equally to EVERYONE.

This carries within it the social safety net, public education, publicly funded infrastructure and public services and utilities; health care for all as a right. Key word is "public" in case you haven't noticed. Public parks over privately-owned (but publicly financed) stadiums, for example. A lefty will not use the apparatus of the state--law enforcement, the military, the tax code, cronyism, whatever--for the benefit of a few. The government exists to serve the needs of the public. All.of.us.

Somebody wrote something down about that, a while ago: ...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

I could go on for a while but do you need me to, or do you get the picture? (the Founders were badass lefties, however imperfect their perception of those deserving these bounties, and despite the inequities they felt obliged to build into the framework).

Now: how do you define "the left"?

[George II]

29. Sorry, unlike you I'm not going to "play". I didn't attempt to categorize....

....non-republicans as "the left".

But as I pointed out elsewhere in the last day or two, if Democrats rely on only the votes of the "left", we'll only get about 20% in each and every election.

[truebluegreen]

30. Nice try putting words in my mouth.

I didn't categorize non-Republicans as the left either. I don't even know what you are trying to say, except you seem to think, whatever your nebulous "left" holds to, it is too small a part of the electorate to win any elections.

You conveniently gloss over the fact that leftist positions--IF they are not labeled as such--consistently score WAY above 50% approval ratings among the public...although not among the ruling class. As is shown by the policies they routinely inflict on us.

But don't let me deflect you from your self-destructive path. You and your fellow travelers haven't exactly been racking up a lot of wins lately but I'm sure if you just Stay the Course, like Dimson Bush in Iraq, you'll be Turning the Corner any day.

Seems to me though, that you don't want any "lefties" in "your" Party (or do you prefer the term pinkos? Commies? Soshulists?). All I can say to that is to quote an old saying I heard in Texas: ain't nuthin' in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos. I hope you enjoy spending time by yourself 'cause if you treat your putative allies like crap, soon you won't have any. QED.

[Eleanors38]

46. To the DNC, "the Left" is anyone more radical than Dwight David Eisenhower.

[bowens43]

35. If democrat is not on 'the left' he is not a democrat.

[George II]

39. I'm sure you know what the reference to the "left" in this discussion really means.

[HassleCat]

4. This is harsh, but you might want to think about it.

Reading the debate here on DU, I have to agree with the basic premise, that we're refusing to confront certain realities.

[Dustlawyer]

22. +1!!! You can see in he responses here what Jimmy and King are talking about.

I have been saying it for years, it's the big Donor money stupid!

Our Party has completely lost touch and refuses to see the truth because it means turning against their corporate Donors. The Democratic voters are frustrated with a Democratic administration that tries to shove TPP down our throats, won't stop spying on us (now Trump will have this power), would not indict any bankers or take any Wall Street bank to trial over the massive fraud,...

Now we are fractured with half still brainwashed by the establishment Dems. So be it, I will not stop fighting for Publicly Funded Elections and an end to the root cause of most of our problems, money in our politics!!!

[JudyM]

44. As he says, the corporate donors have infected their brains. We cannot think clearly when pleasing

donors takes precedence over pleasing voters.

[truebluegreen]

5. Truth hurts.

[William Seger]

34. Stupid burns (nt)

[truebluegreen]

38. Chalk up another one in the loss column. Stupid is right.

[anniebelle]

7. She garnered almost 3 million more votes than dRump how is that losing?

The Electoral College was set up to ensure the wealthy white men (slave and land owners) maintained control of this country. I think it's past time this archaic institution is no longer used to select our president. That's two of our candidates that have won the majority vote and the president was appointed instead of 'every vote counts'. I'm not surprised people have lost interest in going to the polls ~ they know their vote means nothing in a state that is in complete control of the GOP ~ my state, Tennessee, it's almost laughable when we go to the polls ~ I've never missed one in my 50 years of voting even though I know my vote means nothing in this state. The Black Robes should also be dealt out of the game too ~ who thought that one up anyway? A lifetime appointment, not elected, misconstrue the law to their political bent ~ this country has lost its status as a 'democracy'. It's lost its dignity, decency, diplomacy, and the gerrymandering done by the GOP is worse than Jim Crow laws ~ they draw their little squiggly lines to get all 'their' people and leave the others (blacks, Hispanics and democrats) with crumbs. I'm truly ashamed to be an American and will NEVER call this Nazi and his jack booted thugs anything but what they are ~ treasonous traitors!

[truebluegreen]

10. Who is the president-elect?

Those votes were not in the right places, that's how. And however unfair it clearly is, we vote in our elections with the system we have, not the system we would want to have.

[George II]

40. Unfortunately for many "democrats" they sulked and didn't vote at all.

[truebluegreen]

41. You're just determined to keep winning friends, aren't you?

Something I would expect a troll to do, as opposed to a "democrat."

[George II]

42. Never thought I'd see the day that an eleven year member of Democratic Underground....

....who has been a Democrat (CAPITAL "D"!) for 40+ years, has been an officer of the local party for 12 years, has been elected to local office several times and served my town for even more than 12 years would be called a "troll....as opposed to a "democrat" "

Sad the state of affairs these days.

[truebluegreen]

43. Sad.

[George II]

47. I'm sure you are.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Well, there's another example.

She did not win. I don't care if she got 50 million more votes.

Isn't it time for the party to have a looooong look in the mirror, or will we go down this long, lonely road again?

[anniebelle]

12. Yes, perhaps we need to call on Putin for help next time

[truebluegreen]

16. whoosch

[spin]

27. This country is not and never was a "democracy."

Is the United States a democracy?

The Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election
http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

[tecelote]

32. It's losing according to the rules. We also got stomped on every other level.

Our tactics did not work.

It's time to take the gloves off. Democrats and Independents need to come together.

Snowflakes create avalanches. We just need to be focused and on the same path.

[bowens43]

36. So hillary will be sworn in in January? If not she lost.

[markpkessinger]

48. All of what you say is true, but it's irrelevant as a practical matter . . .

. . . because, barring a Constitutional amendment that would eliminate or radically restructure the Electoral College -- and the chances of that happening when Republicans control both houses of Congress and the majority of the state legislatures is somewhere between zero and non-existent -- that is the system we are stuck with. So we can either jump up and down and stomp our feet at the unfairness of the current system, OR we can start figuring out how to win under it, because until we win, we will remain powerless to change that system for the better.

[4bucksagallon]

8. All valid points thank you Jimmy and thanks for the video.

[JHan]

9. He's pontificating and lecturing. None of this was objective analysis ..

Just his truth-

Over simplification of Economic Issues and the TPP. I suppose he thinks Obama is a heartless corporate shill.

Falsely equivocating Clinton with Trump - this "perception" was false, he doesn't seem to think it's false else he would have pointed it out.

Populism is still populism whether it's left leaning or right leaning. Trump's populism is only phony because he doesn't believe it but he's using the same playbook of populists: targeting and criticizing the establishment ( Which is sometimes necessary) , a willingness to break tradition, abuse power for the sake of pushing causes or beliefs which they believe to be absolutely right, not caring about separation of powers and obstinacy.

If progressives like him are going to insult moderates and open minded liberals like myself, who happen to disagree with them on some issues, they'll win no friends or allies.

And I'll always take their "advice" with a pot spoon of salt.

and btw: I have no problem critiquing either Obama or Clinton when justified. But I also have no time for shallow arguments.

[jalan48]

14. He makes a valid point about Obama appointing a Republican to head the FBI.

Why? Especially after years of Republican obstruction and racism (Birther Movement). It just doesn't make sense.

[LenaBaby61]

21. He makes a valid point about Obama appointing a Republican to head the FBI.

I agree with Dore on that point, but with a lot of other things he says, no.

I was past upset when Pres. Obama named Comey to head the FBI. I felt extremely uneasy about it then, and we saw how Comey sowed his thanks to Pres. Obama by interfering in the 2016 GE.

I greatly admire Pres. Obama, but all of that reaching out and getting his hand cut off up to the wrist by thuglicans--made me angry with the President. He overestimated how evil the GOP was and is.

[War Horse]

15. I like listening to Jimmy Dore at times

Sometimes he hits the nail on the head. But he's also got huge blinders on. He's kinda insulated himself in a bubble too.

[LenaBaby61]

24. But he's also got huge blinders on.

As in him thinking that Bernie wouldn't have been subjected to the same voter suppression/voter disenfranchisement that Hillary was a victim of is ridiculous. Like that group of anti-Jewish, anti-woman, anti-POC, etc., would have been easy on Bernie and not use the hideous and brutal opposition research on him that I heard that they were ready to run with if he had won the Dem nomination. The mostly corporate media would have run with negative/bad things attributed to Bernie and wouldn't have bothered to even cover what Bernie was touting as being potential president of the United States.

[JudyM]

45. This argument is so tiresome. Do you not realize that Bernie would've lost only if ardent Hillary

Last edited Fri Dec 30, 2016, 05:03 PM - Edit history (2)

supporters didn't vote for him?

His ideas excited people far more, including the vast majority of under-30's and a corollary,
He didn't have a history of positions that many Dem and swing voters found too military-industrial
He had far, far higher trust and favorability ratings among likely voters... do you not see that to the extent that the Comey announcement was what did her in, then it was the trust issue that did her in.. And that hacking that folks are upset about? The damage to her campaign came from pulling back the curtain, not fabricating something untrue.

I spoke to thousands of Dem voters during the primaries, and many of those who were voting for Hillary were voting for her because she is a woman, not because they preferred her positions over Bernie's. They really liked Bernie, but were psyched about the historic value of a woman president. If Bernie were our GE candidate, he would've had all those votes. And most of the states where she beat him beyond a narrow margin, she herself (and WE) did not win in the GE.


Please show us the "hideous and brutal opposition research" that's nothing more than a phantom-meme. Folks who say it exists and would be oh so much worse than what Clinton was accused of, ok, if it's central to your thesis, lets see it!

[recount now]

17. senate house state leg. lost too!

2010 and 2014 were not Clintons fault it is something else. Clinton got 4 million more votes in california take that away and we are a minority party in the other 49 states. why do people prefer republicans running their states? also they send republicans to congress. Where is the democratic party on popular vote majority deciding electoral college. It was 11 states before election it is still eleven states. California can not save the democratic party. Would black vote been so low with corey booker as veep?

[George II]

18. Another WAY off base hit piece.

[elmac]

23. Monday morning quarterback

So the ruskies may not be the main reason we lost but they were a part of the problem, like the FBI, like fascist voter obstruction, like big money in politics and BOO HOO, cry me a river, the poor, brain dead voters got their feelings hurt because the Clintons were too cozy with the banks, because Hill used a private email account, because she failed to tap into the anger, bla, bla, bla, give me a break. These idiots didn't vote or voted for sniffles because they were fing stupid, that is the reason she lost. These dumb asses committed mass suicide because they didn't get a perfect, flawless candidate to vote for. What a bunch of fing morons.

[raging moderate]

26. We have to pull together and somehow stop them.

We have to get much more clever and conniving. And we have to stop bickering. For the sake of the human and Planet Earth, we have to turn our sights on curbing this monster that is consuming our country.

[bbgrunt]

31. truth. K and R

[world wide wally]

33. Easy answer: They cheated

[bowens43]

37. That's what the right said about Obama.......

That is what the losing party always says......

[ismnotwasm]

49. Oh goody. More Democrat bashing using complete bullshit.

This crap just makes me tired