Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 09:54 PM Nov 2016

Without Comey's interference we win. I think that fact is more important than any other.

Yes there were other factors that would have contributed to Hillary's win not being as big as it should, but an interference like this from the FBI director is not a normal factor in an election.

I think Comey's interference also explains the polling discrepancies. I think they caused a late break for Trump and late breaks are always hard for polls to take into account.

After that we can talk about sexism, the unfair attacks on Hillary for the last 16 years, inappropriate blaming of trade agreements for loss of manufacturing jobs when automation is the real root cause, and Republican obstruction of Obama's attempts to help more middle class people being perceived as an issue with Democratic policies.

I am happy with the platform on which we ran. I don't see any need for soul searching or big changes. Without Comey Hillary wins and we take back the senate. Why would we change from that? Do we anticipate a Comey-like interference going forward and if so what would a change in policies do to help that?

77 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Without Comey's interference we win. I think that fact is more important than any other. (Original Post) stevenleser Nov 2016 OP
I think we do need to deal with issues at the local level. LisaM Nov 2016 #1
Without massive voter disenfranchisement, we win. ecstatic Nov 2016 #2
yes. barbtries Nov 2016 #20
Cheaters win. Coyotl Nov 2016 #22
Voter suppression and James Comey made the difference. Other things could've been better, but... SharonAnn Nov 2016 #33
We won the popular vote regardless. duffyduff Nov 2016 #57
This... ThirdEye Nov 2016 #58
Correct Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2016 #3
In my opinion teach1st Nov 2016 #4
I agree. She had momentum and was going to win. boston bean Nov 2016 #5
Correct. sheshe2 Nov 2016 #6
Wrong. Comey had little to do with this. duffyduff Nov 2016 #7
That is a secondary factor, IMHO, because even with that she was leading by a lot pre-Comey. stevenleser Nov 2016 #8
In what poll(s) was she leading by a lot pre-Comey? SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #70
I agree with you, media came to HRC a week before election like hounds... they could have MyNameIsKhan Nov 2016 #9
Comey had EVERYTHING to do with her positive momentum coming to a crashing halt. Lil Missy Nov 2016 #10
Yes, I don't see how anyone could come to another conclusion. nt stevenleser Nov 2016 #25
Absolutely. It affected some of my "independent" minded friends. They were going to support H, but SharonAnn Nov 2016 #34
the emails created the narrative for the media to jump on her Fast Walker 52 Nov 2016 #36
I'd say so. ucrdem Nov 2016 #11
That is only true if you ignore where Hillary lost and how they wanted change. nt LostOne4Ever Nov 2016 #12
Nope, she was leading big in all of those places pre-Comey as well. nt stevenleser Nov 2016 #38
She was leading BIG and in the middle of an upswing in all those places post Comey as well LostOne4Ever Nov 2016 #47
HRC was already week in the rust belt pstokely Nov 2016 #13
See Comey and voter Suppression. lather, rinse, repeat. SharonAnn Nov 2016 #35
Why would you want us to maintain the status quo, though? Ken Burch Nov 2016 #14
Why would you change something that works and would have won absent cheating? stevenleser Nov 2016 #26
Yep, Guiliani's errand boy should not get to just shrink back into the shadows. nt prayin4rain Nov 2016 #15
It was a few things DemonGoddess Nov 2016 #16
Absolutely NastyRiffraff Nov 2016 #30
Agree with all of those, but she also made some mistakes democrattotheend Nov 2016 #75
I think you're right, but I also think people like Sen. Warren are right when they say Warren DeMontague Nov 2016 #17
I completely agree. Sorceress Nov 2016 #18
Comey's last minute interference tipped the election andym Nov 2016 #19
Are you forgetting that he beat out 14 other Republicans spooky3 Nov 2016 #44
Not forgetting that he won the GOP primary-- he would have had more problems against the GOP A team andym Nov 2016 #48
Totally disagree. Both of them have considerable spooky3 Nov 2016 #49
That Ryan didn't help Romney much means little, often VP candidates dont help much in the GE andym Nov 2016 #54
Completely disagree. closeupready Nov 2016 #21
Nope, the interference by the FBI director is an unprecedented issue for a Presidential election. stevenleser Nov 2016 #40
Nope. I like you, Steve, but you (and her fans here) are simply denying reality. closeupready Nov 2016 #55
And with all of what you write she was up 9 points, way out of the margin of error. stevenleser Nov 2016 #66
A lead so fragile is no lead at all. Mile wide and inch deep, and all that. closeupready Nov 2016 #67
As it always is or at least should be. We don't worship our politicos and an investigation or threat stevenleser Nov 2016 #68
The FBI interference would never have been possible BlueProgressive Nov 2016 #71
The Bengazi/e-mail witch hunt was GOP manufactured bullshit from oasis Nov 2016 #72
Nope, the investigation was already finished and the likelihood of getting stevenleser Nov 2016 #76
The real key would be to have been smart enough BlueProgressive Nov 2016 #77
I disagree with that democrattotheend Nov 2016 #73
There are many reasons for this loss....and this was one of them. TrekLuver Nov 2016 #23
Yes, it was all about who got the last great smear in. yallerdawg Nov 2016 #24
And it was the last grand Republican smear-from which she could not recover from. riversedge Nov 2016 #28
So let's do something about it cilla4progress Nov 2016 #27
It will not be answered. mainstreetonce Nov 2016 #29
Depending on your definition of "proven" sure it can stevenleser Nov 2016 #31
I think what it/he did do was give too many people who jmg257 Nov 2016 #32
I agree, but will anything be done about it now???? beaglelover Nov 2016 #37
We lost because our candidate didn't command enough votes. DirkGently Nov 2016 #39
Nope, that is just trying to justify your position, not actual analysis. nt stevenleser Nov 2016 #41
"Not enough votes" is actually why we lost. DirkGently Nov 2016 #42
Sure, and in a dictatorship 100% of the votes is why a dictator wins. It doesnt tell the story. stevenleser Nov 2016 #43
Post removed Post removed Nov 2016 #45
Yes, and Poland is in Eastern Europe. I can list facts that don't pertain to the discussion too. nt stevenleser Nov 2016 #59
This kind of discourse belongs on JPR, not DU. You should stay over there. stevenleser Nov 2016 #60
Those ugly names were yours, Steven. DirkGently Nov 2016 #61
I'm talking about YOUR discourse. It belongs on JPR not here nt stevenleser Nov 2016 #63
hrm. you want to edit this? nashville_brook Nov 2016 #62
Nope. Why would I? Nt stevenleser Nov 2016 #64
I think she would have won in 2008 democrattotheend Nov 2016 #74
She didn't run one ad (that I know of) addressing jobs. Not one ad talking about Obama's KittyWampus Nov 2016 #46
The only Hill ad I ever saw on TV was about jobs. ucrdem Nov 2016 #52
Excellent points Kitty. guillaumeb Nov 2016 #53
Nope, see ucrdem's post above. Nt stevenleser Nov 2016 #65
I saw PLENTY of ads running DemonGoddess Nov 2016 #69
James "Flakey Jim" Comey was fully aware of the impact his interference oasis Nov 2016 #50
Your assumptions do not seem to take into account the fact that the GOP is: guillaumeb Nov 2016 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author duffyduff Nov 2016 #56

ecstatic

(32,823 posts)
2. Without massive voter disenfranchisement, we win.
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 09:57 PM
Nov 2016

That's what we should have been battling all along, not just at the last minute.

barbtries

(28,827 posts)
20. yes.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 11:49 AM
Nov 2016

this is huge. everything counts. and I for one cannot rule out that the republicans once again stole the WH.

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
22. Cheaters win.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 12:00 PM
Nov 2016

Last edited Thu Nov 17, 2016, 12:14 AM - Edit history (2)

Voter suppression, voter caging, long lines, less early voting, voter ID, Jim Crow felon laws, .....

and, when even all that isn't enough, drag out the FBI Director to shave another percentage point! And when even that fails, rig a couple of battleground states.

SharonAnn

(13,782 posts)
33. Voter suppression and James Comey made the difference. Other things could've been better, but...
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 01:32 PM
Nov 2016

Voter suppression prevented Democrats from voting. Few Republicans were affected by this, in comparison.

James Comey fed into the "Hillary is corrupt" meme and people on the fence jumped to the other side.

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
57. We won the popular vote regardless.
Thu Nov 17, 2016, 11:16 AM
Nov 2016

You can't fix the IDIOTS who voted for a media-promoted demagogue.

ThirdEye

(204 posts)
58. This...
Thu Nov 17, 2016, 11:20 AM
Nov 2016

... is the only acceptable "if this had been different, we'd win" statement IMO.

It should never have been close, so blaming Comey is bullshit IMO. Same with blaming people who didn't come and vote because it wasn't Bernie Sanders. The race simply should never have been close.

teach1st

(5,937 posts)
4. In my opinion
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 09:58 PM
Nov 2016

In my opinion it was Comey (number one), voter suppression, and sexism. Yes, as you point out, there are other considerations, but Comey....

boston bean

(36,228 posts)
5. I agree. She had momentum and was going to win.
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 09:58 PM
Nov 2016

I do believe people felt him not presidential. Then comes Comey and the word "criminal" investigation was
flainted. Gave people a reason to think it ok to vote fora racist.

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
7. Wrong. Comey had little to do with this.
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 10:14 PM
Nov 2016

The media are completely responsible for this disaster of a candidate, and they did it in a cynical grab for ratings and ad revenue.

CNN's Jeff Zucker belongs in prison for treason against the United States. The rest of the media bigwigs jumped aboard once they saw the "success" Zucker had in promoting Trump 24/7 on a NEWS network. Every "news" report about the election was all with Trump as a frame of reference. The voters got the shaft.

Most everybody is looking elsewhere instead of what is staring at them right in the face.

The media, especially the cable media, HATED Hillary Clinton. The reason was she wasn't good for ratings and ad revenue. She had to be "defeated" no matter how bogus the allegations. The Comey dump would have been ignored for what it was if the media had not been so much in the tank for Trump.

Had HRC gotten the presidency, those ad revenues and ratings would have dried up. CNN would have had to find another plane crash to obsess over for the next four years.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
8. That is a secondary factor, IMHO, because even with that she was leading by a lot pre-Comey.
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 10:17 PM
Nov 2016

Even with all the media nonsense, and I agree with you, they helped normalize a monster, she still would have won.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
70. In what poll(s) was she leading by a lot pre-Comey?
Fri Nov 18, 2016, 01:30 PM
Nov 2016

I believe his email to Congress had a negative effect on her numbers, no doubt, but it's not like she was up by a lot, as least as I remember it.

MyNameIsKhan

(2,205 posts)
9. I agree with you, media came to HRC a week before election like hounds... they could have
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 10:17 PM
Nov 2016

covered Comey letter but not continue coverage for 4 days straight ... this depressed our turnout...

SharonAnn

(13,782 posts)
34. Absolutely. It affected some of my "independent" minded friends. They were going to support H, but
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 01:34 PM
Nov 2016

But they decided that there really was something to the "crooked Hillary" meme.

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
36. the emails created the narrative for the media to jump on her
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 01:48 PM
Nov 2016

and Comey really made a difference, though I agree the media was fucking awful

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
11. I'd say so.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 01:59 AM
Nov 2016

This is not the first time his agency has injected itself into a recent election to achieve a similar result but it's got to be the most outrageous. So much for the fiction of objectivity.

LostOne4Ever

(9,309 posts)
47. She was leading BIG and in the middle of an upswing in all those places post Comey as well
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 09:15 PM
Nov 2016
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/wisconsin/

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/michigan/

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/pennsylvania/


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]Comey had little to nothing to do with the loss.[/font]

pstokely

(10,544 posts)
13. HRC was already week in the rust belt
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 03:07 AM
Nov 2016

Last edited Wed Nov 16, 2016, 02:42 PM - Edit history (1)

never even targeted WI after the convention, too urban voters stayed home, white voters indifferent to racism went to tRump

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
26. Why would you change something that works and would have won absent cheating?
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 12:44 PM
Nov 2016

Why would anyone want to do that?

DemonGoddess

(4,640 posts)
16. It was a few things
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 05:36 AM
Nov 2016

1. Comey
2. voter suppression in key states
3. misogyny
4. racism via the skinheads and their ilk. They couldn't stomach that a white woman wants to address the systemic racism in this country.
5. Evangelicals

NastyRiffraff

(12,448 posts)
30. Absolutely
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 01:24 PM
Nov 2016

1. Comey
2. voter suppression in key states
3. misogyny
4. racism via the skinheads and their ilk. They couldn't stomach that a white woman wants to address the systemic racism in this country.
5. Evangelicals


All those were factors; I'd add the 48% of eligible voters NOT voting. I'm not sure which was the MOST important, but looking at that list, they all worked together in election Trump. Absent any one of them (especially Comey), and very likely the result would have been different.

democrattotheend

(11,607 posts)
75. Agree with all of those, but she also made some mistakes
Sat Nov 19, 2016, 12:11 PM
Nov 2016

She should have done more events and not taken the upper midwest and to a lesser extent PA for granted until the end. She should have focused more on jobs and less on Trump. She tried to make the election a referendum on Trump, which is really unfortunate because she had so much to offer.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
17. I think you're right, but I also think people like Sen. Warren are right when they say
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 05:51 AM
Nov 2016

that we should have pushed for a bigger stimulus and a public option when we had the chance, in 2009.

Comey didn't help but neither did the fact that a lot of people in rust belt states who would otherwise be natural Democrats, feel ignored by Washington.

Sorceress

(309 posts)
18. I completely agree.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 10:25 AM
Nov 2016

There were other factors but we were weathering them and making a surge toward the finish line right when Comey decided to rip open a healing wound. I am so frustrated to see people pointing to everything and everyone but him. HE is what sealed her fate and she, nor anyone else, should be demonized for admitting it.

andym

(5,447 posts)
19. Comey's last minute interference tipped the election
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 10:38 AM
Nov 2016

I think everyone was watching the polls tighten with trepidation the last two weeks, but the polls didn't completely capture the last minute movement. But there is another factor that you are not taking into account: Trump was a terrible candidate. Perhaps the worst GOP candidate ever. That needs to be factored in, as a GOP candidate without the warts would have likely done much better than Trump did, especially in the Rust Belt, if they were promising "change".

spooky3

(34,551 posts)
44. Are you forgetting that he beat out 14 other Republicans
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 08:09 PM
Nov 2016

Insiders, outsiders, etc., and all liars? He was just the most entertaining demagogue.

andym

(5,447 posts)
48. Not forgetting that he won the GOP primary-- he would have had more problems against the GOP A team
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 09:45 PM
Nov 2016

and so likely would Hillary have had more problems eg, Paul Ryan, maybe Nikki Haley

spooky3

(34,551 posts)
49. Totally disagree. Both of them have considerable
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 09:51 PM
Nov 2016

Weaknesses. Ryan couldn't help Romney win in 2012.

andym

(5,447 posts)
54. That Ryan didn't help Romney much means little, often VP candidates dont help much in the GE
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 10:56 PM
Nov 2016

LBJ would be the exception that proves the rule.

Also your logic is imperfect even about the remaining field of GOP hopefuls that Trump beat. That's because there is often a paper, scissors, rock effect where candidate 1 >candidate 2; candidate 2> candidate 3; and candidate 3 > candidate 1. In other words the transitive rule does not hold. Kasich might have been an example of this-- he fared badly in the primaries but lead Hillary Clinton by 4-12% in polling during the primaries and would have been a formidable opponent (although not a true "change" bringer, which would have hurt him some).

Some data
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/data-points/poll-clinton-leads-trump-how-would-november-look-without-him-n603496

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
40. Nope, the interference by the FBI director is an unprecedented issue for a Presidential election.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 07:57 PM
Nov 2016

It would be one thing if he found actual indictable evidence and was arresting or indicting her.

He actually found nothing.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
55. Nope. I like you, Steve, but you (and her fans here) are simply denying reality.
Thu Nov 17, 2016, 11:11 AM
Nov 2016

She was a horrible candidate, on so many levels.

She had 100's of millions of $$$$ in her war chest.

She effectively started running 16 years ago.

She had almost every single media endorsement, and the backing of almost every Western leader.

She had poll numbers persuading even the biggest skeptic that it was going to be a landslide.

And she lost. Not because of Comey.

And I'm not really interested in debating the point, because while I understand past performance can not be taken as a predictor of future performance in the financial industry, it certainly can be used in predicting future political contests, and so I'm pessimistic.

Enough, I'm done. Have a great day.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
66. And with all of what you write she was up 9 points, way out of the margin of error.
Fri Nov 18, 2016, 10:22 AM
Nov 2016

And that is a huge lead in terms of Presidential election history.

What undid that lead? Yes, an interference by the FBI director regarding something that turned out to be nothing.

Every Presidential candidate has plusses and minuses.

Whatever your criticisms of her, she was up by nine points three weeks out. That means all of the negatives you can list had the result of a nine point lead.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
67. A lead so fragile is no lead at all. Mile wide and inch deep, and all that.
Fri Nov 18, 2016, 10:55 AM
Nov 2016

Okay, we can agree to disagree. Cheers.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
68. As it always is or at least should be. We don't worship our politicos and an investigation or threat
Fri Nov 18, 2016, 11:20 AM
Nov 2016

of one by the FBI director would take ANY candidate down by six or so points at least.

 

BlueProgressive

(229 posts)
71. The FBI interference would never have been possible
Sat Nov 19, 2016, 06:21 AM
Nov 2016

if Clinton had never installed that private server in the first place.... and she would be the president-elect right now.

But yeah, the first letter was the final straw that broke her back. However, we should never have been in this position: nominating a presidential candidate who'd spent nearly a year under investigation by the FBI (rightly or wrongly) was ALSO 'unprecedented', and seems a rather fundamental violation of 'Presidential Politics 101'



 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
76. Nope, the investigation was already finished and the likelihood of getting
Sat Nov 19, 2016, 01:08 PM
Nov 2016

new information from Humas emails was close to zero.

As we have seen with Obama, Republicans manufacture outrage from BS all the time. The key is to be smart enough to get that. Keep trying, you may get it eventually.

 

BlueProgressive

(229 posts)
77. The real key would be to have been smart enough
Sun Nov 20, 2016, 07:49 AM
Nov 2016

to avoid nominating a candidate who spent a year under FBI investigation, and whose negatives flirted with 50 percent. I doubt you'll EVER get that, if you were one of those who insisted that those problems would not seriously hamper Clinton's electability. Plenty of us felt otherwise, and have been sadly proven correct. The rest have been proven quite wrong.

I well understand about most of the outrage being manufactured and overblown, but you need to be smart enough to understand that regardless of any charges actually being filed, the damage was being done, and continued to be done right up to the election. I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of the matter here: I am arguing that it was politically stupid to field a nominee with these weaknesses, and the party did not have to nominate a candidate who would continuously be vulnerable to this line of attack. I guess too many Democrats either didn't care about electability, or weren't smart enough to understand what goes into it.

Hillary Clinton should have been smart enough to avoid such a situation in the first place, a situation that seems to have been caused by an overgrown desire for secrecy and "control".




democrattotheend

(11,607 posts)
73. I disagree with that
Sat Nov 19, 2016, 12:07 PM
Nov 2016

Late deciders broke for Trump. Comey caused that. She made some critical mistakes, but she would have won if not for the last minute hit job by the FBI and the media.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
24. Yes, it was all about who got the last great smear in.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 12:05 PM
Nov 2016

Comey and the Congressional Republicans gave the impression they had found classified documents on a pedophile's laptop.

That did it right there. And there was no walking it back 2 days before the election.

And Comey's silence on Russian interference in our elections on behalf of Trump!

mainstreetonce

(4,178 posts)
29. It will not be answered.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 01:22 PM
Nov 2016

If Comey tipped the election. That cannot be proven.

Comey was wrong. Even if we had won .I would say, "Fire Comey"

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
31. Depending on your definition of "proven" sure it can
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 01:26 PM
Nov 2016

And I agree with the rest of your point. Wednesday morning Nov 9th at 9am Comey should have been fired regardless of whether Hillary won or not.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
32. I think what it/he did do was give too many people who
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 01:31 PM
Nov 2016

just didn't like her a last chance confirmation to "why" they didn't.

People had to overlook a TON of sit to vote Trump...and they did it anyway.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
39. We lost because our candidate didn't command enough votes.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 07:56 PM
Nov 2016

It wasn't Comey. It wasn't sexism, or racism, or Jill Stein. Trump got fewer votes than McCain or Romney. We would have lost in 2008 and 2012 with this candidate, who carried baggage from a 30-year political career, who avoided reaching out to the people most in need in this country, who answered "Hope and Change" and "Yes we can" with "Eh, Wall Street's cool" and "No we can't."

Clinton might have worked in a world not this divided. In an economy that had fully recovered. In some imaginary America where a business-friendly technocrat who eventually came around on social issues like marriage equality was marginally more likable than an anthropomorphized middle finger to everything.

It's not everyone's else's fault. It's not anyone else's fault. A strong candidate would have won, and we picked a weak one. "It's her turn, and "I'm not as bad as that guy" turned out not to be a compelling platform.

Next time let's stand for something. That might help.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
42. "Not enough votes" is actually why we lost.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 08:04 PM
Nov 2016

By comparison, Your OP has zero analysis. Less even than your old column savaging Hillary Clinton as the most evil person on earth until you decided you were on her side.

You're just throwing things against the wall. There's no evidence Comey's letter changed anyone's mind or blew Clinton's precarious theoretical lead.

She lost because she wasn't good enough to win. Nearly anyone could have beaten the guy we were up against, who didn't pull as many votes as either of the last two Republican candidates.

She just wasn't good enough.
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
43. Sure, and in a dictatorship 100% of the votes is why a dictator wins. It doesnt tell the story.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 08:08 PM
Nov 2016

But you knew that.

Response to stevenleser (Reply #43)

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
59. Yes, and Poland is in Eastern Europe. I can list facts that don't pertain to the discussion too. nt
Thu Nov 17, 2016, 11:30 AM
Nov 2016
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
60. This kind of discourse belongs on JPR, not DU. You should stay over there.
Thu Nov 17, 2016, 11:47 AM
Nov 2016

At DU, we discuss relevant facts that are current. And the current rules specify we aren't nasty to one another.

You want to call other people ugly names and be nasty, bring up conspiracies or other irrelevant information, stay over at JPR.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
61. Those ugly names were yours, Steven.
Thu Nov 17, 2016, 11:53 AM
Nov 2016

You compared Hillary Clinton to "Karl Rove." I do not think she was the right candidate, but have never made such a vicious comparison.

Oh wait. Are you actually pretending that quote wasn't from your own column? Because if so ... wow.

Maybe you should pluck the beam from your own eye before finding fault with others?

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
46. She didn't run one ad (that I know of) addressing jobs. Not one ad talking about Obama's
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 08:12 PM
Nov 2016

attempt to get a Job Bill through Congress and Republicans obstructing him.

She didn't campaign once in Wisconsin.

She attempted to "expand the map" unnecessarily and ignored states that were critical.

From a DailyKos post:

adly, some folks in the Clinton campaign weren’t tuned in to that concept. From HuffPost:

In the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton’s staff in key Midwest states sent out alarms to their headquarters in Brooklyn. They were facing a problematic shortage of paid canvassers to help turn out the vote.

For months, the Clinton campaign had banked on a wide army of volunteer organizers to help corral independents and Democratic leaners and re-energize a base not particularly enthused about the election. But they were volunteers. And as anecdotal data came back to offices in key battlegrounds, concern mounted that leadership had skimped on a critical campaign function.

“It was arrogance, arrogance that they were going to win. That this was all wrapped up,” a senior battleground state operative told The Huffington Post.

snip
In Michigan alone, a senior battleground state operative told HuffPost that the state party and local officials were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004. Desperate for more human capital, the state party and local officials ended up raising $300,000 themselves to pay 500 people to help canvass in the election’s closing weeks. By that point, however, they were operating in the dark. One organizer said that in a precinct in Flint, they were sent to a burned down trailer park. No one had taken it off the list of places to visit because no one had been there until the final weekend. Clinton lost the state by 12,000 votes.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
52. The only Hill ad I ever saw on TV was about jobs.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 10:34 PM
Nov 2016

I think I saw it more than once, though I can't remember what I was watching either time. Maybe CNN:

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/statuses/760847322922090496

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
53. Excellent points Kitty.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 10:35 PM
Nov 2016

Apparently no one in the campaign realized that Michigan and Wisconsin are GOP controlled states!?! GOP Governors and GOP legislatures.
A massive failure of basic planning.

DemonGoddess

(4,640 posts)
69. I saw PLENTY of ads running
Fri Nov 18, 2016, 12:30 PM
Nov 2016

by her about JOBS. About going to where clean energy MAKES jobs. About going to tech schools and getting jobs. Many, many, many of them.

oasis

(49,527 posts)
50. James "Flakey Jim" Comey was fully aware of the impact his interference
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 10:26 PM
Nov 2016

would have. He'll gladly wear the "flakey" label since it masks his deep down corrupt nature.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
51. Your assumptions do not seem to take into account the fact that the GOP is:
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 10:33 PM
Nov 2016

1) in control of 30 states,
2) in control of the House,
3) in control of the Senate.

Yes gerrymandering is a problem, but Senators are elected statewide. As are Governors.

And while automation is one cause of manufacturing job loss, another is the dismantling and relocation of manufacturing facilities from this country to lower wage countries.

If the Democratic party cannot or will not address wage stagnation and a lack of living wage jobs for working class people, the majority of US workers by the way, how can we assume that this trend of greater GOP political control will not continue?

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Without Comey's interfere...