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

[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.