Clinton aides blame loss on FBI, media, sexism, Bernie, everything but themselves

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then you shouldn't have post that. Don't spread bullshit and fear.

We already have enough.

Sorry, I spent the last fifteen minutes trying to find it. We already have proof that the heads of the party aren't doing any real soul searching and are blaming anything but themselves. Honestly, I don't think my contribution could add much to the fear we already all share.

I mean, read this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1312233

They literally don't get it.
 
I wonder how he feels right now. He pulled of an unlikely win and then worked to create a base for the next president to build upon. And Hillary Clinton just jeopardized everything with her darn ego. Literally everything Obama pushed through, 8 years of work against a system put up against him will be lost.

It's even weirder because he had to beat her centrist campaign of 2008 to get in office in the first place. Pissing away his coalition and his legacy like he never existed, as he almost never did had she won the first time.
 
Oh its definitely real. They really want to run fucking Tim Kaine. He's exactly the type of candidate they run so it makes perfect sense.

So, a dull and uninspiring candidate just lost and their idea is to get someone who may be even duller and more uninspiring that her?
 
Not many establishment Republicans voted for him, and less supported him. They wanted him to lose. Those people are now stuck, because they've been proven wrong time and again about him. So their choices are stay or jump ship to a place where people clearly don't want them.

If you wanted to beat Trump, now was the time. Because in 4 years it's going to be impossible if he does well (Which, given how many people have been wrong about him so far, makes me think he will). Now the Democrats are in the unfamiliar defensive position without a figurehead to fight back with.
I do agree that he is more beatable now. Incumbents often have an advantage and he will be relatively (filibuster still there) gridlock free. He can pass tax cuts (some Democratic Senators may not want to risk voting against a tax cut), he can get rid of ACA and the TPP (The rich/corporations/establishment probably are willing to trade the TPP for tax cuts).
 
So, a dull and uninspiring candidate just lost and their idea is to get someone who may be even duller and more uninspiring that her?

He has no scandals, a likable personality, a strong record on minorities, won every race he has and 4 years of Trump might bring people back.

He's not neccesarily the most interesting (nor is he my first pick) but he's a compassionate person with a strong record and no scandals. He can beat Trump.
 
Sorry, I spent the last fifteen minutes trying to find it. We already have proof that the heads of the party aren't doing any real soul searching and are blaming anything but themselves. Honestly, I don't think my contribution could add much to the fear we already all share.

I mean, read this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1312233

They literally don't get it.
I know mate this shit is crazy. But we should hold off on guessing if the party elites are pickinggrooming their next canidate. And the worst part is they don't suffer at all. We do.

Still I think them picking Kaine barely 24 hours after it ended is insane and bullshit.

Probably pucking Chelsa Clinton for 2020.
 
He has no scandals, a likable personality, a strong record on minorities, won every race he has and 4 years of Trump might bring people back.

He's not neccesarily the most interesting (nor is he my first pick) but he's a compassionate person with a strong record and no scandals. He can beat Trump.

Charisma matters. The last 12 years of presidential elections have partly, if not largely, turned on this. Tim Kaine is just about the worst choice we have.
 
I am a current Mass liberal who grew up in Trump country. Liz Warren is my spirit animal. But she isn't taking those rust belt votes from Trump, at least until he completely fucks them over during his first term. Performative white identity matters to them more than policy and she simply can't compete there. Feingold got demolished in his home state and Tulsi Gabbard (I like her too) is still a non-starter. We need to realize that neither party is really about economic progressivism at this point. That wasn't ultimately what this election was about.

The thing is I don't think she had to take away his voters. She just would have had to bring the Obama coalition home. Liz isn't perfect, but she shared many of the better qualities of Sanders and Clinton without the baggage.

Feingold was up the entire time until the top of the ticket lost Wisc. Hillary's performance doomed him.

And Tulsi has all the makings of a slightly lower performing Obama. Combat vet, minority, young, attractive, charismatic, surprisingly diverse political career, and progressive. The only negatives for votes are being Hawaiian and hindu. Both something she could overcome.
 
So, a dull and uninspiring candidate just lost and their idea is to get someone who may be even duller and more uninspiring that her?

Reminds of when Obama stomped McCain so the GoP wised up and knew that they needed a powerful charismatic orator in order to compete with Obama's brilliant speech--

Oh wait no they picked Romney.
 
Charisma matters. The last 12 years of presidential elections have partly, if not largely, turned on this. Tim Kaine is just about the worst choice we have.

Exactly. We'd be better off with a celebrity or comedian or someone good looking and charming. Entertainment wins elections.
 
Charisma matters. The last 12 years of presidential elections have partly, if not largely, turned on this. Tim Kaine is just about the worst choice we have.

That yeah, but his affability and kindness is apparent. I think with the right tuning, he could be a good candidate. Similar to George Bush's well intentioned folksiness.

They are probably better candidates...but I think he's not exactly a bad pick.
 
Winner of DNC chair will tell us which way the party is headed. My prediction is Bernie and Warren will back Eliison while moderates like Kaine will back Dean. Ellison is going to win.
 
There's no way it'd be Kaine....atleast I hope. Then again, the world's biggest embarrassment just got elected.

It was the truth. No matter what, she will never win with you fucking people. Not a politician in the history of America has ever been so needled - if she lies, she gets shit on. If she tells the truth, she gets shit on.

This.

Also pretty much what ZombiePlatypus said, there were fuck ups all around as well as some ridiculous external shit (like Comey).

She had some big flaws including clearly sucking at creating any momentum or a "message" to compel people about the necessity of voting unlike Obama who was fantastic at speeches and making things clear, and she was clearly labeled as not "likable," but at the end of the day it's still ridiculous how "perfect" many voters seemingly wanted her to be too, even little things like "politicians have public and private faces" somehow became this big scandal issue, well no duh almost everyone has that in professional settings, it didn't even matter how big of a shitbag Trump was (even his egregious behavior during the election process itself wasn't enough to stick him with worse labels than Hillary or get people to raise their "oh shit level" about how bad he was), but regardless whether anyone likes her or not it's ridiculous how those e-mails and servers lingered with new little leaked tidbits to keep it on the tip of the tongue for days on end while Trump's own didn't or didn't even make it to the news at all even as rumors (the Russia stuff, his own little questionable server issue, etc.) while every Hillary rumor under the sun made it to the news, how his behavior wasn't called out by the media as means for questioning his fitness for the role on a daily basis (just occasionally) as means to not tell everyone "they've got this in the bag" but get the fuck out there and vote.

And lets not forget how lightly the media dug in all the shit Trump was throwing up night after night in comparison to the e-mails. Over half the shit he did would have gotten so much coverage in the past that a candidate would have been ENDED with just ONE of. Hell, candidates have been "thrown out" for less. And yet everyone let him just fly with it "but e-mails".
She had trouble winning even more people over but there's no way the endless one-sided drip-feed from people who's job that was not (like Comey) didn't throw things off too.

But it's also seemingly become clearly true that she and her team does deserve plenty of blame for not making it clear that it was absolutely imperative that people didn't stay home this time. And she clearly did a terrible job taking too many states (and polls) for granted. They apparently didn't even take proper note of which states they really need to spend their time in it seems. Speeches like Obama's would have definitely prioritized "don't take anything for granted, get out their vote like your lives depend on it" at least messaging wise against someone like Trump, even if obviously he too probably couldn't get "everyone" out to vote.

bruh
his 100 day plan or whatever was attrocious on numerous fronts, and he's out here on twitter crying about protests but silent on hate crimes in his name

for posterity: i really didn't mean to bust your balls any here man, just still think the literally one time use of "deplorable" is being overblown, is all

Yeah.

Definitely agree with you on that.

Going to take a bit for him to get adjusted, he's gotta realize what he's doing but yeah I just think that stuff was a tactic he used. Forgot where I read it but someone said that he used a tactic he mentioned in his book down to a science, how to make a deal. He just used it on America. He's gotta get smarter people on his side though and that includes a social media team (to take away his twitter like they did Meek) and others to help. That plan he had isn't going to happen. They gotta go back to the drawing board.

He doesn't want to get adjusted though. He's proud of this nasty shit he does. He likes being a pompous asshole that pisses off 50% of the country.
 
Several candidates can't beat him when the votes are split and there are winner take all states. Hillary Clinton had 0 events in Wisconsin and very few events in Michigan, while Obama visited both many times in 2008. She spent 15 days of September in New York. She only had 2 battleground state events in Nevada and Ohio in the last half of August.

*SNIP*

15 days in New York presumably fundraising is insane. Who the fuck thought that was worth it? Money was never her problem. WTF that's infuriating.


Reminds of when Obama stomped McCain so the GoP wised up and knew that they needed a powerful charismatic orator in order to compete with Obama's brilliant speech--

Oh wait no they picked Romney.

I think there are a lot of parallels between how voters felt about Romney and Clinton. Some fair, and some unfair. But they were both ambien to voters.
 
Yeah, if it was really that long that's NUTS.

Exactly. We'd be better off with a celebrity or comedian or someone good looking and charming. Entertainment wins elections.

So true. The sad truth is that this is where we are now seemingly. Unwaveringness (regardless how nasty) and charisma seem to be all that matter.

Lots of people still would rather pick the person they'd rather "have a beer with" as was said after Bush won.
 
This was Clinton's schedule in late August:
http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintoncal0816.html
August 19 - Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 20 - Nantucket, MA, Martha's Vineyard, MA

Sorry, I spent the last fifteen minutes trying to find it. We already have proof that the heads of the party aren't doing any real soul searching and are blaming anything but themselves. Honestly, I don't think my contribution could add much to the fear we already all share.

I mean, read this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1312233

They literally don't get it.
Why should you, when you can always retreat to the vineyard?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ails-show-who-runs-america-and-how-they-do-it
cmnHNja.png

TP8QDno.png

3k7lym8.png


His previous article on the vineyard:
http://thebaffler.com/salvos/withering-vine-tom-frank
 
Winner of DNC chair will tell us which way the party is headed. My prediction is Bernie and Warren will back Eliison while moderates like Kaine will back Dean. Ellison is going to win.

Ellison got pushed by a Bernie email this morning. He'd be a good choice.

Exactly. We'd be better off with a celebrity or comedian or someone good looking and charming. Entertainment wins elections.

Oh god. Clooney/Colbert 2020.
 
I think there are a lot of parallels between how voters felt about Romney and Clinton. Some fair, and some unfair. But they were both ambien to voters.

That both of them were so confident they'd win so they planned an elaborate fireworks display only to cancel it at the last minute as the first voting numbers started coming in is hilarious.
 
Why should you, when you can always retreat to the vineyard?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ails-show-who-runs-america-and-how-they-do-it



His previous article on the vineyard:
http://thebaffler.com/salvos/withering-vine-tom-frank

Yep. Woefully out of touch.

I would love for the next nominee to proudly state that he or she has never been to Martha's vineyard. We need a candidate of the people to go against Trump. To show people that we can field someone who is just like them, not one that just talks like them.
 
Man, we're all enjoying the L right now, partly because of attitude's like yours during the campaign.

Hillary couldn't be bothered to visit states where Bernie got her good and it showed.

Yes, my votes for Bernie Sanders in the primary and Hillary Clinton in the general cost Democrats the election. You got me there!
 
Yes, my votes for Bernie Sanders in the primary and Hillary Clinton in the general cost Democrats the election. You got me there.
Good on you to vote, every vote matters.

I was however talking about the attitude that was also present during the campaign. Bill Clinton asked the campaign manager to consider rural voters, but the campaign decided that Bernie's surprising surges and wins against all expectations in the Rust Belt didn't matter enough for Hillary to bother visiting the rural side, instead investing time in fund raising and campaigning in Arizona.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1311945
 
He has no scandals, a likable personality, a strong record on minorities, won every race he has and 4 years of Trump might bring people back.

He's not neccesarily the most interesting (nor is he my first pick) but he's a compassionate person with a strong record and no scandals. He can beat Trump.

You aren't going to beat someone that can make people enthusiastic about voting for them by rolling out another person that can't. Kaine is unbelievably dull. That doesn't make him a bad guy or even a bad politician, but it does make him a bad choice for the presidency. There are many lessons that Democrats have to learn from this election, but one of the top ones is that you have to have an exciting candidate. You can't manufacture excitement. It's something that's natural and a candidate can either generate it or the can't.

Just look at Obama's ticket vs. Clinton's. Obama chose Joe Biden as his VP, which meant that even if Obama wasn't at a rally he still had someone that had the unique ability to energize and excite the crowd he was speaking to. Clinton chose Kaine, who was just like her. Someone with no real ability to excite people no matter how much he tried. Democrats can't let that happen again.
 
Good on you to vote, every vote matters.

I was however talking about the attitude that was also present during the campaign. Bill Clinton asked the campaign manager to consider rural voters, but the campaign decided that Bernie's surprising surges and wins against all expectations in the Rust Belt didn't matter enough for Hillary to bother visiting the rural side, instead investing time in fund raising and campaigning in Arizona.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1311945

I don't fault her for spending time in Arizona. Though I think she spent way too much time fundraising. And I have a sneaking suspicion it's because that kind of event was more comfortable for than dealing with crowds.
 
Good on you to vote, every vote matters.

I was however talking about the attitude that was also present during the campaign. Bill Clinton asked the campaign manager to consider rural voters, but the campaign decided that Bernie's surprising surges and wins against all expectations in the Rust Belt didn't matter enough for Hillary to bother visiting the rural side, instead investing time in fund raising and campaigning in Arizona.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1311945
Sadly, Arizona was probably one of the better uses of her time when compared to her other more useless stops.
 
This is utter bullshit. I have no problem saying that a vote for trump is a racist sexist and xenophobic act.

And that approach to trying to convince people it's worth voting against people like Trump is why the UK is leaving the EU despite all logical sense and the US has a moronic, sexist, racist oompa loompa for president.The moment you start out your approach by calling them a racist, xenophobe or whatever, they're immediately going to stop listening to you.


But no, continuing to do the same thing will definitely give different results in the future.
 
Good on you to vote, every vote matters.

I was however talking about the attitude that was also present during the campaign. Bill Clinton asked the campaign manager to consider rural voters, but the campaign decided that Bernie's surprising surges and wins against all expectations in the Rust Belt didn't matter enough for Hillary to bother visiting the rural side, instead investing time in fund raising and campaigning in Arizona.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1311945

Ok, but I never argued that Hillary shouldn't have spent more time in the midwest; I am, however, skeptical that Hillary spending more time in the midwest would have swung the election. She spent plenty of time in Pennsylvania and Ohio; it didn't matter. This goes deeper than how may rallies a candidate held in a given state.
 
Can those people be summarily dismissed? That's not a reasonable statement in any context.

Just remember:

Jon Chait, who trashed Bernie nonstop, was treated as a serious thinker. Same guy who said Joe Lieberman & John McCain should lead the Dems.

Ok, but I never argued that Hillary shouldn't have spent more time in the midwest; I am, however, skeptical that Hillary spending more time in the midwest would have swung the election. She spent plenty of time in Pennsylvania and Ohio; it didn't matter. This goes deeper than how may rallies a candidate held in a given state.

She went to the urban centers primarily. IIRC.
 
Yeah, if it was really that long that's NUTS.



So true. The sad truth is that this is where we are now seemingly. Unwaveringness (regardless how nasty) and charisma seem to be all that matter.

Lots of people still would rather pick the person they'd rather "have a beer with" as was said after Bush won.

Well fuck it.

Colbert + Jon Stewart. Go for broke.
 
I don't fault her for spending time in Arizona. Though I think she spent way too much time fundraising. And I have a sneaking suspicion it's because that kind of event was more comfortable for than dealing with crowds.

Sadly, Arizona was probably one of the better uses of her time when compared to her other more useless stops.
Well, maybe. In any case she should've dedicated some time to the rural areas to ensure their vote. But as it stands Trump was running around diligently, showing his presence, while she was resting on her "inevitable" win.
Can those people be summarily dismissed? That's not a reasonable statement in any context.
It's hard to get reliable numbers since we can't track individuals, but Bernie energized millennials in the first place that weren't invested up to him entering the ring. Statistics also show that a huge chunk of long registered democrats turned coat.

Ok, but I never argued that Hillary shouldn't have spent more time in the midwest; I am, however, skeptical that Hillary spending more time in the midwest would have swung the election. She spent plenty of time in Pennsylvania and Ohio; it didn't matter. This goes deeper than how may rallies a candidate held in a given state.
It was so close, every bit would have helped, I'd say.
 
So true. The sad truth is that this is where we are now seemingly. Unwaveringness (regardless how nasty) and charisma seem to be all that matter.

Lots of people still would rather pick the person they'd rather "have a beer with" as was said after Bush won.

I've said this a bunch of times already, but being a leader means, you know, being able to lead people. Charisma is not something that should be scoffed at.
 
Ok, but I never argued that Hillary shouldn't have spent more time in the midwest; I am, however, skeptical that Hillary spending more time in the midwest would have swung the election. She spent plenty of time in Pennsylvania and Ohio; it didn't matter. This goes deeper than how may rallies a candidate held in a given state.
By what metric did she spend "plenty of time" in those states?

Even if she did spent enough time there, which is debatable, what does it matter if the time wasn't even spent in the areas outside of blue metros like Pittsburgh or Philly?
 
Lol I love the complete 180 this forum had on Clinton after the election.

Neogaf has been very amusing these past few weeks.
 
They aren't going to learn, are they? They were just gonna sit in fetal position and hope "demographic changes" where enough to carry them to victory. No plan B.
 
You aren't going to beat someone that can make people enthusiastic about voting for them by rolling out another person that can't. Kaine is unbelievably dull. That doesn't make him a bad guy or even a bad politician, but it does make him a bad choice for the presidency. There are many lessons that Democrats have to learn from this election, but one of the top ones is that you have to have an exciting candidate. You can't manufacture excitement. It's something that's natural and a candidate can either generate it or the can't.

Just look at Obama's ticket vs. Clinton's. Obama chose Joe Biden as his VP, which meant that even if Obama wasn't at a rally he still had someone that had the unique ability to energize and excite the crowd he was speaking to. Clinton chose Kaine, who was just like her. Someone with no real ability to excite people no matter how much he tried. Democrats can't let that happen again.

This is only tangential, but now that the election is over, I just want to say that Tim Kaine reminds me of Leland Palmer from Twin Peaks.

Lol I love the complete 180 this forum had on Clinton after the election.

Neogaf has been very amusing these past few weeks.

Opinions largely haven't changed. It's just that other people have more breathing room now.
 
It's hard to get reliable numbers since we can't track individuals, but Bernie energized millennials in the first place that weren't invested up to him entering the ring. Statistics also show that a huge chunk of long registered democrats turned coat.

Instead of blaming a candidate for making them excited in the first place, the DNC should be studying every aspect of their popularity. They should also be aware of how their actions towards him were perceived, rightly or wrongly. People don't just turn to the other team unless you give them a reason to do so. Hillary gave voters plenty of reasons.
 
He was so inspiring that he lost by millions against a milquetoast, boring establishment candidate? You're not making any sense.

This blind idolatry of Bernie is a coping mechanism, I get it. But let's not pretend like this thought experiment is a viable alternative. You have no idea how Trump was gonna run against Bernie because it never happened. On day 1 of the general he could've painted Bernie as a pinko commie and it could've been even more disastrous for Bernie.

Hillary had been prepping for the Primary for four years and all the party infrastructural, relationships and money. Bernie decided to run last minute because there were no progressive candidates to challenge her. His campaign weren't even fully staffed until December because it was a message campaign until it was apparent that there was a real chance to run away with the whole thing. The level of support Bernie got shocked the campaign and it simply didn't have the time to properly capitalize on the support quick enough or the time to execute on plans to court more demographics within the party, specifically blacks in the southern states.

And that doesn't even touch the fact that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were actively colluding to smear Bernie and drive him out of the race. The DNC was actively working with Clinton surrogates and the media to smear Bernie and stifle coverage. It's not an accident that the debates were place in ways to minimize viewership to. The DNC did that to put a stasis on Clinton's front runner status.

It's not a coincidence that Google, CNN, and NBC would always put superdelegates in the delegate totals. Every Primary, even the ones Bernie won would get reported as "Looks like Clinton is walking away tonight with 150 delegates, sanders with 50" even though Sanders would be walking away with most of the pledged delegates. The DNC wanted their friends in the media to report it that way because they knew it would confuse and discourge Bernie voters. They made sure results were not reported that way in 2008's primary.

And having volunteer and worked for his campaign it did exactly that. Every single election I had to deal with a lot of Bernie voters who voted, and despite Bernie winning didn't understand why he walked away he walked away with barely any delegates and having to explain that superdelegates don't vote until the convention and that they don't really count. And people would always walk away feeling confused, upset and cheated. Even after our victories. When you see Bernie supporters saying the primary was rigged and that the DNC cheated, keep in mind that the DNC and Clinton campaigns, and mainstream news organizations allied with Clinton, deliberately distorted the perception of the primary results to cultivate that feeling.

It is absolutely insane. INSANE that the DNC let a candidate at unlikable as Hillary, who had an active FBI criminal investigation ongoing to even run in the race. The DNC new Hillary was going to have trouble in the GE and that she was an extremely risky, toxic candidate. It was absolutely in their right to put constant pressure on Hillary to leave the race when she was consistently pulling statistically tied to Trump in head to head match ups. And if they actually cared about protecting the country from a clown fascist they would have done exactly that.

Bernie walked away from the primary the most well liked and popular sitting senator with highs of 68% approval rating. And the convention wasn't even about him. Clinton consistently had a 35% approval rating and she peaked at a whopping 50% after the convention. And it quickly when back to her average 35% approval rating. That difference in likability alone would have made the difference. Yeah, Bernie's approval never suffered the full brunt of the Republican smear machine, but 60%+ approval is a much better place to start from than 35%.

And every Republican has painted every democrat as a communist socialist. Literally every election. They called Hillary Clinton a corrupt commie socialist every single day. Things work much better when your candidate isn't mealy mouthed and scared of their own shadow who runs scared over the nasty names your opponents call you. It's why Trump's scandals had a hard time doing any real damage to him. Because he didn't run scared and go on an apology tour on all the news shows crying and saying he'll do better and how he let everyone down. Being called a socialist didn't hurt Bernie in the primary and it wouldn't have hurt him in the general because he didn't run away from it.

Can those people be summarily dismissed? That's not a reasonable statement in any context.

Seriously. Bernie didn't poison the well with young voters. Clinton showing her clear arrogance and contempt for the half of the party that voted Bernie by picking Kaine as VP instead of Bernie, Warren, Ellison poisoned the waters.

He has no scandals, a likable personality, a strong record on minorities, won every race he has and 4 years of Trump might bring people back.

He's not neccesarily the most interesting (nor is he my first pick) but he's a compassionate person with a strong record and no scandals. He can beat Trump.

Tim Kaine would get JEB!ed by Trump. It would be a slaughter. If you think Kaine can win against Trump, then you don't understand why Clinton and the DNC lost.
 
Instead of blaming a candidate for making them excited in the first place, the DNC should be studying every aspect of their popularity. They should also be aware of how their actions towards him were perceived, rightly or wrongly. People don't just turn to the other team unless you give them a reason to do so. Hillary gave voters plenty of reasons.
Yeppa.

Though it would be hard to make Clinton consumable for anti-establishment voters, after all she was pure establishment. The actions of the DNC and her supporters against Bernie Sanders didn't help. I think one of the worst narratives was supporters telling Bernie supporters to stop trying and give up because she was inevitable. How do you expect people who are told this to get excited for your candidate later?

The funny inversion of Obama's slogan into "No we can't" was another part of her defeat. One of the narratives to beat down on Bernie Sanders was telling people to stop dreaming and hoping and to "be realistic". Very different from Obama.
Hillary had been prepping for the Primary for four years and all the party infrastructural, relationships and money. Bernie decided to run last minute because there were no progressive candidates to challenge her. His campaign weren't even fully staffed until December because it was a message campaign until it was apparent that there was a real chance to run away with the whole thing. The level of support Bernie got shocked the campaign and it simply didn't have the time to properly capitalize on the support quick enough or the time to execute on plans to court more demographics within the party, specifically blacks in the southern states.

And that doesn't even touch the fact that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were actively colluding to smear Bernie and drive him out of the race. The DNC was actively working with Clinton surrogates and the media to smear Bernie and stifle coverage. It's not an accident that the debates were place in ways to minimize viewership to. The DNC did that to put a stasis on Clinton's front runner status.

It's not a coincidence that Google, CNN, and NBC would always put superdelegates in the delegate totals. Every Primary, even the ones Bernie won would get reported as "Looks like Clinton is walking away tonight with 150 delegates, sanders with 50" even though Sanders would be walking away with most of the pledged delegates. The DNC wanted their friends in the media to report it that way because they knew it would confuse and discourge Bernie voters.

And having volunteer and worked for his campaign it did exactly that. Every single election I had to deal with a lot of Bernie voters who voted, and despite Bernie winning didn't understand why he walked away he walked away with barely any delegates and having to explain that superdelegates don't vote until the convention and that they don't really count. And people would always walk away feeling confused, upset and cheated. Even after our victories. When you see Bernie supporters saying the primary was rigged and that the DNC cheated, keep in mind that the DNC and Clinton campaigns, and mainstream news organizations allied with Clinton, deliberately distorted the perception of the primary results to cultivate that feeling.

It is absolutely insane. INSANE that the DNC let a candidate at unlikable as Hillary, who had an active FBI criminal investigation ongoing to even run in the race. The DNC new Hillary was going to have trouble in the GE and that she was an extremely risky, toxic candidate. It was absolutely in their right to put constant pressure on Hillary to leave the race when she was consistently pulling statistically tied to Trump in head to head match ups. And if they actually cared about protecting the country from a clown fascist they would have done exactly that.

Bernie walked away from the primary the most well liked and popular sitting senator with highs of 68% approval rating. And the convention wasn't even about him. Clinton consistently had a 35% approval rating and she peaked at a whopping 50% after the convention. And it quickly when back to her average 35% approval rating. That difference in likability alone would have made the difference. Yeah, Bernie's approval never suffered the full brunt of the Republican smear machine, but 60%+ approval is a much better place to start from than 35%.

And every Republican has painted every democrat as a communist socialist. Literally every election. They called Hillary Clinton a corrupt commie socialist every single day. Things work much better when your candidate isn't a mealy mouthed and scared of their own shadow who runs scared over the nasty names your opponents call you. It's why Trump's scandals had a hard time doing any real damage to him. Because he didn't run scared and go on an apology tour on all the news shows crying and saying he'll do better and how he let everyone down. Being called a socialist didn't hurt Bernie in the primary and it wouldn't have hurt him in the general because he didn't run away from it.
Good write-up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom