Support NeoGAF

[sugarhigh4242]

None of these factors explain why "The Most Qualified Candidate in History™" ran such a tight race with an inexperienced, racist game show host that these admittedly detrimental factors could be decisive.

Also, Washington Post recently provided some interesting info on the voters who switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016:

50 percent of Obama-Trump voters said their incomes are falling behind the cost of living, and another 31 percent said their incomes are merely keeping pace with the cost of living.

- A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30 percent — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump. Remember, these voters backed Obama four years earlier.

- 42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (Forty percent say that about congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rs-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.19c07cfbde40

But it was all russia and racists, I swear to god.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Just to clarify.

Is there actually any kind of reason why we can't talk about how a reopened FBI investigation about an issue the GOP have been attacking Hillary on for years, being raised and talked about non stop for an entire week before the voting booths opened, maybe having an effect on voters?

Is there an actual reason why a person can't make the assertion that those circumstances are extremely negative to a person's ability to be elected?

None of these factors explain why "The Most Qualified Candidate in History™" ran such a tight race with an inexperienced, racist game show host that these admittedly detrimental factors could be decisive.

Also, Washington Post recently provided some interesting info on the voters who switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rs-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.19c07cfbde40

But it was all russia and racists, I swear to god.

So you link to data showing that people would rather vote for a racist, misogynist, proven fraudster, admitted sexual assaulter, quite obvious liar, "Putin is not going into ukraine" Putin lover, KKK approved ignoramus because they wanted to vote against Hillary because she's.......pizza gate......... empty FBI investigation.......?

You link to data that shows people would rather vote for a guy who just put all his friends, family and big money donors into the highest cabinet positions, uses his golf club as a $200k "meet the prez" party, is known for not paying employees and just had to pay out a $25M settlement for defrauding desperate people out of their money with a fake university, because the believe the other candidate cares less about working people because.........of her lifetime of public service and charity work? What?

And you think none of that has to do with Trump or Russia?

Or the fact that she's been in the public GOP firing line for as long as most can remember?

People just feel that way, purely because Hillary is worse than all of the gutter creature behaviour that Trump is exhibited his whole life? It was just all her?

Okay.

 

[jackal27]

No Hillary, you failed because your message and your campaign lacked a narrative. People couldn't see themselves in your story or your vision.

Bernie's was easy to understand:
"The middle class is disappearing and we have to save it by stoping the super wealthy!"

Immediately there's a story there. It's clear. It's simple. You can understand the message and see yourself in it. You're Luke Skywalker, he's Obi Wan, the super rich are the Death Star.

Obama did an excellent job at this:
"Our economy is in shambles, we're in a war that we don't want, and America isn't cool anymore, we're the underdogs and everyone says we can't change, but yes we can!"

Boom. The old way of doing things has screwed things up so bad it looks like we're down and out, but together we CAN change this and make America awesome. Also, I'm inclined to think that the biggest villain in this case was racism, but no one really wants to talk about that. I certainly remember it being part of the narrative though. It certainly helped that McCain was an old war dude though. He was just the perfect incapacitation of everything Obama promised to fight against.

Trump had the same thing too:
"Your influence is disappearing and it's because of (insert scary racism here), we have to stop them and Make America Great Again!"

Once again, you're the main character, he's the badass who will guide you, and there is a bad guy to defeat in order to save the world. No matter how much of it was lies and how much an awful human being he is, it's solid marketing.

Branding is all about narrative. It's all about making people want to be part of something. Hillary failed at that on every level. What was he story? Don't be racist? Yeah ok thanks mom. Even though she was incredibly qualified, your average Joe couldn't relate to her or see themselves in her vision for the country and her narrative.

 

[Suikoguy]

Is there an actual reason why a person can't make the assertion that those circumstances are extremely negative to a person's ability to be elected?

Anything is possible with our lord and savior Bernie Sanders

 

[Gunblade47]

What I don't understand was why her supporters made enemies out of people that wanted economic transformation. I mean identity politics isn't a laughing matter but you have to admit that the gaps between the poor and the rich do affect groups that have been systematically discriminated against.

Families that can't possibly afford proper education or medical care for their children because they're working at minimum wage and are living paycheck to paycheck. I really wish her campaign and her higher up supporters would've put their money where their mouths were from the very start.

Economic transformation is just as important to me as social transformation. And since Sanders and Hillary both agreed on social issues during the election I threw my support to him.

She was just waiting for her shot after Obama won but forgot that that's not how democracy works at all.

Instead we now have a racist orange in a wig jumping from scandal to scandal whilst at the same time doing everything in his power to undo social and economic progress.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Top Democratic strategists that I assume run in the same circles as Hillary's team just put out a report saying she lost for different reasons. Who is giving Clinton advice? Wow.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Clinton shouldn't have been anywhere close to where she was by the time the Comey letter got leaked. This was supposed to be an easy race, they treated it like one... and it wasn't.

It would be deeply disingenuous to act like the Comey letter isn't the final reason Trump is in office right now. The win was too narrow, the swing after the letter too large. But her campaign did not function in a way that gave them the room they needed to weather scandals.

Given how early the e-mail scandal started, they needed to be built on deflecting scandal. Clinton herself is responsible for refusing to directly apologize early on. Robby Mook is responsible for running a lean campaign and using data in some fairly poor ways, even when they had far more spending power than their competitor.

The Comey letter is one checkbox of several major reasons the campaign failed. Relevant, absurd, and notably the final blow. But not any kind of singular reason that should let the instrumental parties in Hillary's campaign skirt their responsibility on losing a race against Donald fucking Trump. This is a guy who is undeniably unsuccessful at most of the things he's ever done in business, except for a book he didn't write and a reality TV show he was uniquely suited for but didn't create or run. And he managed to win the presidency of the United States of America.

The email scandal is an encapsulation of the problem with Clinton. She's an entitled, corrupted, and paranoid figure who thinks the rules don't apply to her. She's a Nixon Democrat. There's no stretching the facts here: the whole reason to conduct official state business on a privately hosted server is to skirt accountability. It's a fact that Clinton is deeply tied to corporate and foreign lobbyists. She had a private server to guarantee that no investigation would ever get access to her internal communications ("I wiped it with a cloth").

She's lucky the FBI found insufficient evidence to criminally prosecute, but the facts of the case still damn her already-suspect integrity. Comey's own statement was clear: "they [Clinton+staff] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.". Not exactly a glowing character endorsement.

 

[Iksenpets]

I don't disagree with anything she's saying, but I also don't think there's anything to be gained from her going out there and saying it. I get it, she got fucked over by the whims of history and wants to defend her reputation, but her reputation doesn't matter anymore. It's best for everyone if she just keeps her head down and lets the people who are going to succeed her in this fight take the reins from here.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

What I don't understand was why her supporters made enemies out of people that wanted economic transformation. I mean identity politics isn't a laughing matter but you have to admit that the gaps between the poor and the rich do affect groups that have been systematically discriminated against.

The Democratic party has been running against the New Deal since the establishment of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) in the 80s. The election of Bill Clinton put this faction into the driver's seat, and the results have been a disaster for the US working class.

If you want more info on the trajectory of the Democratic party, check out Thomas Frank:
http://inthesetimes.com/features/listen-liberal-thomas-frank-democratic-party-elites-inequality.html

 

[TestOfTide]

None of these factors explain why "The Most Qualified Candidate in History™" ran such a tight race with an inexperienced, racist game show host that these admittedly detrimental factors could be decisive.

Also, Washington Post recently provided some interesting info on the voters who switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rs-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.19c07cfbde40

But it was all russia and racists, I swear to god.

All that your study proves is that there were a lot of Trump voters who were mostly just voting against Hillary.

But yes Hillary had her fuck ups AS MANY OF HER FANS HAVE ALREADY ADMITTTED.

The difference is that you Jill Stein voters refuse to acknowledge the factors that weren't caused by Hillary.

The Democratic party has been running against the New Deal since the establishment of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) in the 80s. The election of Bill Clinton put this faction into the driver's seat, and the results have been a disaster for the US working class.

If you want more info on the trajectory of the Democratic party, check out Thomas Frank:
http://inthesetimes.com/features/listen-liberal-thomas-frank-democratic-party-elites-inequality.html

I like how you are so tone deaf that you are posting about Democrats supposedly being anti-new-deal when in the OT there is another thread about the GOP repealing a Democratic Healthcare Law that benefitted MILLIONS.

But then again you just want any excuse to spew more "both sides" nonsense.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

The email scandal is an encapsulation of the problem with Clinton. She's an entitled, corrupted, and paranoid figure who thinks the rules don't apply to her. She's a Nixon Democrat. There's no stretching the facts here: the whole reason to conduct official state business on a privately hosted server is to skirt accountability. It's a fact that Clinton is deeply tied to corporate and foreign lobbyists. She had a private server to guarantee that no investigation would ever get access to her internal communications ("I wiped it with a cloth").

She's lucky the FBI found insufficient evidence to criminally prosecute, but the facts of the case still damn her already-suspect integrity. Comey's own statement was clear: "they [Clinton+staff] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.". Not exactly a glowing character endorsement.

It was an exercise in hubris and wilful stupidity to coronate her in the first place.

 

[Suikoguy]

She's an entitled, corrupted, and paranoid figure who thinks the rules don't apply to her.

I'll give you paranoid, and considering her history I don't blame her for it. You need citations for the others. Good luck with the corrupted bit, that should be fun for you to provide evidence for.
Keep in mind it was SOP for private email at the time of her use, the rules were changed with Kerry.

 

[EatinOlives]

I'll give you paranoid, and considering her history I don't blame her for it. You need citations for the others. Good luck with the corrupted bit, that should be fun for you to provide evidence for.

"She's lucky they didn't find any evidence of corruption because I'll have you know that she's totally corrupt based on the evidence that the FBI didn't find!"

It's sugarhigh, expect no evidence.

 

[Fast Forward]

Look, these things clearly played a role, but at the end of the day, she was lousy canadite with a lot of problems, including high unlikables, and people rather have the fake "man of the people" over the fake estashliment canadite.

Democrats backed the wrong candiate, and I can see the corpate wing of the party has learned nothing from the election of this con man.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

The email scandal is an encapsulation of the problem with Clinton. She's an entitled, corrupted, and paranoid figure who thinks the rules don't apply to her. She's a Nixon Democrat. There's no stretching the facts here: the whole reason to conduct official state business on a privately hosted server is skirt accountability. It's a fact that Clinton is deeply tied to corporate and foreign lobbyists. She had a private server to guarantee that no investigate would ever get access to her internal communications ("I wiped it with a cloth").

She's lucky the FBI found insufficient evidence to criminally prosecute, but the facts of the case still damn her already-suspect integrity. Comey's own statement was clear: "they [Clinton+staff] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.". Not exactly a glowing character endorsement.

Regarding the first highlighted passage: Trump is president.

Regarding the second highlighted passage: Admitting on tape to sexual assault, being on trial for fraud, being endorsed by the KKK and being mocked by basically every decent world leader prior to election is not exactly a glowing character endorsement either.

This election shows that how good you are as a person doesn't matter. How good a character you are doesn't matter. What you know about anything to do with governi g doesn't matter.

Just lie. Lie lie lie. It helps if you're a salesman by trade aka Trump. Just lie.

You want coal jobs? Okay sure.

You want manufacturing jobs? Okay sure.

You want less cronyism and elites running the show? Okay sure. (Lmao)

Hillary will be locked up.

Instead of not lying to desperate people about the realities the real world will put them through and the realistic steps they will need to take to survive, all I keep hearing is that Hillary basically didn't lie enough to the desperate rust belt populace.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

The email scandal is an encapsulation of the problem with Clinton. She's an entitled, corrupted, and paranoid figure who thinks the rules don't apply to her. She's a Nixon Democrat. There's no stretching the facts here: the whole reason to conduct official state business on a privately hosted server is to skirt accountability. It's a fact that Clinton is deeply tied to corporate and foreign lobbyists. She had a private server to guarantee that no investigation would ever get access to her internal communications ("I wiped it with a cloth").

She's lucky the FBI found insufficient evidence to criminally prosecute, but the facts of the case still damn her already-suspect integrity. Comey's own statement was clear: "they [Clinton+staff] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.". Not exactly a glowing character endorsement.

Truth. Dems can and should do better. Granted they did w/ Obama and Republicans still hated his ass. But that's no excuse to have fundamentally flawed candidates like Clinton.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

I like how you are so tone deaf that you are posting about Democrats supposedly being anti-new-deal when in the OT there is another thread about the GOP repealing a Democratic Healthcare Law that benefitted MILLIONS.

But then again you just want any excuse to spew more "both sides" nonsense.

The Affordable Care Act is not a New Deal [Keynesian, Social Democratic] program. It's a neoliberal handout to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. It mandates that people buy shitty consumer-driven (read: low premium, high deductible) healthcare plans, in exchange for ending some utterly monstrous business practices (pre-existing conditions).

I'll defend the ACA against GOP repeal because it is an improvement over the scandalous pre-2008 status quo. That doesn't change the fact that it is a lousy set of reforms, totally disconnected from the New Deal tradition.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Truth. Dems can and should do better. Granted they did w/ Obama and Republicans still hated his ass. But that's no excuse to have fundamentally flawed candidates like Clinton.

I will agree that O waa nervous when I heard Hillary was running, just because all the Hillary hate in general.

There was a lot of baggage, and we know that den candidates can't even survive unscathed in their own party unless they're squeaky clean, let alone have natuonal support.

 

[Shadow Puppetry]

But your emails, Hillary
YOUR
EMAILSSSSSS

 

[EatinOlives]

But your emails, Hillary
YOUR
EMAILSSSSSS

There's people unironically doing exactly this. They'll have it written on their tombstones when they die in 2060.

 

[Stinkles]

Trump's ad against the Central Park Five covers it 100%. Dude is racist as fuck. All further evidence is bonus rounds.

Or when he was forced to settle for racist housing policy as one of his first "deals?"

 

[TestOfTide]

The Affordable Care Act is not a New Deal [Keynesian, Social Democratic] program. It's a neoliberal handout to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry.

Is that why MILLIONS of people are at risk of LOSING healthcare coverage if the repeal gets signed into law, liar?

It mandates that people buy shitty consumer-driven (read: low premium, high deductible) healthcare plans, in exchange for ending some utterly monstrous business practices (pre-existing conditions).

Not just "in exchange". The mandate was NEEDED. We NEED to have healthy people buying insurance to drive down the cost of healthcare? Or did you forget how risk pools work?

I'll defend the ACA against GOP repeal because it is an improvement over the scandalous pre-2008 status quo. That doesn't change the fact that it is a lousy set of reforms, totally disconnected from the New Deal tradition.

Look I'm not saying the ACA is perfect, but it is a HUGE step in the right direction. In the end what matters isn't whether or not the health care is 100% socialized. What matters is that everyone who needs healthcare is covered when they need it. You can't achieve that without a mandate because you need the heathy low risk participants to drive down the overall costs.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Nobody's asking for that.

After a disaster like Trump's victory, it's time to take a cold hard look at what your side did wrong. Deflecting all criticism as "well, Trump is worse!" helps no one. I assume all of us, except for a handful, agree that Trump winning was worse. Going through a list of why he's worse doesn't accomplish anything for figuring out where to go next.

That's exactly what I was talking about.

People berate Hillary for proposing realistic ways to get the rust belt up and running, because it didn't energise them I the same way that Trump just telling them they can have everything and do anything.

So let's talk then.

Aside from just letting time prove Trump to be a liar, how do dems get more efficient at winning over people who are being lied to about what the lifelong fraud salesman of a GOP candidate is telling them?

Because unless we truly believe coal is all of a sudden going to be dug with shovels and cars will be built by blacksmiths, the only way to combat people who want to swallow lies because it feels better, is to tell even more grand lies.

 

[Fast Forward]

One of many factors, definitely.

However - if the Dems want to win, they can't rely on this. The fact that an intervening event tipped the election to Trump of all candidates (and in the process, losing states like PA and OH) shows that the Dems need to learn other lessons from 2016.

This.

If Hillary was a good candidate, she should beat a con man like Trump by a wide margin, a la Obama 08. Instead, she lost to said con man.

Corporate Democrats can blame things like Russia until their blue in the face, but at the end of the day, Hillary sucked as a candidate.

 

[ElFly]

That's exactly what I was talking about.

People berate Hillary for proposing realistic ways to get the rust belt up and running, because it didn't energise them I the same way that Trump just telling them they can have everything and do anything.

So let's talk then.

Aside from just letting time prove Trump to be a liar, how do dems get more efficient at winning over people who are being lied to about what the lifelong fraud salesman of a GOP candidate is telling them?

Because unless we truly believe coal is all of a sudden going to be dug with shovels and cars will be built by blacksmiths, the only way to combat people who want to swallow lies because it feels better, is to tell even more grand lies.

maybe actually showing up to the rust belt and then proposing realistic ways of getting it up and running would have worked

but alas, the russian hackers

 

[Unison]

I don't for a second believe that Hillary making a few more public appearances in purple states would have flipped things.

 

[Auto_aim1]

You should have beaten Trump even if the entire world hacked the DNC. Losing to Trump is disgraceful and you let the US down.

You lost to a guy who spent 60% less money than you, had almost no print and online media endorsements, didn't have full support of his party, bragged about sexual harassment and got millions of women votes, thousands of working class democrat votes in blue firewall states, and 70% of evangelical votes. You lost to a guy who can't string two coherent sentences together and is a racist man-child and a know-nothing salesman.

Constantly attending fundraisers in NY and California doesn't guarantee a 400 electoral vote landslide like you and your campaign were dreaming about. How about aiming for 270 first?

Watching the interview, I feel bad for you because you are extremely qualified but stunningly managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I bet Obama facepalmed hard when watching the results and if this AHCA passes, guess what? You totally screwed him and 24 million people. It's all on you.

I guess I'm being a bit harsh because it could have easily gone the other way if there was bit more increased turnout in PA, WI, and MI but whatever. Anyway, congratulations on being the first woman presidential nominee of a major party and winning the popular vote by a huge margin. Here's your trophy.

 

[TestOfTide]

Nobody's asking for that.

After a disaster like Trump's victory, it's time to take a cold hard look at what your side did wrong. Deflecting all criticism as "well, Trump is worse!" helps no one. I assume all of us, except for a handful, agree that Trump winning was worse. Going through a list of why he's worse doesn't accomplish anything for figuring out where to go next.

Trust me, most of the Dems have been fairly open to constructive criticism. Hillary-GAF is very receptive to admitting that Hillary was arrogant to not go to Wisconsin at all.

The problem is when you have certain people who are using Hillary's loss and trying to claim that ALL democrats have the same weaknesses as Hillary.

And as others have pointed, while the rust belt and rural areas all swung towards Trump, the suburban areas had a shitload of Romney Hillary voters. That's important because if that kind of suburban trend continues, Dems could potentially take back control by just maximizing suburban votes.

maybe actually showing up to the rust belt and then proposing realistic ways of getting it up and running would have worked

but alas, the russian hackers

On democrats needing to actually show up in more places, agreed.

But you can't dismiss the Russia issue, because the Russia issue is very much tied to the fake news problem that is getting worse and, in my opinion, causing a sort of right-wing psychosis where a portion of the population literally REFUSES to take in any facts that don't fit into their bigoted assumptions.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

maybe actually showing up to the rust belt and then proposing realistic ways of getting it up and running would have worked

but alas, the russian hackers

If they didn't want to hear about how coal wasn't coming back and how machines are taking over skilled factory jobs, why would it motivate them to hear it in a rally?

Like I said, the lies Trump told felt better.

How does she combat the lie of the promised land they've been waiting for and feel they deserve?

 

[Unison]

You should have beaten Trump even if the entire world hacked the DNC. Losing to Trump is disgraceful and you let the US down.

You lost to a guy who spent 60% less money than you, had almost no print and online media endorsements, didn't have full support of his party, bragged about sexual harassment and got millions of women votes, thousands of working class democrat votes in blue firewall states, and 70% of evangelical votes. You lost to a guy who can't string two coherent sentences together and is a racist man-child and a know-nothing salesman.

Constantly attending fundraisers in NY and California doesn't guarantee a 400 electoral vote landslide like you and your campaign were dreaming about. How about aiming for 270 first?

Watching the interview, I feel bad for you because you are extremely qualified but stunningly managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I bet Obama facepalmed hard when watching the results and if this AHCA passes, guess what? You totally screwed him and 24 million people. It's all on you.

I guess I'm being a bit harsh because it could have easily gone the other way if there was bit more increased turnout in PA, WI, and MI but whatever. Anyway, congratulations on being the first woman presidential nominee of a major party and winning the popular vote by a huge margin. Here's your trophy.

Get real. A Democrat hasn't followed up a Democrat for the presidency in ages...

This was no slam dunk.

Racism and misogyny (stoked by media coverage and the Russian interference) were probably bigger factors than the Comey letter, but it's asinine to act like the campaign was hopeless. She got 3 million more votes.

 

[Suikoguy]

I don't for a second believe that Hillary making a few more public appearances in purple states would have flipped things.

Yeah, it's a notion that is constantly brought up, but it's entirely based on conjecture.
It did nothing for her in Florida. Plus it ignores all of the very strong surrogates (Bill, Obama, etc) Hillary had, that Trump did not.

 

[Kyzer]

"Heres why I voted for Trump. I voted for Obama twice and I dont really support the questionable stuff about him but I dont have a choice, I really dislike Hillary and my state is mostly manufacturing jobs."

"No, youre a racist. Youre knowingly voting for the KKK endorsed candidate, so you can fuck right off with that bullshit, and no, I will not be nice its time to call a spade a spade. By the way. How could you even think that theres something wrong with Hillary, could you give an actual specific example? Dont worry ill wait. Let me guess. Herp derp emails!? Get a life. Fucking racist."

"Ok." *Votes Trump 2020*

 

[D4Danger]

I don't for a second believe that Hillary making a few more public appearances in purple states would have flipped things.

it's that arrogance that loses you elections.

 

[ElFly]

I don't for a second believe that Hillary making a few more public appearances in purple states would have flipped things.

the defeat margin -I mean, voter difference in the states trump flipped- is so small that this is a weird position to take. wisconsin would have been blue if clinton had flipped 12000 trump voters

and the whole "cannot be flipped" mentality is super weird. before the election, everyone called this "the blue wall", which, conversely, could not be flipped red. we laughed at trump for even trying, but, stupidly, clinton let him run that campaign with little opposition there

Trust me, most of the Dems have been fairly open to constructive criticism. Hillary-GAF is very receptive to admitting that Hillary was arrogant to not go to Wisconsin at all.

The problem is when you have certain people who are using Hillary's loss and trying to claim that ALL democrats have the same weaknesses as Hillary.

dunno about ALL, but a lot of them do. after all, it was not only a presidential defeat. The republicans now control the senate and the house. Granted, those defeats did not happen only in the last election, but maybe they are not wholly separate issues. the problems with the democratic party are not limited to Clinton's defeat. that's only the most visible -and maybe not even the worst- part. I mean, things would not be so bad if Trump had won but the democrats had control of the House or the Senate

but we attack Clinton cause she is not only the most visible part, but because she reappears and refuses to help point to the real problems, and tries to appear apologetic while also shifting blame

fuck that

On democrats needing to actually show up in more places, agreed.

But you can't dismiss the Russia issue, because the Russia issue is very much tied to the fake news problem that is getting worse and, in my opinion, causing a sort of right-wing psychosis where a portion of the population literally REFUSES to take in any facts that don't fit into their bigoted assumptions.

that happened with Obama too and yet Obama won. twice

sure, the problem _may_ have been exacerbated, but again, this was not a problem with Hillary's campaign. again, this is just deflecting blame

 

[Unison]

"Heres why I voted for Trump. I voted for Obama twice and I dont really support the questionable stuff about him but I dont have a choice, I really dislike Hillary and my state is mostly manufacturing jobs."

"No, youre a racist. Youre knowingly voting for the KKK endorsed candidate, so you can fuck right off with that bullshit, and no, I will not be nice its time to call a spade a spade. By the way. How could you even think that theres something wrong with Hillary, could you give an actual specific example? Dont worry ill wait. Let me guess. Herp derp emails!? Get a life. Fucking racist."

"Ok." *Votes Trump 2020*

I think Democrats are better off fighting voter suppression and trying to turn out apathetic leftists than trying to convince Trump voters (who still support him at something like a 94% rate).

 

[Auto_aim1]

Get real. A Democrat hasn't followed up a Democrat for the presidency in ages...

This was no slam dunk.

Racism and misogyny (stoked by media coverage and the Russian interference) were probably bigger factors than the Comey letter, but it's asinine to act like the campaign was hopeless. She got 3 million more votes.

Okay? But that doesn't change the fact that she lost to friggin Trump.

 

[Suikoguy]

it's that arrogance that loses you elections.

If anything, it was their seemingly 100% reliance on their data.
Which looked like things were going swimmingly, until Comey and then the numbers tanked.

Data is important, but you can't put that much reliance on it. You have to plan some for contingencies.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Is that why MILLIONS of people are at risk of LOSING healthcare coverage if the repeal gets signed into law, liar?

MILLIONS of people are at risk because the ACA substantially expanded medicaid to poor people. That's easily the best part of the program, and the main reason to support it. But that "poverty program" character of the reform is exactly what makes it a break from the New Deal: it sets up a class conflict. The right can (correctly) tell middle class voters that their tax dollars are going to help poor (*cough* non-white, probably illegal *cough*) strangers while the rest of you (*cough* good, hard working christian white people *cough*) have to pay out of pocket. This is not only bad policy, it's also bad politics.

Not just "in exchange". The mandate was NEEDED. We NEED to have healthy people buying insurance to drive down the cost of healthcare? Or did you forget how risk pools work?

"Needed" (according to Obama apologists) only because the ACA preserves the primacy of the odious health insurance industry. A single-payer program would not have this defect. Also, since you want to call people liars, maybe you have something to say to Senator Obama about the necessity of the mandate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ

Look I'm not saying the ACA is perfect, but it is a HUGE step in the right direction. In the end what matters isn't whether or not the health care is 100% socialized. What matters is that everyone who needs healthcare is covered when they need it. You can't achieve that without a mandate because you need the heathy low risk participants to drive down the overall costs.

It does matter that healthcare is socialized, because the private health insurance industry is the majority of the problem. They contribute almost nothing to the delivery of healthcare, and they take a huge portion of the profits.

The ACA does nothing to weaken the power of the health insurance industry, which is why they supported it. In contrast with his campaign pledge to "have all the negotiations around a big table, televised on C-SPAN", Obama held secret meetings with healthcare executives shortly after taking office (liar?).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110998462
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101701810.html

 

[Unison]

it's that arrogance that loses you elections.

Hillary herself admits the campaign made mistake, so my opinions are irrelevant (especially since I'm not even a Democrat).

I think her "deplorables" comment is frankly the biggest mistake she made during the campaign.

 

[EatinOlives]

"Heres why I voted for Trump. I voted for Obama twice and I dont really support the questionable stuff about him but I dont have a choice, I really dislike Hillary and my state is mostly manufacturing jobs."

"No, youre a racist. Youre knowingly voting for the KKK endorsed candidate, so you can fuck right off with that bullshit, and no, I will not be nice its time to call a spade a spade. By the way. How could you even think that theres something wrong with Hillary, could you give an actual specific example? Dont worry ill wait. Let me guess. Herp derp emails!? Get a life. Fucking racist."

"Ok." *Votes Trump 2020*

I don't know that having conversatioms you made up in your head make for a decent argument, but hey you do you.

 

[Unison]

the defeat margin -I mean, voter difference in the states trump flipped- is so small that this is a weird position to take. wisconsin would have been blue if clinton had flipped 12000 trump voters

and the whole "cannot be flipped" mentality is super weird. before the election, everyone called this "the blue wall", which, conversely, could not be flipped red. we laughed at trump for even trying, but, stupidly, clinton let him run that campaign with little opposition there

Wisconsin wouldn't have won her the election.

 

[Suikoguy]

Hillary herself admits the campaign made mistake, so my opinions are irrelevant (especially since I'm not even a Democrat).

I think her "deplorables" comment is frankly the biggest mistake she made during the campaign.

It was 100% correct, about half of Trump voters are deplorables.

It got morphed into all Trump voters, which is a risk you take making that kind of comment.

She was running a "High Road" campaign, on the better nature of humans. It failed.

 

[Kyzer]

Hillary herself admits the campaign made mistake, so my opinions are irrelevant (especially since I'm not even a Democrat).

I think her "deplorables" comment is frankly the biggest mistake she made during the campaign.

I think that was big but it probably just invigorated an already existing Trump supporting base. Her biggest mistake was probably saying shit like "were gonna put a lot of coal miners out of work!" And then instead of clarifying, campaigning in those states saying the complete opposite, that she was gonna bring back those jobs too. Losing people who voted for obama twice and that made a losing difference is her biggest sin imo.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Okay? But that doesn't change the fact that she lost to friggin Trump.

Friggin Trump got more votes than the last two Republican candidates.

What Trump did was tap into America's racist well in a capacity that no other Republican candidate before him was able to do.

You say, "friggin Trump," without acknowledging that he was very successful at that goal, and he is still successful at that goal, which is why it is very likely he will win in 2020.

Given all the harm that "friggen Trump" has done already, his supporters are still backing him hard. "Friggen Trump" is good at giving his base red meat. He is the most qualified Republican candidate in years at accomplishing that goal. Just you calling him "friggen Trump" doesn't change the fact that he was clearly more electable to a lot of Americans than previous Republican candidates because he is "friggen Trump."

 

[Gunblade47]

It was 100% correct, about half of Trump voters are deplorables.

It got morphed into all Trump voters, which is a risk you take making that kind of comment.

She was running a "High Road" campaign, on the better nature of humans. It failed.

It was as much of a risk as shooting yourself in the foot is considered a risk.

 

[Rentahamster]

I don't for a second believe that Hillary making a few more public appearances in purple states would have flipped things.

Maybe, maybe not. But it would have helped. I mean honestly, campaigning is a zero sum game. Were the things she did in lieu of going to places like WI really that much better use of her time?

It sounds like excuse making to my ears. I'm more inclined to lean towards President Obama's understanding of it, because as we all know, he knows how to win, and he's a proven winner. He has more credibility to me.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-press-conference-of-the-trump-era-annotated/

I believe that we have better ideas. But I also believe that good ideas don't matter if people don't hear them. And one of the issues the Democrats have to be clear on is the given population distribution across the country. We have to compete everywhere. We have to show up everywhere. We have to work at a grassroots level, something that's been a running thread in my career.

I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win Iowa. It was because I spent 87 days going to every small town and fair and fish fry and BFW Hall, and there were some counties where I might have lost, but maybe I lost by 20 points instead of 50 points. There's some counties maybe I won, that people didn't expect, because people had a chance to see you and listen to you and get a sense of who you stood for and who you were fighting for.

 

[TestOfTide]

that happened with Obama too and yet Obama won. twice

sure, the problem _may_ have been exacerbated, but again, this was not a problem with Hillary's campaign. again, this is just deflecting blame

Nope. Obama did NOT have to face the same amount of fake news as Hillary did. Fake News has only become such a pervasive problem within the last 3 years.

MILLIONS of people are at risk because the ACA substantially expanded medicaid to poor people. That's easily the best part of the program, and the main reason to support it.

But there are MILLIONS of people who get ACA coverage outside of Medicaid.

But that "poverty program" character of the reform is exactly what makes it a break from the New Deal: it sets up a class conflict. The right can (correctly) tell middle class voters that their tax dollars are going to help poor (*cough* non-white, probably illegal *cough*) strangers while the rest of you (*cough* good, hard working christian white people *cough*) have to pay out of pocket. This is not only bad policy, it's also bad politics.

While that message was working for a while, recent polls about the ACA show that tactic is losing huge ground because more and more people are learning how they have benefitted from the ACA.

"Needed" (according to Obama apologists) only because the ACA preserves the primacy of the odious health insurance industry. A single-payer program would not have this defect. Also, since you want to call people liars, maybe you have something to say to Senator Obama about the necessity of the mandate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ

Except that video is not Obama saying he is AGAINST a mandate. It is just him saying that a mandate alone is not enough.

The mandate is needed. Without it, too many healthy people will just refuse to buy insurance, which would drive up the costs for everyone.

And do you not realize that single payer would include a mandate?

It does matter that healthcare is socialized, because the private health insurance industry is the majority of the problem. They contribute almost nothing to the delivery of healthcare, and they take a huge portion of the profits.

Luckily the ACA had a portion that said insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of their revenue on healthcare.

But again, not all of the US's healthcare problems are caused by insurance companies. Healthy people refusing to buy insurance is not caused by insurance companies. The western world's shortage of doctors and other healthcare workers is not caused by the insurance companies.

The ACA does nothing to weaken the power of the health insurance industry, which is why they supported it.

BS. The ACA:

- Told Insurance companies how much of their revenue HAS TO go towards healthcare
- Told insurance companies they have to allow parents to keep their kids on their insurance at least until age 26
- banned discrimination based on pre-existing conditions
- mandated that insurance companies cover all EHBs

just off the top of my head.

In contrast with his campaign pledge to "have all the negotiations around a big table, televised on C-SPAN", Obama held secret meetings with healthcare executives shortly after taking office (liar?).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110998462
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101701810.html

How is it a bad thing for Obama to be talking with the healthcare industry? Would you rather Obama NOT ask those that might have some knowledge of some of the things that contribute to the cost of healthcare?

And the negotiations were fairly transparent. We just had an actual display these past few days of what it looks like when negotiations are NOT transparent.

 

[Kyzer]

Nope. Obama did NOT have to face the same amount of fake news as Hillary did. Fake News has only become such a pervasive problem within the last 3 years.

I mean I agree Hillary has had the most but I distinctly remember Obama being the muslim kenyan antichrist.

 

[ElFly]

Wisconsin wouldn't have won her the election.

and that makes ok not campaigning there?

Nope. Obama did NOT have to face the same amount of fake news as Hillary did. Fake News has only become such a pervasive problem within the last 3 years.

shrug. I mean, Clinton did not have to produce her own birth certificate to prove she was american in the first place

but whatever. this once more is shifting blame from yasss queen

 

[Rentahamster]

Nope. Obama did NOT have to face the same amount of fake news as Hillary did. Fake News has only become such a pervasive problem within the last 3 years.

Ehh, he got it pretty bad. So did John Kerry. Just because it wasn't a hashtag yet, doesn't mean fake news didn't exist.