Support NeoGAF

[KO Traveling Hobo]

For God's sake can you at least spell the name of the FBI director right?

Jim Cummie?

 

[Permanently A]

I can't believe some people are still using the "Crooked Hillary" excuse. Please, please point me to the smoking gun already on this because 30 years of investigations and outright fucking smear campaigns run through every form of media available hasn't found it.

Trump on the other hand has actually been found guilty of fucking corruption on more than one occasion. He got a free pass though. Why? Sexism? It's kind of hard to doubt it.

the perception of clinton is that she is crooked. this election was not about facts.

 

[Lord Fagan]

Also nobody in this thread mentioned Bernie!

Man it's a shame one candidate didn't just run on a detailed platform of various action plans to improve the lives of various marginalized groups

...Wait, were you talking about Gary Johnson, then?

 

[benjipwns]

...Wait, were you talking about Gary Johnson, then?

Rocky "Roque" De La Fuente

 

[Jumplion]

Bernie made his case for his "economic message"(I don't buy that there was ever a moment where his message was any less tailored for minorities than any group, not do I believe there's somehow some separation between "economics" and the two) and minorities, and that's why he stayed younger folks and many black leftist groups.

It's not that economic issues are "separate" from minority concerns. The problem with the message is that it only takes you so far. Taxing the "top .1% of 1%" more fairly and being hard on Wall Street doesn't address police brutality, it doesn't address pay inequality, it doesn't address the criminal justice system or the school-to-prison pipeline, gender/LGBT/race discrimination, or even how we should specifically implement taxes on Wall Street, let alone how the fuck he could do that with the Republican congress. If he wants to be a player in the DNC, he needs to acknowledge this weakness and address it.

He had his policies on those, just like Hilary did, but whereas Hilary's policies were mostly ignored for her emails, Bernie always defaulted to the single message to where, at least personally, I never knew what his stances were on other issues. Hell, I don't even know if he did a good job as Vermont's senator. Legitimate question, what did he do as a senator? Because not even Bernie really talks about it much outside the fact that he was elected their senator multiple times, so, cool?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It's not that economic issues are "separate" from minority concerns. The problem with the message is that it only takes you so far. Taxing the "top .1% of 1%" more fairly and being hard on Wall Street doesn't address police brutality, it doesn't address pay inequality, it doesn't address the criminal justice system or the school-to-prison pipeline, gender/LGBT/race discrimination, or even how we should specifically implement taxes on Wall Street, let alone how the fuck he could do that with the Republican congress. If he wants to be a player in the DNC, he needs to acknowledge this weakness and address it.

He had his policies on those, just like Hilary did, but whereas Hilary's policies were mostly ignored for her emails, Bernie always defaulted to the single message to where, at least personally, I never knew what his stances were on other issues. Hell, I don't even know if he did a good job as Vermont's senator. Legitimate question, what did he do as a senator? Because not even Bernie really talks about it much outside the fact that he was elected their senator multiple times, so, cool?

This election was entirely about Bernie's single issue though. The Rust Belt didn't swing to Trump because they were all racists and xenophobes. It swung because Trump was out there talking about "Making America Great Again" and by that he meant bring back jobs and economic opportunity for the people who were left behind by the great neoliberal order.

Ultimately in politics, your goal is first to obtain power and then afterwards figure out what you can do with it. Trump didn't even expect to win, and going into election night he was expecting to give a concession speech. But now he has power and he can figure out what to do after, no big deal. Hillary spent all her time thinking about what she was going to do once she finally obtained power and completely forgot about the process which gets her to that point first. So really none of your concerns are actually valid now that Trump is President when you think about it. Worry about what Bernie or Hillary could or could not have done after they got power. Because now you have nothing, only Trump.

 

[guek]

I want to say that I heard everywhere that both candidates were bad and shouldn't be running. A whole lot of apathy. I imagine this is why a lot of people didn't bother voting.

Obama was down a little under 5 million votes in 2012 vs 2008. Before that, the last time the elected president failed to garner more votes than the winner of the previous election was in '92 when Bill Clinton got about 4 million less votes than Bush in '88 who got almost 6 million less votes than Reagen when he was re-elected in '84.

That Clinton was unable to grow her electorate from Obama in '12 who was already down almost 5 million votes from the prior election should tell you something about the lack of enthusiasm this year and the growing weakness of the Democratic party over the last 8 years.

 

[Jumplion]

This election was entirely about Bernie's single issue though. The Rust Belt didn't swing to Trump because they were all racists and xenophobes. It swung because Trump was out there talking about "Making America Great Again" and by that he meant bring back jobs and economic opportunity for the people who were left behind by the great neoliberal order.

Ultimately in politics, your goal is first to obtain power and then afterwards figure out what you can do with it. Trump didn't even expect to win, and going into election night he was expecting to give a concession speech. But now he has power and he can figure out what to do after, no big deal. Hillary spent all her time thinking about what she was going to do once she finally obtained power and completely forgot about the process which gets her to that point first. So really none of your concerns are actually valid now that Trump is President when you think about it. Worry about what Bernie or Hillary could or could not have done after they got power. Because now you have nothing, only Trump.

Oh for sure, I was mostly talking about Bernie's lack of traction with minority voters back in the primaries. If Bernie focused too much on his one talking point, Hilary didn't focus enough on that talking point.

And your point on getting power first before figuring out what to do is something the left/liberals need to realize (and I'm among them, I realize the irony of my previous post with this one). I've said before, while the left will infight over every little thing to make sure their ideals are being met, and are being met the "correct way", the right/conservatives will accept the strangest bedfellows so long as it gets them closer to what they want. It's why nothing gets fucking done with the Democrats, it's always infighting and scrutinizing everything, and if the candidate is not good enough in any way ("Hilary supports $12 minimum wage instead of $15" is an actual reason I've been given to not support her) it's "compromising my ideals" instead of accepting that reality is flawed.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Bernie gave a passionate speech against the crime bill, and gave "intersectional" reasons as to why the bill would harm black Americans more than any other race (which is funng because Gaf constantly attacked him for not being "intersectional" enough).
Of course I believe that Bernie should have sat it out, and I also believe that being from Vermont meant Bernie had much less pressure than Hillary to vote for the bill which meant he could grandstand as he did, hence why I don't hold it against Clinton as much as others (not that Clinton had a vote, but she was integral in the bill).

Bernie ran previous Senate campaigns using his vote on the crime bill to prove he was tough on crime. Like actively touted his vote on it as a great thing in 2006.

https://web.archive.org/web/20061018180921/http:/www.bernie.org/truth/crime.html

 

[Neoweee]

It's not rocket science, the electorate wanted change (in whatever form it was present on the ballot). HRC is as establishment as it gets, Trump wasn't. If they want to hire a bunch of consultants to tell them what they wanna hear: "It was the Comey letter", "It was the Russians!", "The message just wasn't communicated correctly!" they might as well burn the money.

Those reasons should be listed, though. You shouldn't lie to the donors.

A 0.7% swing changes the result of the election. There's a ton of things were that.

 

[geomon]

the perception of clinton is that she is crooked. this election was not about facts.

I know but I'm talking about this specific thread. People here should know better. This shit has been fact checked on here for years now and here it is, still popping like a fucking zit that won't ever go away.

 

[Aaron]

Clinton was perceived as crooked not just because of bad media but also because there was nothing else to perceive her as. She had no message and no identity other than she was a woman and one time first lady. Because she didn't put forth who she was in a simple and clear way, the Republicans were allowed to fill that void.

 

[Camp Freddie]

Those reasons should be listed, though. You shouldn't lie to the donors.

A 0.7% swing changes the result of the election. There's a ton of things were that.

This is one of the problems with a post-mortem.
There are lots and lots of things that could've swung 1% of the vote and won it for her.

I worry that the Democrats are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater as they attempt to rebuild everything from scratch due to the "catastrophic loss".

It's catastrophic because she lost to Trump, but she didn't lose by a catastrophic margin. The democrats just need to campaign a bit smarter. They don't need a particularly radical change. Just motivate some 'neutral' working class people to vote in the rust belt. There's no need to throw minorities or city-dwelling liberals under the bus to do that.

Compare this to my country, where our Prime Minister has no electoral or manifesto mandate beyond "Brexit won by a tiny margin", and yet the polls suggest she's gained a swing of over 5% because the opposition have been riddled with infighting and a hard-left leadership shift.

The Democrats just need to survive for 4 years and Trump's failed promises will see his support drop. His message focused on attacking Obama/Clinton policies. He'll have a hard time defending his own. Their message should be "Trump is failing to live up to his promises and this is how we can fix it".

 

[Breads]

She got more support than any republican in history ever had.

And we're doing a post mortem on her.

Fuck the EC.

 

[Sapiens]

Here's the conclusion: "Jesus Christ, what were we thinking?"

 

[Neoweee]

This is one of the problems with a post-mortem.
There are lots and lots of things that could've swung 1% of the vote and won it for her.

I worry that the Democrats are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater as they attempt to rebuild everything from scratch due to the "catastrophic loss".

It's catastrophic because she lost to Trump, but she didn't lose by a catastrophic margin. The democrats just need to campaign a bit smarter. They don't need a particularly radical change. Just motivate some 'neutral' working class people to vote in the rust belt. There's no need to throw minorities or city-dwelling liberals under the bus to do that.

Compare this to my country, where our Prime Minister has no electoral or manifesto mandate beyond "Brexit won by a tiny margin", and yet the polls suggest she's gained a swing of over 5% because the opposition have been riddled with infighting and a hard-left leadership shift.

The Democrats just need to survive for 4 years and Trump's failed promises will see his support drop. His message focused on attacking Obama/Clinton policies. He'll have a hard time defending his own. Their message should be "Trump is failing to live up to his promises and this is how we can fix it".

Yeah. My big concern is that an overreaction will be far worse than no reaction. In 2004, Democrats responded by throwing LGBT causes under the bus. Will the reaction to 2016 be throwing minorities under the bus in favor of rural white people? I hope not.

How many issues were unique to 2016? How many issues were unique to Hillary/Trump?

Some unique things, perhaps:
- Essentially no media coverage of policy.
- Billion+ Dollars of free advertising for a freakshow candidate.
- Primary opponent that stayed in three months after he loss and stirred up a lot of lingering animosity that remained stocked by various hacks.
- Anti-establishment backlash?
- Female candidate & lingering sexism?
- More overtly racist Republican candidate?

Lots going on that isn't a simple "reallocate spending / tweak message" fix.

She got more support than any republican in history ever had.

And we're doing a post mortem on her.

Fuck the EC.

Them are the rules, unfortunately. White people matter more in our presidential system, so one of the big takeaways will have to be "Government needs to focus more on White People!" which is completely laughable but also really, really sad.

 

[The Technomancer]

EDIT: Nope not doing it

 

[Father_Brain]

One of the major subtexts I've picked up from reports like Politico's Michigan post-mortem from earlier this week is that Clinton seems to fatally overlearned the lessons of her 2008 campaign - having infamously been undermined by turf wars and petty squabbling eight years ago (remember Patti Solis Doyle? Mark Penn?), here she centralized everything around Brooklyn and the Mook/Kriegel data-driven operation to an extreme degree. That might have worked anyway, save for the tiny problem that the data they were and the key assumptions around it (i.e., that in-person persuasion doesn't work) was very, very bad.

In other words, her campaign ended up being run out of a rigid thought bubble that was completely impervious to acknowledging the depths of her unpopularity, the extent to which this would be a change election, or generally anything happening on the ground that might challenge Mook and Kriegel's assumptions of what the race was supposed to look like. This is also how you end up with garbage messaging like "I'm With Her" and "America Is Already Great."

This doesn't, of course, address the problems with the candidate herself, but it's a large part of what went wrong.

Clinton was perceived as crooked not just because of bad media but also because there was nothing else to perceive her as. She had no message and no identity other than she was a woman and one time first lady. Because she didn't put forth who she was in a simple and clear way, the Republicans were allowed to fill that void.

I literally have not encountered a single Clinton supporter who can tell me, in one to two sentences, what the overarching message or rationale behind her campaign was. Everyone I've seen try just ends up listing off policy proposals.

 

[The Technomancer]

I literally have not encountered a single Clinton supporter who can tell me, in one to two sentences, what the overarching message or rationale behind her campaign was. Everyone I've seen try just ends up listing off policy proposals.

I mean, the message was "stronger together", a message that I thought worked nicely with the level of detailed proposals she had, her campaign vision was "together we can work to improve everything and help everyone"

I was going to say something snarky here, because I at least found that incredibly compelling, but I'll resist. The rust belt voters spoke. They don't want to work with everyone, they want the candidate who will only help them

 

[Maxim726X]

I want to say that I heard everywhere that both candidates were bad and shouldn't be running. A whole lot of apathy. I imagine this is why a lot of people didn't bother voting.

Can't fix stupid.

If you couldn't be bothered to vote this election, then you're just not paying any attention. And good luck rectifying that.

I mean, the message was "stronger together", a message that I thought worked nicely with the level of detailed proposals she had, her campaign vision was "together we can work to improve everything and help everyone"

I was going to say something snarky here, because I at least found that incredibly compelling, but I'll resist. The rust belt voters spoke. They don't want to work with everyone, they want the candidate who will only help them

This is bullshit. Every single TV ad I saw leading up to the election was 'Trump is a monster, I'm less bad than him! Vote for me!'

If she actually had a message, she did a shit job promoting it.

 

[Neoweee]

I mean, the message was "stronger together", a message that I thought worked nicely with the level of detailed proposals she had, her campaign vision was "together we can work to improve everything and help everyone"

I was going to say something snarky here, because I at least found that incredibly compelling, but I'll resist. The rust belt voters spoke. They don't want to work with everyone, they want the candidate who will only help them

And a candidate that will straight up lie to their face. Hillary's policy just didn't get through for multiple reasons, and gullible fucks fell for a bunch of lies. Every day Trump gets on stage and says the murder rate is the highest it has been in 45 years. That just isn't remotely true, but the right-wing media bubble has grown so encompassing that bullshit is immune to getting called out. What does a campaign even need to do to pierce that bubble?

 

[guek]

She got more support than any republican in history ever had.

And we're doing a post mortem on her.

Fuck the EC.

So did Romney and McCain. The popular vote tends to grow every presidential election, it's nothing new. It's far less common for the winner of the popular vote to garner less votes than the previous winner which is what happened here.

 

[Father_Brain]

I mean, the message was "stronger together", a message that I thought worked nicely with the level of detailed proposals she had, her campaign vision was "together we can work to improve everything and help everyone"

I was going to say something snarky here, because I at least found that incredibly compelling, but I'll resist. The rust belt voters spoke. They don't want to work with everyone, they want the candidate who will only help them

"Stronger Together" is a nice-sounding, but completely meaningless platitude. It contains no verb and implies no particular narrative; presumably, Team Clinton meant it to be a celebration of America's diversity, but it also can describe literally any group of people anywhere ever. The Tea Party is "stronger together." Enron's board of directors was "stronger together." Et cetera.

 

[Breads]

Them are the rules, unfortunately. White people matter more in our presidential system, so one of the big takeaways will have to be "Government needs to focus more on White People!" which is completely laughable but also really, really sad.

Yeah but what is the GOP doing for the rust belt folk that Democrats didn't. They both equally ignore them. The only difference it to me is that the left didn't spend much time lying to them. Both sides (ugh!) decided it's not worth actually investing money in these dying communities... so where do we go from here. As democrats we should tell better lies?

 

[The Technomancer]

This is bullshit. Every single TV ad I saw leading up to the election was 'Trump is a monster, I'm less bad than him! Vote for me!'

If she actually had a message, she did a shit job promoting it.

As I acknowledged earlier in this thread the disconnect between the material at her rallies and what they put into TV ads is perhaps the fatal mistake that ultimately sunk the campaign. However I'm also still pissed at the news media for being 100% substance free this cycle. Not just that they got swept up in bullshit drama, but that they couldn't be bothered to cover anything substantive for any period of time ever

 

[Skellig Gra]

A fair request. When you ask for and spend a billion dollars you need to be held accountable and explain every decision.

 

[guek]

I didn't mind stronger together. It's not great but it's not terrible, even if there was a messaging problem alongside it like people have pointed out.

I'm with her was awful though

 

[jack_package_200]

I'm with her was awful though

Should have been "Shes with Us"

 

[Skellig Gra]

Should have been "Shes with Us"

yeah or "shes for us"

 

[Father_Brain]

As I acknowledged earlier in this thread the disconnect between the material at her rallies and what they put into TV ads is perhaps the fatal mistake that ultimately sunk the campaign. However I'm also still pissed at the news media for being 100% substance free this cycle. Not just that they got swept up in bullshit drama, but that they couldn't be bothered to cover anything substantive for any period of time ever

I cannot recall the political media ever being good at covering policy during a campaign.

Of course, they absolutely should be criticized for that, but it's in no way unprecedented and it shouldn't have taken the Clinton campaign by surprise.

 

[radios shipping overview]

We will all remember November 9th as the day the Eternal Primary began.

 

[Neoweee]

As I acknowledged earlier in this thread the disconnect between the material at her rallies and what they put into TV ads is perhaps the fatal mistake that ultimately sunk the campaign. However I'm also still pissed at the news media for being 100% substance free this cycle. Not just that they got swept up in bullshit drama, but that they couldn't be bothered to cover anything substantive for any period of time ever

The greatest irony of this election, and the one that will sting for decades, is that the first woman candidate of a major party runs, is a technocrat, has a comprehensive policy portfolio, and wins every debate decisively, but the media turns it into a personality contest that she wins, but technically doesn't based on white people preferring the serial sexual-assailant that doesn't know shit.

 

[kiunchbb]

I say she lost because Bernie push her way too far to the left, alienated too many undecided middle class that worry about the economy and debt. For middle class, the market is everything, their job, retirement, saving, insurance, mortgage all ties to the market. Welfare, race and climate problem is secondary to your own well being.

 

[Neoweee]

I say she lost because Bernie push her way too far to the left, alienated too many undecided middle class that worry about the economy and debt. For middle class, the market is everything, their job, retirement, saving, insurance, mortgage all ties to the market. Welfare, race and climate problem is secondary to your own well being.

Bernie also stirred up a tremendous amount of shit after he lost on March 15th, and there was no way for Hillary to counter the insane vote-rigging conspiracy BS that his supporters spewed. People being fucking pissed off about a bunch of shit that never actually happened cut a wound that never healed, thanks to the persistent agitation by hackers.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

We need a working class party that rejects the "donor class". Fund it through active membership dues and small individual contributions.

 

[Father_Brain]

The greatest irony of this election, and the one that will sting for decades, is that the first woman candidate of a major party runs, is a technocrat, has a comprehensive policy portfolio, and wins every debate decisively, but the media turns it into a personality contest that she wins, but technically doesn't based on white people preferring the serial sexual-assailant that doesn't know shit.

You can't blame the media for turning it into a personality contest when that was the theme of most of Clinton's ads.

Also, I don't think any campaign has ever been won on the basis of having a comprehensive policy portfolio, let alone treating technocracy as a qualification.

I say she lost because Bernie push her way too far to the left, alienated too many undecided middle class that worry about the economy and debt. For middle class, the market is everything, their job, retirement, saving, insurance, mortgage all ties to the market. Welfare, race and climate problem is secondary to your own well being.

Can you point to a single policy stance she took because of Sanders that was objectively unpopular?

 

[StormKing]

The Clinton campaign postmortem will be to blame it on everyone but Clinton.

 

[Makonero]

the perception of clinton is that she is crooked. this election was not about facts.

How do people still not get this? Charisma is what wins elections, hands down. In every single presidential election for the last thirty years, charisma has won over substance or experience.

 

[Father_Brain]

The Clinton campaign postmortem will be to blame it on everyone but Clinton.

Mook, Palmieri, etc. have been doing that plenty already.

 

[The Technomancer]

I say she lost because Bernie push her way too far to the left, alienated too many undecided middle class that worry about the economy and debt. For middle class, the market is everything, their job, retirement, saving, insurance, mortgage all ties to the market. Welfare, race and climate problem is secondary to your own well being.

I don't think this is true

 

[Adam_Vania]

"they thought they were going to win" is basically at the root of every fuck-up

they thought they were going to win, so they didn't actually go to Wisconsin/Michigan/etc.

they thought they were going to win, so they kept activist groups, BLM, Sanders-stans, etc. at arms-length

they thought they were going to win, and their campaign was mostly aimed at people who thought the same way

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

I will say nuh-uh to you saying so factually that she's crooked. That's horseshit

Facts are about the 28th most important thing in electoral politics

 

[excelsiorlef]

We need a working class party that rejects the "donor class". Fund it through active membership dues and small individual contributions.

The entire election from top to down ticket cannot be just funded through dues and small donations.... not in a post Citizens United world.

Party registration for both parties is down period too.

 

[jph139]

"they thought they were going to win" is basically at the root of every fuck-up

they thought they were going to win, so they didn't actually go to Wisconsin/Michigan/etc.

they thought they were going to win, so they kept activist groups, BLM, Sanders-stans, etc. at arms-length

they thought they were going to win, and their campaign was mostly aimed at people who thought the same way

Yeah, we all sort of assumed that government couldn't be THAT corrupt, the media can't be THAT inept, the public can't be THAT stupid, the right can't be THAT xenophobic. We were real goddamn wrong about that.

We need to be a lot more cynical. Progress can't happen without fighting for it tooth and claw. Always assume we're on the brink of annihilation.

 

[guek]

I say she lost because Bernie push her way too far to the left, alienated too many undecided middle class that worry about the economy and debt. For middle class, the market is everything, their job, retirement, saving, insurance, mortgage all ties to the market. Welfare, race and climate problem is secondary to your own well being.

This is silly. Bernie's proposals were not unpopular, and even if they were, he didn't force Hillary to move left. If moving left was the wrong move, which I don't believe it was, it's all on Hillary for moving in that direction. The basic premise of what you're saying doesn't even make sense. Hillary chose to be moved left by Bernie which made her unpopular and that move was somehow Bernie's fault? If that was the unpopular direction, she shouldn't have moved further left.

Bernie also stirred up a tremendous amount of shit after he lost on March 15th, and there was no way for Hillary to counter the insane vote-rigging conspiracy BS that his supporters spewed. People being fucking pissed off about a bunch of shit that never actually happened cut a wound that never healed, thanks to the persistent agitation by hackers.

Polls showed that the rigged narrative only resonated strongly among republicans, not democrats. Bernie is not the boogie man you're looking for. Voter turnout was down across the board, the rigged narrative helped energize Trump's base but did not hurt Hillary's turnout, that's all on her. Trump has used accusations of rigging far before he even announced his candidacy, Bernie did not put that idea in his head and it almost certainly would have been used by Trump regardless. What hurt Hillary in that area especially was the DNC leak which wouldn't have been so bad if, ya know, the DNC had remained professional. Hillary giving DWS a job after her resignation was a tone deaf move the strengthened the argument as well, regardless of how powerless the position actually was. Hillary not reporting the leaked question, a dumb and obvious question but a leak regardless, also fed the conspiracy angle. Hillary hurt herself far more than Bernie ever did with those poor decisions.

 

[phanphare]

I would also like to see an in depth objective post-mortem that doesn't go out of its way to shift blame

I think all of us already know the gist of it but I'd like to see a deeper dive nonetheless

 

[excelsiorlef]

Polls showed that the rigged narrative only resonated strongly among republicans, not democrats. Bernie is not the boogie man you're looking for. Voter turnout was down across the board, the rigged narrative helped energize Trump's base but did not hurt Hillary's turnout, that's all on her. Trump has used accusations of rigging far before he even announced his candidacy, Bernie did not put that idea in his head and it almost certainly would have been used by Trump regardless. What hurt Hillary in that area especially was the DNC leak which wouldn't have been so bad if, ya know, the DNC had remained professional. Hillary giving DWS a job after her resignation was a tone dead move the strengthened the argument as well, regardless of how powerless the position actually was. Hillary not reporting the leaked question, a dumb and obvious question but a leak regardless, also fed the conspiracy angle. Hillary hurt herself far more than Bernie ever did with those poor decisions.

For like the billionth time....

Clinton did not give DWS a job, she gave her a meaningless made up please just fuck off position. DWS was refusing to step down and Clinton but the bullet and gave her a title to placate her. Then DWS stepped down went back to Florida and kicked the crap out of Tim "I only got money because Sanders" Canova.

Like as in DWS would still be head of the DNC if Clinton hadn't given her the job.

Stop making everything she does out to sound like the worst thing ever...

 

[The Technomancer]

I would also like to see an in depth objective post-mortem that doesn't go out of its way to shift blame

I think all of us already know the gist of it but I'd like to see a deeper dive nonetheless

So this is sort of the fundamental problem right now:
In practical terms what she lost by is 70,000 votes across three states, on margins of 1% or less in each

When things are that tight it really is the case that any number of small factors might have tipped the balance between victory and defeat. And because of that anyone and everyone, on every side of the argument, is projecting whatever their personal causes and peeves are onto this loss.

Like, where is the line between shifting blame and saying "yeah if these things hadn't happen they wouldn't have fucked things up". Are all causes other than "Clinton was a shitty candidate, start and stop" deflection? Because that's what I'm hearing from some people at least

 

[guek]

For like the billionth time....

Clinton did not give DWS a job, she gave her a meaningless made up please just fuck off position. DWS was refusing to step down and Clinton but the bullet and gave her a title to placate her. Then DWS stepped down went back to Florida and kicked the crap out of Tim "I only got money because Sanders" Canova.

Like as in DWS would still be head of the DNC if Clinton hadn't given her the job.

Stop making everything she does out to sound like the worst thing ever...

And for the billionth time, it doesn't matter! Do you think trump cared or the people that bought into the rigged narrative cared it was a meaningless position? The optics are horrible, I don't understand how you can continue to fail to recognize that.

 

[Kusagari]

The Democrats, including us on this forum, got more obsessed with trying to run up the score and get a pointless electoral landslide by flipping GA, TX and UT than actually shoring up the states that matter.

And the deplorables speech and everything afterward was a huge blunder. I live in a swing state and virtually every Hillary ad was just playing clips of Trump being a jackass. The Democrats seemed to bet their final 3 months of campaigning on people simply voting for her because her opponent was a racist, misogynist douchebag instead of actually trying to convince people why she deserved their vote.