Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

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.

Because i like to argue reality instead of post fact world optics.

DWS wasn't going to leave without it. As in she'd have just happily stayed as head of the DNC going into the convention.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

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.

A new party is not going to contest for national seats in one election cycle. Imo people who want to see at least a social democratic transformation of the US[1] need to commit to the hard work of running as independents at the municipal and state level. There needs to be some local grassroots mobilization and some national organization to make these various independent seats coherent.

If you want an example of what I'm talking about, check out Kshama Sawant, who won a city council seat twice in Seattle. She was instrumental in passing the first city-wide $15 minimum wage. She's also done amazing work on rent control and municipal broadband.

[1] examples: universal college, healthcare, pensions, better unemployment terms, high speed rail, more nationalization of essential services like telecom, electricity, etc

 

[Father_Brain]

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

She was running against a wildly unpopular cartoon fascist, not a typical establishment Republican. This election should not have been close at all.

It's obviously true that a few decisions on the margins could have made the difference, but if she narrowly made it to 270, that absolutely shouldn't have been taken as some sweeping vindication of her or her campaign.

 

[guek]

Because i like to argue reality instead of post fact world optics.

DWS wasn't going to leave without it. As in she'd have just happily stayed as head of the DNC going into the convention.

Bullshit. DWS was not the most powerful person in America. This was not the one and only way to force her out, continuing to argue that it was is nothing more than unabashed apologism.

And seriously, you think this is post fact world optics? That's ridiculous. Clinton was immediately criticized for giving her that job and any one with half a lick of sense should have seen that coming. That's the real world, not the distorted reality you're peddling. DWS did not put a gun to someone's head and demand a title in her campaign in order to be ousted.

 

[excelsiorlef]

A new party is not going to contest for national seats in one election cycle. Imo people who want to see at least a social democratic transformation of the US[1] need to commit to the hard work of running as independents at the municipal and state level. There needs to be some local grassroots mobilization and some national organization to make these various independent seats coherent.

If you want an example of what I'm talking about, check out Kshama Sawant, who won a city council seat twice in Seattle. She was instrumental in passing the first city-wide $15 minimum wage. She's also done amazing work on rent control and municipal broadband.

[1] examples: universal college, healthcare, pensions, better unemployment terms, high speed rail, more nationalization of essential services like telecom, electricity, etc

A city council seat is somewhere in the realm of 1000000 easier for an independent to win than anything state level, let alone federal level.

I mean go for it but the system is not set up for a viable third party, even if your party became successful, all you would do is split the vote with the Dems and allow the GOP to gain even more ground.

Also a rag tag bunch of independents loosely connected together by some National structure is a recipe for disaster and severe infighting.

 

[Kusagari]

Bullshit. DWS was not the most powerful person in America. This was not the one and only way to force her out, continuing to argue that it was is nothing more than unabashed apologism.

And seriously, you think this is post fact world optics? That's ridiculous. Clinton was immediately criticized for giving her that job and any one with half a lick of sense should have seen that coming. That's the real world, not the distorted reality you're peddling. DWS did not put a gun to someone's head and demand a title in her campaign in order to be ousted.

Part of the reason Debbie stayed around as long as she did is because she was threatening to bring everyone down with her. She had the entire DNC by the balls.

The mistake was ever putting her horrible ass in charge of anything to begin with.

 

[phanphare]

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

this election should have been a damn bloodbath in clinton's favor. I want to know why that didn't come to fruition. I don't want this loss downplayed just because the margin was small. she lost to trump and she lost pretty damn badly when looking at the electoral map.

also I specifically said I want a post-mortem that doesn't go out of its way to shift blame, the "go out of its way" bit being crucial to what I was saying . I'm not denying those things were significant I just don't want them to be propped up as a deflection for clinton and her campaign's shortcomings which I have seen a lot of since then. for me I think the larger point is that she should have never been in a position to have those things lose her the election so I'm more curious to hear why she was in that position to begin with, though I obviously accept that those were significant factors in the loss as a whole. having said that even if she had won by a slim margin I'd still be pretty concerned and honestly would want a detailed post-mortem anyway because it never should have been close to begin with.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

This is what I'm afraid of. The Democratic party needs Wall street and wealthy donors to be in any way viable politically. Many whom just donated to the party they expected would win.

These people will just flock to republicans who promise them tax cuts and financial deregulations leaving the Democratic party extremely weak to mount a challenge nationally.

Even Hollywood might become more conservative to appeal to republicans in power and with the decimation of net neutrality the ISP/media conglomerates will do everything they can to stop dissent of Republican policies that benefit them.

The donors hate and despise poor and middle class people. They want you and everyone else to be poor and struggling. They want to suppress our wages. They want to cut government programs that benefit us so they can enjoy luxurious tax breaks and tax holidays. This applies to both Democratic and Republican donors.

They have preferences when it comes to social issues, but they will always side with their money interests. You won't see real police reforms because that could hurt their investments in private prisons, but you will see gay marriage because that doesn't effect their bottom line. When money is on the line, you will see many of the donors embrace fascism with open arms. Many of them already have and are trying to gain favor with the Trump campaign. Look at how many American businesses and corporations worked with Nazi Germany to help manufacture the holocaust. You think Wall Street isn't going to help finance that? That tech companies aren't going to agree to create a Muslim registry?

The donors are a cancer in the democratic party. Whichever party wins, they win. None of them are going to be hurt by Donald Trump. We are. And they're happy with that.

 

[fantomena]

also was a women

A woman can be president in the US, just not Hillary Clinton.

Her message was weak, she was part of the symbol of the establishment, her campaign was bad (rust-belt) and her slogan "Im with her" is terrible. It's about her and not the country. Shouldn've been "She's with you" or "She's with us". Orange Hitlers "Make America Great Again" makes no sense to me in the way I was never told when america was great, but it did put the country first in the line, not himself, even though he's a narcisstic asshole.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Bullshit. DWS was not the most powerful person in America. This was not the one and only way to force her out, continuing to argue that it was is nothing more than unabashed apologism.

And seriously, you think this is post fact world optics? That's ridiculous. Clinton was immediately criticized for giving her that job and any one with half a lick of sense should have seen that coming. That's the real world, not the distorted reality you're peddling. DWS did not put a gun to someone's head and demand a title in her campaign in order to be ousted.

It literally took a call from Obama.

Like the President himself had to personally call her to get her to step down, the meaningless campaign title was part of the negotiation .

DWS got the equivalent of an Executive Producer credit.... That's how you have to do business sometimes when the person you're negotiating with is a jerk.

It was a fuck off position, a meaningless fuck off position, which was clearly literally from day 1.

Of course she was criticized that's part of post facts, people were acting like she was actually going to be a meaningful part of the campaign moving forward, that she was getting an actual position.

This is politics sometimes you say placating things to get people to go away, and that's what this was.

Part of the reason Debbie stayed around as long as she did is because she was threatening to bring everyone down with her. She had the entire DNC by the balls.

The mistake was ever putting her horrible ass in charge of anything to begin with.

Exactly

 

[Neoweee]

this election should have been a damn bloodbath in clinton's favor. I want to know why that didn't come to fruition. I don't want this loss downplayed just because the margin was small. she lost to trump and she lost pretty damn badly when looking at the electoral map.

Based on what, though? We are a partisan and polarized country. We won't have 1980 or 1984. That just isn't on the table. Republicans came around and supported Trump as if he were Romney, because partisanship drives people votes too strongly.

" she lost pretty damn badly when looking at the electoral map." Uh, have you ever looked at Electoral Maps before? This is the 44th largest victory of all time. The bottom quartile of electoral victories. That isn't "badly".

 

[WedgeX]

If the GOP can do a post-mortem then so can the Democrats.

Of course, the GOP ignored their post-mortem and somehow won the Presidency..

 

[sugarhigh4242]

A city council seat is somewhere in the realm of 1000000 easier for an independent to win than anything state level, let alone federal level.

I mean go for it but the system is not set up for a viable third party, even if your party became successful, all you would do is split the vote with the Dems and allow the GOP to gain even more ground.

Also a rag tag bunch of independents loosely connected together by some National structure is a recipe for disaster and severe infighting.

Yeah, I agree. I think i'm being realistic about the amount of work it's going to take. But that's roughly what Bernie did, and the dude's almost 80 years old .

Regarding the "split vote" stuff, there's no split vote at the city level. Most cities are dominated by Democrats (which should tell you something about that party). If a left wing independent party was actually giving Democrats problems against Republicans at higher level seats, they'd be forced to ease up on the various anti-democratic restrictions designed to keep 3rd parties out of contention. I'm talking about fusion voting (as won by the Working Families party in NY), ballot petition requirements, etc. That would be an unambiguously good thing imo.

I agree that infighting shit is a challenge, but the alternative is the status quo. Effectively, the entire US left being held hostage by the neoliberals and the "donor class" in the Democratic party. As long as the Hillary Clintons of the world think the left has nowhere to go, the left will no influence over the party. Just look at the way they treat unions.

 

[phanphare]

Based on what, though? We are a partisan and polarized country. We won't have 1980 or 1984. That just isn't on the table. Republicans came around and supported Trump as if he were Romney, because partisanship drives people votes too strongly.

" she lost pretty damn badly when looking at the electoral map." Uh, have you ever looked at Electoral Maps before? This is the 44th largest victory of all time. The bottom quartile of electoral victories. That isn't "badly".

context is key here. she was going against donald trump. that's what I mean by downplaying this loss. there are states that flipped that should have never been on the table. hillary had every single advantage and still lost. I mean, shit, it could be argued that trump was actively trying to lose and hillary still managed to lose.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

It literally took a call from Obama.

Like the President himself had to personally call her to get her to step down, the meaningless campaign title was part of the negotiation .

DWS got the equivalent of an Executive Producer credit.... That's how you have to do business sometimes when the person you're negotiating with is a jerk.

It was a fuck off position, a meaningless fuck off position, which was clearly literally from day 1.

Of course she was criticized that's part of post facts, people were acting like she was actually going to be a meaningful part of the campaign moving forward, that she was getting an actual position.

This is politics sometimes you say placating things to get people to go away, and that's what this was.



Exactly

I'm sorry, but even if Obama removed DWS and she ran to the media to call Obama anti-woman and anti-semetic... so what? Does anyone really think she's going to go up against Obama in a head to head match up and win in the court of public opinion? That's just laughable to me. Obama being scared of DWS says more bad things about Obama than DWS.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yeah, I agree. I think i'm being realistic about the amount of work it's going to take. But that's roughly what Bernie did, and the dude's almost 80 years old .

Regarding the "split vote" stuff, there's no split vote at the city level. Most cities are dominated by Democrats (which should tell you something about that party). If a left wing independent party was actually giving Democrats problems against Republicans at higher level seats, they'd be forced to ease up on the various anti-democratic restrictions designed to keep 3rd parties out of contention. I'm talking about fusion voting (as won by the Working Families party in NY), ballot petition requirements, etc. That would be an unambiguously good thing imo.

I agree that infighting shit is a challenge, but the alternative is the status quo. Effectively, the entire US left being held hostage by the neoliberals and the "donor class" in the Democratic party. As long as the Hillary Clintons of the world think the left has nowhere to go, the left will no influence over the party. Just look at the way they treat unions.

Clinton included a huge portion of Sanders platform in the DNC platform, she presented the most progressive platform in party history. Working within the Democratic party is how you succeed, unless you want to basically just give the GOP control for decades while you try and build a new party.

 

[The Technomancer]

context is key here. she was going against donald trump. that's what I mean by downplaying this loss. there are states that flipped that should have never been on the table. hillary had every single advantage and still lost. I mean, shit, it could be argued that trump was actively trying to lose and hillary still managed to lose.

Just looking at the numbers in Wisconsin though Democratic turnout was down but Trump got about as many votes as Romney. For whatever reason Trump wasn't actually toxic, and it wasn't for lack of trying. It turns out beating Trump wasn't as "easy" as everyone, pollsters included, thought

 

[Trokil]

This was a catastrophic loss. Against any other candidate she would have lost like Mondale did against Reagan. She lost against the worst candidate the Republicans could have chosen and of course people want answers.

If you really just use Russia or anything else as an excuse for this failure you are leaving in a bigger bubble than the Republicans ever did. The Democrats have destryoed their own party over the last few years. There is pretty much all the money going to the very few high level people, while on the local level there is neither money nor a support group. And the one thing Bernie would have wanted to change, which made a lot of high ranking people in the Democratic party really angry, was the idea the get more money down on the local and state level to win elections there.

Everything the Republicans always throw at people about Washington insiders and a corrupt political class actually worked with the Democrats, because in the last 8-10 years they transformed the party to this sugar free version of the Republicans of the 80s. They moved to the right leaving the workers behind and they don't owe their vote to the Democrats, if they do not even care about them anymore.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Clinton included a huge portion of Sanders platform in the DNC platform, she presented the most progressive platform in party history. Working within the Democratic party is how you succeed, unless you want to basically just give the GOP control for decades while you try and build a new party.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that Clinton would've enacted any of that platform if she had won. She didn't even come out in support for a $15 minimum wage, despite taking a photo op with Andrew Cuomo after the NY fast food worker's win.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that Clinton would've enacted any of that platform if she had won. She didn't even come out in support for a $15 minimum wage, despite taking a photo op with Andrew Cuomo after the NY fast food worker's win.

No she came out for a $12 an hour minimum wage with $15 in states that chose to support it. Is that really the hard line we're drawing now for who is and isn't a "real" progressive?

 

[Trokil]

No she came out for a $12 an hour minimum wage with $15 in states that chose to support it. Is that really the hard line we're drawing now for who is and isn't a "real" progressive?

She only went to the left, because Bernie made her. Without Bernie a lot of her so called progressive ideas would have never been in her program. And that is also why a lot of people did not trust her.

 

[kiunchbb]

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.

It is popular because no one will ever come out and speak against welfare because of backlash, that does not mean people will be encourage to vote. Compare to Obama campaign, which main focus is the middle class and economy. Hillary barely say anything for middle class that worry about the future.

Both side are always saying "let's help the rich/poor, and that will eventually benefit the middle class." I think many people are tire of raincheck, we need someone like Obama back.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm sorry, but even if Obama removed DWS and she ran to the media to call Obama anti-woman and anti-semetic... so what? Does anyone really think she's going to go up against Obama in a head to head match up and win in the court of public opinion? That's just laughable to me. Obama being scared of DWS says more bad things about Obama than DWS.

Because her going quietly into the night is better than her running around screaming shit in the media.

And she still wasn't under any obligation to vacate her position either...

Like it's baffling that empty platitudes and a meaningless title is that much of an issue to some of you, it was baffling then and it's especially baffling that it is still an issue several months later.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

No she came out for a $12 an hour minimum wage with $15 in states that chose to support it. Is that really the hard line we're drawing now for who is and isn't a "real" progressive?

It's the tip of the iceberg.

But yeah, she actually lost. I attribute her loss primarily to a failure to turnout (let alone grow) the Obama coalition. I attribute that failure to her constant mealy-mouthed reluctance to ever champion the demands of regular working people.

It's not even a question. Her record already spoke for itself, and if you didn't believe that, the wikileaks document it in excruciating detail. Hillary Clinton was the candidate of Wall st, the military contracting industry, and even the fracking industry.

 

[phanphare]

Just looking at the numbers in Wisconsin though Democratic turnout was down but Trump got about as many votes as Romney. For whatever reason Trump wasn't actually toxic, and it wasn't for lack of trying. It turns out beating Trump wasn't as "easy" as everyone, pollsters included, thought

correct me if I'm wrong but if Trump got about as many votes as Romney did wouldn't that contradict your point? what I mean by that is that total votes staying flat in 2012 vs. 2016 would mean that the percentage of eligible voters who voted for Trump dropped, right?

 

[guek]

It literally took a call from Obama.

Like the President himself had to personally call her to get her to step down, the meaningless campaign title was part of the negotiation .

And that was a bad move. If DWS was going to throw a ruckus and threaten to burn the DNC to the ground, fuck her. Go scorched earth. Have the President publicly condemn her, distance yourself as much as possible. I refuse to believe DWS had more power than the POTUS and presidential nominee combined. Your entire defense of this move rests on the premise that there was absolutely nothing they could do but acquiesce to her unreasonable demands.

And post-fact bullshit or not, it's reasonable to criticize moves that feed so clearly into the opposition's narrative that you're rigging the system. You are intent on defending everything Hillary did this election and it's baffling. Giving DWS a meaningless position in her campaign when she was already being accused of conspiring with the DNC against her opponent was not the right move, and it doesn't require hindsight to come to that conclusion.

 

[Trokil]

It's not even a question. Her record already spoke for itself, and if you didn't believe that, the wikileaks document it in excruciating detail. Hillary Clinton was the candidate of Wall st, the military contracting industry, and even the fracking industry.

She was also the Democratic candidate who flew home every evening to sleep in her bed like that rich guy she was fighting against.

 

[The Technomancer]

correct me if I'm wrong but if Trump got about as many votes as Romney did wouldn't that contradict your point? what I mean by that is that total votes staying flat in 2012 vs. 2016 would mean that the percentage of eligible voters who voted for Trump dropped, right?

Compared to what? In 2008 McCain got 1.26 million votes. in 2012 Romney got 1.4 million and in 2016 Trump got 1.4 million again. Part of the narrative around "Trump will be easy to beat" wasn't just thinking that opposition to him would energize Dem turnout but also that he would be so toxic that Republicans wouldn't be able to vote for him. Well, in Wisconsin at least, everyone was wrong and they voted for him just fine. He outperformed Romney and McCain in Michigan as well

All of this does point to Clinton having an enthusiasm problem, but what it doesn't point to is Trump being "easy to beat", at least in those states. He was at least as difficult to beat as other recent Republican candidates and, as people are rightfully criticizing the Clinton campaign for, not for lack of trying to make how horrible he was stick

 

[boiled goose]

Dear donors trying to bribe our politicians,

Shut the fuck up

You are part of the problem if not the root if it.

 

[jack_package_200]

Why can't we admit multiple factors caused her to lose the election?

-Russia
-The shitty media coverage
-Sexism
-Campaign Hubris
-Too much focus on polling data
-No 50 state strategy
-Unfavorability being too high
-Bad messaging

 

[Bolivar687]

It literally took a call from Obama.

Like the President himself had to personally call her to get her to step down, the meaningless campaign title was part of the negotiation .

DWS got the equivalent of an Executive Producer credit.... That's how you have to do business sometimes when the person you're negotiating with is a jerk.

It was a fuck off position, a meaningless fuck off position, which was clearly literally from day 1.

Of course she was criticized that's part of post facts, people were acting like she was actually going to be a meaningful part of the campaign moving forward, that she was getting an actual position.

This is politics sometimes you say placating things to get people to go away, and that's what this was.



Exactly

This is absurd mental gymnastics. It was a coronation, proof came out that party leadership saw to that. The takeaway is that they did everything they could to force this candidate on the American people, whether they wanted her or not. If you think officially moving her to the campaign is the solution, then you clearly dont understand the problem. If they were more concerned about her taking down the party with her, then the party truly did embody her impropriety.

There is no such thing as a "fuck off" position.

Let's also not forget the person appointed to succeed her gave the candidate debate questions beforehand.

 

[The Technomancer]

Why can't we admit multiple factors caused her to lose the election?

-Russia
-The shitty media coverage
-Sexism
-Campaign Hubris
-Too much focus on polling data
-No 50 state strategy
-Unfavorability being too high
-Bad messaging

It is all of these, more or less. The problem is everyone is looking for easy answers now "just run on this", "just run this candidate", "just kick out these people", "just double down on this"

 

[excelsiorlef]

And that was a bad move. If DWS was going to throw a ruckus and threaten to burn the DNC to the ground, fuck her. Go scorched earth. Have the President publicly condemn her, distance yourself as much as possible. I refuse to believe DWS had more power than the POTUS and presidential nominee combined. Your entire defense of this move rests on the premise that there was absolutely nothing they could do but acquiesce to her unreasonable demands.

And post-fact bullshit or not, it's reasonable to criticize moves that feed so clearly into the opposition's narrative that you're rigging the system. You are intent on defending everything Hillary did this election and it's baffling. Giving DWS a meaningless position in her campaign when she was already being accused of conspiring with the DNC against her opponent was not the right move, and it doesn't require hindsight to come to that conclusion.

They were trying to go into the Convention not on fire...

Fuck her?

Go scorched earth?

Yeah that's a brilliant plan in an election year.

I'm not defending everything?

I'm defending this specific thing... because it was the smart thing to do.

She fucked up on a lot of things, she thought Trump would be rejected ala Goldwater, she was clearly to reliant on data and didn't do enough to shore up her firewall, she believed in the inherent morality of the American people (her history as someone who saw Goldwater's racism and turned away from the GOP forever was probably a huge factor in how she operated), she likely believed that this was a chance to expand the Dem base she was wrong. She made costly mistakes absolutely.

Giving DWS a fuck off title was not one of them.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

She was also the Democratic candidate who flew home every evening to sleep in her bed like that rich guy she was fighting against.

I'm utterly disgusted by Trump, and I'm terrified about what he's going to do to the country.

HOWEVER, he certainly didn't campaign like a lazy person. Dude was racking up miles in the final weeks of the election. He didn't campaign like an traditional person, he didn't have a good ground game, very good advisors, GOTV effort, etc, but he was doing a shitload of rallies all across the country. If Clinton had done that in Michigan and Wisconsin, it might've made a difference.

See for yourself:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/why-is-donald-trump-in-michigan-and-wisconsin

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

hey donors

 

[phanphare]

Compared to what? In 2008 McCain got 1.26 million votes. in 2012 Romney got 1.4 million and in 2016 Trump got 1.4 million again. Part of the narrative around "Trump will be easy to beat" wasn't just thinking that opposition to him would energize Dem turnout but also that he would be so toxic that Republicans wouldn't be able to vote for him. Well, in Wisconsin at least, everyone was wrong and they voted for him just fine. He outperformed Romney and McCain in Michigan as well

All of this does point to Clinton having an enthusiasm problem, but what it doesn't point to is Trump being "easy to beat", at least in those states. He was at least as difficult to beat as other recent Republican candidates

that's what I'm talking about, bringing up total votes ignores part of the context that I was bringing up which is that the population grows as the years go on so trump getting about as many votes as romney in 2016 compared to 2012 would mean that the percentage of eligible voters that went for trump was actually down compared to 2012. although dems not showing up was a big problem as well which is something I expected after obama but certainly not to the degree that actually happened considering trump was on the other side. while I fault hillary's campaign for relying too heavily on that fact I still believe trump being the opposition should have been enough for democrats to show up, though that belief seems to have been proven wrong unfortunately.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Compared to what? In 2008 McCain got 1.26 million votes. in 2012 Romney got 1.4 million and in 2016 Trump got 1.4 million again. Part of the narrative around "Trump will be easy to beat" wasn't just thinking that opposition to him would energize Dem turnout but also that he would be so toxic that Republicans wouldn't be able to vote for him. Well, in Wisconsin at least, everyone was wrong and they voted for him just fine. He outperformed Romney and McCain in Michigan as well

All of this does point to Clinton having an enthusiasm problem, but what it doesn't point to is Trump being "easy to beat", at least in those states. He was at least as difficult to beat as other recent Republican candidates and, as people are rightfully criticizing the Clinton campaign for, not for lack of trying to make how horrible he was stick

Agreed, but there was also a failed strategy driving the Clinton campaign related to your point: She ignored the progressive/populist base of the Democratic party in favor of "moderate suburban republicans", which she utterly failed to persuade.

Chuck Schumer made one of the most revealing statements of 2016 about this:

For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ats-will-lose-blue-collar-whites-gain-suburbs

 

[excelsiorlef]

This is absurd mental gymnastics. It was a coronation, proof came out that party leadership saw to that. The takeaway is that they did everything they could to force this candidate on the American people, whether they wanted her or not. If you thonk the solution to that is giving officially moving her to the campaign, then you clearly dont understand the problem. If they were more concerned about her taking down the party with her, then the party truly did embody her impropriety.

There is no such thing as a "fuck off" position.

Let's also not forget the person appointed to succeed her gave the candidate debate questions beforehand.

There is absolutely such thing as a fuck off position, it's a meaningless title, she went back to Florida and had vitually nothing to do with the campaign in the GE.

Almost 4 million voters chose Clinton over Sanders. This coronation shit is ridiculous.

And Brazille was also ok'd by Sanders, and yes she was a fucking idiot for doing what she did. I'm not defending that. But that question didn't give her 3.5+ million more votes.

hey donors

You gonna pay for all the down ticket races in 2018?

 

[The Technomancer]

that's what I'm talking about, bringing up total votes ignores part of the context that I was bringing up which is that the population grows as the years go on so trump getting about as many votes as romney in 2016 compared to 2012 would mean that the percentage of eligible voters that went for trump was actually down compared to 2012. although dems not showing up was a big problem as well which is something I expected after obama but certainly not to the degree that actually happened considering trump was on the other side. while I fault hillary's campaign for relying too heavily on that fact I still believe trump being the opposition should have been enough for democrats to show up, though that belief seems to have been proven wrong unfortunately.

Population growth in Wisconsin is apparently 1.5% between 2010 and 2015. Growth in Michigan is 0.4%. Maybe its a factor, maybe it means that in real terms Trump got 15,000 less votes proportionally or something, but it doesn't explain this loss. People were fine voting for him. The population growth stuff is more relevant from a national perspective with the states that are seeing massive year over year gains

 

[Unknown Soldier]

She was also the Democratic candidate who flew home every evening to sleep in her bed like that rich guy she was fighting against.

The irony is the rich guy actually spent a lot of time sleeping on the road. One of the side benefits of owning a lot of hotels and high rise condos. Trump had a condo or penthouse in almost every major city.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The irony is the rich guy actually spent a lot of time sleeping on the road. One of the side benefits of owning a lot of hotels and high rise condos. Trump had a condo or penthouse in almost every major city.

Actually I believe the same report was that he slept at home too.

 

[phanphare]

Population growth in Wisconsin is apparently 1.5% between 2010 and 2015. Growth in Michigan is 0.4%. Maybe its a factor, maybe it means that in real terms Trump got 15,000 less votes proportionally or something, but it doesn't explain this loss. People were fine voting for him. The population growth stuff is more relevant from a national perspective with the states that are seeing massive year over year gains

oh yeah my bad, I was looking at the national picture

 

[B-Dubs]

The irony is the rich guy actually spent a lot of time sleeping on the road. One of the side benefits of owning a lot of hotels and high rise condos. Trump had a condo or penthouse in almost every major city.

No, he didn't. He also flew home every night to sleep in his golden tower.

 

[The Technomancer]

oh yeah my bad, I was looking at the national picture

Yeah its just one of those things we need to be careful about. Pretty much all of the legitimate criticism aimed at her is around how she specifically lost those three states that should have been stronghold, but I also just don't want us overestimating the degree to which Trump was "easy" to beat. At least in those states he was as challenging as other Republicans.

She still should have won them though

 

[Trojita]

Actually I believe the same report was that he slept at home too.

That or the one golf resort was about it.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

hey donors

lol they aren't going anywhere

 

[SenorArdilla]

Chuck Schumer made one of the most revealing statements of 2016 about this:

For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ats-will-lose-blue-collar-whites-gain-suburbs

You see. The problem with that is that Republicans stay in line. Dems need to stop trying to court Republicans.

 

[Father_Brain]

Compared to what? In 2008 McCain got 1.26 million votes. in 2012 Romney got 1.4 million and in 2016 Trump got 1.4 million again. Part of the narrative around "Trump will be easy to beat" wasn't just thinking that opposition to him would energize Dem turnout but also that he would be so toxic that Republicans wouldn't be able to vote for him. Well, in Wisconsin at least, everyone was wrong and they voted for him just fine. He outperformed Romney and McCain in Michigan as well

All of this does point to Clinton having an enthusiasm problem, but what it doesn't point to is Trump being "easy to beat", at least in those states. He was at least as difficult to beat as other recent Republican candidates and, as people are rightfully criticizing the Clinton campaign for, not for lack of trying to make how horrible he was stick

But it *did* stick. His favorables are/were absolutely terrible. Large percentages who voted for him did so despite seeing his behavior as troubling and his temperament as unsuited to the presidency. It's not at all hard to believe that a candidate with decent favorables who wasn't seen as an uber-establishment insider and wasn't under active FBI investigation would have won handily.

 

[The Technomancer]

But it *did* stick. His favorables are/were absolutely terrible. Large percentages who voted for him did so despite seeing his behavior as troubling and his temperament as unsuited to the presidency. It's not at all hard to believe that a candidate with decent favorables who wasn't seen as an uber-establishment insider and wasn't under active FBI investigation would have won handily.

Because they would have turned out more Democrats, almost certainly. But in the states she lost, Trump wasn't unpopular. I don't give a damn about what they "say", going by what they "say" is how they got underestimated in the first place. They voted for him with as much enthusiasm as any other GOP candidate. If they "say" they don't like him they're lying to you

 

[Father_Brain]

Because they would have turned out more Democrats, almost certainly. But in the states she lost, Trump wasn't unpopular. I don't give a damn about what they "say", going by what they "say" is how they got underestimated in the first place. They voted for him with as much enthusiasm as any other GOP candidate. If they "say" they don't like him they're lying to you

Is there data to back that up?