Support NeoGAF

[Dubbedinenglish]

Who do you think is the worst cabinet pick so far?

Spoiler

In my opinion is Betsy DeVos

Between Carson and Perry. Carson for the blatant racism (urban = black) and sheer incompetence of him running an department with no prior work in the field or even strong statements on it. Perry because of a complete idiot in charge of probably the most technical and academic department in the government.

 

[Dan]

Personally I'd like to see an airtime vs money spent as a more useful metric. Trump had a lot of free rallies, uninterrupted on news channels. I don't think ads don't matter but exposure does.

Yeah, I think in this case it's silly to focus on the money when analysis has showed Trump was given free airtime for 18 months worth massive sums.

Just curious -- has anyone considered the fact at length that on a monetary level, it very much was in the best interests of the media for Donald to win? I guarantee you if you look at their ratings for the next 4 years, they have a captive audience to everything that is about to go down and the ratings will be significantly higher than at any time pre-2016 election during the Obama presidency.

Well we had Les Moonves say "it may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Between Carson and Perry. Carson for the blatant racism (urban = black) and sheer incompetence of him running an department with no prior work in the field or even strong statements on it. Perry because of a complete idiot in charge of probably the most technical and academic department in the government.

I feel like these two are in departments where the damage they can do is limited.
Education however can have huge implications.

The US is in dire need of an education reform. The entire problem of the middle class with outsourcing and whatnot is an education issue.
But DeVos is going to do exactly the opposite of what needs to be done, at least when you trust what she said and what she has already done in Michigan.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Yeah Trump had a looooooot of free air time.

Why do people say this? Essentially 100% of said coverage was overtly negative. Are you actually counting for instance something like USA Today posting anti Trump editorials as a net positive?

 

[Dan]

Why do people say this? Essentially 100% of said coverage was overtly negative. Are you actually counting for instance something like USA Today posting anti Trump editorials as a net positive?

Networks spent months showing unedited, complete rallies.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

White college professor tweets "All I want for Christmas is White Genocide" as a joke.

Gets verbally reprimanded by his university after Nazis cry over and over again on Twitter.

>_>

 

[B-Dubs]

Networks spent months showing unedited, complete rallies.

While not doing the same for the other side.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

You're a really weird parody account, but you know that O'Malley has a really racist past and that black people vote in the Dem primaries?

How does O'Malley have a really racist past? He's slightly worse than Hillary or someone who rarely sees blacks like Bernie Sanders. The white/minority primary voters definitely didn't weigh his chances correctly IMO. He should've been more competitive vs. his opponents.

Edit: Googled this vid from MSNBC where O'Malley defends the contradictions from his past with the platform he was putting forward in 2016: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/omalley-defends-record-on-fighting-racism-608823363613

What did his opponents do for the black community...?

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

While Trump was an outlier (again) with ad spending due to his being extremely famous already and consequently getting tons of free air time, there are definitely diminishing returns in campaign spending at the national level. There's a high threshold to be competitive but beyond that it doesn't matter much who's outspent who.

Money matters much more at lower levels where you can win with enough name recognition alone.

 

[Big Baybee]

Why do people say this? Essentially 100% of said coverage was overtly negative. Are you actually counting for instance something like USA Today posting anti Trump editorials as a net positive?

Networks showed his rallies from start to finish nearly every day. Can't compare that to online editorials that no one read.

 

[MIMIC]

Why do people say this? Essentially 100% of said coverage was overtly negative. Are you actually counting for instance something like USA Today posting anti Trump editorials as a net positive?

Kinda reinforces the idea that there's no such thing as bad publicity. From the pussy grabbing, to the taxes, to the lies he told, he was far and away the most talked about candidate.

Networks showed his rallies from start to finish nearly every day. Can't compare that to online editorials that no one read.

Eh, there's more to it than this. Trump had more rallies than Hillary did, which is primarily why it felt like he was being covered so often. But when it came to the average length of coverage, they were covered for almost the same amount of time (with Hillary getting about a minute more of coverage)

Trump holds a large lead in overall airtime since Media Matters started tracking coverage of live events in June. Across the three cable networks, Trump’s events have been given 65 hours and 3 minutes of coverage, compared to 49 hours and 47 minutes of coverage for Clinton events. However, the gap in airtime is due in large part to the sheer number of Trump rallies and events during the period studied. The networks together aired some live coverage from Trump events 186 times during the period studied while airing coverage of Clinton events only 137 times. Clinton’s events were covered on average for 21 minutes and 48 seconds, compared to 20 minutes and 59 seconds for Trump.

Media Matters

(not really shocking that FOX News showed Trump far more often than Hillary)

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

"No such thing as bad publicity"? This was the front page that lost Hillary the election.

 

[whyamihere]

There is such things as bad publicity because both candidate's had the two lowest approval ratings of any candidates in modern history. What an odd thing to say.

 

[Wilsongt]

AP released their findings on ad money spent by each candidate: http://elections.ap.org/content/ad-spending

Spoiler

Fucking INSANE

Why would Trump need to pay for ad time? His surrogates and all of the news media was doing his job for him: Making themselves seem biased towards Clinton, attacking and covering every single "scandal" clinton was involved in, airing every single one of Trump's dumb comments and rallies.

Free.

 

[And_Gignac]

"No such thing as bad publicity"? This was the front page that lost Hillary the election.

I doubt the white men that deflected from Obama to Trump pay that much importance to the New York Times.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

I doubt the white men that deflected from Obama to Trump pay that much importance to the New York Times.

I assume that the point is that it was the Comey letter and the way the media at large talked about it, not the NYT specifically.

(Which, yes, most likely made a big difference in the voters you talked about.)

 

[kirblar]

Serious question: do campaign ads matter post-Trump, or was Trump getting outspent about a billion-to-one and still winning unique to Trump.

Jeff Zucker had CNN buried deep in Trump.

 

[Abounder]

I'm still having a hard time calling it outright incompetent. Her campaign had an insane ground game, it just turned out to be pushed in the wrong places. Something something polls. And Florida was just ridiculous with the rural turnout.

It was insane for the wrong reasons: Hillary and her camp didn't visit or listen to the ground game even after the Michigan primary, and the Democratic party as a whole has been especially garbage at local levels. Not to mention flying back to her home every night like Trump, but in the process let Trump outwork her on both the campaign trail and the media which goes against campaigning 101 to put it politely (skipping Wisconsin entirely, smh)

And now we've got Obama saying he would have been able to mobilize the majority as if it was another shot against Hillary & Co's lack of work ethic. She ran an incompetent campaign. We've never seen a lazier candidate, not to mention her all-time deplorable ratings and having the FBI on her ass.

 

[dramatis]

It was insane for the wrong reasons: Hillary and her camp didn't visit or listen to the ground game even after the Michigan primary, and the Democratic party as a whole has been especially garbage at local levels. Not to mention flying back to her home every night like Trump, but in the process let Trump outwork her on both the campaign trail and the media which goes against campaigning 101 to put it politely (skipping Wisconsin entirely, smh)

And now we've got Obama saying he would have been able to mobilize the majority as if it was another shot against Hillary & Co's lack of work ethic. She ran an incompetent campaign. We've never seen a lazier candidate, not to mention her all-time deplorable ratings and having the FBI on her ass.

I'm not sure you know what 'ground game' means in this context.

It goes without question that the Hillary campaign's ground game was intense in FL and AZ, and also in NC. 'Ground game' refers to the organization of getting out the vote, not the local party activists.

 

[Debirudog]

a lazier candidate.

jesus fucking christ, that's not what happened.

 

[TestOfTide]

I doubt the white men that deflected from Obama to Trump pay that much importance to the New York Times.

How about we don't assume all Trump voters are the same. Yes, the full-on deplorables can fuck off for all a I care, but any Trump voter that voted for Obama is reachable.

Just because MOST Trump voters are far right assholes that refuse to read good sources doesn't mean we should assume that of ALL Trump voters.

 

[Abounder]

I'm not sure you know what 'ground game' means in this context.

It goes without question that the Hillary campaign's ground game was intense in FL and AZ, and also in NC. 'Ground game' refers to the organization of getting out the vote, not the local party activists.

Hillary spent a lot of money on ads, but there was no Hillary or her army knocking down doors like there was with Obama's historic efforts. Her ground game was not great, and flat out ignored concerns in the rust belt even after the MI primary.

a lazier candidate.

jesus fucking christ, that's not what happened.

That's exactly what happened, and you don't have to take my words for it either with Obama's Iowa statements/etc. Hillary flew back to her home every night, skipped Wisconsin, and barely campaigned compared to the rookie Trump. There's no worthwhile excuse for any of that, she's lazy as hell

 

[dramatis]

Hillary spent a lot of money on ads, but there was no Hillary or her army knocking down doors like there was with Obama's historic efforts. Her ground game was not great.

I still think you don't understand what ground game is.

What are Obama's historic efforts? Can you name the early vote numbers? Can you name the statistics? Can you name where? Can you even name the counties?

You don't get to selectively ignore the early vote numbers and banking that happened in the weeks leading up to the election, and make a blanket statement that misunderstands what ground game is about whether or not her campaign was any good.

 

[davepoobond]

That's exactly what happened, and you don't have to take my words for it either with Obama's Iowa statements/etc. Hillary flew back to her home every night, skipped Wisconsin, and barely campaigned compared to the rookie Trump. There's no worthwhile excuse for any of that, she's lazy as hell

trump flew back home every night too...

 

[Wilsongt]

Lol. Sean Spicer got a little testy with Buzzfeed for calling out his bullshit Christmas tweet.

The next four years are going to be LOVELY for any media outlet that doesn't wash Trump and Putin's balls.

 

[Abounder]

I still think you don't understand what ground game is.

What are Obama's historic efforts? Can you name the early vote numbers? Can you name the statistics? Can you name where? Can you even name the counties?

You don't get to selectively ignore the early vote numbers and banking that happened in the weeks leading up to the election, and make a blanket statement that misunderstands what ground game is about whether or not her campaign was any good.

Dude campaigned like the country was on the line unlike Hillary, see Iowa. Or the amount of field offices - Obama had nearly 800 in 2012 and twice as many as Hillary in the rust belt/battlegruond states. Obama had a ground game army that knocked down barriers and doors, not so much with Hilldawg

trump flew back home every night too...

And the rookie Trump dominated the veteran Hillary on the trail and in the media, and didn't skip Wisconsin lol. Also noted this in the post prior. Hillary's laziness was unprecedented.

 

[Debirudog]

Hillary spent a lot of money on ads, but there was no Hillary or her army knocking down doors like there was with Obama's historic efforts. Her ground game was not great, and flat out ignored concerns in the rust belt even after the MI primary.



That's exactly what happened, and you don't have to take my words for it either with Obama's Iowa statements/etc. Hillary flew back to her home every night, skipped Wisconsin, and barely campaigned compared to the rookie Trump. There's no worthwhile excuse for any of that, she's lazy as hell

The media doesn't play fair of who gets the attention they deserve. This is some revisionism, she had more of an actual ground game than Trump did and in an organization level that was much stronger than Trump's. Trump was far more lazy but I guess you can argue he was more efficient with how he campaigned.

Obama is salty for understandable reasons but he still lost the damn WWC vote and would have lost it just as big against Trump. I might as well accuse Obama for not doing his damn job when he slept on the fact that Russia and the FBI had compromised our democracy. He didn't do jackshit because he wanted to look good.

I'm not denying her campaign was incompetent but laziness is just a slant against the effort she made.

 

[dramatis]

Dude campaigned like the country was on the line unlike Hillary, see Iowa. Or the amount of field offices - Obama had nearly 800 in 2012 and twice as many as Hillary in the rust belt/battlegruond states. Obama had a ground game army that knocked down barriers and doors, not so much with Hilldawg

And the rookie Trump dominated the veteran Hillary on the trail and in the media, and didn't skip Wisconsin lol. Also noted this in the post prior. Hillary's laziness was unprecedented.

From Manmademan, who is not a Hillary fan. 11/06/2016

Already, about 2,892,000 people have voted in North Carolina, out of about 4,642,000 we think will eventually vote. Based on the voting history and demographic characteristics of those people, we think Hillary Clinton leads in North Carolina by about 6 percentage points. We think she has an even larger lead – 9 percentage points – among people who have already voted.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/north-carolina-early-vote-tracker.html

From RustyNails. 11/06/2016

Sahil Kapur ‏@sahilkapur 1m1 minute ago

NV early vote: Dems up by 73,000 (it was 71,000 in ‘12, Obama won by 7). @RalstonReports predicts Clinton wins by 6.

From you know who. 11/06/2016

Another good day out of Florida. But, one of the most important things is that the GOP is about 50k votes ahead among people who voted on election day in 2012 as opposed to early voting. What that means is that they are taking a lot of their same-day voters from 2012 and they're voting early this year. This means they are reducing the number of typical election day voters they can turn out.

Miami-Dade early vote turnout is up 67% from 2012.

Also

Steve Schale ‏@steveschale 1h1 hour ago
NPA's in counties with large Hispanic populations really turned out today:
29% of vote in Orange
28% of vote in Hillsborough
28% in Broward

In Broward, we had our biggest day EVER yesterday. Today, we were only down 300 from yesterday, and still like 3k up from a normal day.

Prior to this election, how Miami Dade voted was probably how FL would go. Of course, predictions didn't factor in the vote that came out in the FL panhandle. Which can't be explained by rust belt economic anxiety.

Or perhaps https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/795386445125091334

@ElectProject

Michael McDonald Retweeted Beth Reinhard

Likely when the data come out tomorrow, more Hispanics will have voted early in FL than all Hispanics voted in 2012

But yes, the Hillary campaign must have been so lazy and terrible to have racked up so much early vote. It's totally because she and her campaign were lazy and not because they had a different strategy.

 

[B-Dubs]

The media doesn't play fair of who gets the attention they deserve. This is some revisionism, she had more of an actual ground game than Trump did and in an organization level that was much stronger than Trump's. Trump was far more lazy but I guess you can argue he was more efficient with how he campaigned.

Obama is salty for understandable reasons but he still lost the damn WWC vote and would have lost it just as big against Trump.

I'm not denying her campaign was incompetent but laziness is just a slant against the effort she made.

I mean, let's be real: when you're up by 7 in a state with a week and a half to go why would you spend any time there when there's states that are much closer you can flip? It's not like we knew she was losing these states before the vote happened, hell all the polling said the opposite.

 

[Kusagari]

I don't think anyone is criticizing Hillary's ground game in Florida. It was beyond impressive and should have basically guaranteed a victory.

And then 500k people from the Panhandle that never vote showed up with MAGA hats.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I would hope any saltiness on Obama's part comes with the recognition of his responsibility for the Democratic Party's complete erosion at the state and local level in many swing states over the course of his presidency. Not that it's entirely on him, but the dude had an army in 08 and 12 that went to complete waste in the midterm elections.

Without draconian voter ID laws Clinton probably swings Michigan and Wisconsin. Without gerrymandering we have the House. The Democratic Party has spent the last eight years missing the trees for the forest and now Trump has chopped down our last tree.

 

[Wilsongt]

I would hope any saltiness on Obama's part comes with the recognition of his responsibility for the Democratic Party's complete erosion at the state and local level in many swing states over the course of his presidency. Not that it's entirely on him, but the dude had an army in 08 and 12 that went to complete waste in the midterm elections.

Without draconian voter ID laws Clinton probably swings Michigan and Wisconsin. Without gerrymandering we have the House. The Democratic Party has spent the last eight years missing the trees for the forest and now Trump has chopped down our last tree.

And it is highly doubtful gerrymandering or voter ID laws get fixed any time soon

This isn't like when Bush and his Republicans controlled everything. This current Republicans had 8 years to sit and scheme on how to ruin the Democrats and their chances at ever controlling anything again.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

And it is highly doubtful gerrymandering or voter ID laws get fixed any time soon

This isn't like when Bush and his Republicans controlled everything. This current Republicans had 8 years to sit and scheme on how to ruin the Democrats and their chances at ever controlling anything again.

Which why I think blue states need to reciprocate, playing the discourse aides Republicans with an advantage.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't think anyone is criticizing Hillary's ground game in Florida. It was beyond impressive and should have basically guaranteed a victory.

And then 500k people from the Panhandle that never vote showed up with MAGA hats.

I mean, this is what scares me about Florida going forward. If the GOP learns to replicate this on-demand, and without Trump, we're never going to win Florida again. They got every single last democratic vote in the state to the polls and still lost.

 

[Aaron Strife]

And it is highly doubtful gerrymandering or voter ID laws get fixed any time soon

This isn't like when Bush and his Republicans controlled everything. This current Republicans had 8 years to sit and scheme on how to ruin the Democrats and their chances at ever controlling anything again.

As much as I respect Obama, Bill was much better at playing the game. Mind you, I think a great deal of downballot Dem success in places like Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia etc in the 90s versus the 2010s had to do with Bill being white and I'm not so delusional as to suggest that we have a real chance at winning those states anytime soon. The important thing is to ensure we can get 40-45% of the vote and gain enough power that we're not completely shut out of the decision making. Completely ceding those states is a mistake.

Which why I think blue states need to reciprocate, playing the discourse aides Republicans with an advantage.

Problem is ideological. Liberals/Democrats don't believe Republicans shouldn't be able to vote. Many conservatives/Republicans do believe Democrats shouldn't be able to vote. And honestly that's not a depth I'm willing to stoop to.

 

[Yoda]

I would hope any saltiness on Obama's part comes with the recognition of his responsibility for the Democratic Party's complete erosion at the state and local level in many swing states over the course of his presidency. Not that it's entirely on him, but the dude had an army in 08 and 12 that went to complete waste in the midterm elections.

Without draconian voter ID laws Clinton probably swings Michigan and Wisconsin. Without gerrymandering we have the House. The Democratic Party has spent the last eight years missing the trees for the forest and now Trump has chopped down our last tree.

Unfortunately for Democrats they'll need to obtain power in order to change these policies. There currently is no plan on how to go about doing that on the local and state levels.

I mean, this is what scares me about Florida going forward. If the GOP learns to replicate this on-demand, and without Trump, we're never going to win Florida again. They got every single last democratic vote in the state to the polls and still lost.

Working class voters SHOULD trend democratic due to left leaning policies being in their interest vs. supply side zealotry from the U.S. Chambers of Commerce. With the correct candidate those voters wouldn't break nearly as much for the Republicans again.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Problem is ideological. Liberals/Democrats don't believe Republicans shouldn't be able to vote. Many conservatives/Republicans do believe Democrats shouldn't be able to vote. And honestly that's not a depth I'm willing to stoop to.

True, at the same time things like poll observers was a settlement reached from escalation of both sides. Unfortunately I think think escalation is the only way to get compromise from the GOP.

 

[B-Dubs]

Working class voters SHOULD trend democratic due to left leaning policies being in their interest vs. supply side zealotry from the U.S. Chambers of Commerce. With the correct candidate those voters wouldn't break nearly as much for the Republicans again.

The people who came out normally don't come out at all. This is also assuming that economics are their driving issue, which might not be true given this is the first time they've all shown up like this.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

If you think Elizabeth Warren is the answer to 2020 then you probably live in a giant liberal bubble somewhere in a deep blue state.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

The media doesn't play fair of who gets the attention they deserve. This is some revisionism, she had more of an actual ground game than Trump did and in an organization level that was much stronger than Trump's. Trump was far more lazy but I guess you can argue he was more efficient with how he campaigned.

Obama is salty for understandable reasons but he still lost the damn WWC vote and would have lost it just as big against Trump. I might as well accuse Obama for not doing his damn job when he slept on the fact that Russia and the FBI had compromised our democracy. He didn't do jackshit because he wanted to look good.

I'm not denying her campaign was incompetent but laziness is just a slant against the effort she made.

What exactly should Obama have done about Russia, and how would it have helped Hillary win? I seem to remember a nationally televised debate between Trump and Hillary which focused quite a bit on Russian interference. And voters didn't give a shit. She lost because she was a weak nominee, didn't work hard enough where she needed to, and the "Obama coalition" didn't turn out for her. Focusing on Russia or the FBI ignores major structural problems that led to her loss.

How the Obama Coalition Crumbled, Leaving an Opening for Trump

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

One of the huge reasons trump won the GE and hell, even the primary, is because the media would constantly have a picture of an empty trump podium and didnt give time for other peoples live events. All for ratings money.

congratsyouplayedyourself.gif, media.

 

[whyamihere]

I don't think either of these candidates campaigning in any state would really ever make that much of a difference but that's just me.

 

[Abounder]

The media doesn't play fair of who gets the attention they deserve. This is some revisionism, she had more of an actual ground game than Trump did and in an organization level that was much stronger than Trump's. Trump was far more lazy but I guess you can argue he was more efficient with how he campaigned.

Obama is salty for understandable reasons but he still lost the damn WWC vote and would have lost it just as big against Trump. I might as well accuse Obama for not doing his damn job when he slept on the fact that Russia and the FBI had compromised our democracy. He didn't do jackshit because he wanted to look good.

I'm not denying her campaign was incompetent but laziness is just a slant against the effort she made.

Dems definitely had more offices, but Hillary & Co. were no-shows that didn't learn, listen, or rally unlike their predecessors, and Hillary was outworked by the rookie Trump on both the trail and media presence. Obama's criticism is also about the party as a whole, and Hillary definitely had other flaws before we knew how lazy she would become (populism, FBI, all time low ratings, Russia, etc). In the end the only thing you can rely on is your own effort, and the work ethic for the veteran Hillary leaves a lot to be desired. There's just no worthwhile excuse for things like skipping Wisconsin especially with the examples Obama/Bill set.

But yes, the Hillary campaign must have been so lazy and terrible to have racked up so much early vote. It's totally because she and her campaign were lazy and not because they had a different strategy.

Early vote is good stuff. But what strategy is there in skipping Wisconsin, flying home everynight, ignoring lessons from MI/Brexit, and letting the rookie Birther outwork you on both the trail and media? It goes against politics 101 and are hair-pulling mistakes for experienced campaigners like the Clintons, Hillary should have rivaled Obama's field offices/presence instead of ads and skipping states

 

[kess]

Hillary's campaign aside, I'm still wondering how the kind of people who ostensibly are anti-corporate, and anti-pipeline ended up as latecomers to the Trump bandwagon despite the Clinton campaign almost exclusively focusing on his glaring hypocrisy on the issue. Even so, I'm not sure if the message was the problem, or the messaging itself.

Most of her ads focused on offended reactions instead of openly belittling his message in the first place. Most people I heard listening to them thought the reactions were staged or feigned and were making Trump into some kind of imaginary asshole or something.

If the campaign had run an ad like "Trump says he's for America, but owns a fucking golf course in Dubai, ha ha" it would have been a easy hook and fairly hard for the viewer/listener to immediately refute, although it may have been open to accusations of anti-Arab bias. Bush belittled Kerry early in 2004 through humor, and the Democrats took the House in 2006 on the back on the Dubai Ports issue.

By the time the midterms roll around the Democrats don't have to pussyfoot around Russian involvement in the election process and can campaign on Putin's involvement in Afghanistan by then or something.

 

[Hillary Clinton]

That we may cherish our beloved first family on this American Christmas day.

 

[whyamihere]

Also if the election was performed the same way that Brexit was, Hillary would have won, so I'm not sure what sort of lesson there was to be learned there, unless you believe the apocrypha that the polls were wrong about Brexit (they weren't).

 

[B-Dubs]

Dems definitely had more offices, but Hillary & Co. were no-shows that didn't learn, listen, or rally unlike their predecessors, and Hillary was outworked by the rookie Trump on both the trail and media presence. Obama's criticism is also about the party as a whole, and Hillary definitely had other flaws before we knew how lazy she would become (populism, FBI, all time low ratings, Russia, etc). In the end the only thing you can rely on is your own effort, and the work ethic for the veteran Hillary leaves a lot to be desired. There's just no worthwhile excuse for things like skipping Wisconsin especially with the examples Obama/Bill set.

I mean, again, they were up by anywhere from 7 to 10 points in these states. Why would you go there when there are states that everything says are within 3 points or even closer? Why would you not try and flip these states instead of visiting the states that all polling said was a lock?

 

[Debirudog]

What exactly should Obama have done about Russia, and how would it have helped Hillary win? I seem to remember a nationally televised debate between Trump and Hillary which focused quite a bit on Russian interference. And voters didn't give a shit. She lost because she was a weak nominee, didn't work hard enough where she needed to, and the "Obama coalition" didn't turn out for her. Focusing on Russia or the FBI ignores major structural problems that led to her loss.

How the Obama Coalition Crumbled, Leaving an Opening for Trump

The DNC needs some soul searching no doubt but c'mon, wikileaks, fbi and russia is an interference that would not just go away the next election.

Iirc, seeing a thread that Obama knew that Russia compromised our democracy but he was complicit because he thought Clinton had it. I'm not denying that Clinton was a bad candidate in the scheme of things but Obama was just as guilty of being complicit of himself. Yes, the scandals bit her in the ass but Comey and Russia is just ruthless, invasive and wrong. It's not even about Clinton but if Obama doesn't want to do anything and let it happen, that's a huge problem.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Can we just do a poll of Obama supporters who don't like Hillary? That seems like it would be helpful to understand what happened but it hasn't happened yet.

Like:

"If you voted for Obama in 2012, but did not vote for Hillary in 2016, rank these reasons as to why you didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

-Email scandal
-Benghazi scandal
-Thought Hillary was a racist
-Thought Hillary was too elitist
-Thought Hillary was too aggressive in foreign policy
-Thought that Donald Trump would do a good job protecting Social Security and Medicare
-Thought Hillary Clinton was a liar
-Thought Hillary Clinton was too economically liberal
-Thought Hillary Clinton was too economically conservative
-Thought Donald Trump would improve economic performance"


... This seems like it would allow us to understand what happened instead of just wildly guessing.

 

[B-Dubs]

Can we just do a poll of Obama supporters who don't like Hillary? That seems like it would be helpful to understand what happened but it hasn't happened yet.

Like:

"If you voted for Obama in 2012, but did not vote for Hillary in 2016, rank these reasons as to why you didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

-Email scandal
-Benghazi scandal
-Thought Hillary was a racist
-Thought Hillary was too elitist
-Thought Hillary was too aggressive in foreign policy
-Thought that Donald Trump would do a good job protecting Social Security and Medicare
-Thought Hillary Clinton was a liar
-Thought Hillary Clinton was too economically liberal
-Thought Hillary Clinton was too economically conservative
-Thought Donald Trump would improve economic performance"


... This seems like it would allow us to understand what happened instead of just wildly guessing.

I expect something like this to happen within the next year, if not sooner. We might not be privvy to it, but the DNC would be fools not to do this.