Support NeoGAF

[Suikoguy]

I don't know why you have to be condescending towards me, as I will not be towards you. My point was that we knew that the DNC had been hacked and were getting hints that they had found things showing the DNC had leanings towards Clinton.

I know when the Comey letter happened, what I was saying is, we knew the email situation was going to be used against her regardless.

Why is time so hard for you to understand.

All the DNC leak stuff happened AFTER the primary. Why won't you accept this fact?

Secondly, did we honestly expect the FBI to release a political letter the week before the election. If you did, you need to find a job in politics as you are a fucking genius.

If Bernie Sanders was under an active criminal investigation by the FBI, he shouldn't have been running for president and should have bowed out of the race. And the DNC should have pressured him to do so as much as it's in their power. No one can win a race with the FBI as their running mate. Case and point: this election.

So, it's ok for the DNC to actively influence the election as long as it favors your canidate. Good to know.

 

[East Lake]

You are dead set on explaining away every external situation as the fault of the Dems, when that is not the case.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Explaining away would be saying Russia had no effect on the election because reason X. I'm saying, knowing that Russia was hostile how does help anyone to blame Russia for losing. Maybe have a better security strategy next time.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I asked this before but I don't think anyone responded.

Are there any countries with better media and what can we do to try and emulate that, especially without breaking the first amendment?

Edit: Do on like, an institutional level. I realize on an individual level this boils down to "support not shitty media".

We need to get a public station with an equivalent level of relevance as the BBC has in England. Something where we can actually enforce reasonable reporting standards.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

So, it's ok for the DNC to actively influence the election as long as it favors your canidate. Good to know.

I don't think Hillary shouldn't have run, but do you think that other ambitious Democrats didn't step aside because of institutional pressures/promises? If Hillary wasn't running, I imagine we would have seen a much larger and serious primary field.

That's not even to say that the primary elections were rigged, but I doubt that there were no ambitious Democrats who just decided it wasn't the right time to run. Maybe they were friends with Clinton and thought she deserved the nomination! Maybe they were promised something in return.

 

[B-Dubs]

We need to get a public station with an equivalent level of relevance as the BBC has in England. Something where we can actually enforce reasonable reporting standards.

PBS exists, and it's very very good. The problem is no one watches it. The broadcast channels used to be on that level, until media CEO realized you can make money off the news.

 

[Totakeke]

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Explaining away would be saying Russia had no effect on the election because reason X. I'm saying, knowing that Russia was hostile how does help anyone to blame Russia for losing. Maybe have a better security strategy next time.

It's diagnosing all the issues, and trying to fix or counter them one by one. Why should the solution be a singular "let's run a better campaign and a better candidate!".

 

[witness]

Didn't really know where to post this and I didn't want to make my own thread. So I work for an immigration company that brings healthcare professionals (RNs, PTs, OTs) into the US as these positions are horribly understaffed and will stay that way with all the old boomers. Most of our candidates are from Africa, Philippines, and the Caribbean. We send the majority to more rural areas that have an incredibly hard time recruiting US candidates, like North Dakota. We bring groups of around 15 into the country every two weeks year round.

As you can imagine, we are getting alot of questions right now. Many of these highly educated and badly needed healthcare workers are scared. These are people that have spent years and thousands of dollars for the chance to get here, and now this happens. I'm worried to the point of keeping a close eye on the recruitment numbers we get. When I get these questions from people who are not here asking if it's safe for them, I want to tell them you should wait and go somewhere else in the meantime. I cant though and I just feel so terrible for them right now, it really hurts all of us who work so hard for so long to get them here and now this happens. I am very concerned and just waiting to hear a story from one of our placed healthcare workers being discriminated against now.

There's so many people that I'm angry when about this whole thing; young millennials who don't remember how shitty it was with Bush, protest voters, racists, the FBI, the alt right, Clinton campaign, and people who couldn't be bothered to vote because they never thought Trump works actually win. And it hasn't even been one week.....

 

[metalslimer]

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Explaining away would be saying Russia had no effect on the election because reason X. I'm saying, knowing that Russia was hostile how does help anyone to blame Russia for losing. Maybe have a better security strategy next time.

Well to be fair, I think that actually is an important lesson learned. The DNC and every candidates emails and personal devices are going to be on lockdown and having maximal security in place to prevent hacking. This is not actually a small thing, because with Trump controlling so much of our security a Watergate situation isn't out of the question at all except not with having a lot more technology to hack into devices.

 

[Coriolanus]

Complaints about the media are pointless. One will not get it to change its ways by assigning blame to it. One can only alter one's own behaviour and hope to produce an image that manages to work well both with The Media and The Electorate.

Failure to do so will always rest with the candidate.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Can't the BBC largely function the way it does because there's very little alternative television options? I'm not sure that it's possible in our current landscape to elevate PBS to such levels.

 

[Totakeke]

Complaints about the media are pointless. One will not get it to change its ways by assigning blame to it. One can only alter one's own behaviour and hope to produce an image that manages to work well both with The Media and The Electorate.

Failure to do so will always rest with the candidate.

"oh, but x, y and z happened"
Yerp. Sucks. Deal with it, adapt and overcome. Is all you can do, really.

"How?"
No fucking idea whatsoever. Is why i'm not in charge of campaigns.

Alter one's own behavior... to run negative ads, that the media love to lap up. Because they sure don't give a shit about any policy.

Do you not see how this is defeatism?

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Many parties were thinking only of themselves while perpetuating all that bullshit. All of them thought that surely human decency would prevail, that no way Trump would be elected, and it's totally okay to save their own hides or profit from the whole Trump phenomenon. The media for chasing after clicks and ratings while perpetuating false equivalence, the establishment republicans saving their own hides realizing that their base has gone rabid, and also James Comey for believing that he himself or his own agency should save their own skins and submitting to the rabid republican pressure.

After all, all the polls were showing Hillary was winning. I don't believe any of them meant to put Trump in power, but here we are, because everyone is only looking out for themselves.

I think that all played into it also.

Why is time so hard for you to understand.

All the DNC leak stuff happened AFTER the primary. Why won't you accept this fact?

Secondly, did we honestly expect the FBI to release a political letter the week before the election. If you did, you need to find a job in politics as you are a fucking genius.

So, it's ok for the DNC to actively influence the election as long as it favors your candidate. Good to know.

I just remember hearing of rumblings about there being emails that were going to be release, I believe it started in march, talking about how the DNC weren't being impartial.

I didn't know Comey would release such a letter, and I didn't know some random device would be found involving Wiener. All I have been saying is, the FBI investigation would be used against her by the right regardless. The extent? We didn't know it at the time. But remember, when the letter happened many people were saying it wasn't having that much of an effect. I guess it did.

 

[Suikoguy]

Well to be fair, I think that actually is an important lesson learned. The DNC and every candidates emails and personal devices are going to be on lockdown and having maximal security in place to prevent hacking.

True, but that's not a policy or canidate issue.
Which was my point.

But honestly, if you want to get into a server someone will find a way. The only foolproof way is to have it off the internet.

I think that all played into it also.



I just remember hearing of rumblings about there being emails that were going to be release, I believe it started in march, talking about how the DNC weren't being impartial.

I didn't know Comey would release such a letter, and I didn't know some random device would be found involving Wiener. All I have been saying is, the FBI investigation would be used against her by the right regardless. The extent? We didn't know it at the time. But remember, when the letter happened many people were saying it wasn't having that much of an effect. I guess it did.

I don't want the DNC to influence the primary against their candidates. I don't know where you got that from me.

The primary was pretty much over in March. Bernie's epic failure in South Carolina was in Feb.
Secondly, I was replying to the other poster who thinks the DNC should have pressured her not to run.

 

[jtb]

I don't think Hillary shouldn't have run, but do you think that other ambitious Democrats didn't step aside because of institutional pressures/promises? If Hillary wasn't running, I imagine we would have seen a much larger and serious primary field.

That's not even to say that the primary elections were rigged, but I doubt that there were no ambitious Democrats who just decided it wasn't the right time to run. Maybe they were friends with Clinton and thought she deserved the nomination! Maybe they were promised something in return.

Lost in all of the talk about the DNC and 20/20 hindsight is that (I think) the main reason other Democrats didn't run is pretty simple: they thought they would lose.

 

[Coriolanus]

Alter one's own behavior... to run negative ads, that the media love to lap up.

Do you not see how this is defeatism?

Do whatever works. I don't care what. Absolutely whatever it takes, so long as you prevent the other fuckers from winning.

Exact opposite of defeatism.

Or hold on to your petty morals and ideological purity and see what happens.

 

[B-Dubs]

Can't the BBC largely function the way it does because there's very little alternative television options? I'm not sure that it's possible in our current landscape to elevate PBS to such levels.

The BBC works the way it does because it was started at what is essentially the very birth of TV. Plus there's no way Congress would ever let PBS function with the sort of autonomy that the BBC does.

Lost in all of the talk about the DNC and 20/20 hindsight is that (I think) the main reason other Democrats didn't run is pretty simple: they thought they would lose.

I think that gets ignored. Clinton went the full 12-rounds with Obama in 2008 and came close a few times. I mean, just going off 2008 and ignoring all this, who would want to fight the dude that did better than anyone else against Obama?

 

[Kusagari]

lol are you fucking kidding me?

Bondi's on his transition team too now?

 

[Totakeke]

Do whatever works. I don't care what. Absolutely whatever it takes, so long as you prevent the other fuckers from winning.

Exact opposite of defeatism.

Or hold on to your petty morals and ideological purity and see what happens.

Okay, you hold an opposite viewpoint. It's hard to distinguish where people stand when people oversimplify the issues. So you're of the mind that that we should have gone even deeper into the mud.

Fine. I personally don't have a stand on that right now.

 

[royalan]

Complaints about the media are pointless. One will not get it to change its ways by assigning blame to it. One can only alter one's own behaviour and hope to produce an image that manages to work well both with The Media and The Electorate.

Failure to do so will always rest with the candidate.

I agree, merely complaining about the media is pointless.

But, I do think it's extremely important for Democrats to not only criticize the media, but to study it, and be prepared for it.

It's the one moment of intelligence I have to give Trump credit for. As a product of the media, he knew exactly how to manipulate the media. He played them even when they KNEW they were being played.

The media is guided by headlines. It's fucked up and wrong, but sadly that's how it is. Democrats need to be better prepared for that next time.

 

[Suikoguy]

Okay, you hold an opposite viewpoint. It's hard to distinguish where people stand when people oversimplify the issues. So you're of the mind that that we should have gone even deeper into the mud.

Fine. I personally don't have a stand on that right now.

I don't think it would have mattered either way.
Lie your ass off might have, but I don't want us to go there.

 

[chadskin]

@CandaceSmith_:
Source on transition team passes on quote from Trump on Ayotte:

"Mr. Trump has zero interest in having her in the Cabinet or anywhere else"

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

The primary was pretty much over in March. Bernie's epic failure in South Carolina was in Feb.
Secondly, I was replying to the other poster who thinks the DNC should have pressured her not to run.

I agree it pretty much ended in mid-march, he still had a chance, but it was going to be a really long shot. It might have been helpful though if the DNC wasn't angled against him, but that isn't what I was talking about. We started talking about this because we had already heard of rumors that the DNC was pretty anti-bernie, at least when it came to him getting the nom. They loved him getting out there to help promote Hillary though.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Lost in all of the talk about the DNC and 20/20 hindsight is that (I think) the main reason other Democrats didn't run is pretty simple: they thought they would lose.

Yglesias (I think, it was someone from Vox) when talking about the idea that Hillary was a weak candidate mentioned that it wasn't a coincidence that she ran with no serious opposition field in the primary because of her ability to build loyal supporters and strong relationships with people. Her absurd amount of establishment support came because she had a lot of loyal insiders she'd built up over the years, so they didn't run against her.

Take that away, and I don't see why Gillibrand, Booker, etc at least try this year. I don't know if they'd win against her, but there's a reason it's said that she won the invisible primary.

It's the same for the Republicans in 2000! Bush, by virtue of family connections and institutional support, locks up the resources and keeps out serious contenders so his primary opposition includes McCain (a lot like Sanders, grassroots support and party outsider) and a bunch of nobodies like Dole, Quayle, Keyes, etc. Hell, it even had some now familiar names like Herman Cain or John Kasich running but nobody remembers those runs (except Benji).

 

[balladofwindfishes]

2012 wasn't Herman Cain's first rodeo?

 

[Suikoguy]

Basically, my argument is that Clinton was besieged by a huge set of non-policy related issues, only one of which was self inflicted, but unfairly. We can certainly learn from those issues, as many have pointed out.

Another Candidate would have ran into several of these problems. So other than increase security on servers, try to manipulate the media better and never trust Republicans ever again for positions in the administration what do we need to do?

Xenophobia and Racism with Economic Populism is more effective than just straight Economic Populism.
I don't see the Dems ripping away enough people from someone they VERY MUCH agree with.

Of course, there are local and state races that need to be examined too.

 

[B-Dubs]

Basically, my argument is that Clinton was besieged by a huge set of non-policy related issues, only one of which was self inflicted, but unfairly. We can certainly learn from those issues, as many have pointed out.

Another Candidate would have ran into several of these problems. So other than increase security on servers, try to manipulate the media better and never trust Republicans ever again for positions in the administration what do we need to do?

Xenophobia and Racism with Economic Populism is more effective than just straight Economic Populism.

Find someone with charisma for days.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

2012 wasn't Herman Cain's first rodeo?

Very brief, he dropped out before votes were cast or anything, but he was about as serious as Jim Webb.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The hacks wouldn't have had as much impact, I think. Hillary came into the race unliked, people didn't trust her, and they felt she was above the law. The leaks basically cemented those things into people's minds.

Had the hacks shown DWS colluded with Hillary and Sanders still won the primary, it likely would have boosted his popularity a lot, because now it would be totally confirmed that he was an underdog going against a giant.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

So, it's ok for the DNC to actively influence the election as long as it favors your canidate. Good to know.

The DNC's job is to win. The problem is that it's run by losers who love losing. It's not "if it favors my candidate." I'm not a YASS QUEEN crying fanatic. If Bernie Sanders was polling tied with the likely opposing, the other person was polling +10 against them on average, and they had a criminal investigation on them that is grounds for the DNC to actually throwing their weight around.

I'd be disappointed because I prefer Bernie's politics, but at the end of the day I'd think it's what had to be done. What the fuck do you think you're doing trying to run with the FBI as your running mate.

The people at the DNC cared more about currying favor with Hillary Clinton than protecting the American public from a President Donald Trump.

What's the point of superdelegates if not to stop unelectable candidates like Hillary Clinton from winning the primary and losing the general?

Edit: Regarding the media the democrats need to start playing the media the way Republicans do. The media is terrified to talk about actual policy. They have this insane neutrality bias towards everything. "Republicans say this. Democrats say that. IDK who is right." They don't talk about policy or facts because they're terrified of Republicans calling them liberal.

I can't stop thinking of the week where Anderson Cooper moderated democratic and republican debates / townhalls and asked the Democrats real, good tough questions to both Clinton and Bernie. Then a bit later when he had a Republican even he spent the entire time asking pointless fluff questions like "How much do you love your wife? Do you like Pina Coladas? I hear you like EDM. Tell me how funny you are."

The media are the refers and we need to start playing the refers better and calling bullshit on things like that.

 

[Coriolanus]

I agree, merely complaining about the media is pointless.

But, I do think it's extremely important for Democrats to not only criticize the media, but to study it, and be prepared for it.

It's the one moment of intelligence I have to give Trump credit for. As a product of the media, he knew exactly how to manipulate the media. He played them even when they KNEW they were being played.

The media is guided by headlines. It's fucked up and wrong, but sadly that's how it is. Democrats need to be better prepared for that next time.

Yarp, the dude might be a near-complete idiot and walking grotesquerie, but as far as understanding the media goes? His grasp of it is phenomenal.

And yarp, one can criticize it, of course, but if one expects to change it (and in a short time frame), that is an exercise in foolishness. One hopes they'll study and prepare for it.

One of the readiest examples i can recall (although i might be suffering from selective bias) is this idea that the media should've focused on policies. The media never fucking focuses on policy. Ever. Because it is mostly boring as balls. And it most likely never will focus on policy. Because it is mostly boring as balls. Thus it falls to the candidate to package policy in a way that will get a lot of play in the media.

Thus, the wall.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

If not posted: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/opinions/van-jones-messy-truth/index.html

Some interviews with voters about the division the election is causing.

 

[Gruco]

@CandaceSmith_:
Source on transition team passes on quote from Trump on Ayotte:

"Mr. Trump has zero interest in having her in the Cabinet or anywhere else"

The white house will soon be run by bitter children. If we're lucky they'll get so distracted by GOP vendettas that they won't make it to domestic policy. If we're unlucky they'll make their way past the GOP vendettas and quickly move on to the press and Clinton supporters.

He ran as a message candidate and didn't realize he had a chance win until late December 2015. The campaign wasn't even fully staffed until the primaries were about to happen. If Bernie had started prepping for a run a year or two earlier, I think he probably would have been able to win. The campaign was completely caught off guard by the level of support it had received.

I think it's true that Bernie could have made made things closer by running a more professional campaign, but given that he didn't, that doesn't spell good things for his hypothetical performance in the general.

That said I certainly welcome anyone who wants to take up the platform in 2020 and try to win, provided nothing gets burned down in the process. The kind of primary we should have this year, with more than 2 voices and 3 joke candidates.

Most of that stuff is external or self inflicted. James Comey was appointed by Obama. The unprecedented hacking by Russia included sending John Podesta a fake email and the IT team not making it clear he shouldn't click on it. The media is awful but we already knew that. What are you going to do about the media, force them to cover the right stories? What use is it to blame Russia? We going to bomb them to make it stop?

Blaming everybody else is great but doesn't achieve much.

Comey being appointed by Obama is kinda irrelevant. This was a very sudden and strange thing. All campaigns should obviously use TFA. I guess we know that now. Bernie camp probably would have faced similar headwinds. Media should be called out and shamed agressively for failing to do their jobs. Working the refs makes a huge difference. Just ask CNN political correspondent Corey Lewandowski.

 

[Totakeke]

Yglesias (I think, it was someone from Vox) when talking about the idea that Hillary was a weak candidate mentioned that it wasn't a coincidence that she ran with no serious opposition field in the primary because of her ability to build loyal supporters and strong relationships with people. Her absurd amount of establishment support came because she had a lot of loyal insiders she'd built up over the years, so they didn't run against her.

Take that away, and I don't see why Gillibrand, Booker, etc at least try this year. I don't know if they'd win against her, but there's a reason it's said that she won the invisible primary.

It's the same for the Republicans in 2000! Bush, by virtue of family connections and institutional support, locks up the resources and keeps out serious contenders so his primary opposition includes McCain (a lot like Sanders, grassroots support and party outsider) and a bunch of nobodies like Dole, Quayle, Keyes, etc. Hell, it even had some now familiar names like Herman Cain or John Kasich running but nobody remembers those runs (except Benji).

Coalition building are good qualities for government. Unfortunately the narrative nowadays is that we want someone devoid of that capability.

 

[shinra-bansho]

All 5 of those were issues in the primary that we knew would come around during the GE.

Huh? My memory may be failing me but the only two of those that would have been known are minority voter suppression and sexism.

I don't remember there being an orchestrated Russian hacking campaign.

So... I don't know if you're just saying not to nominate a woman or not to nominate the preference of the minority votes in the primary.

 

[kirblar]

Why the hell would they have allowed Bernie to run if the DNC were actually gatekeeping candidates

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Coalition building are good qualities for government. Unfortunately the narrative nowadays is that we want someone devoid of that capability.

I don't think it's bad at all. I caucused for Hillary because I genuinely thought she'd make a better president than Sanders. I'm just saying that the idea that the Democratic leadership or the DNC weren't involved with the primary without interfering with the actual Democratic process is not right.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The DNC's job is to win. The problem is that it's run by losers who love losing. It's not "if it favors my candidate." I'm not a YASS QUEEN crying fanatic. If Bernie Sanders was polling tied with the likely opposing, the other person was polling +10 against them on average, and they had a criminal investigation on them that is grounds for the DNC to actually throwing their weight around.

I'd be disappointed because I prefer Bernie's politics, but at the end of the day I'd think it's what had to be done. What the fuck do you think you're doing trying to run with the FBI as your running mate.

The people at the DNC cared more about currying favor with Hillary Clinton than protecting the American public from a President Donald Trump.

What's the point of superdelegates if not to stop unelectable candidates like Hillary Clinton from winning the primary and losing the general?

Edit: Regarding the media the democrats need to start playing the media the way Republicans do. The media is terrified to talk about actual policy. They have this insane neutrality bias towards everything. "Republicans say this. Democrats say that. IDK who is right." They don't talk about policy or facts because they're terrified of Republicans calling them liberal.

I can't stop thinking of the week where Anderson Cooper moderated democratic and republican debates / townhalls and asked the Democrats real, good tough questions to both Clinton and Bernie. Then a bit later when he had a Republican even he spent the entire time asking pointless fluff questions like "How much do you love your wife? Do you like Pina Coladas? I hear you like EDM. Tell me how funny you are."

The media are the refers and we need to start playing the refers better and calling bullshit on things like that.

So you wanted what would have been the largest disenfranchisement of black voters since Jim Crow...yeah that'd have helped Sanders with his minority support issue.

 

[kirblar]

The DNC's job is to win. The problem is that it's run by losers who love losing. It's not "if it favors my candidate." I'm not a YASS QUEEN crying fanatic. If Bernie Sanders was polling tied with the likely opposing, the other person was polling +10 against them on average, and they had a criminal investigation on them that is grounds for the DNC to actually throwing their weight around.

I'd be disappointed because I prefer Bernie's politics, but at the end of the day I'd think it's what had to be done. What the fuck do you think you're doing trying to run with the FBI as your running mate.

The people at the DNC cared more about currying favor with Hillary Clinton than protecting the American public from a President Donald Trump.

What's the point of superdelegates if not to stop unelectable candidates like Hillary Clinton from winning the primary and losing the general?

Edit: Regarding the media the democrats need to start playing the media the way Republicans do. The media is terrified to talk about actual policy. They have this insane neutrality bias towards everything. "Republicans say this. Democrats say that. IDK who is right." They don't talk about policy or facts because they're terrified of Republicans calling them liberal.

I can't stop thinking of the week where Anderson Cooper moderated democratic and republican debates / townhalls and asked the Democrats real, good tough questions to both Clinton and Bernie. Then a bit later when he had a Republican even he spent the entire time asking pointless fluff questions like "How much do you love your wife? Do you like Pina Coladas? I hear you like EDM. Tell me how funny you are."

The media are the refers and we need to start playing the refers better and calling bullshit on things like that.

Based on the data we have, Clinton was not unelectable, and likely had the election in her grasp prior to the email shit rearing its head. The margins were THAT small.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Huh? My memory may be failing me but the only two of those that would have been known are minority voter suppression and sexism.

I don't remember there being an orchestrated Russian hacking campaign.

So... I don't know if you're just saying not to nominate a woman or not to nominate the preference of the minority votes in the primary.

Neither, I'm saying that the electorate would have a bias against her because of it all.

 

[shinra-bansho]

lol are you fucking kidding me?

Bondi's on his transition team too now?

Pam Bondi?
Definitely never been any pay for play.

Neither, I'm saying that the electorate would have a bias against her because of it all.

Which were factors unknown to an extent beyond 4 and 5. I'm not sure what the alternative was. Overturning her win in the primary I guess.
There were a confluence of factors that led to this.

Some the candidate, some the campaign, some external, and some a mixture. A lot of people don't want to accept that it wasn't just the one thing because they're too busy trying to come up with scenarios that their loser candidate of choice would have won to say I told you so because of hurt feelings at some point over the last 18 months. Which is in my view wholly unproductive.

 

[Suikoguy]

Neither, I'm saying that the electorate would have a bias against her because of it all.

I thought the argument was we should have picked someone else for those issues. When we could not have known they would exist, or exist to that degree.
Otherwise, all we can learn from it was what I mentioned a couple of posts back. Better email security, better media manipulation and not appointing any Republicans cause you can't trust the fuckers to be non-partisan when they should be.

Based on the data we have, Clinton was not unelectable, and likely had the election in her grasp prior to the email shit rearing its head. The margins were THAT small.

Yeah, and that's why i'm worried we are going to vastly over-correct.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

So you wanted what would have been the largest disenfranchisement of black voters since Jim Crow...yeah that'd have helped Sanders with his minority support issue.

I'm saying Clinton should have voluntarily suspended her candidacy because it was clear it was dangerous for her to run in the general election against Trump. It was the height of hubris to try to run with the FBI investigating her and now we're all paying the price.

 

[Diablos]

lol are you fucking kidding me?

Bondi's on his transition team too now?

I'm thinking there is a 66% chance Rick Scott makes everyone applying for Medicare, Medicaid, or browses for a plan on healthcare.gov (if they keep it) take a drug test.

 

[Gruco]

Based on the data we have, Clinton was not unelectable, and likely had the election in her grasp prior to the email shit rearing its head. The margins were THAT small.

Probably a difference of 110,00 votes, a smaller margin than Kerry had in 2004.

People realllly overract to these, just as people did in 2004. I remember the cries of "quit on all the gays" being particularly passionate at the time. It makes sense when the consequences are so serious, but honestly, it took a perfect storm for Trump to get here. There are specific ways that Hillary should have done better and a better campaign could have beaten these headwinds. Acknowledging the headwinds is still an important part of understanding how to do better next time.

As I have said all over the place in this thread. Once cannot honestly read these election results and assume they mean it's time to burn it all down.

 

[royalan]

What's the point of superdelegates if not to stop unelectable candidates like Hillary Clinton from winning the primary and losing the general?

Because if you want the Superdelegates to do that (and you're right that is their purpose), you need stronger evidence than hindsight I-told-you-sos.

Factually, Hillary won her primary. And she did it with a more diverse coalition of support, to the tune of millions. There was no fact based reason for the super delegates to overturn the will of millions of voters who supported Hillary over Bernie.

Edit: Regarding the media the democrats need to start playing the media the way Republicans do. The media is terrified to talk about actual policy. They have this insane neutrality bias towards everything. "Republicans say this. Democrats say that. IDK who is right." They don't talk about policy or facts because they're terrified of Republicans calling them liberal.

I can't stop thinking of the week where Anderson Cooper moderated democratic and republican debates / townhalls and asked the Democrats real, good tough questions to both Clinton and Bernie. Then a bit later when he had a Republican even he spent the entire time asking pointless fluff questions like "How much do you love your wife? Do you like Pina Coladas? I hear you like EDM. Tell me how funny you are."

The media are the refers and we need to start playing the refers better and calling bullshit on things like that.

I...completely agree with this.

 

[jtb]

We've forgotten what an actual landslide election looks like. Dukakis/Mondale level. Doesn't change the fact that we need to get our shit together on a local level, and fast.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Reminder: Hillary had the most votes in the primary of any candidate of any party.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

Probably a difference of 110,00 votes, a smaller margin than Kerry had in 2004.

People realllly overract to these, just as people did in 2004. I remember the cries of "quit on all the gays" being particularly passionate at the time. It makes sense when the consequences are so seriously but honestly, it took a perfect storm for Trump to get here. There are specific ways that Hillary should have done better and a better campaign could have beaten these headwinds. Acknowledging the headwinds is an important part of understanding how to do better next time.

As I have said all over the place in this thread. Once cannot honestly read these election results and assume they mean it's time to burn it all down.

It's not just the losing the 2016 presidency that shows we need to burn it all down. It's the fact that we've lost:

A supermajority of state legislatures.
A supermajority of governors.
The House of Representatives.
The Senate.
The Supreme Court.
The Presidency.

The democratic party has been completely routed on all fronts on every level of government. That's why we need to burn it all down. This has been a long term systemic issue with the party, it's platform, and the people it picks for office.

Reminder: Hillary had the most votes in the primary of any candidate of any party.

I'll be so impressed by that fact when Trump starts jailing all political opposition and starts throwing people into internment camps.

 

[kirblar]

We've forgotten what an actual landslide election looks like. Dukakis/Mondale level. Doesn't change the fact that we need to get our shit together on a local level, and fast.

The one solace I have is that we were in Quicksand. If this didn't happen in 2016, it was going to happen in 2020, due to the DNC falling apart. If we can get a wave/full control ion 2020, it sets us up better.

Sadly, this is the one positive.

 

[StoOgE]

We got a note in our mailbox today from an anonymous Hillary supporter who gave us seeds to plant for the future because of our yard sign. My wife shared it on Pantsuit nation and it blew up.

We decided to walk around Lady Bird Lake and try and relax as much as we can. Caught a drink at a bar we like, walked back to our car and there was ANOTHER note from another anonymous Hillary supporter asking us to keep the Hillary sticker on our car and not take it off.

Guys, we may have actually re-galvanized the base of our party. I get that I live in Austin, but I have never seen the left this hurt and this motivated.

Fam, it's going to be ok. We're going to take back the state houses and the governors mansion and fight redistricting and fight voter suppression and we're going to fucking get off our collective asses and make this happen instead of leaving Obama flapping in the wind for 6 years like we did.