General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Rodham Clinton ...
... won the popular vote – and by a wide margin. That is a fact.
So I am left wondering why there are people – allegedly people “on our side” - who keep ignoring that fact.
“She didn’t connect with voters” seems to be a ludicrous charge considering that she connected with the majority of voters.
Calling her “the wrong candidate’” is laughable, given the fact that the majority of voters found her to be the right candidate. Pronouncing her message to be the “wrong” message flies in the face of the fact that the majority of voters embraced that message, and voted accordingly.
Despite what we are now learning about Russian interference in our election, the voter supression tactics of the Republicans, and Comey being complicit in announcing that HRC was “still under investigation” when she clearly wasn’t, there are those who still insist that the Democrats lost this election due to HRC’s incompetence.
Well, the MAJORITY of voters have said otherwise – and in no uncertain terms. The MAJORITY of voters have said that despite all of the bullshit that’s been thrown at this woman for thirty years, they still believe her to be the most qualified candidate to become our next POTUS.
This is a FACT that some people have chosen to ignore, simply because it doesn’t jive with their “wrong candidate/wrong message” narrative. They prefer to insist that Hillary lost due to her own mis-steps rather than acknowledging that she won the MAJORITY of voters despite whatever mis-steps they have conjured-up as being sure-fire losers among the voting populace.
I, for one, have to wonder why those allegedly “on our side” persist in declaring that the MAJORITY of voters should be discounted, while the votes of the electoral college should rightfully take precedence over the will of the MAJORITY of the people. I have to wonder why such people insist on blaming the winner of the popular vote as being somehow incredibly unpopular.
I have to wonder why some “Democrats” are suddenly sounding an awful lot like Republicans.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CaliforniaPeggy
(156,620 posts)
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)I especially like the one where she didn't fill stadiums because she wasn't exciting enough. That was impressive. We seem to oscillate between that and that she needed to do more town hall meetings to connect with voters.
Poor lady can't catch a break with these so called democrats.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)it just doesn't get you the Presidency; It's getting 270+ electoral votes. If Hillary spent as much time campaigning in WI, MI, and PA as the time she was in Cali and NY, we'd be calling her Madam President right now. The question you should be asking is why are people ignoring that fact?!
fallrey
(36 posts)since it answers your question. I've read tweets from someone who worked hard in WI on getting out the vote and said it isn't true that Clinton and her surrogates didn't work hard there. Hillary continues to get bad press. My only disagreement with the original post is that there have been Democrats throughout this election cycle that sounded a lot like Republicans.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)
on point, and in fact, a fact!
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Not once.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)
NBachers
(19,438 posts)then tell us you're not speaking the truth here. Or we'll let the truth speak for itself.
Respond to this Barack_America and InAbLuEsTaTe.
https://hillaryspeeches.com/speech-archive/2016-2/
PENNSYLVANIA
April 1, 2016 Newtown, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
April 1, 2016 State College, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
April 6, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
April 6, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
April 7, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
April 7, 2016 Scranton, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
April 8, 2016 Erie, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
April 10, 2016 Villanova, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
April 13, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
April 13, 2016 Erie, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
April 20, 2016 Johnstown, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
April 20, 2016 Scranton, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
April 20, 2016 Horsham, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
April 20, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
April 21, 2016 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
April 22, 2016 Reading, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
April 23, 2016 Swarthmore, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
April 23, 2016 Ambler, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
April 24, 2016 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
April 24, 2016 Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
April 25, 2016 Youngwood, Pennsylvania Get Out the Vote
April 25, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Get Out the Vote
April 25, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
April 25, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
April 26, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Primary Night Event
June 14, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
July 8, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania African Methodist Episcopal Church Quadrennial Session
July 25, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Democratic National Convention – Day 1
July 26, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Democratic National Convention – Day 2
July 27, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Democratic National Convention – Day 3
July 28, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Democratic National Convention – Day 4
July 29, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Rally
July 29, 2016 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
July 30, 2016 Johnstown, Pennsylvania Manufacturing Event
July 30, 2016 Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania Organizing Event
August 15, 2016 Scranton, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
August 16, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Voter Registration Event
August 30, 2016 Erie, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
August 30, 2016 Lancaster, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
August 31, 2016 Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
September 7, 2016 Carlisle, Pennsylvania Women for Hillary Organizing Event
September 7, 2016 State College, Pennsylvania Phone Bank
September 8, 2016 Scranton, Pennsylvania Phone Bank Kickoff
September 9, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
September 9, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
September 13, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
September 19, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
September 24, 2016 Johnstown, Pennsylvania Voter Registration Kickoff
September 28, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Rally
September 28, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Rally
October 4, 2016 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
October 6, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Rally
October 7, 2016 Bristol, Pennsylvania Voter Registration Event
October 8, 2016 Scranton, Pennsylvania Rally
October 8, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Rally
October 14, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Pitt Campus Organizing Event
October 18, 2016 Blue Bell, Pennsylvania Organizing Event
October 21, 2016 State College, Pennsylvania Rally
October 21, 2016 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania Rally
October 22, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Get Out the Vote Rally
October 22, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Get Out the Vote Rally
October 23, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Women Vote Organizing Event
October 23, 2016 Phoenixville, Pennsylvania Women Vote Organizing Event
October 23, 2016 Gettysburg, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
October 26, 2016 Allentown, Pennsylvania Get Out the Vote
October 26, 2016 Newtown, Pennsylvania Get Out the Vote
October 26, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Get Out the Vote
October 27, 2016 Gladwyne, Pennsylvania Fundraiser
October 28, 2016 Aliquippa, Pennsylvania Get Out the Vote
October 28, 2016 Duncansville, Pennsylvania Get Out the Vote
October 28, 2016 Reading, Pennsylvania Get Out the Vote
MICHIGAN
January 12, 2016 Detroit, Michigan Fundraiser
February 7, 2016 Flint, Michigan Community Meeting
February 11, 2016 Birmingham, Michigan Fundraiser
February 12, 2016 Grand Rapids, Michigan Fundraiser
March 5, 2016 Detroit, Michigan Canvass Kickoff
March 5, 2016 Detroit, Michigan Pre-Debate Reception
March 6, 2016 Detroit, Michigan Church Services
March 6, 2016 Detroit, Michigan Church Service
March 6, 2016 Royal Oak, Michigan LGBT Organizing Event
March 6, 2016 East Pointe, Michigan Grassroots Organizing Event
March 6, 2016 Flint, Michigan Get Out the Vote
March 6, 2016 Detroit, Michigan Get Out the Vote
March 6, 2016 Southfield, Michigan Women’s Economic Forum
March 6, 2016 Flint, Michigan Democratic Debate (CNN)
March 7, 2016 Birmingham, Michigan Fundraiser
Detroit, Michigan Democratic Town Hall (Fox News)
March 7, 2016 Detroit, Michigan Women for Hillary
March 7, 2016 East Lansing, Michigan Organizing Event
March 7, 2016 Detroit, Michigan College Affordablity Round Table
March 7, 2016 Grand Rapids, Michigan Organizing Event
March 7, 2016 Grand Rapids, Michigan Get Out the Vote
May 1, 2016 Birmingham, Michigan Fundraiser
May 1, 2016 Detroit, Michigan Detroit NAACP Annual Fight For Freedom Fund Dinner
May 23, 2016 Detroit, Michigan Service Employees International Union Quadrennial International Convention
August 5, 2016 Grand Rapids, Michigan Organizing Event
August 11, 2016 Warren, Michigan Speech – Plan to Help Working Families
September 5, 2016 Detroit, Michigan Metro-Detroit Labor Day Parade
September 13, 2016 Ann Arbor, Michigan Rally
September 22, 2016 Grand Rapids, Michigan Women for Hillary Event
September 22, 2016 Lansing, Michigan Students for Hillary Event
September 23, 2016 Flint, Michigan Media Availability
September 23, 2016 Flint, Michigan Phone Bank Kickoff
September 27, 2016 Detroit, Michigan Voter Protection Roundtable
September 27, 2016 Livonia, Michigan Phone Bank
September 27, 2016 Ann Arbor, Michigan Women to Women Event
September 28, 2016 Lansing, Michigan Moms for Hillary Roundtable
September 28, 2016 Grand Rapids, Michigan Education Roundtable
October 3, 2016 Saginaw, Michigan Rally
October 3, 2016 Flint, Michigan Rally
October 4, 2016 Haverford, Pennsylvania Conversation on Families
October 6, 2016 Dearborn, Michigan Rally
October 6, 2016 Ann Arbor, Michigan Rally
October 6, 2016 Lansing, Michigan Rally
October 6, 2016 Grand Rapids, Michigan Rally
October 18, 2016 Detroit, Michigan Economic Speech
October 29, 2016 Muskegon, Michigan Get Out the Vote
October 29, 2016 Battle Creek, Michigan Get Out the Vote
October 30, 2016 Taylor, Michigan Get Out the Vote
October 30, 2016 Warren, Michigan Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters and Millwrights Rally
WISCONSIN
February 11, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Democratic Debate (PBS
February 12, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Fundraiser
March 24, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Get Out the Vote
March 24, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin Get Out the Vote
March 24, 2016 Waukesha, Wisconsin Get Out the Vote
March 28, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Organizing Event
March 29, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Community Forum on Gun Violence
March 29, 2016 LaCrosse, Wisconsin Organizing Event
March 29, 2016 Green Bay, Wisconsin Organizing Event
April 1, 2016 Appleton, Wisconsin Organizing Event
April 2, 2016 Eau Claire, Wisconsin Get Out the Vote
April 2, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin Organizing Event
April 2, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Democratic Party of Wisconsin’s 2016 Founders Day Gala
April 4, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Organizing Event
August 5, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Organizing Event
September 29, 2016 Kenosha, Wisconsin Early Voting Event
September 30, 2016 Green Bay, Wisconsin Early Voting Event
October 5, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin Rally
October 7, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin Early Voting Event
October 7, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Early Voting Event
October 8, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Early Voting Event
October 25, 2016 Stevens Point, Wisconsin Early Vote Rally
October 25, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin Early Vote Rally
October 27, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin Fundraiser
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... and yet I voted for her, as did most of my ex-pat friends living here.
Maybe if the people in Wisconsin could be bothered to find out what the candidates stand for, instead of being impressed by who showed up, they would have voted for the candidate and the party who had their best interests at the forefront, instead of an idiot who has been outsourcing US jobs or decades.
In this day and age, there is no excuse for being ill-informed. There is no excuse for saying, "Well, she didn't show up in my neck o' the woods, so I'll just vote for the other guy".
The "she didn't campaign here" rhetoric is ridiculous, Do the people of Wisconsin not have access to the internet? Are they beyond any means to inform themselves? Were they cut-off from the debates that showed HRC to be the superior, more knowledgeable, more experienced candidate? Are they bereft of the common sense it takes to understand that this was an election to decide who runs the county for the next four years, and not a popularity contest based on who campaigned where?
Cry me a fuckin' river over people who voted based on ANY other criteria than who was on their side, and who would be the better POTUS. "She didn't campaign here" doesn't cut it. In fact, it says a lot about people that I am sure they would rather be left unsaid.
Crunchy Frog
(28,280 posts)If the expectation is simply that people WILL vote as they're supposed to, then why bother having campaigns at all?
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)My point was that I didn't need a personal appearance to decide whose side I'm on - and who's on my side.
I have access to the internet - and I'm sure that most people in the States do, too. On the magical internet, you can watch the debates without having to worry about what time they were scheduled for. You can also go to the websites of the candidates, so you can understand what they are for and against.
We are beyond the age of "I didn't know which way to vote, because the candidates didn't speak at the local Legion Hall."
Th truth is out there - the problem being that "the truth" has become too tiresome for some people to access.
Crunchy Frog
(28,280 posts)like yourself, doesn't need any help from the campaign in deciding whose side she's on. That's very reassuring to hear. Now, if only the rest of the voting public in the US could be magically transformed into a bunch of NanceGreggs clones, we wouldn't have to worry about the fine points of campaign strategy, or even about campaigning at all. Sure would save alot of time, energy, money, and make for much less crankiness.
Should we design our campaigns around this idealized fantasy electorate, or should we design them around the electorate we've actually got? But maybe your campaign strategy is the one that would really work, in which case, maybe you should go to Washington and try to sell yourself as campaign manager or strategist to the aspiring presidential candidate of your choice. Who knows, maybe you've got the magic key to winning elections.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)
I'm not talking about not campaigning. I'm talking about people who use "the candidate didn't campaign in my area" as an excuse to not be well-informed about who is running and where they stand on issues.
Rorey
(8,514 posts)That's what I was thinking. I live in a blue city in Colorado, and I remember thinking that we probably wouldn't be seeing many (or any) big name Democrat candidates or surrogates. It didn't hurt my feelings. Furthermore, I had my mind made up about who I was voting for as soon I knew who the candidates were because NOBODY was more qualified that Hillary.
I am intelligent enough and have a long enough memory to know how dirty Republicans play. I remember what the Dubya campaign did to McCain in the primaries in 2000. I remember what the Dubya campaign did to John Kerry in the 2004 election. I knew the Republicans and the trump campaign would fabricate stories about Hillary, but I still didn't take everything they said as a lie. I did my own research before deciding for myself what was false or true. I studied the Benghazi issue and the "damned emails" issue. I felt completely comfortable that I was making the right choice in voting for Hillary. It wouldn't have mattered who her opponent was, she was still going to get my vote.
I also did my own research on trump. My husband asked me to give him a chance and I did. There was NEVER going to be a scenario where he would get my vote. The feral neighborhood cat I feed is more qualified to be President than that orange clown freak. He is not only unqualified, he is unacceptable.
I put forth the effort to educate myself about the candidates and the issues through my own research. Through the years there have been times that I wasn't completely comfortable with who I voted for, but I made my best choice. This time I didn't have that problem. I voted for Hillary with 100% conviction that I was making the right choice.
I do respect people's right to make their own choices, but I can't summon up any respect for anyone who didn't educate themselves before casting their vote. And if someone educated themselves and STILL voted for trump, well, I still have no respect for them. And I have no respect for anyone who didn't realize the importance of this election and didn't bother voting. Those people deserve what we ended up with, but those of us who voted for Hillary sure as hell don't.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Wow...what a strategy for 2018 and beyond; bravo!
fescuerescue
(4,475 posts)The reality is, campaigning in states makes a difference.
Otherwise both candidates would have sat at home doing webcasts.
It's why both candidates doubled down on visiting swing states during the final days. Because it makes a difference.
mcar
(46,058 posts)she would have been criticized for campaigning in a state that she was comfortably ahead in, per the polls.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
TonyPDX
(962 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But we're not pretending it was some huge failure like Trump and many people here are.
Why are they pushing RW talking points that Dems suck?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)so a lot of people here do see it as a huge failure.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Silver Gaia
(5,361 posts)than in those rust-belt states. She came a few times right before the primary, but after that, no. Go check her schedule. She was here so little you could count it on one hand. We aren't ignoring anything. What you stated as fact just isn't fact.
niyad
(132,440 posts)matter? it's all HRC's fault, as you list all the points in the OP that we hear as reichwing talking points. nice.
ebbie15644
(1,244 posts)take into account Comey's interference. If he hadn't interfered, I think her strategy would have worked.
ogradda
(3,411 posts)There were other problems granted but that was the tipping point.
erpowers
(9,445 posts)The problem is that there is a chance that voter suppression is the real reason Hillary Clinton lost WI, MI, and PA. It is very possible that the exit polls were right and Hillary Clinton did in fact win in most of the battle ground states, but due to voter suppression enough votes were not counted and that gave Donald Trump wins in those states.
ebbie15644
(1,244 posts)voting machines "breaking" were part of the effort
Skittles
(171,715 posts)according to repuke racist voters, people in California do not count
yuiyoshida
(45,415 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(38,054 posts)Neither do people in NJ. We aren't - according to the Republicans and the complicit media "Real Americans". Since we aren't "real Americans" can we get an extra tax credit so the "real Americans" can stop sucking the money out of our wallets to make up for their "oh woe is me" nonsense?
JHan
(10,173 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)I see that sentiment, "he would have won the popular vote without counting California" how is that relevant? California is a state.
Silver Gaia
(5,361 posts)if I wanted to find something to be offended about, that might do it. It's such nonsense, though, that it isn't even worth getting upset about. They have no idea how much they would miss us if we left.
sheshe2
(97,629 posts)My heart breaks at the loss. She should be ours. Now we move from the light into a darkness and despair. Not sure how many of us will survive. The future is bleak at best.
Thanks Nance you do good as always.
Response to sheshe2 (Reply #5)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #33)
Post removed
still_one
(98,883 posts)14 states added new voting restrictions just in time for the 2016 election:
www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016
North Carolina would have been included in that list, but last minute court rulings were able to get voters who had been removed from the voter registration list reinstated:
www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-carolina-naacp-voter-suppression_us_5817634fe4b064e1b4b385df
In spite of that, in North Carolina many of those voters did not realize they could vote in time.
Those voting restrictions which started in 2013, were not in place in 2008, and 2012, and they were definitely aimed at African Americans.
Of course lets not talk about the voter suppression laws that were NOT in place when President Obama ran.
Let's also ignore the fact the Russ Feingold, Zypher Teachout, and every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states, lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican.
Let's also ignore the FBI/Comey interference, the media's bias, and the Russian hacking. Nothing to see there either.
still_one
(98,883 posts)
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)was in the middle of a huge crash and the Rethugs were responsible.
But Hillary has virtually matched the number of votes Obama got in 2012, even though the courts decimated the voting rights act -- and allowed the suppression of millions of votes -- in 2013.
niyad
(132,440 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)I don't get the point of arguing a candidate's merits based on the popular vote when our elections are decided by the electoral college.
Right about now I'd be thrilled with an EC win, but a popular vote thumping.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)and also NEVER take ANY voters for granted. Obama showed us the way in the 2008 and 2012, as he so clearly stated in his last press conference. It's not like we needed to "re-invent the wheel."
MFM008
(20,042 posts)Sympathizers.
Not everyone has to wish him dead( like me)..
but to much
Damning democrats with faint praise.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,536 posts)she connected with a lot of them; almost 3 million more than Trump did. The problem is that most of those votes came out of California; and since we are stuck for the foreseeable future with the obsolete Electoral College, those votes did no good in getting her elected president. She lost three states - MI, WI and PA - by a total of less than 80,000 votes. Had she connected in those states with only 80,000 more voters she'd have won the election. So in my opinion it's a fair question to ask why she didn't get those votes in those states, which usually go Democratic.
I am not suggesting any specific reasons because I don't know any more than anyone else. It could have been Comey, the Russians, sexism, racism; any number of causes that have already been discussed to death, or most likely a combination of those reasons. But as long as we have the Electoral College it's a vain argument to insist that those 3 million votes, most of which came from a single state, were indicative of anything other than that she was very popular in California.
I think it is essential to examine objectively all possible factors, without bias, to figure out why one of the most qualified people ever to run for president was defeated by the absolute worst candidate ever. That should not have happened. We need to know why it did.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)triron
(22,240 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)And that's the point.
Hillary "lost" because voters in low-populated states are weighted to count for more than one vote. This isn't a "probable factor" - it is THE factor. The ONLY thing that prevented HRC from becoming POTUS IS the EC - there is NO OTHER obstacle standing in the way of the candidate who got the MOST votes from being inaugurated.
You want to "objectively examine" all possible factors? You might try starting with the MOST obvious factor of all: the EC voting against the will of the People.
I am particularly amused by those who didn't support HRC/Dems because they were "too Establishment" now claiming that an antiquated "establishment" system like the EC should take precedence (or presidence) over the clear choice of actual voters.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,536 posts)and ought to be abolished, but that's a very uphill battle requiring a constitutional amendment. That is not likely to happen because the small-population states, mostly red states, are happy to have more electoral power in proportion to their populations - and you need ratification by 3/4 of the states (38 of them) for a constitutional amendment to become effective. So the EC, for now and probably for a long time to come, dictates who wins and who loses. Therefore candidates are stuck with running state-by-state campaigns rather than a unified national campaign. They make decisions about appearances and advertising based on the demographics and political leanings of individual states. This takes me back to my earlier point: In WI, MI and PA Hillary lost by a total of less than 80,000 votes. If she had managed to persuade those people to vote for her she would have won the election.
Yes, the EC was the proximate cause of the loss - but why didn't she win the EC? Most of the time the winner of the popular vote also wins the EC (the opposite has happened only four times before this election). What went wrong in those three states? I live in Minnesota,* which has been reliably Democratic since 1972, usually by safe margins. Obama won MN by more than 10% in 2008 and almost 8% in 2012. This year, though, it was a squeaker: Hillary won by only 1.5%. Why did Hillary lose or almost lose reliably Democratic states? That's a fair question, I think.
* Minnesota has one of the highest voter turnout rates in the country. We don't have gerrymandering, voter ID laws or other forms of voter suppression. You can register on voting day or on line. It's probably the cleanest, most liberal electoral system in the U.S. So the Dems' unusually weak showing here this year wasn't due to any kind of voter suppression.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)What went wrong in ALL of the states HRC was projected to win - and somehow, at the very last minute, didn't?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,536 posts)Hacking? Election fraud? Possibly - in some places. But I keep thinking of what happened in here in Minnesota, which has about the cleanest, most liberal election system anywhere - I am absolutely certain there was no funny business here - yet despite polls showing her with a strong lead, Hillary just barely squeaked out a win. That 1.5% was a terrible showing in this state, considering Dem candidates have won by comfortable margins (except for 1984) for the last 40 years. We got hammered in the state legislature, too. I don't know what happened but we need to know so it doesn't happen again.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)Hillary Clinton Tim Kaine 1,367,716 46.44% 10
Donald Trump Mike Pence 1,322,951 44.92% 0
Gary Johnson William Weld 112,972 3.84% 0
Evan McMullin Mindy Finn 53,076 1.80% 0
Jill Stein Howie Hawkins 36,985 1.26% 0
Dan Vacek Mark Elworth Jr. 11,291 0.38% 0
Darrell Castle Scott Bradley 9,456 0.32% 0
Alyson Kennedy Osborne Hart 1,672 0.06% 0
Rocky De La Fuente Michael Steinberg 1,431 0.05% 0
Mike Maturen Juan Muñoz 244 0.01% 0
Other Registered Write-in 303 0.01% 0
I find it interesting that Evan McMullin got more votes than Jill Stein in MN. Still, I think third party voters probably had something to do with the lower margin for Clinton. There was a reasonable strong "never-Hillary" sentiment here that probably cost her at least a couple of percentage points.
True Dough
(26,667 posts)
Tatiana
(14,167 posts)This map:
speaks to some of the reasons why Clinton found it difficult to win in reliably democratic states. You have contiguous portions of strength on the east and west coasts, but look at the rest of the country. Clinton never built true, grassroots support. The kind of support where someone is excited about their candidate and goes knocking on doors and speaking to their neighbors and colleagues about why they should vote for the democratic candidate. Most people were not motivated to do this for Clinton. Think about all the energy and excitement that surrounded Barack Obama's 2008 candidacy. I remember travelling to Michigan and Minnesota and Indiana on his behalf. Illinois was, obviously, locked up for him, but I wanted to talk to others on behalf of the campaign. I (perhaps, naively) believed in the message of Hope and Change (We Can Believe In).
The problem here is that Stronger Together was not a great sales pitch and, let's be honest, people did not believe in Clinton. We ran the first serious female candidate for President. All the electricity that surrounded Barack Obama's candidacy (as the potential first black President) should have been present and ready to be harnessed for Clinton's candidacy. Yet, you knew things were flat. A high school friend of mine was dispatched to Nevada on behalf of the campaign and in my conversations with him, he expressed some anxiety. They didn't have nearly the number of volunteers expected and I suspect that type of trouble repeated itself across the campaign offices in states that weren't California, Illinois, or New York.
Perhaps if Clinton had selected Sanders as her VP, she would have been able to overcome the daggers thrown her way. But she didn't. And I do think this was an example of her judgment. The other side picked a VP who strengthened the weaknesses of their ticket. Our side did not. Clinton was lacking in excitement. She should have picked someone who could excite the base. Any number of choices would have worked.
RiverStone
(7,278 posts)...on MTP yesterday: We made some mistakes and need to look at them.
Clinton should have chosen Bernie. And I say that as a Bernie supporter who did vote for her in the general.
We need to unite at this point to resist the fastest-elect.
LisaM
(29,634 posts)A lot of people didn't care that we finally had a viable female candidate in 2008 because they were more excited about Barack Obama. By the time 2016 rolled around, there wasn't any novelty in her candidacy because she came close in 2008. It's very unfortunate and it's somewhat unfair.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)No, it shouldn't, and I'm not seeing many people saying it should, at least not going forward. At the very least the EC should be re-weighted.
But the key is "should be," not retroactively banning the electoral college that BOTH CANDIDATES were supposed to be trying to win.
elmac
(4,642 posts)when you have a system so defective, so criminal as our election process. Money driven politics & States voter suppression must end before anything else can be done. I don't see this happening under a fascist majority. Doesn't matter who runs is the system is FUBAR.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)-The Velvet Ocelot
The United States needs California more than California needs the United States. We are the sixth largest economy in the world . Our economy is twice as large as that of Trump's pal, Russia. We supply the rest of America with entertainment, technology, and food. Over one billion dollars worth of goods pass through the Port of Los Angeles every day.
There are very few states that could exist as an independent nation. The Republic of California is one of them.
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)set it up that way in order to get the smaller states to ratify it.
Now we are stuck with it. There is no way that smaller states will ever agree to a constitutional amendment.
Captain Stern
(2,253 posts)And we've been losing pretty consistently the last two elections. And, not just on the national level. We're getting our asses beat at the state levels too.
We can either try and convince ourselves that we're really winning, or that we're getting cheated, or hacked, or whatever. OR we can figure out WHY we are losing, and fix it.
I think that instead of making excuses for losing past elections, we should be concentrating on how to win future ones.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)No offense but that is KellyAnn Conway speak.
Who gets to say which states do and don't count? Trump won big with Texas. Does that mean Texas doesn't count?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,536 posts)Excuse me; no. The absurdly unfair Electoral College system, not me and not Trump, gets to say which states "count" more than others. Under the system as it exists now, California gets 55 electoral votes, far fewer than its population should warrant. If we use the least populous state, Wyoming (pop. about 500,000), as a baseline and give it 1 vote, California should get 78 votes, not 55. New York would get 40 instead of 29. Pennsylvania would get the same 20 it has now; Wisconsin would get 1 more; and Michigan would get 20 instead of 16. If the EC apportioned votes directly in accordance with states' populations Clinton would have won. But it doesn't. Instead, it gives states the same number of votes as the total of their senators and representatives. The result is that small states have more weight in the EC than large ones, since each state gets 2 senators and at least 1 representative regardless of population. The number of representatives each state has should be based on its population, but here's the catch: in 1929, Congress, controlled in both houses by Republicans, passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which capped the size of the House at 435 (the then current number). This cap has remained unchanged ever since even though it no longer accurately reflects huge population growth, especially in urban areas.
Those are the rules. They suck. I didn't make them.
mfcorey1
(11,134 posts)elmac
(4,642 posts)I will have a picture of Madam President on my wall. They may have appointed sniffles as their president but he is not our president. His so called election was unlawful and therefore unconstitutional.
Cha
(319,076 posts)
I Am #ABWisdom @adbridgeforth · 13h13 hours ago
Truth be told...
#ImStillWithHer
https://twitter.com/adbridgeforth?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Cha
(319,076 posts)your avatar. lol 
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)Everyday I shake my head at the unfathomable happening. I thank God I am Canadian. I hope the Trump cancer does not spread north.
Cha
(319,076 posts)I am so happy for you with Justin Trudeau.. like I was for us with President Obama.
Now it's our turn to Resist again. 
Mr. Evil
(3,457 posts)Cha
(319,076 posts)
Greg Palast @Greg_Palast
"In many key states, the number of people purged by #Crosscheck was much, much larger than #Trump’s margin of victory.” — @ThomHartmann pic.twitter.com/aXhJxlmdmG
7:29 AM - 16 Dec 2016
https://twitter.com/Greg_Palast/status/809812751736512512/photo/1
Fla Dem
(27,633 posts)Russia Today (RT) is a media vehicle of the Russian government used to spread Russia's view on world events. I guess it could be argued that by Hartmann broadcasting on their channel he is the counter point to their propaganda. But he also draws an audience to all their media platforms and programs.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)All this shit to attack one fine woman who would have done and outstanding job as president.
~ She is one tough and kick ass woman. It took a foreign government, media collaboration with Trump, Wikileaks and the FBI to bring her down and she still got the most votes. That is my kind of woman.
Cha
(319,076 posts)Greg Palast @Greg_Palast
"In many key states, the number of people purged by #Crosscheck was much, much larger than #Trump’s margin of victory.” — @ThomHartmann pic.twitter.com/aXhJxlmdmG
7:29 AM - 16 Dec 2016
https://twitter.com/Greg_Palast/status/809812751736512512/photo/1
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)No one shall debate that, except for Trump, but then again Trump would debate two plus two making four. I will also not deny that there are people who have a vested interest in setting the house on fire because they think once the ashes and smoke clear, they can finally build the house they want. Bernie was not such a person, but many who claimed to back him were (the same people that ignored him once he supported Hillary.)
However, there is a point to ponder what we could have done differently. It is not demonizing Hillary to say "ok, we lost this game what do we do differently next game?" Personally, the one and only thing I would "Blame" Hillary for is letting some of the people whose job it was to get her elected make very numbskull errors, and then not toss them out or tell them to step off. Simply put, the Democratic party apparatus DID let her down, be it making the classic "Blue wall" error in the Midwest, or trying to keep her off television instead of simply letting her talk. The party itself should have made election theft front and center, a project that should have been done since 2000, because a lot of hijinks were done in Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan. However, just like Obama should not have been expected to be Superman and undo 16 years of GOP damage with a open stroke, neither should Clinton have paid so much money to get so little help.
as faqr as then popular vote, that is what GOP losers use to step into offices they did not win and claim a mandate. The one oprginal purpose (outside of trying to support the slave-owning south) Was to make sure a crook did not win. If one were to make Russian involvement go poof like a magic trick, the CONSTITUTION, when discussing the Emolument issues, guive a very black and white reason to reject trump, in and of themselves. He plans to make money personally from the investments in Russia he would allow, and is NOT EVEN QUITTING HIS JOB AT NBC. That alone, alone should make the case not to elect him. If the electors do not reject him, we have a clear case for abolishing the electoral college. Granted, Dixie will not allow that now, but if we actually keep the pressure up, become a party of no that makes sure he is a one term president (directly stealing from Mitch's Mcconells playbook), then we can say "hey this electoral college thing is a bad idea.)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)and its failure to accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish. All of Orange Toxin's failures can be referenced back to it. The people chose wisely. The founders were wrong on this.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)But to be fair, even thog
But to be fair, even though they were rich bastards, they never could have seen the way wealth would be concentrated or abused by the corporations. They never thought any corporation would have more money and power at their disposal than a government.
treestar
(82,383 posts)how big cities would get. There weren't suburbs.
Protalker
(418 posts)She fought the good fight. Any one who could stay a lady against that human scum deserves respect. Like it or not Putin and FBI Director James Comey in tandem done her in.
masmdu
(2,649 posts)
world wide wally
(21,836 posts)
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)BeardofJGarfield
(26 posts)Cali. I think I read that the most of that margin of victory (maybe all of it) came from LA county alone.
Go right ahead and scream at me. Call me a troll. Whatever. Traditional Democratic demographics in the middle parts of this country are drifting right and all the votes that LA county can provide aren't going to help us keep the Midwest while Trump plays a cock-eyed mimicry of FDR.
Get back to the New Deal. That's what solidified large chunks of the white vote as reliably Democratic in most elections.
I'm in Michigan and see first-hand that huge swathes of non-coastal Democratics aren't primarily concerned with LGBTQ rights, "assault" weapons bans, breaking glass ceilings or making sure there is a fair number of minority individuals on the staff of universities that they can't afford to send their kids to. Should they be? Maybe. But they aren't. They want services that need, they want policies that will mean they have jobs to provide for their families, and they don't want to be told they're useless, backwards, or not important to the country. IOW, they want the NEW DEAL and a little bit of respect from the ivory tower academics on the coasts. We can and should speak to and fight for the rights, all the rights, of every single American and person in the United States and against every kind of bigotry and oppression. But the Democratic Party, in pursuing those ideals, has lost somehow sight of, and even scorned, one of its most traditionally faithful voting blocs. And we just saw the result of that on November 8th.
Skittles
(171,715 posts)repukes scream about FREEDOM, as long as it's IN THEIR FAVOR 
BeardofJGarfield
(26 posts)And that's the system that is going to continue to be in place, short of a constitutional amendment.
It's not fair. That makes losing to Trump feel a lot better, doesn't it? No.
The rules of the game are what they are. The repubs are pretty good at playing the game, and progressives grumbling that the system isn't fair while the gop runs away with the board doesn't do a darn thing for us.
But you're kind of missing the point entirely, calling people who voted for President Obama twice, racists.
Skittles
(171,715 posts)IT'S NOT LIKE HE HID IT
DONE HERE, this is POINTLESS
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)It's those who didn't vote at all. Is that racist?
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)We are a constitutional republic.
We always have been and those are the rules we live by and those are the rules we need to campaign by!
We lost. It sucks.
Now, we have to suck it up and win the next election to save what is left of this country after Trump.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)The boundaries of California would comprise several states, if it were on the east coast or in the midwest.
California's voters shouldn't be worth less than voters in Michigan simply because they live in a state that covers a large geographical area.
BeardofJGarfield
(26 posts)But they are. Play the game, or complain that the game isn't fair? I'd rather play the game.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)It that because you're so enlightened compared to the coasts?
No, this isn't a game, but we need to make it easy for EVERYONE to vote, not just Republicans. And we should all be working get our states to enter the 270 vote compact.
My state already has. Has yours?
BeardofJGarfield
(26 posts)idling in the state senate. Doesn't matter. It will take a constitutional amendment to retire the EC regardless of how many states pass the compact. In the meantime, we can talk to the needs to Midwest Democratics and win the EC handily.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)The west coast doesn't do that -- every state on the west coast had very high levels of voter participation, and THAT'S why the Democrats won.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,536 posts)Minnesota has reliably voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1972, usually by safe margins. Obama won MN by more than 10% in 2008 and almost 8% in 2012. This year, though, Hillary won by only 1.5%, the lowest margin since 1984. The state has one of the highest voter turnout rates in the country. We don't have gerrymandering, voter ID laws or other forms of voter suppression. You can register on voting day or on line. It's probably the cleanest, most liberal electoral system in the U.S. So the Dems' unusually weak showing here this year (we lost seats in the state legislature, too) wasn't due to any kind of voter suppression. I think it's fair to ask what happened.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or at least attempted.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)Because it probably means your party is losing congressional races all around the country and, wait, it did, and it does.
Nice post, and welcome to DU.
BeardofJGarfield
(26 posts)That the repubs only lost 7 house seats and 2 senate seats. That's probably more due to voter suppression that anything else.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)Shows you how stacked the deck is against Democrats. We have no choice but to make peace with the map and win more votes in exactly the type of places that sunk Hillary. Can't figure it out soon enough because in 2018, we're defending 25 D votes and they're defending 8.
MFM008
(20,042 posts)Like us West coast voters are crap and our lives dont matter.
My mom will lose her health insurance and she will DIE.
But thats ok..................we live on the west coast, our votes dont matter as much.
elmac
(4,642 posts)I apologize for all the stupid, ignorant, selfish bastards that voted for sniffles.
Thanks. I'm talking about maggot voters not sensible residents or ex residents.
elmac
(4,642 posts)I feel like I'm living behind enemy lines. Hoping to move in a month or 2. NM or CA I hope.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... "votes came from California" meme.
Until now, I had no idea that votes from Cali don't actually count. Are there similar restrictions on counting the votes in other large-population states, like NY?
I always figured that voters are voters, regardless of where they cast their ballots. Thanks for setting me straight on that.
BeardofJGarfield
(26 posts)Or being deliberately obtuse. The point about her margin of victory coming from Cali is that many of us on the left want to believe that Trump winning was a fluke. That the country isn't behind him. That the majority of the country is ready to oppose his policies. But the reality is that many Americans, hell including people I know who voted for Clinton, are very interested in seeing what Trump does. The Cali margin matters in terms of how people across the country view Trump. Get it?
The almost universal disgust for Trump doesn't extend outside the borders of Cali and a few other progressive enclaves.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... that some posters are pushing the meme that "votes from Cali" are somehow unrepresentative of the whole, because they came out of one state.
BeardofJGarfield
(26 posts)That's exactly the point. California is an outlier in terms of how strongly it opposed Trump wedded to its percentage of the populace that represents a huge number of people who wield an inordinately small amount of influence. You might look at the aggregate and assume that the majority of Americans opposed Trump, which is true. You might look at the aggregate and assume that the majority of Americans everywhere opposed Trump, which is not at all true.
Trump will govern as if the voters of California don't exist. Voters in, say, Indiana or Wisconsin, won't especially care. Do you see what I'm getting at?
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... is VOTERS who, along with the majority of voters nation-wide, voted for HRC.
I've seen a lot "oh, yeah, but those votes are from California" posts - as though that somehow renders those votes worth less than votes originating elsewhere.
Here's a handy guide: More populous states will produce more votes - duh! That doesn't render those votes dismissable simply because there were more of them than there were in less populated states.
BeardofJGarfield
(26 posts)Clinton won California. All those millions over and above the number needed to win don't count for anything tangible in the EC system.
Sounds like you're feeling marginalized? People keep telling your vote doesn't matter, huh? Sounds like you feel people are telling you that your vote is worth less for some reason?
Welcome to the life of a non-coastal, non-urban Democratic voter. Welcome to what we've been getting from the coastal Democratics for years.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... as a "coastal" Democrat, or an "urban" Democrat. I've always thought of myself as a Democrat, and have voted accordingly.
I wonder why some people are so intent on having us see ourselves as divided by what coasts we happen to live on, and what small towns we happen to reside in.
And I can't help but wonder who benefits from sowing the seeds of that division, and what purpose they hope to be serving.
JHan
(10,173 posts)It is that she had a razor thin loss across 3 states of just under 80,000 on top of that - So yes, Trump's approach to governing will concern voters in WI, MI, PA. *And let's not forget the impact of voter suppression.
The results of this election show that there was no rejection of HRC's platform.
It was a mixed bag, but the general trend was that most urbanites leaned more towards HRC while rural voters leaned towards Trump. HRC did manage to capture rural voters ( generally those making less than 50,000 k)
Some traditionally red states turned purple this time around and on their way to turning blue.
The fact is Trump is a #MinorityPresident and does not have a strong mandate.
And just when are we going to realise something is fundamentally wrong with the E.C? When a President wins just 30% of the popular vote but still wins the Presidency?
Silver Gaia
(5,361 posts)vs. rural situation. Do people think California is a sea of blue voters or something? We have large rural and mountainous areas that tend to vote conservative, and large urban areas that tend to vote liberal. It's no different than anywhere else!
Look at this holistically on one of those maps that colors red and blue by counties. We look like everywhere else. It's just that, as a state, we are BIG, and we have several very large urban centers within our borders, so overall, the state is going to swing blue. I don't think it is a fair or even accurate way of looking at things to say that Hillary's 2.8 million are just California voters.
That margin comes from every county, every precinct, across America where she did well, and where the election was held freely and fairly without supressing votes. To say it is all "just California" diminishes ALL Democrats, as if some of us count "too much" and others "not enough." It is dangerous and divisive rhetoric that helps no one but Republicans. And it needs to stop.
(And please don't lecture me about the EC. I am well aware of its purpose, the problems surrounding it, AND of the fact that California holds the key to 55 of them. Enough on that.)
JHan
(10,173 posts)(No won't lecture you 
Silver Gaia
(5,361 posts)Urban/rural is the only thing that really makes sense to me, and that just leapt off the screen at me in your great post.
Silver Gaia
(5,361 posts)I just want to say I wasn't aiming my parenthetical comment about the EC at you. I had seen as lot of responses from others about that, and was just responding to that.
BREMPRO
(2,345 posts)I see lots of elitest coastal thinking here that does not feel like it understands these communities or wants to understand them. Many seem to either dismiiss them, wish they would be more progressive and socially liberal, or attack them with scorn and condescension as racist sexist or ignorant. Some of that may be true but you don't win hearts and minds and their votes that way. And with the EC we don't have a choice. I wish more would take into account the perspective you have expressed here , one from the ground, first hand and with compassion and understanding. Obama did and won. Bill Clinton worried about this but was dismissed as old fashioned. Well....
Everything on HRC's platform and the democratic platform would have benefited rural voters.
And if any Democrat tried to roll back on regulations what would the progressives have been screaming about from the rooftops?
And yes, racism and sexism and islamophobia was the impetus for many voters, while some were "scared" or "Un certain" - or maybe just* full of BS because I refuse to let voters off the hook.
We can criticize the tactics of the Clinton camp, but tactical mistakes should not be conflated with policies.
Silver Gaia
(5,361 posts)leftstreet
(40,681 posts)
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)President Obama "lost" the midterms because blockheads took his popularity down after the Affordable Care Act won. It has been downhill ever since. Goddamn Kasich and Walker got reelected.
I live in Ohio, btw
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)pnwmom
(110,261 posts)that he wasn't likable enough.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,536 posts)They handed Bush the election in one of the dumbest, most disingenuous decisions the Supremes have ever rendered.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)a lot closer.
IronLionZion
(51,268 posts)Some liberals did say he could have tried harder, tried to be more likeable, not distanced himself from Clinton so much, chosen a better VP, campaigned in his home state more, etc.
Plus a lot of us blamed Nader for pushing false equivalence. Very few knew how bad Bush/Cheney would be back then.
Leaders are responsible. It's the first rule of leadership.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... that is yet another fact that has been rendered irrelevant.
melman
(7,681 posts)DU was founded because the Supreme Court handed the election to Bush by stopping the recount.
The recount that would have shown Gore won the EC too.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Hope will be gone for a short time anyway, I worry Democratic Politicians may try and work with him legitimizing him as Bi partisan.
elmac
(4,642 posts)remember, the guy who was fighting so hard for health care for all, called sniffles a racist for questioning Obama Birth certificate. Well Hell must have frozen over because he now wants to give sniffles a chance and he blames Clinton for the email leaks. He is working for RT now so I'm think Putins got him by the you know whats. If big Ed can turn to the dark side then anyone can.
JHan
(10,173 posts)and which email leaks is he blaming her for? Or have emails also made him stupid..
I hope someone hacks into his emails and leaks them: I will then blame him 100%
TonyPDX
(962 posts)I'm hoping that real leaders like Jeff Merkley will rise up to resist him at every turn.
napi21
(45,806 posts)notice that they were again looking into more of Hillary's emails. I think people had finally put that issue to bed. When he dug it up agsin, I think a lot of people just got so disgusted with the whole investigation thing, they said no Hillary, we're tired of this crap and want to mover on.
Is that fair? Of course not, but I know I was disgusted with it. I also knew if Hillary was elected President, there would be continuous accusations, investigations, non stop for eight friggin years! the only way to stop it was to throw the Pubs out of office, which doesn't seem to be in the cards, or elect someone else. Sorry to say, I think that's how we got the Con.
Upthevibe
(10,180 posts)
StarzGuy
(254 posts)...all the vitriol on this site against Clinton. I voted for Sanders in our primary but when Clinton won the nomination I was fully in favor and voted for her in the general.
How on Earth are we ever going to change this system? It seems to me no matter who is elected they will never give up that advantage they found in the electoral college in their election. Does anyone hear expect that the rethugs that are in control of the government now would do anything to change the nature of our national presidential elections by using just the popular vote? No way in...
Complaining about it does no good. Leadership is necessary. I don't see anyone currently willing or able to take up that call. I like Sanders a lot, but lets get real, he is getting up there in age. Where are the young rising democratic stars?
I'd like to know...
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)Its doesn't matter if she won the popular vote by 3 million or 30 million if the votes aren't distributed enough to win 270 electoral votes.
I'd like to believe that there was some strategy/message/campaign that could have overcome Trump and other adversaries.
spin
(17,493 posts)The problem is that she connected with the voters who live in large urban areas. There is a LOT of voters in the large urban areas which is why she won the popular vote. Unfortunately she needed to connect with more rural voters in certain critical states. If she had she would have won the electoral college.
Of course there are a lot of reasons for why Hillary lost. It's hard for me to believe that voters would vote for a total asshole like Trump. Near the end of the election I was convinced he really had no interest in winning and was doing his honest best to sabotage his own campaign.
While many people will disagree with me I will suggest one idea that might make a difference in gaining rural votes for Democrats in future election. Simply stop the push for gun bans and limits on the amount of rounds that a magazine can hold. Push to improve background checks and better enforce existing laws. There are at least 80,000,000 gun owners in this nation and many firmly believe the Democratic Party wants to pass gun legislation similar to that which exists in Great Britain. A high percentage of gun owners are one issue voters and they show up to vote at the polls. If we could convince even 10% of these one issue voters to once again consider voting for Democratic candidates we might win many close elections at the local, state and national levels.
DallasNE
(8,008 posts)She was way slow in coming out against TPP and did not campaign hard against it. In the rust belt it killed her. She ran a national campaign and won nationally. You have to run a series of regional campaigns because that is how it must be done. She spent too much time in North Carolina and Florida. And she never went after Comey hard enough - didn't she have any IT people to explain email architecture and protocol. Bernie showed her the way and she was a slow learner. Yes, I worked on Hillary's campaign so don't give me that.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)I forgot that "Bernie showed her the way" and she was a "slow learner".
Is that the SAME Bernie who lost the primaries? Maybe he was just a "slow learner" himself.
DallasNE
(8,008 posts)Which is how I prefaced it. Because of that he won Michigan and nearly won Wisconsin. Those two states were always going to be difficult for her unless she adapted. I thought she would be o.k. in PA because of Philadelphia but it turned out to not be enough - perhaps voter suppression played a bigger role than expected.
But I will admit that she had a strong headwind because of a press that could not get enough Trump. I would say that Trump got roughly 6 times the minutes Hillary got on the news. When nothing sticks because the media didn't want anything to stick on Trump the outcome is sadly predictable, even when it is disclosed that Trump had sexually assaulted women in the past. Yes, the media waited until after the election for a vetting attempt on Trump.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Voters who prioritized the threat of terrorism and immigration preferred Trump.
And frankly, Bernie is horrible on Trade.
mcar
(46,058 posts)Can we please dispense with this falsehood? HRC won voters who cared about the economy. She lost to racist, sexist, CT believing morons.
ffr
(23,399 posts)It was the dirty 'falling on the GOP sword" that Jame Comey did that swayed just enough undecideds into tRump's column. That's all it took.
Look, republican voters would have voted for a turd if that was their candidate. The fact they were bamboozled into supporting the Russian candidate for U.S. president, makes no difference to their retarded lot. We lost due to an electoral college technicality.
Unfortunately, we're already seeing the housing market seize and 66 million people who voted with their brains are very concerned with the destruction the Russian candidate is going to do to our economy, in his 4 year looting spree.
It's gonna be a hard rain that falls. And it's going to fall hardest on those who actually believed they were buying umbrellas.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts) jack_krass
(1,009 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)"California votes really don't count."
"Democrats live in Ivory Towers."
"Democrats need to stop playing identity politics."
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Which wins elections, and will favor DEMOCRATS, because liberal ideas are held more widely than conservative ones, and working people are spread widely geographically
As for your implication that im a Republican, well....
i'd word that more strongly but I need to be around to keep juries balanced
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)I wasn't suggesting you are a Republican.
I was suggesting that people who say California votes don't matter are Republican.
I do disagree with you on one thing thing; liberal or social democratic cultural and economic views are not universal. There are plenty of people in red states who will choose to remain poor as long as black and brown folks can be kept poorer and glbtq folks are seen and not heard.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)rural territory, both locally and nationally(maybe even moreso locally). Are you not bothered at those county by county maps that show a "sea of red"?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)BTW. a lot of counties have a lot more land than humans. Loving County, Texas has 82 people. As flawed as some people think Democratic policies are they are better for everybody, from the lowliest to the highest.
Unfortunately there are people who don't mind being kept down as long as others they dislike are kept down even more.
TonyPDX
(962 posts)Unfortunately there are people who don't mind being kept down as long as others they dislike are kept down even more.
Some members of my family back in NW Florida would rather suffer than have their POC neighbors benefit from any government program. Oregon was as far away as I was able to move from them.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Sometimes I think I'm on the Freeper board, there are so many GOP talking points being pushed here, sometimes literally word for word out of a Repub. playbook. I'm not going to say those who do that are actual Republicans, but they are obviously low on information and some are high on Hillary and woman hatred.
California votes count. The fact that INDIVIDUAL California votes and votes in other high population states count LESS than individual votes in places like, say, Montana is the EC problem, and somehow we need to change that. I KNOW it's too late for this election, so the morons who are anxious to point that out can save their breath and pixels.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and it would be by majority of voters, not by state, so that argument is absurd.
I'm from a state with 3 EC votes, so my vote is overly powerful, yet I'm for abolishing the EC. I don't think my vote should count for more than a California vote.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)We have a representative republic, not a democracy (democracy is mob rule where the majority population can vote to kill and eat the minority population)
treestar
(82,383 posts)I believe our system is not representative enough.
Even the House isn't. It should have more members now if it were going to be truly representative.
We should have done like the other former British colonies and adopted their parliamentary system. I guess we were so much in rebellion we needed a new one.
The Senate is undemocratic. I don't blame the founders, as at that time, each state was a colony that worried about itself and the founders had to get all states on board as they didn't think the rebellion would succeed unless it included every colony.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd pretend that to be the case as well if I too had difficulty following basic English conversations.
No doubt, were we honest we'd quickly and easily point to examples of our empty allegation (I'm sure you will, due to your honesty, yes?), yet lacking in conviction, we merely type made-up one-liners to better validate our own biases... if no one else's.
Response to LanternWaste (Reply #111)
jack_krass This message was self-deleted by its author.
salster
(15 posts)We all know about the EC, and the Russians, and the FBI, and ever other reason but until Dems look at how stubbornly they resisted getting behind the Democratic candidate after she won the primaries then surely we will not have learned anything at all.
I was shocked at the hate and vitriol that was thrown at her on this site after she beat the more progressive candidate in the primaries. Nobody wants to talk about that. "why should I have to pick between the lesser of two evils" a co-worker tells me. If you want to (or in this case, wanted to ) get all high and mighty after your candidate lost to Hillary, and you would rather write someone else's name that would never actually have the chance at winning, or not vote at all, then thanks to you, this is what you get. Oh, you didn't vote for Trump? Well if you didn't vote for Hillary, that's no different in my eyes, Russian hacking or not. Didn't vote or didn't vote for Hillary but want to protest? Go ahead, but that isn't going to turn back time and the opportunity to have a different president. It's always someone else's fault. Shit, people are stupid.
Thanks for this post. Not sure anyone really addressed your post, myself included.
zippythepinhead
(374 posts)Hillary Clinton is the real president.
Congratulations, Hillary!
:hat tip:
baldguy
(36,649 posts)that has won 6 of the last 7 Presidential contests - and might still have won the seventh.
Cha
(319,076 posts)Vinca
(53,994 posts)Response to NanceGreggs (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
bowens43
(16,064 posts)What I don't understand is why there are still people in the Democratic party who can't admit that she was a terrible choice. She was up against the worst candidate in the history of our country and she lost. It should have been obvious to anyone who has followed politics for the last few decades that this would be the outcome.
If she had somehow managed to win it would have been 4 years of absolute deadlock, investigations and impeachment hearings.
We tried to warn you during nomination process but the hard core Hillary supporters wouldn't listen.
Response to bowens43 (Reply #104)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Did you vote for her?
FourScore
(9,704 posts)Unfortunatley, it's the one thing the staunch Hillary supporters do not want to admit.
I voted for her, but I predicted her loss months before it happened. So many grave mistakes made by that campaign.
Many of us tried to sound the alarm, but were banned on the message boards and accused of being Bernie-bros or some other such nonsense. The whole election turned into an echo chamber, like children slapping their hands over their ears and screaming gibberish in order to block the words they choose not to hear.
Now they are baffled by the results and screaming about Russians and FBI investigations and Comey and popular votes and on and on and on...
She lost. That's what happened, and it was predictable. Period.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)While we could have run a better candidate that was available at the time, we ALSO could have run a tactically better campaign for Hillary.
Popular vote is meaningless and everyone knows it going into the election. The EV's are where it's at, and this campaign... everyone involved should be un-hire-able for all future campaigns. Done flubbed it.
Lost, the only way we COULD lose, even with a sub-par candidate, against the worst fucking candidate since Ross crazy-elf Perot.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)for posting this. It got so discouraging to log on to this sight every few days to find Pro-Bernie people posting their things would have been different message when you just destroyed every one of those posts.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and some shenanigans as it seems a huge coincidence that Orange Toxin just happened to win every swing state by a thin margin.
This is the only office in the world subjected to such a weird procedure, a procedure so strange it can let the loser take the office. Normal countries vote their leaders by majority vote.
BRToldschool
(8 posts)You don't have to "sound like a Republican" to recognize that Hillary won in California, but if we remove California from the equation, Trump catches up. I know we'll be debating about this forever, but it's important for Clinton supporters to understand that Clinton struggled to connect beyond the I-5 corridor. I mean, does Hillary ever have to be responsible for anything to do with losing? She courted urban voters in the big cities. And that's exactly what she got. Everyone else got to be a "deplorable" and this message was received (by the non-urban) loud and clear. Nobody made Hillary say that, just as nobody forced Mitt Romney to make his absurd 47% comment in the 2012 campaign. Unforced errors lay solely with the candidate. Period. Hillary made more than one unforced error in this cycle, too. This is a fact. You don't have to like it. But it's true.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the people in it are Americans. That they count for less is an absurdity created in 1789 when there was no California.
Silver Gaia
(5,361 posts)niyad
(132,440 posts)by many.
Response to treestar (Reply #123)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)All this shit to attack one fine woman who would have done and outstanding job as president.
~ She is one tough and kick ass woman. It took a foreign government, media collaboration with Trump, Wikileaks and the FBI to bring her down and she still got the most votes. That is my kind of woman.
Crunchy Frog
(28,280 posts)The only issue of interest to me in the election outcome, is, does she or doesn't she get sworn in as President of the United States. The current rules of the game say that winning a larger number of popular votes is irrelevant, and only the number of Electoral College votes matters, as far as winning the presidency goes.
Can you comprehend the fact that for some of us, the only really important issue here is that Trump is going to be taking the Oath and moving into the Oval Office, and then sacking and pillaging this country four the next 4 years. It's totally wrong, and I would change it if I could, but the fact of the matter is that Hillary's nearly 3 million more votes than Trump's makes absolutely no difference as far as outcome goes.
The fact that she won a hell of a lot of votes in Californial and NYC doesn't alter the fact that she didn't win enough votes in critical swing states that she needed to take in order to get sufficient EC votes to take the presidency. I won't say that "she didn't connect with voters", but I will say that she didn't connect with enough voters in the critical swing states that she needed in order to win the presidency.
We are not saying that the majority of voters should be discounted. It's the fucked up electoral system in this country that says that, and most of us hate it, and would love to see it changed. It would take a constitutional ammendment to change it, though, and that isn't going to happen any time in the forseeable future.
It seems to me like the thing that's really eating you is that not all of us have the kind of emotional investment in Hillary Clinton that you do. That not all of us are ready to give her a pat on the back and a 2nd place medal. That some of us are more invested in the country and what Trump is about to do to it, than we are in Hillary as a person.
Do you honestly believe that the campaign was perfect, and that there was nothing within their control that they could have done differently that maybe would have produced a different practical outcome? If you do, that's fine, it's your opinion, but not all of us share it. Some of us believe that there is value in evaluating things that our side did wrong in an election that failed in the only metric that has any practical meaning. Some of us want to think about how we can do better next time, so that we not only "win", but actually end up with the presidency, and hopefully some down ticket offices as well.
It actually boggles my mind that some people don't understand where this side is coming from. It's not about disrespecting the candidate. It's about wanting to get our candidate into the Oval Office.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,536 posts)It's not bashing Hillary to want a thorough and unbiased analysis of why she lost, which would include looking not only at external forces outside her control but the strategic and tactical decisions made by her campaign. I hate it that she lost and I want to know why such a highly-qualified candidate lost to a boorish, ignorant narcissist with no experience in government. That should not have happened. Griping about how unfair the electoral college is doesn't change the fact that we are stuck with it. Winning the popular vote doesn't give you anything but an argument that the EC winner doesn't really have a mandate; considering the way the votes were distributed, that argument holds water only in urban areas. It won't help us win future elections if we continue to look down our noses at rural and rust-belt voters and dismiss them as ignorant, racist rubes. There was a time when those areas were important Dem strongholds and we've lost them. It behooves us to find out why if we ever want to win another election.
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)She didn't connect with enough voters in lower population states. If that's "Republican sounding" I don't know what else to say.
Why not covet the vote in lower population states?
mcar
(46,058 posts)and we all know voters there don't count because they don't understand the plight of the poor, special, Trump voters, our dear "brothers and sisters." 
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)We can't remind them often enough!
2,864,978 - Our Platform Won needs to be a bumper sicker.
Retweet graphic.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)more populous than many countties. And heavily Democratic.
The fact HRC's margin in Cali is larger than trumps vote total in twelve small states is no surprise to anyone with a pulse. In fact, her margin in Cali is certainly larger than the combined total population of some other arbitrary group of small states.
Whats the take home?
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Albeit, these are not the 12 most "populpus" states. What are you trying to say?
keepthemhonestO
(628 posts)Nancy this has been getting under my skin. Besides all of your wonderful points about majority and how annoying it is to me,they stole this election.What was wrong with our message? Ugggggh.
If we don't know how the votes are being counting inside those machines, then they are counting in secret and cheating!!!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)She talked economy every single day of the campaign. People were beyond excited to go to the polls for her.
Know who those are running around saying she didn't talk about the economy and didn't generate enthusiasm. If there was any truth to that. Sanders and Trumps voters were flat out asleep.
no_hypocrisy
(54,908 posts)The popular vote in MI, WI, and PA were nearly ties.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And you know it.
And some of us know WHY the EV system exists. If you want to talk about replacing or altering it, fine, but the time to do that was BEFORE the election, not after just because we don't like the result.
And if the EV flips the results with faithless electors, you'll again be singing a different tune.
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)I sure hope she runs again in 2020.
George II
(67,782 posts)...that they were entitled to dictate party "rules" and policy, down through the primary campaigns right up to and including the DEMOCRATIC National Convention, then the mass exodus of "democrats" to the other side to support Donald Trump, then the sour grapes after their candidate won, claiming the Democratic candidate was the "wrong" candidate, she didn't create enough "enthusiasm", and blaming the loss on all those Democrats who supported the candidate they attacked relentlessly.
Looking back, it's become obvious that from the beginning they wanted a republican victory.
AlexSFCA
(6,319 posts)Too many people voted against trump instead of voting FOR Hillary. The enthusiasm was curbed.
mwooldri
(10,818 posts)Single Transferable Vote.
Presidential elections done on popular vote, including 2nd/3rd preferences.
US Congressional elections to be done every 4 years, not 2. Senate every 8. Thus there is time to govern... no more nonstop campaigning.
Federal elections to be separated from State and local elections. Allows people to focus properly and have an informed electorate.
Congressional districts to be decided by non partisan boards with no regard to party politics, but ensure minority representation in government.
Voting that's purely electronic to be outlawed. "Scantronic" type voting okay.
That's my start.
LAS14
(15,506 posts)... the electoral college. Get rid of it by amendment, but right now the stability of our democracy is already under attack. Where would we be if, after every election, the actual result were in practice (not theory) in the hands of several hundred individuals we know nothing bout?
False equivalency to say that not arguing for an elector revolt means we deny the majority win or blame Hillary.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)you have to win the electoral college. Our strategy better be to win the electoral college and not the popular vote or we will end up here again (as we did in 2000 as well). BTW Bernie would have won the electoral college.
niyad
(132,440 posts)and what was pointed out in this OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028380362
niyad
(132,440 posts)deist99
(122 posts)Yes she won the popular vote but for me the fact that she only got 48% of the vote compared to Drump's 47% is cause for concern. The race should have never been that close, it should have been a landslide for Hillary. You have one candidate that has never held a public office against someone who has and has been involved in some capacity with government for almost 30 years.
Say this had been a job opening and they both applied for it. If you would have compared their two resumes it would have been a no brainier. Any HR person would have said that Drump is clearly unqualified for the job. And yet 47% of voters voted for him.
I know you can blame the Russians or Comey but Drump had just as much bad stuff come out as Hillary. I mean my god there is a tape with him saying he just grabs them by the pussy, and he still won!!! This should have been a landslide for her and it wasn't, why?
From what I can tell in my area of Ohio it's because Drump "told it like it is" and was "anti-establishment" and Hillary was seen as same old same old and was hated by a lot of people not just on the right. For example I have two friends who voted for Obama in the last two elections, one decided not to vote at all and the other voted for Drump. Why? Because they hated Hillary. I really think if she would have been up against Cruz or Bush she would have been crushed in a landslide. We really underestimated the hatred out there against her from moderates and even sad to say democrats.
fescuerescue
(4,475 posts)
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,189 posts)
BlueMTexpat
(15,690 posts)enough. 
I also continue to put DUers who slur Hillary and do NOT sound like Dems or who keep arguing against Dems on my Iggy list. I find that I am MUCH happier that way. So far as I am concerned, those people and I have NO common ground. I consider them traitors. Period.
Moving on and aiming high insofar as traitors are concerned may be unachievable goals for me personally. 
IronLionZion
(51,268 posts)It's been the law since 1787.
But we don't just change our constitution because we don't like the outcome of the election. There is a way to change the constitution if you're interested in going that route.
But with demographics and diversity on our side we are likely to benefit from the electoral college for many elections to come. America is becoming more diverse and progressive, not less.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... that's another discussion.
It's about some people insisting that HRC didn't "connect" with voters, had the "wrong message", didn't inspire enthusiasm, etc. Apparently her message resonated with the majority of voters - which is something certain people want to ignore because it doesn't fit their narrative.
IronLionZion
(51,268 posts)Of course that would be sweet because it would benefit us.
It has to be majority of voters in majority of states. The EC forces elections to be more nation-wide so that a few big states like California or Texas don't dominate. They designed it on purpose to force candidates to include more states so that we wouldn't ignore the smaller ones or entire regions.
Remember part of the Dem strategy was to expand our map to include previously red states and we got some. We didn't expect the other side to expand their map too and take our blue states.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)It's about some people insisting that Hill didn't "connect", etc., when she DID connect with the majority of voters.
Had she lost the popular vote, her "not connecting" would be obvious and worth discussing. But that's not the case here.
You can argue until the proverbial cows come home about a flawed strategy, of not campaigning enough here or too much there, and so on. But the argument that she had the "wrong message" and "didn't connect with voters" falls flat in view of the facts.
IronLionZion
(51,268 posts)would be a win.
And it's our whole party. Russ Feingold and Katie McGinty should have won their Senate races in traditionally blue states. We should have won more congressional house seats and state legislatures. Connecting with California liberals doesn't help us with any of the 3 branches of government we lost.
If Dems got big wins in the Senate and House, and Hillary lost, then we would have a problem with our presidential candidate. But since we lost winnable seats, it was our party not connecting. Or the other party convinced people that we are coastal elitists looking down on them from our safe spaces.
Our party and the campaigns didn't connect with enough voters in enough states. Why deny it? We can work on this and do better next time. Admitting our faults is the first way to learn from our mistakes and win big.
There is a way to connect with voters in the upper Midwest. We as a party can do better.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)
budkin
(6,849 posts)So fucking tired of seeing that "explanation."
Blanks
(4,835 posts)She was supposed to have won Florida. In fact, it was in the bag. Statistically impossible for Trump to overcome.
Everyone Monday morning quarterbacking somehow seems to have forgotten that even on election night there was no expectation that Trump would win. There were 5 states that he had to win and he was trailing in the polls, even the TV people were shocked.
It was stolen. She didn't do anything wrong, I'm confident that it'll all come out when everyone gets back on their feet.
What nobody seems to be taking into account is that as soon as Trump's people take over, there will be a lot of people who are currently running the government (including Obama) that'll be able to put their efforts into shaping the democratic message for 2018.
Florida is where the problem was though, if I were gonna fix the problem with the future elections, that's where I'd look.
The republicans will be defending their actions (or inactions) it's time for democrats to go on the offense.
KPN
(17,377 posts)others for things that never happened on the part of or by many of us here at DU who aren't fans of Hillary but supported her in the GE ... and who agree she won the popular vote by a considerable margin, that Comey influenced the outcome and that, likely, so did Russian hacking, etc., etc.
You are blaming us for speaking up and voicing our view, opinion, and concern that the Democratic Party failed in 2016 as well as in Congressional elections over the past 6, Gubernatorial and State legislative elections over at least the past 8 years. You are blaming us for sounding the alarm that continuing to do the same thing going forward fits the definition of idiocy.
Stop taking this personally, stop calling us "Republican" look alikes, and stop trying to stifle our voices. We are not going away -- at least I'm not.
11 Bravo
(24,310 posts)I share your passion, but I lack your eloquence. You speak for me.
Thanks.
gulliver
(13,985 posts)Not just for a future candidacy, but as part of a group of speakers and thought leaders calling on Dems to get together.
Gothmog
(179,869 posts)The popular vote victory means that trump does not have a mandate
Cha
(319,076 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Facts bother people.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)more qualified than any man to run the country.
Systemic sexism is even more insidious when it is perpetuated by "liberals" who think that the idea that they are "lefty" means they are incapable/exempt of sexism, racism, xenophobia...
There was a reason that feminism broke off from "the left."
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts).. is the Perfect (Shit)Storm, to whit:
Voters who refused to see a woman as a competent POTUS, voters who were swayed by Comey's "announcement" of HRC still being the subject of investigation, voters who chose to believe a man who has outsourced US jobs is actually the champion of those whose jobs were outsourced, voters who swallowed fake news without bothering to investigate the facts, voters who think "illegals" are stealing good-paying jobs, voters who believe that non-white minorities are being paid too much attention, voters who think that who campaigned in their state is more important than what that candidate stands for, voters who would rather believe the lies (I'll bring back those coal miners' jobs) than believe the truth (the coal industry is financially unviable and ISN'T coming back), voters who wanted to be told that their hatred of minorities is justified, so-called "Christian" voters who believe that Trump was "chosen by God", voters who believe that unemployment skyrocketed during Obama's administration (all facts to the contrary), voters who have been brainwashed by FOX-News, Rush Limbaugh et al, voters who think ALL Democrats are latte-guzzling elitists who have NO idea what a middle-class worker is up against, as opposed to a billionaire who somehow does.
The aforesaid voters are responsible for Trump's "election" - not because they represent the majority of voters, but because they happen to reside in the "right states" where their votes have more weight than voters in other states, because their votes are seen as "more worthy" than the majority of voters who cast their ballots elsewhere.
Throw into the mix an MSM that yelled "Emails and Benghazi!!!" 24/7, and never talked about Trump's lies, the dozens of lawsuits pending against him, and dismissed "pussy-grabbing" as excusable naughty locker-room talk.
The effects of this Perfect (Shit)storm won't be felt for a while. But I wait in anticipation of the day it does. When grandmas's social security check is pared-down to the bone, when citizens start dying for lack of affordable healthcare once Obamacare is overturned, when Trumptowns full of people living in tents because they can't afford rent or food pop up around the country, it will be interesting to hear the squeals of the pigs who voted for Trump.
"I NEVER voted for THIS!" will be the outraged cry. And the fact that they DID vote for this will be vehemently denied by those responsible.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)male counterparts.
7962
(11,841 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)You're probably right, because I'm pretty sure many thought.. You know what? I'm gonna risk losing the social safety net because Hillary is smug.
I read this year of a NeverHillary hater who wouldn't vote for her because of her baking cookies comment a zillion years ago.
And now we no longer have to deal with her smugness we can all hold this L together..
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)Was it the smugness of voters who thought a vote cast for Trump would justify their anger towards minorities, or "illegals" who were stealing American jobs? Was it the smugness of FOX-News adherents who believe that Obama "ruined the nation" because unemployment skyrocketed during his administration? Was it the smugness of "informed voters" who still believe that Obama is a secret Muslim who wasn't even a US citizen?
Exactly whose "smugness" are you alluding to here?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)You know, the ones who told the working class their jobs were obsolete and they knew what was good for them as they cut deals with Wall Street to send their jobs overseas.
I guess everyone is expected to become day traders selling stock from home in their bathrobes.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)Should Democrats lie about that (as Trump did) and pretend that the coal industry is coming back -- bigly?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)Trump has promised to bring all of those jobs back.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Sad that too many Democrats don't either.
Cha
(319,076 posts)they don't care if Millions go without healthcare as long they get to stamp their selfish little feet?
The smugness of those who voted green and enabled a climate change denier in the WH?
Yeah.. they're awfully gd smug.
Gothmog
(179,869 posts)Gothmog
(179,869 posts)I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics
I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign
The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....
And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.
Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal
spanone
(141,615 posts)
oasis
(53,693 posts)have been wasting resources trying to reason with conclaves full of blockheads.
War Horse
(931 posts)And unfortunately enough people, even some traditional Ds apparently, seem to have taken that bait rather than address issues where she could/should have been legitimately challenged.
She's no more of a monster than, say, Angela Merkel.