A Pro-Hillary think tank wants to discuss the future of the party . .

[FairWinds]

Draw your own conclusions, but this analysis seems to confirm the views of the Warren, Sanders wing.

Here is what we used to call the "raw data" - the views of people who voted for Pres. Obama, but switched to Trump in 2016 or stayed home . .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/05/01/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/Post-election_Research_Deck.pdf?tid=a_inl

[PoliticAverse]

2. It worked for me, it's a .pdf document. n/t

[hrmjustin]

3. just checked my downloads. Thanks!

[FairWinds]

4. Works for me too . .

It is a pdf file from "Priorities USA" - 26 pages, but readily grasped.

The study was also reported on in the Washington Post,
and Common Dreams

[hurple]

5. Alrighty...

Right from the start they say a commonality between Obama-Trump voters and Drop-Off Voters is that they are struggling financially, and see their income as not keeping up with the cost of living.

And right their the entire report goes into myopic overdrive.

I guarantee if they convened a focus group of Bush-Clinton voters or new voters for Clinton they would say exactly the same thing.

In fact, I bet every voter in every category would say the same thing.

(well, okay, except for the wealthy, but that's not what I'm talking about... and as we have seen from other studies, they mostly voted for trump anyway)

They need to have focus-groups of Hillary voters and discover where the crossover is between the two groups, and then target that breach in the future.

I had a ton more written for this rant but deleted it. It wasn't nice. I'll just sum up by saying I'm sick of our side continually digging the hole that Hillary failed... SHE did not! Her campaign did not. This country did. Three major minority groups got together and voted in a block that stopped her... barely... Racists, Idiots, and The 1%

And don't forget the Russians.

[Ninsianna]

6. And all it took was 70k votes.

Any analysis that ignores the deliberate propaganda and the misinformation regardless of the source, simply will miss the reasons as well.

There was misogyny at play, there was a great deal exposed about how our education if failing young people at teaching them the basics about how government works, history, how to think critically and judge sources.

I had no idea how fortunate I was in my teachers, I honestly did not realize that people weren't taught these things in school.

The reason the right wingers and the Russians and whomever else was involved with the attacks against Hillary were so successful is that they had an audience that did not know how to defend themselves against the torrent of lies and falsehoods they were overwhelmed with from all sides, including the media, even the supposedly liberal outlets and the supposed liberals, when they're all echoing the same things the Albanians, the Macedonians and Russians were, there is a problem that needs to be looked at and no honest analysis can be done if this is not taken into consideration.

And now that we have Betsey Devoss in charge, and the disruptive and divisive forces entrenched and given a megaphone, it's only going to get worse.

[Ninsianna]

7. Priorities USA is a Democratic Party PAC, it dares to discuss the future of the party?

What's with the sneering "pro-Hillary" tag added here? They supported the candidate chosen by the voters.

A party PAC wants to discuss the future the party? Not some outside group that has no wish to join it, or work with it, that attacks it, denigrates it and seeks to "remake" it into something that its members rejected and whose current goals are angering the party's base and its core principles?


There is no need for the divisiveness here, and the Sanders wing seems to be actively rejecting any analysis that addresses ALL of the factors at play here, including the damaging falsehoods about rigging by the party, the obsession with emails, the Russian provided wikileaks and the failure to immediately come together and try to undo the damage done in the primary fight. Those were the fissures that allowed in the Russians, the racists and the other players here.

The economic stuff is utterly ridiculous when the policies of HRC and the platform were things that would have addressed the economic issues, the DNC bent over backwards giving that contingent their say in the platform. If you've been given a voice in these issues, and deference in the platform despite a massive loss, then don't you have a bit of responsibility to rally your voters strongly to come out and vote? The majority did of course turn out, as they were expected to, the majority who voted against HRC weren't dumb enough to be fooled by the anti-HRC idiocy out there, they simply liked Bernie better, a lot of people liked both of them.

It's what happens when people don't bother to look at the policies, the MSM ignores issues completely and the lukewarm endorsements didn't undo the damage that had been done. Perhaps in an atmosphere without the toxic interference of foreign agents (there were quite a few that were and are still quite active in keeping the divisions alive), this would have been fine, but it was meager in comparison to the forces at work here, and the knee jerk viciousness against Warren and even Sanders was pretty clear.

ALL of the issues need to be addressed here, including the dangerous way that the left was undermined by the purity brigade marching in with their foreign accents, inveigling their way into the passionate, but not terribly educated folks who didn't quite realize what was at stake here, since they didn't realize it affected them personally.

[FairWinds]

8. "pro-Hillary" is "sneering"?

Really?

Your reaction is all too typical of establishment Dems.

BTW I've been an active Dem for 50 years, and in 2016 we
housed two HRC field workers in our own home for months.

What did you do Ninsianna?