Did Hillary Clinton lose because she was forced too far to the Left?

[Tom Rinaldo]

Was she pushed to adopt positions too extreme for the American electorate? If so, which planks turned off the American electorate and hurt her in the Fall? At the time of the Convention there was broad agreement that the platform that Democrats adopted was an excellent one. By all accounts, Hillary ran on the most progressive platform the Democratic Party has had for decades. Her delegates ran the platform committee that adopted that platform. She proudly ran on that openly progressive platform. So is that why Trump is now President, and why Hillary only won the popular vote by three million?

Mostly I've seen it argued that Hillary lost because of racism, Russia, voter suppression, and Comey - but should the left be blamed instead? That would be the logical extension of the premise being promoted on several OPs on DU over the last few days blaming the left for most of the electoral shortcomings of the Democratic Party in recent years. So the question is, one that holds important implications for the future of the Democratic party, should Hillary have hugged the center stronger in 2016, or even shifted right, closer to the platforms that her husband once ran for President on? Would that have helped or hurt her with the outcome?

Last summer, though the Sanders delegation would have preferred a few more leftist platform tweeks, Hillary didn't give them everything they wanted. Still Hillary showed flexibility where that was consistent with her vision, and Sanders then united with the Clinton people in praising the platform that emerged. So was that attempt at unity ultimately Hillary's downfall? Was Hillary pushed to far to the left in the rust belt, for example, where Trump squeaked out his Electoral Party victory? Is that why so many previous Obama voters there turned to Trump instead? Were they turned off by Clinton's overly radical economic message, consistent with our platform: a $15 a hour minimum wage, free public college for middle class students, a stronger economic safety net. Did those turn out to be unpopular views that repelled voters who Democrats count on?

Or is it the tiny leftist holdout minority who gathered behind Stein to be blamed for Trump becoming President? If so, would anyone argue that Hillary have won more of their votes by running on a more moderate platform instead? Jill Stein won 1,457,216 votes in 2016, or 1.07% of the total vote. Meanwhile the Libertarian ticket, composed of two ex Republican Governors, won 4,489,221 votes, or 3.28% of the total. Millions of votes go to third parties in every American presidential election. You might remember that Jill Stein has run for President before. In 2012 she got 469,628 votes, so she got about a extra million this time around. By comparison it has been estimated via several studies that Hillary Clinton picked up about two million 2012 Romney voters, and lost about 8 million Obama voters, a net negative shift of about 6 million voters, that's a number six times larger than Stein's increase.

Meanwhile thee are studies that indicate that in Wisconsin alone the Republican enacted "Voter ID Law" suppressed 200,000 Votes in 2016 (Trump won there by 22,748 votes). The vast majority of those vote can be assumed would have been Democratic. THAT, I believe, is the smoking gun nation wide: targeted voter suppression.
https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/

I see no evidence that "leftist pressure" on our presidential nominee pushed her into taking political positions that were in any way detrimental to her chances for victory in 2016. I would argue the opposite. I see plenty of other factors to explain how Donald Trump ended up in the White House - but the behavior of the Democratic Left is not one of them.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. K & R!!!!

[NightWatcher]

2. She lost because Russians hacked and stole our election

From the targeting of certain voters in key districts to voter rolls being hacked and who knows what else, they stole this election. Don't forget that she had more votes overall than the Putin Puppet.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I agree she would have won without that

So you agree that it wasn't her progressive platform that "turned off" voters?

[TheFrenchRazor]

68. undoubtedly; russia and the EC. clearly, more human beings preferred hillary. nt

[brush]

78. Bingo! We know why she lost. No need for endless analysis about why.

Repug/Russian cheating, and don't forget that last-minute-partisan-hack Comey turned the country over to early-onset trump.

Well, maybe not so early since he's getting up there.

[StevieM]

97. I put a lot more blame on the illegitimate activities of our own FBI. (eom)

[FarPoint]

128. Absolutely!

Now we all suffer....I am actually very fatigued by all the flamebait posts such as this OP...makes me disenchanted by DU these days.. .

That's how I feel.. Miserable with Trump... Election was a Treasonous attack on American and stolen.

[murielm99]

4. This article is a waste of time. n/t

[tonedevil]

8. Oh is it now? /nt

[BlueCaliDem]

9. Yup. It's a subtle "refighting the primaries". The ONLY thing we should use this past

election for is as a warning for the coming elections ON WHAT NOT TO DO.

United we stand. Divided (as Putin would LOVE it) we FALL.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. I approve of the unity position our last platform embraced. I praise Hillary for supporting it

It could not have passed without her approval. How is it refighting the primaries to defend the platform that our unified Democratic Party ran on? My question is whether we here at DU still believe in that platform, and if not why? There is consensus that it was progressive. Can we still stand together behind it?

[BlueCaliDem]

35. I approve the unity position of our last platform as long as the D-Party base is not disenfranchised

by any of it.

You and I might have different understandings just WHO the Democratic Party base is. And that could be troublesome in 2018.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. I'm willing to make a good faith effort not to let a najor disagreement like that happen

I am open to both listening and to having that dialogue. We have some time to get there

[Ken Burch]

82. What, if anything, in the unity platform disenfranchised any part of the Democratic base?

Nothing in that platform, to my knowledge, harmed people of color, women, or LGBTQ people...and none of those groups would have been better served by a blander, more centrist platform.

And there's no way that the base wanted that platform to exclude all Sanders ideas. The felt Bernie didn't say enough about social oppression-they don't actually OPPOSE a stronger program of economic justice as policy.

[BlueCaliDem]

93. Never made that claim. Odd, though, that you brought it up. eom

[Ken Burch]

94. It sounded like you were making the claim.

If you weren't, I'll delete the post.

[BlueCaliDem]

96. I didn't. eom

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. It includes relevent facts and poses a fair question

I think it is a least as worthy as these, which also posit views on where Democrats go wrong:

"In 18 years since Naders run, what has been accomplished by attacking the Dem party from the left?"
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9288347

I've, and most of us who have been here for quite sometime realize one thing........"
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9279201

"To some, acting to push Democrats at ALL when we are under a fucking COUP is highjacking democracy"
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9285657

and others that obsess over the Greens

[Shell_Seas]

5. She lost because of Russia.

Russia with the fake news, Russia with the bots, Russia with the hacking. And so on.

[LonePirate]

6. No. Her position on the political spectrum was perfectly fine.

Short of her going on live TV with an infomercial speech outlining her positions or the media actually reporting on issues or James Comey not interfering or her opponent not working with the Russians to hack and manipulate the election, she would have won.

[Lunabell]

7. No!

[NRaleighLiberal]

10. the election was stolen by Russia.

[StevieM]

100. It was stolen by our own FBI. (eom)

[world wide wally]

11. Comey was the tipping point

[StevieM]

98. Agreed. I hate hearing Democrats defend him just because he is an enemy of Trump's. (eom)

[Wounded Bear]

12. No, it was the child pornography ring in the pizza parlor basement...

Makes about as much sense as refighting the election again.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. What's the fight?

I'm glad Hillary approved that platform. I voted for her. The question is important for the future - was the program she agreed to run on too progressive for the best electoral interests of the Democratic Party moving forward?

[Wounded Bear]

30. No...nt

[Ken Burch]

86. It was Colonel Mustard at the Altoona town hall with a Diebold.

[brooklynite]

13. Nobody voted for or against her because of the Platform...

...because nobody other than a handful of political activists and bloggers bothered to read the platform. Clinton lost because of a major strategic error (sshe assumed Obama voters would support her and focused on exmanding the playing field) and resulting tactical errors (she focused her campaign on attacking Trump and didn't clearly lay out a positive message for herself.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. I tend to agree. So do you think her campaign itself was too progressive for the electorate?

Leaving aside then what was in the platform. Should she have spoken more to its progressive message or kept a safer distance from it? I say this as someone who voted for Hillary and believed that our platform would make for a good road map for action.

[kcdoug1]

108. BINGO!!!

it was an awful campaign....it was like NOBODY in the campaign realized that Donald Trump is a Liar a con-man and a thief... EVERY talking point of the Trump campaign should have been shut down before they got started... they let Trump define the narrative

[LeftInTX]

14. No!

Although the Democratic platform was more progressive, most voters perceived of Hillary as more centrist than Obama. She was maligned for her speeches to Goldman Sachs etc.

She was not too far to the left.

[womanofthehills]

124. Definitely, not too far to the left

Agree - most Dems I know thought she was playing it safe.

[HopeAgain]

15. She suffered vote losses more as a result of uneducated, scared white male voters...

They didn't know about platforms or positions, and just like Trump's simplistic implications that he would keep them in control.

Honestly, it feels like we have been overthinking things after this last election fiasco...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. I don't believe so

DNC adopted a lot of Bernie's platform but I can't think of any particular policy positions that the Republicans latched on to to attack her with. Most of what sunk her were Republicans demonizing and smearing her, promotion of fake Clinton scandals that were somehow made equivalent to Trump's real scandals, Russia's influence in spreading false and misleading information into the political ecosystem, Comey keeping the e-mail server investigation in the forefront, particularly right before the actual election, and the media constantly paying much more attention to Donald Trump at Clinton's expense. Clinton losing was not so much about people voting against liberal Democratic policies. It was mostly about voting against Clinton herself- even for some progressives, unfortunately.

Though I'm sure that Fox at some point told everybody that she was once "the most liberal Senator" in Congress- just like they did with Kerry and Obama (and probably Gore).

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Yeah, I feel the same. And no matter what a Democrat stands for the Right will call it "Liberal"

as a slur. That is what they do. But I've seen some here, actually from various view points, argue that being progressive is a political liability. (It's been used against Nancy Pelosi). Hillary ran on a very progressive platform. I was wondering if anyone here wanted to make the case that her platform was too progressive and that Democrats should turn it down in the future.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. I don't see any particular problems with our platform as is

The 2016 Election ended up being more about personalities rather than policy, unfortunately. But there is no doubt that the policies we would have had under Clinton would have been better for the country. I just hope that everybody makes better decisions in 2018 and 2020 and correct the HUGE mistake that too many people made last year.

[Chemisse]

77. I agree.

Swing voters who went for Trump did so because of the scandals and smears and media bashing of Hillary. I doubt most of them even knew what her positions were.

This was a 'vote your gut' election. I'd like to say she would have done better with a more positive message, but I don't think anyone was listening.

[MagickMuffin]

17. NO!

There are plenty of factors why we lost, which none of them are related to OUR PARTY PLATFORM!

[Binkie The Clown]

18. First of all, she didn't lose. Not the popular vote, anyway.

She's not in the white house because of a crooked election system that gives too much voting clout to the southern states.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Yup. I noted the popular vote. We've been up agais that electoral college for a long time n/t

[pnwmom]

70. But what we haven't been up to till the last few years

are the new laws allowing for the suppression of millions of votes. Because of a SCOTUS decision in 2013, everything changed. New, onerous voter ID requirements were put into place, "duplicate" names were struck off voter rolls, and hours and days of voting were cut back -- all with the intent of reducing votes of lower income and minority voters. Despite all this, Hillary only drew 70,000 fewer votes than Obama in 2012; but they were in key locations.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. I absolutely agree with you. Republican voter suppression efforts have ramped up consideraby

That by itself was more than enough to deny Hillary the victory she deserved. The playing field shifted to the advantage of Republicans trashing the right to vote after that SCOTUS decision. It must be decisively countered by Democrats and fair minded people of any political persuasion - but we can't count on anyone else to fight for us.

[pnwmom]

74. +1

[tazkcmo]

19. No. n/t

[kentuck]

22. No. She vastly under-estimated the depth Americans would venture to vote for a pig.

like Donald Trump.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Yeah. So did I n/t

[LakeArenal]

23. I thought we weren't going to rehash this anymore...

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I am asking about our platform. Some have argued that Democrats are being pushd too left...

I am using the platform Hillary ran on as a starting point for discussion. I don't think it was too progressive for Democrats to succeed with. What do others think? We haven't had one that far "left" in decades. Was it a problem, should it be toned down for the next cycle?

[lunamagica]

26. She won. The election was stolen

[Xolodno]

27. She lost for three main reasons.

1. The GOP was painting her as corrupt long before the presidential race even started.

2. Russia hacking, releasing and framing of information that was very damaging to her.

And despite that, she was on her way to winning, even Moscow assumed she was going to win and pulled the plug on their operations about a month before the election. But were confident they had damaged her enough to where she would have to focus on domestic issues instead of foreign.

3. This was the death knell, Comey sending a letter of an additional investigation to Congress and the GOP publicly releasing it. Comey sent the letter to protect the FBI as he saw that if that info got released they were doing another investigation on Clinton it would damage the FBI. Obviously Comey want's a mulligan for that one.

Minor reasons....

Compare her run against Obama vs. Sanders...the energy just wasn't there. She fought tooth an nail against Obama, not so much this time.

She brought on a middle of the road running mate instead of Sanders, falsely assuming the far left would follow lock step just like the right would.

Not thinking about the optics on certain speaking fees.

I could go on, but, the minor reasons didn't bring her down, although they didn't help. It was all three major reasons that finally did it.

[elias7]

56. Agreed. And on #1, she never handled these questions well

Not that she ever should have needed to, but her answers to email issues never sounded strong and convincing. It was always, "I accept responsibility for that", rather than emphasizing why she had chosen to have a personal server, why it was not illegal, that she was using it for her personal emails, and made sure not to mix personal with professional, emphasizing others with similar setups, etc.

With Benghazi, she never emphasized that she was not commander in chief, that money had been cut for security by republicans, that many dozens of people had been killed in a dozen attacks in US embassies over the course of the Bush years, etc.

My wife reluctantly voted for Hilary, but lamented that she wished our first woman president carried a little less baggage, feeling she was somewhat dishonest and evasive.

I was moved by Bill's convention speech and her response when he said she should run for governor...."why would anyone vote for me?". I saw a person who knew she was not popular or charismatic, and just wanted to roll up her sleeves and get to work.

[AntiFascist]

31. Her political position had little to do with it...

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, self-identifies as a Socialist, and if anything activates the very old anti-communist political forces of the far right it would be that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. OK that's a fair point to make - whether or not I fully agree

It is possible that Bernie is not the ideal messenger, possibly far from it. Very few political leaders on the left rise to the U.S. Senate self identifying with any aspect of the Socialist label. So it is unlikely to repeat any time soon. But does our Party need to move right from the platform that Hillary and Bernie agreed to, if someone less intrinsically controversial will be our next standard bearer?

[AntiFascist]

40. Personally I feel that truly regulated capitalism and socialism could co-exist...

but Bernie's point of view may be too shocking for older politicos. Also, there are extremely powerful right-wing forces at work, none the least of which is now centered in Russia of all places with Putin and the corrupt oligarchs who have taken control. Many Republicans are looking the other way and benefiting from the corruption and manipulation as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. It seems there is incresing support among younger generations for your view

even for socialism actually, though I think the optimal American way is a regulated marked with important safeguards. If we can hold on without crashing the nation and the world we may get there.

[NurseJackie]

37. +1 (Thank you.)

[brutus smith]

33. No!

But 1 thing I do know is that we should not place all of our eggs in 1 basket only going after trump. We have to put our platform out there, and it should be more left, or what I call more American.

[mythology]

39. No, she lost because of her stupid fucking email server

She was ahead relatively comfortably until the late October Comey announcement. No server, no announcement.

She had a reputation as being shady, and should have been smarter and gone above and beyond to be squeaky clean. I don't think she did anything criminal and the investigation was a waste of time, but it was a costly mistake. The Russian influence campaign isn't demonstrably verifiable with regard to its impact. She was still ahead in polling by enough to make her victory highly likely in spite of it.

[StevieM]

101. Without an email server the FBI still would have found a different bogus reason to investigate her.

And to "re-open" the investigation right before the election.

[YoungDemCA]

41. No. nt

[loyalsister]

43. No

She was the perfect candidate for a campaign against "career politicians." It's no accident that the "political outsider" ran against a politician who has been present in national politics for 3 decades.
That campaign built on the groundwork of constant opposition, and threats of shutting down government. None of that was an accident. They knew the chances were good that they would be running against someone who has been on the political stage for this long. The governor of MO was swept in on the same tide.

It was all in plain view, so there was a lot of miscalculation.

[Kentonio]

117. I think she'd have lost far worse against a career politician

Despite pulling in vastly more votes than he should have, we shouldn't forget that many millions of fairly conservative leaning people would never vote for Trump because of his racism and his despicable behavior towards women. Sure a career GOP politician wouldn't have gotten the same working class vote out, but they'd have almost certainly swayed a lot of more moderate people.

Hillary is a great policy person but just doesn't have the crowd charisma for the biggest political campaign level. She doesn't speak to people from a debate or speech with a universal language and make them warm to her. The few times she did manage to connect, it was like night and day.

[H2O Man]

44. No.

[jmg257]

46. Certainly lost a few votes because of leanings, but those should have balanced out.

[Adrahil]

47. No. NT

[MiddleClass]

48. She ran a campaign on getting women, James Comey's letter cause them to vote for the abuser

Russian news stories about Hillary Clinton, the child pornographer, on her deathbed knocked it down.

The fact that we had 4 Democrat states with Republican governors and administrations laying all sorts of shenanigans, got them close enough for the Russian Cossack Jill Stein and her minions from the left to take the election away from Hillary.

The far left got what it wanted, and we got screwed.

So to argue which straw broke the donkey's back, is pointless.

because all of them lead to the same outcome.

I don't think it's even anything remotely to do with the platform

[DanTex]

49. Most likely it made no difference.

The exception might be free trade. Polls showed that TPP had positive net approval, and also Obama was for it, so it was a little awkward for her to come out against it, particularly since she had previously been involved in TPP negotiations. On the other hand free trade agreements are unpopular in the key industrial states she lost, so the effect of her TPP stance on the outcome can be argued either way.

Trying to find just one reason why Hillary lost is a fallacy. There are a bunch of factors. The ones you list are all part of it. Jill Stein played a role too, as did other attacks from the far-left, including the people booing at the convention. And then there were flaws with the candidate and the campaign: lack of stage charisma, not having a clear message, not spending enough resources in rust belt states, etc.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Your last paragragh espcially was dead on. America would be so much better off had she won

But I think the unity positions that our Party arrived at at the convention were essentially good ones, and a good progressive starting point for the future that most of us can unify behind. Younger voters are moving left

[Gothmog]

50. This may be true

[zipplewrath]

51. It was appearance issues

The only effect that her positions on issues represented in the platform had were to make her appear to be shifting left because of pressure from Bernie. That perception was probably over done. I suspect there were slight shifts, but nothing particularly notable. The impact was because Bernie got out ahead of her and she appeared to be driven by him. That turns into an appearance of "saying anything to get elected". She just wasn't prepared to have to take positions on many issues like college tuition and minimum wage as soon as Bernie was forcing the issue. And the whole TPP thing I think caught her an her team off guard. She was in a corner on that one and needed to get in front of it quicker. It was the same problem she ultimately had with the whole "Iraq vote" the first time around.

By the time she was taking positions on many of these issues, the effect wasn't about the position, it was about the timing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. A thoughtful observation, one I hadn't really considered, Thanks

There are many things I long admired about Hilary. Sometimes her intrinsic caution works for he, other times not.Those issues were growing out there in "the ether", not impossible to see coming. I suspcct she thought she would have time to tackle them meticulously as a policy wonk once she was in the White House

[rainy]

53. Ok what ever her platform was the average public just assumed

it was standard blue dog democrat because she gave no firery speeches and gathered no crowds.

So it was not her leftness because that was not made so public, not hammered by the Media like Trump's populism was.

When polled the majority of people are left and in line with Hillary's platform. So the answer is no.

[MuseRider]

54. Thank you Tom

We are getting tremendous pressure here in my state to only run Pro Life Democrats because, hey women's rights are just too far left and turn off all the country church folks. I ask what the hell is good about a Democrat who does not think I can control my body and have the right to medical treatments for ANYTHING I need without the government checking it out and giving it's opinion or stopping me from doing what I need or want. That is not anyone I will ever vote for. Never again will I vote for someone who does not recognize me, those like me and our rights. Anyway....

This argument is driving me crazy. Of course the answer in the state over this one issue is much different that the answers to your questions. It seems that what I hear out here is that we have to run more conservative because Hillary lost to a cretin. I don't think it was at all due to the platform. It was because there are many many many people out there who would not have voted for her if she did everything they wanted. Like it or not, agree or not, the Clinton's have baggage. Both of them do and all I ever heard was that if the choice was between Hillary and anyone else they would vote for anyone else regardless of what they stood for.

As for all the crap flying around here about other candidates, progressive platforms and whatever flies for all the reasons Hillary lost....it all seems like flailing around. We lost, sometimes we win. We need to choose our candidates with purpose regardless of how we "feel" about someone else. I do not care who it is, it is never anyone's turn. She almost made it, I never thought she would even get that close considering what I was hearing out here but we lost so now we need to become more like the people we don't like? Never a good answer. We need a better, more likeable candidate who can stay away from trigger points or address them calmly and move on and keep on message. Only my opinion. I won't be back to answer the bad posts. This place is unrecognizable now and I cannot stay long. I have other things to do and other places where productive discussions can be found.

[CentralMass]

57. There were many factors but her negatives were historically high.

I also believe there was voter obstruction by the GOP and the votes that Jill Stein siphoned off in the rust belt were an issue where the election was lost by a very small margin.

Howevet I dont think that her push to the let hurt her. Opposing the TPP was something even Trump ran on. The GOP villionized her and the msm ran cover for tRump.

She also made a few political missteps like talking about killing big coal.

The Comey email bomb in the remaining days of the race was also a big factor.

Republican coworkers of mine that couldn't stand Trump voted for Johnson. There was no way they were going to vote for Hillary.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

58. She lost because she wasn't nationally competitive

Whether she was running too far to the left or not depends on any given state, but running to the right of Trump wouldn't have saved her in a lot of places.

[George II]

59. I believe so. Remember, the winner was way on the right.

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. But he pretended to outflank her on the left on some issues

By making the economic suffering of forgotten Americans always his top concern, protecting manufacturing and mining jobs, by promising to make healthcare even better for less money out of pocket for average Americans. Not to mention his so called opposition to meaningless wars. Yes, it was all a pile of crap, but that is how he campaigned in part.

[George II]

76. To be honest I never saw much of that, all I saw was insults and pandering to violent supporters.

[JI7]

83. yup

[davsand]

60. I truly think the platform was not the issue.

I will go to my grave believing the platform was fine (popular vote winner, after all) but that the loss was both due to Russian interference and a deeply personal negative factor going in. EVERY single person I have talked to or have heard talk about that election has been talking about either a manufactured attack on her that they believed to be true or some historical event that had nothing to do with her ability to do the job. There was a lot of crap flying in the press (assisted by the GOP, of course) and we all knew it. We talked about it here.

We also talked here at DU and in other places about the outright hate and personal distaste for Clinton that was running around out there. Again, I will say that every person I've talked to that voted for the orange assailant has mentioned NOT the platform of the Clinton campaign, but their own personal dislike for her for some offense--real or fictional. My own mom (she's 87) was vehement in her disdain for the woman that did not divorce Bill for hosing the intern. Seriously. My mom mentioned it several times over. (This is not to say she liked Sanders either. He was "The Socialist.&quot My mom hated Hillary before she ever opened her mouth on the campaign trail, and I don't think my mom was alone in that feeling.

The talking heads spent a fair amount of time talking about "likeability" in that campaign--do you remember that? It was a very real problem, but none of us really saw it because he was SO spectacularly dreadful we couldn't get our heads around the idea that anybody would think he was preferable. I'm not sure SHE even realized how bad it was--and lord knows that lady has lived with the haters for a long time. If anybody could have seen it, I'd think it was her.

Now, here's the part of all this that is critical to the whole mess. HAD anybody realized just how deep the chasm was, I think it could have been dealt with. I think the PR could have been poured on, and everything would have been fine. As it was, nobody realized it, and that left the door open and it left a vulnerability for the hackers to nudge a few votes in key places. It left the door open for the entire Comey issue as well. It was a sort of an "imperfect storm" and the platform was not the problem.

YMMV.

Laura

[LSFL]

61. She lost because most of her ads were about Trump

Repetition can backfire. So with all the free coverage trump got from the MSM the Clinton campaign gave him a lot too.
His message was stupid but they kept repeating it instead of telling the rank a file what Hillary would do. Not everyone reads as much as we do.

[Sunlei]

62. She won by millions of votes.

[mtnsnake]

63. Hillary lost because she ran for president in 2016, PERIOD.

Had she beaten President Obama in the primaries in 2008, she would most certainly have won in that year. In 2016, though, the only chance she had of beating anybody was if the Repukes sent up someone like Disgusting Donald Trump to run against her, yet she couldn't even beat that fucking lunatic, at least not in the electoral college, not even in some of those crucial mid-western states that should never had gotten away from us. It didn't matter that Hillary was arguably the most qualified person to run for president in 2016. The right wing had beaten up on her for yet another decade, lying about her viciously and completely ruining her reputation with moderate republicans, many independents, the fence sitters, and anyone else too ignorant to see through all the RW liesl. They were absolutely jumping for joy when she got the Democratic nod in the primaries because they knew that she was the ONLY person that Trump had any chance of beating in the general. And vice versa, Disgusting Donald was the only person she had any chance of beating, but it just didn't happen. Now we're stuck with one of the most horrible dilemmas in modern history.

[pirateshipdude]

64. Clinton was not pushed to the left. Her policies are her own. Eom

[Ken Burch]

87. The platform was drafted by both campaigns, and it does no harm to admit that.

Virtually every plank in that platform was popular.

In fact, if she'd only have stayed with HER position on TPP, Trump wouldn't have had a wedge.

If that treaty was a dead letter no matter who won, Trump would have had no wedge.

Thanks for admitting the party wasn't too far left.

[pirateshipdude]

92. "Admitting" party was not too far left? Please, you play your games.

Clinton gave Sanders $15 an hour as opposed to Clinton and Obama $12 an hour. With the exception that area of the country matters, which is actually Clinton and Obama's original position. I think there was one other thing DNC gave Sanders, that was not far from Democrats either. The whole platform was basically Clinton's, but we all had to pretend It was Sanders to coddle and appease. That is what our Democratic Party does looking for the vote. I am good with them tightening it up and being Democrats after our base vote and ending this charade of appeasing outside groups.

[diane in sf]

65. No, she lost because the election was stolen in three swing states by the Repugs and Russian helpers

stolen by tiny margins in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. All of these had voter suppression in various ways, excessive ID laws, 'broken' machines in minority populated cities, probably cheating in tabulating as well.

There is a reason Bernie was so popular on the campaign trail. Most of the public is actually more liberal on issues than Republican and Democratic party members. The public just doesn't use the L word to describe themselves because it's been massively poisoned by 30 years of Republican propaganda.

[rock]

66. No. Thanks for asking.

If you don't ask questions you'll never learn anything.

[Seasider]

67. Trump won the rust belt states by moving to the left of Hillary

I don't think the issue was her platform being too liberal but her inability to sell that to people. I still remember the press interviewing Bernie supporters at the DNC convention. Even with all the concessions Hillary made to the Bernie on the DNC platform, they were still unwilling to support her mainly because they did not trust that she would follow through on those promises.

If you look back at the campaign, you'll also notice that Trump attacked Hillary for a lot of things but he never bashed her for being a liberal.

[TheBlackAdder]

69. There are dozens of factors, but the main was that she did not follow Reagan/Bush's lead.

.

During the Republican primaries, Reagan and GHWB were bitter adversaries. They hates each other.

When I say hated... THEY FUCKING HATED EACH OTHER!


They had two options:

1) keep the divide in the party, ensuring a Carter re-election, or join forces.
2) join forces and form a coalition that that helped deliver the White House for 3 consecutive terms.


Had HRC selected Sanders as her VP pick, instead of Kaine (relatively unheard of outside of his sector), she would have had cross-over Republicans and a slew of Independents backing her. The BoBs, who did not return, were only a small facet. Jill Stein is insignificant, since Johnson took 3 times the Republican voters away from Trump that Stein drew.


When Kaine was selected, there was a gasp heard around the country, followed by, "Who the fuck is Kaine?"


I know there are a bunch of people who pin this on Russia, Stein, Sanders, etc. But, when looking objectively, the voids seen in predominately solid Democratic sectors of battleground states indicates that there was a moderate lack of energy in the Independent community. Sanders had the ability to draw Indys and Republicans, into the fold as well as the extreme left of the Democratic Party, combine that with Clinton and she would have survived anything that was thrown at her.

(Note: I expect this to get juried, as it always does. So far, they've survived takedown attempts in the past.)

.

[PufPuf23]

125. If HRC had "healed" the rift in the Democratic Party and in

good faith ran with Sanders as the VP candidate, there likely would have been an easy win.

Now we could be being serious within the Party as to how to move forward and have the POTUS and not have lost so many down ticket elections.

Why?

HRC supporters;

plus Sanders supporters including independents and GOP populist crossovers and less 3rd party voters.

However uncomfortable some (most even at DU) may be with this view, it is likely more fact than all the excuses for losing the election to the train wreck that is Trump.

Thanks TBA.

[karynnj]

71. The election was so close that there are likely many possible causes that each could be blamed

If you followed the polls, it is very clear that the Comey letter speaking of potential new emails on Weiner's computer caused a definite shift in her numbers. Not to mention ANY time there was more discussion of the email issue, it was bad for Clinton. Here, though I obviously have nothing to back up the claim, I would bet that anything that mentioned Anthony Weiner was not good.

You can't see a similar dip correlated with anything released by Wikileaks from the Russian hacks. However, the DNC hacking info came out as the Democratic convention was about to begin. The convention helped and - in spite of the hacks - the party, for the most part, came together and, by all accounts at the time, had a very good, positive convention - especially compared to the near train wreck the Republicans had. Hillary was stronger coming out of the convention than going in. As to the impact, is it possible that without those hacks, the impact of the convention would have been greater? As to the Podesta emails, they really exposed little negative. However, they formed a constant drip of stories that were not making Clinton look good and made her look dishonest on TPP --- and diminishing the spotlight on Trump's inadequacies. Could it have made the small difference that the election turned on? It would be hard to make the case for it AND hard to rule it out.

As to the issues she moved left on, one that might have hurt was TPP. Not because so many people supported it, but because it was a 180 degree shift from her public positions in 2013 and 2014. I think HRC had a dilemma. Her main accomplishment as Secretary of State was the "pivot to Asia", which TPP was the centerpiece. She spoke as SoS, that it was the gold standard. Had that been the last time she spoke positively of it, she could say that it was Obama's policy and as top diplomat, she was selling it. However, she was positive about it until about 2014. The Goldman Sachs talks given then were consistent with her public position at that time. However, when they were leaked (from Podesta's email), they were a stark contrast to her position in both the primary and the general election. This fueled Republican allegations that she was dishonest - and said one thing in public and one thing in private - ignoring that she was pro TPP in 2013/2014 when these talks were given. This is ONE issue where without the challenge from Sanders, she might have been very very vague in the primaries and the general election, suggesting that tweaks would be needed.

As it was - I suspect that it hurt her credibility and that it may have caused her to lose votes on BOTH sides. On the left, I suspect there were some who trusted Trump's America First rhetoric and suspected that if she won, she and Obama would likely work to get it passed in the lame duck.

Another possibility was that these were people voting for a Supreme Court Justice with one issue on their mind - abortion. Those states have a large Catholic population. Note that in 2008 and 2012, no conservative justice was likely to be replaced. In 2004 and 2016, Rehnquist and Scalia were definitely going to be replaced -- and there was a more intense effort to "save" the conservative seat.

[Jamaal510]

72. I doubt it.

I remember some parts of the Left accusing her of being center-right, a warmonger, a corporate you-know-what that rhymes with "bore", an undercover TPP supporter, etc. There were a number of people who complained that she didn't excite them enough for whatever reason. I don't think her platform had much to do with the result at all. The media (especially FOX News and the so-called "Clinton News Network&quot were so fascinated with the emails and Benghazi non-scandals, and Toupe Fiasco got much more free airtime than he deserved (as someone who never held office before and who got caught lying about Pres. Obama being a foreigner), and the real controversies that surrounded him didn't get as much airtime as they deserved. It was a perfect storm that enabled one of the most ill-qualified candidates in history to get over the hump.

[Motownman78]

79. No she had the misfortune

of being the establishment candidate in an anti-establishment year. I also think what may have been a factor is people in the middle not wanting to deal with constant impeachment hearings. A lot of the same people probably thought the dumpster fire would act more presidential once elected. A lot of DT supporters I know are awfully quiet on Facebook.

[LeftInTX]

129. Spot on

I especially agree with "people in the middle not wanting to deal with constant impeachment hearings".

My husband said the same thing. As a matter of fact, that was one my concerns with Hillary.
Of course I voted for her, but I knew if she won, it was going to be witch hunts 24/7.

It was liked damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The problem is down-ticket races.
We need to build the party up from the ground level.

[UTUSN]

80. Lordy-lordy-lordy, just the words "Hillary" PLUS "lose" pisses me off, NOT F'ing TRUE!1

[MichMan]

81. One other aspect not being addressed

There had only been one instance since WWII that the same party won three straight terms and that was 1988.

That was something that nearly everyone glossed over.

Even at that Trump was certainly beatable. but IMO the campaign handled the e mail situation terribly. Hillary kept giving these carefully nuanced statements that only emboldened the press to keep digging and ensuring it stayed front and center for months

[Ken Burch]

84. 50% of the reason for the loss was the voter suppresion/Comey/Russian factor

(and all of us are agreed on the need to fight voter suppression on all levels).

The OTHER 50% was our fall campaign's refusal to actively reach out to the new, young voters who had backed the runner-up in the primary...an outreach effort that would not have required any significant change in the platform(mainly, HRC could have made a "Humphrey Salt Lake City speech" making it clear that, despite the ambiguity in the trade platform, TPP would actually be a dead letter if she was elected) and without betraying anyone in the base.

All we'd have had to do was run ads in states where the runner up had done well praising young activists for changing the platform for the better, reminding them that their work had made a difference, and making it clear that this party would be a place where they could freely work for the things they wanted).

We had a platform that, had we done that, had we emphasized what was actually IN the platform in the campaign ads, could have won over a lot of the people who stayed home or voted minor party.

Instead of trying to use the good things in that platform to make that kind of a positive appeal, we went back to the usual, always-failed approach of screaming about how terrible the other nominee was and of demanding the votes of these people. We all knew doing that didn't ever work, we already knew all that approach could do was alienate those people and make the dig in on NOT working with us, so why did we stay with what we knew would fail?

All we needed to do was to run on the merits of our ideas and point out how what we proposed would be better for the country.

If we do that NEXT time, we will win.

[Gothmog]

89. In the real world, this platform would not work

I am glad that you are finally admitting that Comey and Russia played a role.

Pushing the platform would not work in the real world.

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. I prefer to give Hillary credit for standing behind her words

She is a tough negotiator, that is part of what would have made her an excellent president. Her team looked hard at every word in that platform before signing off on it. In the real world people have grown tired of politicians who say one thing but mean another, who say one thing to win elections, but do something contrary once in office. Both teams worked hard to find acceptable common ground with that platform. Hillary called herself a pragmatic progressive, and she put her pragmatic stamp on that progressive document. I think pushing a platform which she agreed to works well in the real world, people are tired of not really knowing where politicians stand, and to Hillary's full credit she did not run away from her platform in the slightest. The only area of possible dispute is whether she stressed it often enough.

[Starry Messenger]

85. How could her positions even get attention? The media never covered them.

[betsuni]

88. The only time I saw Clinton and Trump's positions clearly spelled out right next to each other

was the day after the election. Thanks, ABC News!

[hatrack]

95. No, she lost because of a quarter-century of "HITLERYHITLERYHITLERY!!!!"

Blatting and honking from every corner of the broadcast spectrum, and because there are 10s of millions of morons in this country who Just. Don't. Want. To. Think.

TLDT - that's Trump's "base" right there.

Throw in some zipless voting machines and tabulation systems, and all the bots your rubles can buy, and it was just barely enough.

[StevieM]

102. I disagree. I think the fake email scandal was dominant. Her poll numbers were great when she

finished up as Secretary of State.

The FBI destroyed her reputation. She never had problems that bad before.

[bigtree]

99. well, 'far left' in the election often shared messaging with the right

...in opposition to Hillary.

In fact, right-wing pacs ran ads in primary states alongside her Democratic rival with the exact same messaging about Wall Street and emails.

[StevieM]

103. She lost because of James Comey and the FBI. (eom)

[Squinch]

104. Tell me again about how you aren't still obsessing about Hillary vs. Bernie.

We. Don't. Have. Time. For. This.

Our. Democracy. Is. Imploding.

[Tom Rinaldo]

110. I'm reacting to stuff like this from prominent national Democrats So will we stand by our platfrom?

This debate is happening now within the Democratic PArty:

"In an op-ed in the New York Times Thursday, Mark Penn and Andrew Stein argue that the “path back to power for the Democratic Party today, as it was in the 1990s, is unquestionably to move to the center and reject the siren calls of the left, whose policies and ideas have weakened the party.” Penn is the former chief strategist of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign and was a prominent advisor to President Bill Clinton. Stein is a former New York City Council president.

Their Democratic party credentials are not in question, and yet they all but call for an explicit repudiation of “Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren and a host of well-funded groups [that] have embraced sharply leftist ideas” while acknowledging the “need to … adopt an agenda of renewed growth, greater protection for American workers and a return to fiscal responsibility.

Further, the op-ed makes a specific point of arguing that Democrats have lost voters due to an embrace of political correctness and large-scale efforts by the party to demean and diminish the role of religion in public life. Specifically, they argue Democrats need to support free speech on campus, and that their strong positions on issues like sanctuary cities and transgender bathrooms have cost them electorally. At times the op-ed reads as if they are encouraging Democrats to poach significant elements of Donald Trump's platform, urging Democrats in Congress to cooperate on infrastructure issues, bolster manufacturing, and get behind tough-on-crime measures".

[Squinch]

115. We. don't. have. time. for. this. Our. Democracy. is. imploding.

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. So what exactly are you doing?

Seriously. Have you wasted any time listening to music yet this month? Or taking a walk in a park? Or watching a ball game? Or chatting with a neighbor about anything other than politics? Don't you understand that: We. don't. have. time. for. this. Our. Democracy. is. imploding.

None of us are only what we post on DU, but how do your posts on DU "Stop. Our. Democracy. From. Imploding"?

You may disagree with me which is fine, people disagree all of the time, but I think we have to strengthen the Democratic Party to: Keep Our. Democracy. From. Imploding. I think the unity platform that came out of the last convention is our best shot at doing so. False divisions that play the Left off against the Center harm and weaken us, in my opinion, when we must Stop. Our. Democracy. From. Imploding.

Meanwhile this Sunday I'm going to a kick off rally for one of the Democrats who is challenging our Republican Congressman to see if he is a good candidate to unify around. Later this month, for the third time, I will spend an afternoon door knocking in this Congressional District to build opposition to the incumbent. I've called his office about the Trumpcare bill numerous times. I've published a call for instantaneous mass resistance should Mueller be fired which has well over 6,000 Facebook shares. I've spent 15 hours this month carrying nomination petitions so that Democratic candidates at our county level can qualify to be on the November ballot. Right now I am beginning to organize the Democratic Party caucus at our town level to nominate Democrats for Town offices. I am working with others on our Democratic Committee to plan several fund raisers for the fall campaigns. Etc. Etc.

So what have you found time to do to: Stop. Our. Democracy. From. Imploding? Other than continually repeating that mantra on posts to me that is.

[Squinch]

130. I'm doing plenty, none of which I am going to use to justify myself to you. However, perhaps I

misspoke for those who take the "time" part too literally.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said we don't have the spare energy to spend on this divisive bullshit. You need to let go of how you have been wronged by other Democrats. You need to let go of, once again, the Hillary vs. Bernie bullshit. You need to stop dividing.

Good for you that you are getting out and doing the same kinds of things that many of us are doing. You seem to assume that no one else is doing these things, but hey, if that erroneous thought makes you feel virtuous have at it. But in the off time, stop dividing. Stop with the Bernie vs. Hillary bullshit.

Because none of us has the time, or perhaps I should say, extra energy to be dealing with Hillary vs. Bernie crap any more. Whatever the great things that you and I are doing to resist the implosion of our Democracy, it's still happening. We have more important things to do than navel-gazing over this divisive bullshit.

We. do. not. have. time. for. this. Our. Democracy. is. imploding.

[demosincebirth]

105. Could be. Check out '68 & '72 election and why we lost. Humphrey lost because of the riots by so

called leftist at the Democratic convention in Chicago. In Seventy two,
McGovern (a good man) lost because we pushed him too far to the left.
I followed each election closely, as I follow all, and I predicted each loss for those reasons

[pecosbob]

106. Is this a serious post?

Screw neo-liberalism. Screw the globalists. Screw Wall Street. Screw the Democrats that enable the predator corporations. Find us a working-class hero.

[LaydeeBug]

107. *NOPE*. She lost because the Russians and the kGOPee rigged it, and you know it. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

112. Yes I do. Or because of voter suppression for another clear cause

I reject those who say it is because she ran on too "leftist" of a platform. But there are those (nationally prominent like Mark Penn) who blame those type "leftists" positions for Democratic losses, and if they get to control the narrative our party will once again be steered toward a centrist direction. So I wondered if others here feel that way also.

[LaydeeBug]

122. Oh *HELL* yes. Voter suppression was the largess of it

but I *refuse* to believe, in six states where 80,000 votes equaled an electoral victory that they did NOT at all, not even one, hack our VERY hackable voting machines.

[WhiteTara]

109. The election was stolen. Remember?

Russia and Trump colluded to hack our election and steal the White House and our country.

[Vinca]

111. No. Republicans prefer to vote for real Republicans not Democrats veering right for a few votes.

How about we start thinking about the next elections and give up the ghost of 2016?

[Tom Rinaldo]

113. Have you seen this?

That is exactly what others are already doing and they are drawing some conclusions that I believe most in our DU community will feel it important to oppose:

Chief Clinton Strategist: Democrats Should Abandon the Left (NOTE: in fairness to Hillary he was a Clinton strategist in 2008, not 2016)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/chief-clinton-strategist-democrats-should-abandon-the-left/article/2008717

[Vinca]

114. That was the crazy Mark Penn piece from yesterday. From what I've seen on a number of sites,

he's pretty much being dismissed as irrelevant. Let's face it, the strategy didn't work so well for him in the 2008 election.

[NewJeffCT]

116. Of those 200,000 suppressed votes

How many of those 200K would have actually voted, but were turned away at the polls? I doubt it was all 200,000, but 10-20% of that number is certainly a lot more realistic.

[Tom Rinaldo]

119. Ten to twenty percent is way too low

These are people who took the time and made the effort to be registered in the first place - but who were purged from the voter rolls. In a presidential election year I think over 50% is a realistic number.

[NewJeffCT]

120. The overall number of registered voters

increased by almost 50 million between 2012 and 2016, but the actual number of votes cast increased only about 7 million, to 135.7 million from 128.8 million. Total registered voters were around 150 million in 2012 and around 200 million in 2016.

So, 50 million increase in registered voters, but only a 7 million increase in votes cast, or 14% of that increase.

[Tom Rinaldo]

121. New voters tend to be young voters

Unfortunately they underperform. Purged voters are much more representative of voters in general, actually they often are older voters who have trouble getting new "valid" IDs

[alarimer]

123. Thank you, Tom, for injecting some rationality.

Bernie Sanders is popular for a reason. So is Elizabeth Sanders. They espouse very similar positions and are both very good at taking it to Republicans. And they appeal to people that may otherwise not be engaged in the political process. Sanders gets demonized even though he has maintained essentially the same positions for decades. And I think the Democrats need to realize that he (and Warren, among other liberals) are popular for a REASON. And they need to listen to the people and adapt. To some extent, they are doing so.

I continue to believe that the evidence is that the American people are not, in fact, conservative in their policy positions. There are plenty of surveys that seem to indicate this. So I believe that moving to the center would in fact destroy the Democratic Party and moving at least somewhat left in many policy particulars could be very successful.

I really think that Democrats would be better served by just being REAL. Ossoff is a good guy, I'm sure, but he tried to appeal to suburban Republicans and failed. That NEVER works. Republicans always vote for the R, every single time. And it's high time Democrats in general stop trying to hide their actual platform in an attempt to appeal to the mushy middle. Stop with the meal-mouthed, focus-grouped blather and start talking about what they actually think. Put the blame where it truly belongs, on the right-wing.

Adopt something like the Second Bill of Rights, as enumerated by FDR in his 1944 Inaugural Address:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

"Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education."

[FiveGoodMen]

126. NO. They wanted someone on the side of the average person.

They thought Trump was that guy, although they were pretty dumb to believe that.

Anyway, NO, FUCK NO, she wasn't too far to the left.

The left was what the voters were looking for (probably not by name, but by policy).

Hillary was too far to the right.

[mr_liberal]

127. Yes, Hillary did go too far left.

It wasnt the positions she took though, but rather that she believed she could win just because of Trumps politically incorrect remarks, about muslims, immigration, women... Those remarks that so many in the liberal media and the left thought were disqualifying most regular people were not as offended by because regular people (the majority of voters) arent as liberal as the media and the left wing of the Democratic party. And not as liberal as the people that ran Hillary's campaign like Robby Mook , Jennifer Palmieri......

Hillary should have ran on economics, not political correctness. And not big government, tax and spend socialist economics either; centrist economics.