Yes, Millennials also cost us the election.

Clinton should have shown up in MI, WI, PA. Then she would have won. Anything else is just blame shifting.

Do you not remember that rally right before an election was in Philadelphia?

The middle part of the state is conservative, but she easily could have drummed up 50-100,000 votes there with a couple rallys. She and her team got complacent and ceded the ground to Trump, who did show up in places like Gettysburg and Hershey. So stupid to put all their eggs in the Philly basket.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2634384

And assuming you may not go to the link, here is the post -



She was here in PA.

I have pictures of a friend with her.

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

Time someone claims that she deserved to lose she because she "didn't step foot in my state."

But how do you account for MI and WI?http://wtvr.com/2016/11/11/bill-clinton-strategy/

It listed the events on all 3 states.

This thing about what amounts to pandering to white racists who claim to be "working class", as if they are the only "working class" people in the U.S. and everyone else are moochers.... which is being suggested by using that excuse, is complete bullshit. It's nothing but a dog whistle to former dixicrats and their northern and MW cousins.

I agree with you that pandering to Trump voters is a no go. Most will never vote for a Democrat under any circumstances. But I would like to win an election again some time, and we had better figure out how to do it. I agree that chasing after the white working class specifically is a waste of time.

that somehow Clinton "didn't campaign" in these particular states and this meme keeps being repeated over and over in thread after thread on DU.

IMHO, the bigger issue to argue is the LACK of strong Democratic STATE organizations who can help to mobilize in their states. The continued reliance on the candidate or "national" party or grassroots PAC organizations to do everything and be everywhere while the state chairs sit back, kick their feet up, and whine, is what needs to END and be fixed.

That killed us in statehouses and national elections across the country.

And this needs to happen asap for 2017. Not just waiting for 2018 because inevitably, every state has some federal, state, and/or local election EVERY year... not just every 2 years or 4 years (even if it is just judges or special election or ballot question).

Liberals are really focused on presidential elections, and ignore state legislatures and local elections.

grassroots activism is key.

when Democrats don't vote every year - https://www.multistate.com/state-resources/governors-legislatures

(31 R governorships out of 50 including 7 in traditional "blue" states). PA was about to be part of that but we were able to break the cycle with the election of Tom Wolf (D) in 2014 (where the precedent would have had Corbett(R) win a 2nd term).

From Russian hacking to voter ID laws to caging to the effing FBI director pulling underhanded, last minute crap to getting rid of or amending how the EC works to not counting provisional ballots (usually Dem ballots) to getting rid of easily hacked voting machines — all of that.

She actually won way more votes. There are more of us and growing (hundreds of thousands of POCs turn 18 every year).

That is not the case with the older repug constituency, and they know that, which is why they have to cheat.

We need to concentrate more effort to stop their cheating. It should become a major part of our strategy.

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/07/north-carolina-obama-coalition-crumbling-ncgop-celebrates-voting-suppression-efforts-in-a-press-release/


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-northcarolina-insight-idUSKBN12Y0ZY?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

Sigh

It's the only way they can win as we outnumber them.

What I'm afraid of is that now that they control everything — the House, Senate, White House, SCOTUS vacancies and nearly enough statehouses and state legislatures — they might get to the point where they ram through constitutional amendments that could cement their control for decades.

They don't have enough state control yet to do that so a major effort to combat their cheating is paramount.

For example Chelsea was in Stevens Point, but not Hillary. Was she ever in the state of Wisconsin during the General Election?
Before the last second push in Michigan, she was in the state once in October. A few visits by her surrogates to Michigan in September, but none by her. One time in Michigan in August for her, and once for Kaine.

You also have the advertising focus. I am not sure under what scenarios the one Omaha would have made a difference, but you can see the spend at the end of the election.

In the closing weeks of the presidential race, Hillary Clinton's campaign — and the outside groups that supported it — aired more television advertisements in Omaha than in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin combined.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/12/the-advertising-decisions-that-helped-doom-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.df06b5e3e4f0

and everywhere but Philly suburbs? Real question. And by the way, my only motivation is finding a way not to lose like this again. http://www.philly.com/philly/infographics/400507161.html

....come see me in KY ....no way we should have Bevin or Walker in WI survives so many votes and revotes.

...albeit a little too "in your face" for some - anticipating some incoming comments...

We are probably facing a catastrophic period in our history.

“In Your Face” commentary is exactly what the millennials need to hear.

who did not vote for Hillary..Not to criticize, but to gain a better understanding.

I'm not a Millennial but....My son was working (still is a bit) in the ever growing Jambase music festival scene for the past 6 years. They are the love children of their generation, the so-called most tolerant and all have been to very nice colleges including mine. He is very well known for his work and has the maximum friends and many followers on Facebook. Very very very white crowd this bunch, my son is not, he is mostly Japanese and Hispanic.

His friends whom many I was FB friends (about 60) all thought I was super cool because I worked in the record business for years then radio. (until I changed my photo to the Simpsons guy putting up his Hillary sign in his yard) then I got the silent treatment on everything

Of course they all jumped on the Sanders train even my son - they held registration drives at all events - my son projected images of Sanders during the shows...they were hooked.

Around February I deactivated my Facebook page because I was disgusted with the sheer amount of misleading, hateful memes they were passing around to each other. The snarky replies included stuff like "I wouldn't fuck her" and the usual insults ensued, liar, killery, warmonger, coronation, her turn..the lie about her work at CDF, the pic of her at Trump's wedding (god forbid she went) and the Goldwater girl meme when she was 16 was everywhere.

After the primary I figured they'd settle down and so I went back on Facebook and my son outed himself as a Hillary supporter and the backlash began...The gals stayed quiet but the guys were adamant about never voting for her. They mocked one guy who is very ill depends on Medicaid through ACA when he pleaded with them to vote - most live in Ohio they called him names. It was disgusting what some would reply and even more disgusting was that his real friends said nothing to defend him. I chimed in and was called names again.

We met Hillary in August and had my picture taken with her and posted it - I thought maybe they'd be happy for me to have met her (she was lovely) but no....that was not the case. I got the silent treatment again...My son was too intimidated to post his side of of our photo - I edited him out as he requested.

He worked a few festivals a couple months prior to the GE and people who only knew him through his work and Facebook sought him out to berate him for supporting Hillary.

On election night I posted "I feel sick" - one of the guys who gave me the silent treatment wrote "what did you expect, we wanted Bernie and you chose her" As if we were obliged to do what our kids wanted.

Anyhow - I know many didn't vote - some did but begrudgingly - Facebook went silent as if the election never took place. No discussion of what happened or what a Trump presidency would bring.

I deactivated my page and will not go back ever...the band plays here next week for my son's event. I won't be going - I have no interest in seeing any of them after they reveled themselves to be clueless, vindictive and still believing in every conspiracy theory imaginable about the primary.

It was a horrible mistake to nominate the wife of the man who had signed NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China. These agreements terribly, viscerally hurt blue collar workers in the Rust Belt. Many didn't want to vote for a carnival barker, but the Democrats did not put forth a reasonable option for them.

What about the fact that when she was on her own, she did a fantastic job as Senator and Secretary of State... She was his wife then? My God!

How did anything she did as Senator or SOS heal the gaping wounds of the Rust Belt?

The Clintons sold themselves as two for the price of one. Hillary had an office in the WEST Wing, because she was part of the policy making arm of the Clinton Administration. It's part of the experience she claimed as qualifications for the office.

It should have been no surprise to Democrats that Hillary would be held to account for the actions of the Clinton Administration.

...during the Bush years????

Our pivot towards Asia gave us greater access to foreign markets. There is job scarcity, this will not change, could better be done to mitigate effects of globalization? - of course. Blaming Hillary alone for that is ridiculous however, it would have happened anyway.. So vote for a man who will take your health coverage , who can't bring back those jobs anyway, and whose infrastructure plan is vastly inferior to Hillary's.

Yeah makes sense.

Yea, she was trying to get Single Payer Healthcare..

All you are doing is conflating Hillary with Trump... “They both are equally flawed" Just what MSM media did through the entire Campaign season.

“How come she didn’t heal the gaping wounds of the rust belt? How come Bernie didn’t fix them either.?
Perhaps because the Republican House and Senate were determined to undermine any programs which would actually help Dems.. and they did a hell of a job..

Your OP lacks integrity..

Many forget how steep the hate towards Hillary is on the right, she was hated even more than Bill ...

Never for a single moment. The words never passed her lips.

Bernie Sanders had to lobby hard in 1993 just to get Hillary to have a meeting with single payer advocates. They got nowhere.

Hillary put forth a monstrosity called 'managed competition', couldn't even get it to a vote in the Democratic House.

It was Universal Healthcare she was promoting..a possible gateway to Single Payer

The same principle influenced healthcare systems in Europe. Are you suggesting this means Hillary doesn't care about healthcare?

He had a Democratic Congress and Senate, he had campaigned on it, it was time!

Hillary was put in charge of the White House Task Force. She disappeared into a maze of insurance company execs and health care theory, while the Clinton Administration twisted arms in Congress to pass a budget, which did include increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, a good and lasting benefit of the Clinton Administration. Then, the Clinton Administration turned to twisting arms in Congress to get NAFTA passed, heavily opposed by labor unions and progressives. They got it, of course.

Hillary never got a full health plan written and put up to a vote in Congress. It wasn't the number one priority of the Administration. When the Republicans took over after two years, the issue was dead.

I don't know whether or not Hillary cares about health care, I don't know her heart. I do know that she failed to deliver health care reform and universal health care after we truly did believe we had voted for it.

I can never let the record go uncorrected when people say Hillary tried to get single payer health care. I was a single payer activist in the 90s, and I was very frustrated with Hillary's refusal to discuss or consider the benefits of single payer health care.

You know Hillary frequently clashed with Bill's aides because of her leftist leanings and obsession with getting health care passed? We're dealing with Hillary here..not Bill.

So her vision was different in the 90's to yours, which is why she should be doubted today and her sincerity questioned - because you disagreed with her stance?

I disagree with Sanders on a whole bunch of issues, never have I doubted his sincerity where those issues are concerned.

I really think this is why we can't have nice things.

EU states have had single payer systems a long time.
I can think of only a couple countries that involve private insurers.
Germany, Netherlands.

In Germany the insurers have to run the basic plans on non-profit basis.

and to a lesser extent France, which rates highly internationally - they depend on private innovation and research

"The French health system combines universal coverage with a public–private mix of hospital and ambulatory care and a higher volume of service provision than in the United States. Although the system is far from perfect, its indicators of health status and consumer satisfaction are high; its expenditures, as a share of gross domestic product, are far lower than in the United States; and patients have an extraordinary degree of choice among providers.

Lessons for the United States include the importance of government’s role in providing a statutory framework for universal health insurance; recognition that piecemeal reform can broaden a partial program (like Medicare) to cover, eventually, the entire population; and understanding that universal coverage can be achieved without excluding private insurers from the supplementary insurance market."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447687/

Netherlands is the only country that features for-profit insurance similar to the US.
But it's a tiny country.

Private insurance companies must offer a core universal insurance package for the universal primary curative care, which includes the cost of all prescription medicines. They must do this at a fixed price for all. The same premium is paid whether young or old, healthy or sick. It is illegal in The Netherlands for insurers to refuse an application for health insurance or to impose special conditions (e.g. exclusions, deductibles, co-payments, or refuse to fund doctor-ordered treatments).

The system is 50% financed from payroll taxes paid by employers to a fund controlled by the Health regulator. The government contributes an additional 5% to the regulator's fund. The remaining 45% is collected as premiums paid by the insured directly to the insurance company. Some employers negotiate bulk deals with health insurers and some even pay the employees' premiums as an employment benefit. All insurance companies receive additional funding from the regulator's fund.

The regulator has sight of the claims made by policyholders and therefore can redistribute the funds it holds on the basis of relative claims made by policy holders. Thus insurers with high payouts receive more from the regulator than those with low payouts. Thus insurance companies have no incentive to deter high cost individuals from taking insurance and are compensated if they have to pay out more than a threshold. This threshold is set above the expected costs. Insurance companies compete with each other on price for the 45% direct premium part of the funding and should try to negotiate deals with hospitals to keep costs low and quality high. The competition regulator is charged with checking for abuse of dominant market positions and the creation of cartels that act against the consumer interests. An insurance regulator ensures that all basic policies have identical coverage rules so that no person is medically disadvantaged by his or her choice of insurer.

Insurance companies can offer additional services at extra cost over and above the universal system laid down by the regulator, e.g. for dental care.

So yes, similar to the US that private insurance companies are involved, but heavily regulated and controlled by government.
People are not at the mercy of insurance companies.

And this explains it more succinctly...France's health care is a public/private hybrid:

"France’s universal-access health-care system is based on a statutory health insurance [SHI] model where individuals are required to purchase a health insurance policy (based on their employment) from a regulated insurance company. Strong state regulations and subsidies ensure universal access to that insurance (although the general population is subject to cost-sharing). Private insurance is available, but is generally of a complementary or supplementary nature. In 2007, 88 per cent of the French population had some form of private voluntary health insurance.

Apart from the required copayments, the essentially non-competitive nature of the insurance system in France may seem quite familiar to Canadians. However, in stark contrast to Canada, both public and private insurers purchase care from a common pool of public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit hospitals.

In 2012, there were 1,041 for-profit hospitals in France representing 39.2 per cent of all hospitals in the country. These hospitals competed with 928 public and 688 private not-for-profit hospitals for patients under the universal scheme.

While acute medical, surgical, and obstetric care is provided by all three types of hospitals, their relative level of involvement varies.

For example, public hospitals are responsible for the majority (about three-fourths) of acute medical-care capacity and full-time episodes, and perform about a third of all surgical procedures (including more complex procedures). While private for-profit hospitals also deliver such services and perform more than half of all surgical procedures, they tend to focus on a smaller range of technical procedures (such as invasive diagnostic procedures) and specialize in routine procedures with short and predictable in-hospital stays. About 75 per cent of all surgeries performed in a day-care setting are provided by for-profit hospitals. About one-third of obstetric procedures (related to pregnancy and childbirth) are also performed in private for-profit hospitals. In addition, private for-profit hospitals can also carry out public service duties paid for through contracts with a regional health agency. Meanwhile, private not-for-profit hospitals provide a range of services including follow-up and rehabilitation, and cancer treatment (including prevention, screening, treatment, surgery, and research)."

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/how-france-embraces-the-private-sector-to-deliver-universal-health-care

Please also research the early 90s widespread opposition of the AMA, insurance industry, and other key parties, who were willing after 20 more years of problems to support ACA.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082

One of Bill Clinton’s first acts in office in January of 1993 was to appoint his wife to chair the administration’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform. Sanders had convened his own, much-smaller task force pushing single-payer health care for Vermont, and he began trying to pull Hillary Clinton in that direction.

In February, Sanders requested a meeting with Hillary, “to bring in two Harvard Medical School physicians who have written on the Canadian system,” according to the records of the administration’s task force. Those physicians were Stephanie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, leading advocates for single-payer health care.

They got their meeting at the White House that month, and the two doctors laid out the case for single-payer to the first lady. “She said, ‘You make a convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?’” recalled Himmelstein. “And I said, “How about the president of the United States actually leading the American people?’ and she said, ‘Tell me something real.’ ”

what about youngstown Ohio where the Steel Industry began its slow painful death decades ago and we've yet to hear the eulogy?

I won't blame Hillary for Bill signing NAFTA.

I am not convinced they "didn't want to vote for a Carnival Barker" - who is the very opposite of "reasonable" . Hillary was the personification of "reasonable". CNN released some exit polling data which showed Hillary's economic agenda reached rural voters, so what happened to the others? No this wasn't completely about NAFTA and the TPP.

Please watch this excellent video. Van Jones is good people:

the economic demise of the rust belt could blame Hillary... Sounds like an MSNBC Business Station Commentator.

its the truth. If you can't face it you shouldn't respond and when we start losing our rights we're going to call you out. get ready for it

hurt native born blue collar workers. They can see it, they can feel it.


I made this post on another board on Sept 30, after the first debate:

The Democrats seem surprised that the 2016 election has now turned into a referendum on NAFTA, after they nominated the wife of the man who signed NAFTA's implementing legislation. I'm surprised that they are surprised.

If we elect a demagogue in 2016 it will be in large part as a backlash against NAFTA. It will be quite a direct belated rejection of the Clinton Administration, who invested so much political capital into passing NAFTA.

The worst moment for Hillary in the debate, and the best issue for Trump, was her curt dismissal of the manufacturing job losses and devastation of factory towns across the USA as "That's your opinion."

They don't call it the Rust Belt because manufacturing is booming.

NAFTA also hurt Mexican corn farmers, and sent a wave of undocumented immigrants to America. Decades later, they are still here, and their children have grown up to be Dreamers.

When one out of 20 workers in the US are exploitable, hardworking, very low wage illegal immigrants, it depresses wages for the entire working class.

Working class Americans feel a double hit from NAFTA: so many manufacturing jobs have been shipped south to Mexico, and the remaining hard jobs in the US are filled with low paid undocumented immigrants instead of native born Americans making a living wage, as it was 30 years ago.

Say what you will about Trump: he's at least noticed these people and their hardships. More than we can say about the Clinton Democrats.

*****************

Don't believe me? How about a union leader and Democratic activist in Ohio:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/rust-belt-democrats-saw-trump-wave-coming

These Rust Belt Democrats Saw the Trump Wave Coming
And they tried to warn the Clinton campaign.

PEMA LEVYNOV. 11, 2016 3:32 PM


Like labor unions everywhere, the local Plumbers & Pipefitters union in Ohio's Mahoning Valley—a historically Democratic bastion due to the influence of labor—endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in September 2015 and urged its members to vote for her. But unlike in years past, when Roland "Butch" Taylor briefed about 200 members on the union's support of Clinton and the prospective benefits of a Clinton presidency in May, the meeting didn't go well. "I got a lot of boos," he recalls. "I got a lot of chatter back. And out of the group, only one person came up and asked me for a T-shirt."

snip...

Like Betras, Taylor doesn't believe his peers and neighbors who supported Trump are racist. But he understands how Trump's talk about immigration appealed to people in the Rust Belt. A few years ago, his union was working on a billion-dollar natural gas processing plant, and the workers noticed that the bulk of the work was being done by Spanish-speaking laborers who arrived each morning on buses. "It brought a lot of resentment to the area because they'd never seen it before," Taylor says. "People see that and then they go tell everybody else, and social media, the way it is, it just runs wild." He believes Trump benefited when the community saw immigrants "taking jobs that Americans think they should be doing."

Most critics of NAFTA estimate we lost 750,000- 850,000 jobs due to the deal. Ignoring for a minute, the jobs that were created as a result of NAFTA and the trillions in revenue...

Between 2000-2010 Technology made redundant 5.6 million jobs: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-griswold-globalization-and-trade-help-manufacturing-20160801-snap-story.html

Attacking trade deals will not stop this trend. What the globalists and elites needed to do was mitigate the harmful effects since the 80's. This wasn't done.

And as manufacturing gets smarter , the job loss will get worse. I asked this yesterday on here, what is the difference between outsourcing a production line to Mexico and "outsourcing" a production line to automation? Nothing - unfortunately the latter happens more frequently and none of candidates this year had an answer for that because these questions weren't even asked.

From its grievous errors and, I hate to say it, self-indulgent self righteousness. How do I know this? Because my generation--the flower child, hippie, don't trust anyone over thirty generation of which I was squarely a part-- did too. Or at least most of us did. We tucked our red star Mao buttons away in a drawer as the years went by, as we began to understand the severe costs to human life and freedom of the Cultural Revolution we once admired so fervently.. The ideology had seemed appealing, but the reality was unacceptably harsh. We learned about complexities and the hard choices of compromise from our own lives. We learned that neither we nor our institutions could be perfect and we adapted to that reality, even as we still held on to our core values of justice and the need to continue to strive for the right things. We just learned that the simple answers and the golden promises of utopia were chimeras. It's about plugging along in the right direction, warts and all, and trying one's best. We became a little more pragmatic, which didn't make us either "corporatists" or "Third Wayers" or any of the other childish names the latest generation likes to throw at us. We became realist-idealists, and they will too.

Idealism is a natural, and indeed necessary, part of youth. Self-regard and intransigence are its darker underside. But as this generation ages--and they will, and it comes sooner than they can ever possibly imagine--they too will work in imperfect jobs and deal with their imperfect children and learn that they are imperfect themselves. And they will become a little kinder, a little less assured of their own rectitude and judgment. They will learn of complexities and trade-offs and hard choices. And they will hold on to their ideals even as they learn that the ideal doesn't come easy. In fact, it doesn't come at all. But little bits of it do, and these things make you happy.

And thousands of us helped trying to get Kennedy and McCarthy elected...Both over 30..

And we voted in droves..Vietnam was reality in my memory..

Kennedy left us more than 50 years ago, and Vietnam ended more than 40 years ago. We have new issues and new challenges and an entirely new technological, ecomic, and ethnically diverse society.

I guess I forgot to mention that we learned--or should have learned--that living in the past is as useless as living in an imaginary future. We don't forget the lessons of the past (yes, I marched in the streets with the mounted police and tear gas in the sixties, and I marched in the streets against the invasion of Iraq in the 2000s), but we don't pretend that that history is the present. We neither cling to old battles nor tilt at windmills of a utopian future. We fight each problem, little and big, as they come.

That's what's called being a grown up. Some call it establishment or elitist. But it's really just grown up.

I guess they still have a lot more to learn.

Productive!

Voters should be blamed occasionally, we need to get a clue.

Still not productive. I agree with your post but still not productive.

I'm learning whatever anger I feel to channel it in more efficient ways.

This election proved it's not enough to just sit on the sidelines.

from them blaming the DNC, post saying Bernie should have won, well that's the truth, not my fault they can't face it

This is way to serious a matter to be afraid of hurting people’s feelings.

Totally agree...about having a hard and difficult to avoid this non-pragmatic idealism from happening again. This need drilled into subconscious of every democratic party member: party over person and policy over party.

My current favorite being "Bernie should have been VP"-- so don't hate, let's all get it out of our system

And my take is -- yes, millennials deserve a lot of the blame. Here's how the election went down from my perspective.

I have 2 brothers, 1 sister (all of us 18-26). Parents are both vets. I was for Bernie, kind of slow to give my loyalty to Clinton, but by the time of the convention I was all in for Hillary. My first inkling that something was wrong came in mid-September...

Let me back up. My parents and siblings are good people. Kind, sharing, I've seen my dad go out of his way to call out racism, my parents give regularly to charity, my brothers are always willing to help anyone with anything and my sister volunteers her time most weekends. So if you're picturing a bunch of tattooed white supremacists sitting around, hold that thought.

Anyway, around mid-September we were having a little family get-together/end-of-summer cookout, and my mom said, "I might vote for Hillary." I have to say I was mildly shocked. "MIGHT"? We never talk much about politics but I kind of assumed we were all on the same wavelength. A conversation kind of developed and I realized that I was the only one there who was solidly for Hillary. My two uncles and three aunts were, of course, 100% for Trump, but I already knew that they're hardcore Republicans who will vote for whoever the GOP nominee is. What surprised me was that they weren't just voting for Trump out of loyalty to the party, but actually liked him. My parents were talking about how Hillary just wasn't going to be strong enough on revitalizing the military (hold contractors accountable, eliminate Pentagon cronyism, etc.) My sister was concerned about how Hillary would handle NAFTA and what not (her boyfriend is in manufacturing), one brother who is like me very pro-2nd Amendment but unlike me, a single issue voter, was concerned about gun owner rights. My other brother didn't (and hasn't) said anything about who he supported.

I realized that everyone had their own reasons for either liking Trump or disliking Clinton, and it wasn't a simple "everyone who votes Trump likes him because they're racist misogynist a-holes."

If you're wondering what that has to do with why I blame millennials, here we go...

At my university (unnamed for obvious reasons), the reasons literally dozens of my friends/acquaintances/classmates had for being against Clinton were -- " 'you'd be in jail' holy snap what a burn dude I can't believe he said that so lit!" "I hope Trump beats her for what she did to BERNIE!" "Trump is hilarious, why wouldn't I vote for him"

and the kicker -- I heard this one a lot -- "Republicans have the dankest memes." I sh!t you not.

The reasons most millennials I know/knew had for voting for Trump, or in most cases simply not voting, were stupid reasons. Inane reasons.

Extrapolate my experience with 3 dozen or so millennials, including my siblings, across the nation and there you go. 2 or 3 might have a wrong but sincere and considered reason for not supporting Hillary. 30 or so have an insanely stupid reason that they saw in a "dank meme" on 4chan or reddit.

Millions of members of a key leftwing constituency DIDN'T VOTE...because Trump has dank memes.

Thanks guys. Thanks a lot.

One of my relatives , in particular, veered towards Trump because he would "shake up the system" - I asked for details and proof that he would ever do that, I couldn't get an answer. Another was still upset about "super predators" - which is inexcusable, yet she didn't vote on that bill, Sanders voted for it - I gave him room to apologise, so why not do the same for Hillary? And why risk electing a man who wants to legitimise stop and frisk and who is advised by Guiliani.

.. I heard it all , from hillary's pantsuits, her voice, Trump's machismo, the memes - SMH

That I forgot to add -- In general I didn't get a sense that people didn't like Clinton because she's a women -- but among my millennial acquaintances who tend towards engineering and hard science -- sexism was definitely a factor. The "Alt-right" phenomena, inability to get a girlfriend, whatever the reason...Stuff you might expect to hear from uncle Jack, I instead heard from the most book-smart "intelligent" millennials I know, but wrapped up in pseudo-intellectual fast-talking or presented as rigorous adherence to a pure believe in evolution.

Every ad Hillary had about Donald Trump and his vile behavior made some of these dudes love him even more. The sexism was rife.

Starting with "The "Alt-right"... thought I was following you but not completely.

The AltRight -mainly consists of a bunch of whiny, self absorbed entitled people - mostly young white males. They believe the world owes them a girlfriend and adulation, and they're drawn to racist ideologies to cover up their own inadequacies.

wish I could be more charitable, that's the best I could come up with..

Thousands of leaked emails showed the DNC was stacked. Cost the chairwoman and a CNN popular figure their jobs. IF the DNC had been neutral...say like having a like number of D debates as in 2008... Or the super delegates .. super delegates she spent millions on (and some still lost)...

Hillary 55.2% (4th Clinton campaign) Bernie 43.1% (a newbie who arrived yesterday)

Her 12-point margin of victory over her nearest opponent, Sanders, is below-average.

In 1976 Carter won the nomination with 40% of the primary votes, but won by +26 in November.

Although he was a ways behind Clinton, Sanders received the fifth-most votes of any candidate in a nomination race. Sanders got 30% more votes than John Kerry in 2004.

First contest in Iowa vs Bernie. Hillary got less than 50% in Iowa. (Ran third in 08)

Clinton loses 32 counties to Trump won by Obama in 2012: http://www.nonpareilonline.com/news/local/clinton-loses-counties-to-trump-won-by-obama-in/article_4dccd98a-16ab-52a1-9c02-52f5dd1b8884.html

I guess some are hearing that shit.




Major source (that leaned Hillary BTW): http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/

":Thousands of leaked emails showed the DNC was stacked. Cost the chairwoman and a CNN popular figure their jobs. IF the DNC had been neutral...say like having a like number of D debates as in 2008... Or the super delegates .. super delegates she spent millions on (and some still lost)... "

1) Those emails were from low-level DNC staffers miffed Sanders dared to sue the DNC for Clinton Data. It was a mess which got egg on everyone's faces. A lot of silly suggestions were made, most of which weren't followed through...Wasserman Schulz eventually fell on her sword.

2) The Debates fiasco over Brazille was exactly that - a fiasco that was overblown. CNN's outrage that questions got slipped to a political operative they hire as a commentator was disingenuous at best. There's always been collusion between the Media and Political Operatives, for mutually satisfying reasons having to do with access. Brazille wasn't the first, neither will she be the last. And I really doubt she was the only one to get hint of questions ahead of time this year. That this is still a story proves to me we can't see the forest for the trees. The lesson there wasn't Brazille and CNN but getting the debates out of the full control of networks and reforming the current format where candidates insist on conditions favorable to them, rather than the focus being on informing viewers of policy positions.

Also, Kurt Eichenwald did a good piece debunking a lot of the myths surrounding the great powerful DNC...

And there are lots of reasons Clinton lost those Obama counties , those reasons don't nullify anything I said in my post.

Then there was the press not doing a fair job (and giving Trump all that free time to Hillary's hand picked opponent). The continued pounding in the press Hillary will win with superdelegates etc. Again many of those superdelegates got rewarded.

I proved my point on the numbers!

Sure thing.

It wouldn't have anything to do with Trump's ridiculousness raking in the dollars would it?

"Pied piper strategy" means her surrogates focused on Trump, ( and all the other divisive candidates) when arguing her case on TV and elsewhere.

Hillary did not call Fox News, CNN, MSBNC and all the other major outlets to focus on Trump for her benefit, when she is no friend of the Media ( though she has her allies who are columnists - surprise surprise).

the media highlighted Trump and ignored everyone else (mostly) - including Hillary. It was rare for CNN to carry a Hillary policy speech. Sanders was blacked out completely.

No Hillary press? Did you even watch MSNBC? Even just Rachel?

Connect the dots.

Some people live in...

Every single news outlet saw the cash cow that was Donald Trump - they didn't need Hillary's influence to get them to see it ..

Come on now... The guy was ratings gold..

You're telling me Brazille told Moonves to focus on Trump?

"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS"

http://www.mediaite.com/online/cbs-ceo-on-trump-campaign-it-may-not-be-good-for-america-but-its-damn-good-for-cbs/

She didn't have to tell (humor) Brazille. You don't get it.

You didn't read enough emails.

Anybody that doesn't think the majority of the press was pushing Hillary...

Trump was hand picked by the R party as the one that could beat Hillary!

Yes I voted Hillary. Don't blame me in the caucus..

OS

they are corporatist.

I'm saying none of this is shocking, that Brazille did not need to tell Jeff Zucker to push Trump- Jeff was going to do that anyway.

Yes I read enough of the emails. Including the disjointed and odd copy/paste jobs.

And thank God for the caucuses re Bernie!

Re caucuses: Had a very hard time with as you pointed out..a newbie.

I'm off to play elsewhere. I'll let you smile AND have the last word.

Well stated, Omaha Steve!

I think at least here in Philly, we were able to capture a chunk of them given one of the polling places at our largest city college (Temple) had people still in line 2 hours after the polls closed.

I just looked up the results since that particular division made national news (one Temple U area polling place), which was located at 10th & Oxford (20th Ward, 3rd Division). The results (from search here) -

because there was alot of press about these students (and non-students who live in the neighborhood) standing in line. The concern was whether some of their votes would be "protest", but at least in this Division, that really didn't happen.

And as a note, because of the number of polling places that we have here in Philly (I think they service neighborhood population chunks of about 1000 - 4000 or something like that the way they draw the lines - usually 6-10 block radius), you normally don't have lines like this -



I am thinking in alot of what might have happened in the above case, were students who had recently registered but whose names were not found in the binders (and they may have had to cast provisional ballots).

stay away from the polls or to vote for third party candidates as a protest vote. If they voted for Trump than they will be screwed soon enough as he eliminates all the social safety nets Democrats helped to put in place.

Trying to figure out who to blame.

Was it the millennials for not coming out and smugly waiting for the "perfect" candidate . . . OR was it a party apparatus that knew millennials NEVER come out to vote and counted on them anyway? Could be either.

Was it the racists, the xenophobes, the Islamophobes, the misogynists, and the homophobes making $75K and living in the burbs who put a check mark next to a beast's name . . . OR was it a party apparatus that, ever since Bill Clinton, has insisted on middle of the road tax, foreign, social, health care, crime, so that we could "win back" these Reagan Democrats who were, are, and always will be living in the Dark Ages? Could be either.

Could it be the subtle misogyny of holding Hillary's shortcomings against her when every male candidate had had the same flaws . . . OR was it the denial that they were even flaws that needed to be confronted in the first place? Could be either.

Was it working people making $50K living in the Rust Belt who were accused of being self-centered racists even before the primaries were over AND who were IMMEDIATELY blamed for our defeat . . . OR was it . . . wait a sec, never mind, they voted for Hillary in very near Obama-esque percentages.

Who to blame, who to blame, who to blame?

How about a solution?

How about this?

The Democratic Party is a party of the oppressed. We are black and brown, and poor, and Muslim and gay. We are immigrants left behind by archaic and inhumane rules. We are the convict and the ex-convict. We are living in urban areas with families intentionally broken by the war on drugs or living in the shadows in enemy territory. We are working people of all races, etc. who still want for basic needs. OR, we are people who may not be among them but who care less about themselves than they do the oppressed.

We are the coalition dreamed of by Martin Luther King when he was gunned down in a Memphis motel fighting for organized labor.

We favor the federal prosecution of blue on black crime AND blue on black witness tampering and intimidation (for example, what happened in Ferguson).

We favor pardons and the immediate restoration of federal civil rights of ALL drug felons.

We oppose the death penalty in ALL cases.

We oppose ANY punishment imposed for the purpose of retribution or deterrence.

We oppose ANY term of imprisonment longer than is necessary to protect society from an individual defendant.

We oppose the election of judges and prosecutors.

We oppose qualified, or any, immunity for state actors, especially law enforcement.

We recognize that there is right to adequate health care, to decent housing, to sustenance, and to a liveable wage.

We favor the federally-funded, if not federally executed, re-introduction of productive economic activity to both our urban centers and our abandoned manufacturing centers, even if it competes directly with private businesses.

We favor a tax structure which restores wealth to the people who create it, not the people who control it already, more specifically, a tax on unrealized capital gains at the taxpayer's individual (and graduated) income tax rate.

We recognize unfettered choice in reproductive decisions up until personhood AS PERSONHOOD WAS UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING is guaranteed by the 4th Amendment.

We recognize complete individual autonomy in all matters of consensual and/or individual sexual activity and sexual identity is guaranteed by the 4th Amendment.

We favor a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to vote AND the federal supervision of ALL elections.

We recognize that Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United were wrongly decided. Money is not speech AND corporations do not have free speech rights AND, accordingly, that all campaigns are to be publically-funded.

We favor reparations, or, at the very least we publicly acknowledge the $60 trillion of wealth and untold amounts of power and privilege wrongfully rests in the white population and the victims of American slavery and its aftermaths DESERVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT even if they choose not to demand it.

. . .

And that's just a start.

Let's stand for something together instead of against each other.

But voters also have responsibility.

Maybe I should be less bitter, but we've all endured a nauseating year . To see voters vote against their self interests, willfully and gleefully for flimsiest of reasons, is alarming. It needs to be noted why, and how.. where are we culturally in this country? How do we view each other? Why are we so polarized?

Racism needs to be discussed, so does sexism, ignorance, lack of civic knowledge.... I'm all for vigorous debate on those issues, in many ways they defined this election.

Only about a week ago.

Ever since the election I have been fighting with friends.

I'm done with that.

I'm fighting with enemies.

And I'm done denying that they're out there.

it's critical. (And by demons i don't mean people - but the conditions that primed millions to vote for a demagogue)

Dems have basically ceded blue collar workers now to the Republicans.

The only way Dems are going to claw lost ground back is by growing the base.
We could try and fight for the blue collar workers, but that will be an uphill battle if Trump is making cosy agreements to keep factories here.

Millenials are the future, Bernie had them.
Dems lost them when when they rejected Bernie.


Now you'll need Bernie to win them back.

Who do you define as "blue collar workers"?

I expect that the vast majority of of "blue collar" blacks, hispanics, and asians who actually voted, voted Democratic.

This meme about "blue collar workers" suggests that it is an occupational term reserved solely for white males as if no other group is a "blue collar worker".

Based on this ridiculous assertion, this woman is not considered "blue collar" because she doesn't live in the MW or is a white male, despite being a SEPTA bus driver here in Philly -



just like these 3 (God forbid) Muslim bus drivers -



And these workers, who clean the fucking Comcast building here in Philadelphia, are not "blue collar workers" because they don't live in the MW and are not all white males -



Enough of this shit about "blue collar".

It's like blue collar people of color didn't exist this year for some people....

"we" are the lazy "47%" who are "Welfare Queens™" and shiftless "gang-banging thugs" and only want "government handouts". That's what Reagan and Rush and Romney told the "True Blue Collar Workers™".

who will be won over in 2020, if the party punishes them sufficiently

they must be FORCED to understand that their voted is OWED to the party, and must be cleansed of the idea that it belongs to THEM

Intriguing..

In television, if you don't get the ratings they take you off the air; in elections, if you don't get the votes, you don't get to take office. The customer may not always be right, but he decides whether you stay in business or not.

We have responsibilities as voters.

Else we'll be forever led by a leash and manipulated.

We have a responsibility to educate ourselves, to form a world view and engage with others , sharing ideas, and holding our representatives to account. If voters don't do due diligence , we suffer the effects - we are the ones who always suffer the effects.

This goes beyond Democrat vs Republican.

We actually have to care about who leads us and represents us, else we'll always fall for the most charismatic, tho they be unsuitable and terrible.

Now, their offspring will to suffer through decades of misguided Supreme Court rulings.

Well gang, you had your chance but, blew it. Now you must struggle through it.

Good luck.

we'll just keep fighting for what's right.

.


While this seems to be a nice essay on the surface, it fails because it tries to pin responsibility on one group.

It completely overlooks the sentiment of many towards HRC, the resentment of the DNC and political institutions.


There were a multitude of factors that led to the stars aligning the way they did. This essay gets a B.


While Sanders attracted more Indys, Cross-over Republicans, Millennials, and true progressives, HRC was more centered on traditional Democratic base support. As public perception changed though the primary, when people actually saw that there might be a valid alternative, HRC selectively co-opted Sanders' positions only when they were politically expedient to win a state. One state she'd denounce his positions, because they were Dem strongholds, then she'd co-opt him in coal country or areas of extreme liberalism to neutralize any difference between the two. Then, she'd switch back. This behavior fed into the GOP narrative that she'd do anything to win.


But, without me writing a 10 page dissertation, I'll summarize it in a short paragraph.


Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush really fucking hated each other, to the point where it created a schism in the party. Instead of remaining divisive, they came together to defeat Carter and win three presidential elections. Clinton chose to kick dirt in the Sanders' supporters eyes by selecting Kaine, not learning from political history. She took the gamble that voters would go binary and not vote for Trump, because he is, well... Trump. That act prevented her from having a 60-40 win, something that would have survived any Comey or other last minute trick, by jettisoning those Indys and disillusioned voters. The belief that women would side with her, when the past 45 years, since ERA, shows a solid 45% of women vote GOP--due mainly from evangelical/orthodox support for paternalism. This trend denial is an astonishing contortion of political historical fact. This was a tactical failure on HRC's part, as the collective nation gasped and then said, "Who the fuck is Tim Kaine?"


.

It was not meant to be a complete essay on why HRC lost. It's just a string of thoughts in response to the link I shared - framed by my experience as a millennial.

you're creating a Strawman and attacking it. I've criticized what I saw as some flaws in the campaign and mistakes made by all throughout this election cycle on the Left elsewhere..

changed title.

"It completely overlooks the sentiment of many towards HRC, the resentment of the DNC and political institutions.

I never overlooked it, I sought to explore it - briefly, within my own experiences, as a millennial. Yes the purpose of memes and such were mentioned to address this - I saw the impact of all this, first hand and online.

Are people mistrusting of political institutions - er yes, color me surprised!

"While Sanders attracted more Indys, Cross-over Republicans, Millennials, and true progressives, HRC was more centered on traditional Democratic base support. As public perception changed though the primary, when people actually saw that there might be a valid alternative, HRC selectively co-opted Sanders' positions only when they were politically expedient to win a state. One state she'd denounce his positions, because they were Dem strongholds, then she'd co-opt him in coal country or areas of extreme liberalism to neutralize any difference between the two. Then, she'd switch back. This behavior fed into the GOP narrative that she'd do anything to win. "

Hillary had a difference of opinion with Sanders on some issues - she didn't believe in HIS plan for Free College, she wasn't completely antagonistic towards trade ( thank God) . She was self-aware enough to admit she was out of touch (albeit privately), and it boggles my mind that when a candidate admits they are out of touch, and adopts policies to ensure they address needs they hadn't previously considered, this is criticized AS WELL. Proving why we can't have nice things. How one interprets that is soley based on one's personal view of Hillary - yes , indeed, it was a "GOP narrative".

Also EDIT: Sanders also characterized Clinton in ways expedient to him, no one has clean hands here.

......And since I don't want to repeat myself, ....http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512631083 ....

And some posters wonder what exactly is wrong with establishment?

Well, the 'establishment' has ceded both houses of government, the presidency and numerous governorships to the Reps.

Start Panicing

No arguments from me we need a laser focus and much sharper strategy to recapture the house and senate.

You've nailed it!

Clinton herself chose to NOT unite the Democratic Party with her lousy VP pick, imo.

Well, she got one.

Sadly.

many on the left made the same types of arguments that some on the left made against Clinton in 2016. And some on the left did not vote in the Presidential race, making the same idiotic "lesser of two evils" argument that was heard this year.

The result of this "lesser of two evils" was a Nixon Presidency that led to a Ford Presidency.

My two millennial children and their significant others are all fairly progressive politically, but they all voted for Clinton. They recognized that whatever small progress was made in the Obama Presidency can easily be reversed by four or eight more years of GOP fascism.

Recommended.

Sanders was only "new" to the Democratic Party. If he ran as an independent or Green, Clinton would have lost the popular vote too. You and other Clinton supporters know that. Although it must be tantalizing to imagine having that clear cut spoiler so the party leadership can keep failing upwards.

Why didn't Hillary win? Because the neo-liberal DLC brand stinks on ice. Even the DLC knew it, or else they wouldn't rebrand every three or four years. Not enough voters buy it anymore. We understand that DLC Democrats will pander (in increasingly unconvincing ways) to various politically identified sub-groups (don't forget your bottle of hot sauce). The only group they are truly loyal to are their financial backers. Had she been elected President, she undoubtedly would have continued Obama's policies - John King Jr. would have been replaced by another education privatization Education Secretary who cancels public meetings, there would be perhaps a different Goldman-Sachs executive as Treasury Secretary. It's the "fiscally conservative" side of the "New Democrats".

I'd ask why the Democratic Party Leadership is so clueless, but I already know. Cash is king - ideas don't matter. Beltway conventional thinking in all it's forms (if you want to be serious about finance, you have to be conservative). Rice bowl politics (I see Debbie Wassermann-Schultz as this election's Joe Lieberman - defending the unforgivable). "It's _______ turn", think Scott Brown's election(or Trump's for that matter).

Just to be clear:

I wasn't an HRC supporter last year. My views on her were always lukewarm- I didn't know enough about her to hate her or love her. I originally supported Sanders, until he stopped making sense to me - liked O'Malley for a bit - and then settled on Clinton. I also disliked the fact that Bernie stayed longer in the race when he knew it was a lost cause, and doing damage in the process. His framing of Clinton as a "corrupt" " candidate fit neatly into Trump's "Crooked Hillary" rhetoric. This did damage.

I don't know how you could look at the democratic party over the past decade and come to the conclusion that "Ideas don't matter" Your post is noise - the Democratic Party had a solid platform most Americans voted for, and I am thankful to bernie for breathing new life into the party, even as I hold on to my criticisms of Him.

It's amazing that my one sentence about Bernie not winning the primaries brought out that much passion. I wonder what your response would be if I had omitted it ?

Doesn't the DNC take money from Wall Street? Isn't Wall Street always coddled by both parties? No matter who won the presidential election, the Treasury Secretary was going to be from a Wall Street firm. Those are facts. If establishment candidates feel it makes them look "corrupt" maybe they should examine their behavior.



It's actually pretty easy. Most of them are watered down Republican ideas. Affordable Care Act comes from "Romneycare" which in turn came from a plan by the Heritage Foundation to rescue insurance companies. School choice as offered by Arne Duncan (which was one of the reasons he was elevated to Sec of Education) is part of the neoliberal (the word is appropriate, no matter how much you dislike it) idea of privatization of government services. Before the GOP saw an opportunity to impeach him over Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton planned to privatize Social Security - a policy championed by the GOP. As far as platforms go - how often do our inside-the-Beltway leaders look at party platforms? Why would people believe that Clinton would really give everything she had to ideas that she ridiculed in the primary?



I'm glad to see that you didn't dispute the idea that an Independent or Green Party run by Senator Sanders would have cost Hillary the Popular Vote too. To answer your question, it would have been more like what follows:


They enjoy "hippie-punching" almost as much as the GOP, and believe in austerity as part of being "fiscally conservative". They cede "framing the message" to conservatives, and never effectively challenge Republicans. They always look for reasons not to fight the GOP, and pat themselves on the back for finding them(see the Senate validation of the Florida vote count of 2000, "impeachment is off the table" or the Iraq Resolution). They don't protect the voters from vote suppression tactics. They are continuously "surprised" by GOP election fraud. They constantly reach across the aisle to the GOP no matter how many times they get slapped around. They are always looking for the largely mythical "republicans we can work with". The establishment also has a suspiciously weak plan of attack when it come to things that rank and file Democratic voters want, but Big Business does not.


Considering who the House and Senate Minority Leaders are, no.



Yes, by Republicans in the House and Senate, by donors, by media, by Wall Street, by multinational corporations, by nations that supply H1-B visa workers(she did say that she could be elected Senator of Punjab), she would have responded to pressure by all of those groups. Voters, not so much. Liberals, not at all. She would have pointed out that the liberals managed - despite her best efforts - to have some influence in the party platform. She probably would have then demanded that liberals who want the platform ideas enacted work for the establishment to elect more establishment candidates, who would also ignore the party platform.

"Doesn't the DNC take money from Wall Street? Isn't Wall Street always coddled by both parties? No matter who won the presidential election, the Treasury Secretary was going to be from a Wall Street firm. Those are facts. If establishment candidates feel it makes them look "corrupt" maybe they should examine their behavior. "

And Political parties have taken money from moneyed interests since the days of whenever. I'm all for campaign finance reform.

And the world would have been better without ACA? And what happened over the past 8 years? and the difficulty getting even the ACA considered or even "fixed" with a Republican congress? Leaving Obama to resort to doing what again? Also remind me how we got a republican congress - yeah Dems abandoned Obama in 2010.

"Yes, by Republicans in the House and Senate, by donors, by media, by Wall Street, by multinational corporations, by nations that supply H1-B visa workers(she did say that she could be elected Senator of Punjab), she would have responded to pressure by all of those groups. Voters, not so much. Liberals, not at all. She would have pointed out that the liberals managed - despite her best efforts - to have some influence in the party platform. She probably would have then demanded that liberals who want the platform ideas enacted work for the establishment to elect more establishment candidates, who would also ignore the party platform."

You need a democratic/liberal congress to get the things you want passed. No ,you cannot assume, framed by your dislike of her, what she would or would not have done. We know , for a fact - and this was actually my point - that progressive groups would have demanded she stay true to her platform. The promises on her platform were actually workable. Hence why I said "her feet would have been held to the fire" -

Imagine if Obama and Congress had passed election reform laws instead. I remember political gossip on this site - "unnamed Democratic Party officials" - said that they thought acknowledging GOP election fraud would depress Democratic voter turnout. Voter suppression tactics aren't new to the GOP, what is new is the Democrats refusal to oppose them. Without a Democratic majority it's difficult to pass anything regardless of who is top of the ticket, something that Clinton supporters refuse to acknowledge(she knows how to get things done, she knows how to fight that fight, etc.).

With strong Democratic majorities, we could have at the very least discussed Single Payer and other forms of universal coverage. Those option were "off the table". In part because of weak majorities that depend on Democratic politicians who side with Republicans when we need their votes the most. That sort of majority isn't useful except for legislation favored by Big Business who own politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Older folk voted for Trump.

Not sure why Millennials are to blame.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999] If millennials and gen X only voted then Clinton would have won in a landslide.

Baby boomers are the ones who actually VOTED for Trump.

Mr Mook should find someone else to victim blame. Like himself for neglecting Wisconsin.[/font]

More young people voted for Bernie Sanders than Trump and Clinton combined — by a lot
Aaron Blake
Washington Post
June, 20 2016



It's ridiculous to say millennials cost Clinton the election when the exit polls show that Clinton lost ground with the 2012 Obama coalition across the board. You could pick any group and claim this was the reason she lost.

However, if you're going to hang your hat on millennials sinking Clinton, you're making the case that Bernie would have won.

The article deals with millennials specifically, and I just shared my thoughts - as a millennial myself - and some of the things I observed that influenced their views of Clinton.

And if I ended up expressing my views in pejorative terms I typed that up on the fly, my reaction to the article probably explains it - certainly Clinton got millenial votes, not *every* millennial abandoned her, but there was phenomenon, a nasty one, that warped their perception of her.

Hope they're smug with a climate change denier in the WH

Thank you for trying, JHan