I grew up in a very red, rural community in the midwest.

[yardwork]

I have relatives who live in various red, rural communities. I see the Facebook posts of my former classmates.

Hillary Clinton didn't lose the election because coastal elites are snobby. (They aren't paying any attention to us.) She didn't lose because she called Trump supporters deplorable. (They don't know or care what the word deplorable means.) Rural people who voted against Hillary did so because they are convinced that:

1. She deliberately caused U.S. patriots to die in Benghazi, which is somewhere far off, because she sent them there with no weapons and refused to send troops to protect them.

2. She's responsible for the murder of millions of babies.

3. She tried to hide her emails because they revealed that she was sex trafficking children, and so then her emails were hacked by Isis and that's why they attacked Benghazi and killed American patriots. Then she deleted 30,000 more emails that were about even worse things than sex trafficking children.

4. She lied. And stole. Details are vague, but she's crooked.

Why do millions of people believe these blatant falsehoods? Because millions of people deliberately spread the lies - including a lot of supposed progressives.

[guillaumeb]

1. And a corporate, conservative media that promotes the false equivalence argument,

and treats foolish assertions as facts. Or refuses to fact check.

[yardwork]

3. Correct.

[yardwork]

14. I agree. I saw and heard it.

[oasis]

28. Many claiming to be our side did one hell of a hatchet job on Hillary.

Too damned many.

[oasis]

37. "Voted for Hillary"? Only they know if they even voted at all.

[calimary]

105. No freakin' kidding!

[Angry Dragon]

96. You are so right on!!

[Hoyt]

2. Similar background, but it's simpler than that - they are stupid. That's why they believe that junk.

[yardwork]

4. We're supposed to reach out to these folks, Hoyt!

I forgot another reason - Trump gave them permission to express their deeply held bigoted beliefs.

[Hoyt]

6. I hear you, but it's a waste of time, sorry.

[yardwork]

7. Yeah, I was being sarcastic. It is indeed a waste of time.

[Hunter Rose]

87. Salt of the Earth

[Phoenix61]

5. I'm in a Deep South red state

and that pretty much sums it up. No matter how much I tried to convince them they were wrong, they just smiled and called me a liberal. Oh yeah, and explained they saw it on the news. Guess which one? And the winner is.... Fox!!!

[yardwork]

8. I'm not sure how we can reach the brainwashed and willfully ignorant.

They don't like smart people. They don't like successful women.

[Dustlawyer]

43. I found a way to get through to the ones that do not know me!

I pretend to be one of them who has discovered that Trump lied to "us." I give them some facts such as Trump himself saying he first thought that "Drain the swamp" was "Hokey." Then he said he didn't' need it anymore and appointed 3 Goldman Saks guys to run the Treasury and other financial departments. That builds my credibility with them because I Google it right there. Then I point out that they are privatizing things so his billionaire cabinet can make even more money. By this point they have been pissed every time. Some will say that Hillary would have been worse at this point but I respond that Trump promised to be a lot better!

I blame the RW media since they helped Trump lie to "us." I blame Mitch McChinless and Eddie Munster for lying too!

These are people easily manipulated since they already have been to vote for Trump in the first place. I am trying to take their base away one deplorable at a time!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. Good job!

[Locrian]

86. that's the way to do i!

It's really not that hard. The goldman saks thing works every time.

[lunatica]

109. Good tactic

Thanks for your efforts and the advice.

[calimary]

108. Welcome to DU, Phoenix61!

Sigh... regrettably, I hear the same yammering points coming out of the mouth of my best friend. She hasn't admitted it yet, but I strongly suspect (much to my broken heart) that she voted for trump. Even while claiming she's scared to death - she quickly adds "but I remain hopeful!" The same shit I've heard on hate radio and Pox Noise and other assorted CONjobbers comes out of her mouth as well as her text messages.

"I do want a woman president. Just not THAT woman." I've heard that empty talking point as though from an endless loop soundbite.

"Hildebeast." I questioned her on this one and she claimed she'd never heard that before. I had to press forward: "Girlfriend, I'D never heard this one before until YOU TEXTED IT to me just the other day!"

"Babykillers..." hissed under her breath, she probably didn't think I'd heard. I DID. "I've never killed a baby in my life, girlfriend..."

"Did you see those FOOLS!?!?!?!?!?" spoken with full-on disgust and a curled lip after those heroic Congressmembers staged a sit-in over gun control. "Fools? Um ... nope. Didn't see ANY 'fools' anywhere... But I DID see a group of courageous, gutsy patriots in a sit-in on the House Floor - led by the national treasure John Lewis."

She hates President Obama. Claims he's been a disaster for her and her family. "Such a disappointment!" Unfortunate, 'eh, that her son was able to stay on her health insurance program - ONLY because of the Affordable Care Act, which she actually has said she really appreciates - nothing any republi-CON did for her! When I pointed out that the only way President Obama has been a "disappointment" isn't even his fault or his doing. It's the fucking GOP that's blocked and obstructed and "party-of-NO'd" him literally from the very night of his first inauguration!!!

Now, she's on about how wonderful the Electoral College is, and how that silly trump-opposition is confined to a sliver of the coasts. Yeah? California? California is a "sliver"? HELLO? THE BIGGEST STATE IN THE UNION, with the BIGGEST population, the BIGGEST Congressional delegation, the BIGGEST population of the fastest-growing demographic in the country, the BIGGEST economy that - as a state - ranks in the top ten nations' economies, and yep, the BIGGEST Electoral College delegation? THAT sliver, you mean? Where OUR voices don't even rate the same as the sparse population-states like Wyoming?

This fucking election has really torn a scab off. Personally miserable and terribly regrettable. It's adversely impacted my friendship with my best friend.

[Phoenix61]

116. Thanks for the welcome

I decided to really question the value of my friendships and realized they were actually acquaintances. Maybe long term acquaintances but sadly, very sadly not true friends. I just can't be friends with a person who cares so little for other people, the environment and just about everything else that is important to me. I am not willing to "shut up about all that political shit"' just to make them comfortable. I'd rather be alone. Sometimes you have to empty the cup before it can be filled with something really good.

[radical noodle]

118. Yes, yes, and yes!

All that from many of my former classmates. Almost word for word. The baby-killer thing really got to me since I know that some of them have had abortions... some more than one abortion. But Hillary is a baby-killer.

And yes, I'm having issues with my best friend as well.

[calimary]

129. Okay, well, this is MOST instructive information, radical noodle.

Thanks for sharing this! I'm wondering if maybe we have yet another "tell." You say your people are echoing my friend almost word for word? Hmmmm...

See that tells me about packaging. And marketing. They're all saying the same things? "Almost word for word"? That is, it's not just the same sort of theme or general theme or complaint. These are specific wordings and phrasings that are carefully coordinated and Frank-Luntz-focus-tested and approved. These friends of ours seem, evidently, to be getting these same parroted talking points from the same sources. Hmmmmm...

And then I want to try to figure out where they're getting this from. What/who are they (apparently) all watching/listening to? Radio? Hate radio undoubtedly. limbaugh? Cable? Pox Noise? If they read, it's probably the internet, and which sources? Breitbart? Drudge? Alex fucking Jones? There are other crackpots and propaganda crankers and would-be perception managers generating this shit that people we care about swallow whole without even chewing. They're nicely softened up, already, and easily baited.

Back in the bush/cheney days we used to grouse and gripe about what was called the "blast fax" and the "mighty Wurlitzer." Organized and coordinated propaganda campaigns - on a daily basis, that pushed memes and framings and catchy ways to word things. Pushed the sloganeering - stuff you could use to argue your point in the elevator or the checkout line or while waiting for the bus or some such. Quick hits. Soon came to be referred to as "bumpersticker politics" - slogans or phrases or points you could make that would fit on a bumper sticker. Making the most of the low-information short-attention-span recipients. They're already dumbed down. So exploit the hell out of it for fun and profit and White House appointments!

And by all means repeat, repeat, repeat, and then repeat as necessary. Cuz repetition is important. Why do you think trump repeats himself and all his favorite little buzz phrases all the time - usually by threes? Anybody remember how dubya himself talked about how a big part of his job was "to kind of catapult the propaganda"? Once you have the message pre-written, massaged, tested, and okay'd, spread it far and wide! Sell the hell out of it! You've already got the script. Now take it on the road! (Especially if you photograph well!)

Gotta know the enemy. Know and understand what they do and how and why. With what means. The more you dig down, the more vulnerabilities you can find. You better believe Vladimir Putin is a freakin'-ass MASTER of this game. He was head of the KGB forcryingoutloud!

[radical noodle]

135. Know your enemy

I am attaching a link to a crazy page for the purpose of letting you see one place the baby killer thing may have come from. I'm sure there are others. This one shows 1.6 million shares.

PROPAGANDA
http://canonclast.com/article/presidential-candidate-hillary-clinton-is-poised-to-be-the-largest-baby-killer-of-all-time/

Obviously we need to get much better at spreading the truth about Trump. No lies necessary.

[calimary]

150. One-point-six MILLION shares.

Let that one sink in for a minute.

And how many of those were generated by hired hands and other assorted paid nogoodniks?

We ABSOLUTELY need to get much better at spreading the truth about Trump. And unlike with him and his, WE have the truth on OUR side. Demonstrably and provably. And yes with evidence.

It's devious thinking we need. More than anything else. That has to be the underlying foundational concept, and our "bible" - boiled down into two words. Devious thinking. That's how they win. That's how they roll our professionals in the media and the party system. Again and again. It's thinking outside the political box. Because that, unfortunately, is the currency of the day, that trump is bringing into "office" with him. And, like with Chris Christie, he'll surround himself with people of like mind. He won't have many people pushing anything other than the "Gospel of The Donald." People who either agree an assist OR generate the material and use it to lead the offense. Win at all costs. They don't come more devious than Steve Bannon, or kkkarl rove, or Roger Ailes, or lee atwater, or Ralph Reed, or grover norquist, or any of those nasty, scheming, devious thinkers. Those types for the most part are all over on their side of the aisle.

And I know and support the "when they go low, we go high" creed. That's the high road and the better way. But sometimes, seems to me, we need some Dark-Siders, too. Or Dark Side thinking, the better to outwit and outthink and out-maneuver the bad guys.

KNOW your enemy. That's another thing that Mad-Eye Moody always warned Harry Potter, in the "Harry Potter" books. He'd repeat "CONSTANT VIGILANCE!" And he'd also usually follow that with "You've GOT to KNOW!"

Besides, it's not such a bad thing to know where the underbelly is. It's a good thing to know. It's a most useful thing to know. It's where they're vulnerable.

[radical noodle]

151. No doubt about it

We have been sadly lacking in vigilance and spreading Trump truths just the way they spread Hillary lies. When going one on one with them going high probably is the way to go. The more you stir a bucket of shit the more it stinks. But there's a limit and spreading truth over lies IS going higher.

There have to be people who are good at this. Brock was when he worked for the right. He should do training sessions.

[kimbutgar]

10. There are a lot of stupid a$$ people who are gullible to lies

Because learning the truth takes too much time and effort. It's easy to accept what is in front of you rather than what is beyond your sight of view.

[betsuni]

11. Thank you!

How are we supposed to know who these snobby coastal elites are and what they're saying about anything, anyway.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. I heard comments of that sort from a surprising number

of people, and they were not rural, red state folks. The belief that Hillary was somehow crooked or corrupt was very widespread, even if the specifics - Benghazi, child prostitution out of the pizza parlor, that sort of thing - were not believed. If you try to rebut the Benghazi or emails stuff, the response was always something like, "Well, maybe she didn't do those things but she's just... crooked. I don't trust her." Even when the alternative was an ignorant, bigoted (and unquestionably crooked) boor like Trump, they couldn't get past their unshakable belief that Hillary was disastrously corrupt in an undefinable but horrible way.

I have my own theory about how this came about, which might start a flame war, so I won't mention it. However, this belief was clearly a real thing and I have no doubt it cost an awful lot of votes.

[yardwork]

13. Please share your theory. Here's mine:

A lot of people didn't want to vote for a woman, so they looked for excuses not to.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. That's a big part of it, I think.

Another part of it is the effect of 20 years of almost subliminal misinformation propagated by the right wing. The thing that might get me in trouble is my suspicion that there were some things Hillary (and Bill) did over the years that, while perfectly legal, perhaps gave those false notions a bit more of a toehold, like the Goldman Sachs speeches. Did those things add real fuel to a phony fire?

Flame away...

[yardwork]

17. No politician is pure.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. True. But Hillary's impurities seemed to count against her

more than most. Misogyny? Very possibly. And I think once an idea, whether true or false, gets widespread distribution in a society it's almost impossible to make it go away. "Crooked Hillary" wasn't just a Trump slogan, it was a pre-existing meme that he took advantage of. I can't prove it but I wonder whether the normal mistakes and flaws of all politicians are less acceptable when the politician is a woman.

[yardwork]

22. Confirmation bias. People believe what they want to believe.

The vague idea that Hillary is corrupt was more important than the certain facts of Trump's corruption.

But that's partly because the media rarely talked about the actual trial involving Trump University, but talked ceaselessly about Hillary's emails.

[JHan]

30. Maureen Dowd...

said on Bill Maher that Hillary lacked an ingredient that helps female politicians - virtue.

Since Maureen has a track record of being .. well, an idiot .. she was sort of onto something but she didn't even say it as if it were wrong or unfair. She didn't seem to understand the implications of the point she made :Which just further confirmed her idiocy.

But she was right I think, I have been musing on that unfair standard since she first said it which was shortly before the election.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. Women have always been required to be more "virtuous" than men.

Hillary's alleged corruption was nothing more than the ordinary spinning and obfuscating that all (male) politicians have engaged in since forever. For them it's considered standard operating procedure and it's why politicians tend to be held in low regard, but when a female politician behaves the same way it's not spinning and obfuscation, it's intolerable corruption. Same double standard that applies in every other aspect of life. Women have to be twice as good to be considered half as good.

[JHan]

40. Yep. +100000

[Canoe52]

48. Agree

Someone here said what if Hillary had 5 kids by 3 husbands, she would have never run in the first place.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

50. If she'd been caught on tape bragging about

grabbing men's junk there'd have been a horrendous scandal and she'd have been forced to withdraw from the campaign altogether.

[LuckyLib]

57. You have nailed it.

[ehrnst]

90. Absolutely. Did Biden/Kerry/Edwards/Gore get crucified by the left over the Welfare Reform Bill?

No.

And they actually voted for it.

[SunSeeker]

99. Exactly. Or the 1994 Crime Bill, which Sanders actually voted for. nt

[ehrnst]

124. But, but, but.... Bernie didn't mean it!!! Hillary was sleeping with Bill at the time!!! (nt)

[dsc]

132. neither Gore nor Edwards voted for that bill

Gore was VP and his vote wasn't needed for passage and Edwards wasn't in the Senate yet (it passed in 96 and he was elected in 98) I think your point is otherwise well taken but on these specifics you are wrong.

[ehrnst]

145. Thanks - Gore was head of the Senate, and was smiling in the photo of it being signed.(nt)

[StevieM]

46. Here is a good article about HRC's speeches.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/5/1496367/-This-is-why-the-outrage-over-speaking-fees-doesn-t-amount-to-a-Hillary-of-beans

[whathehell]

102. Yes, it seems to give credence to the theory that if you repeat a lie

often enough, it will be believed.

[DURHAM D]

18. This

Also, there are all these farmers and ranchers who never ever hunt but Hillary was going to take ALL THE GUNS and they might need them ever few years to kill a coyote that gets in their chicken coup or grabs a guinea hen

Actually all the farmers and ranchers I know (including all of my relatives) ABSOLUTELY hate hunters and people who open carry with a white hot passion.

[yardwork]

19. But they're willing to set aside that feeling to vote against the woman.

I mean, priorities.

[Fast Walker 52]

34. yes, guns was a big part of the anit-H vote that is rarely discussed

[Crash2Parties]

21. This. Nearly half of America is conservative Christian, built on misogyny.

[KingCharlemagne]

59. The country was founded on two great crimes: theft of land from its

Indigenous inhabitants and chattel slavery. No reparations for either crime have ever been made. So there are limits to what one can expect of a land where racism is as American as cherry pie (to borrow a line from H. Rap Brown).

[brush]

91. You've nailed it, and this election of trump proves it will always be so. trump voters fell back . .

on their instincts — misogyny and racism (make America white . . . er, ah . . . great again).

[Crash2Parties]

130. The racism was "necessary" to maintain high profits. So was the revolution.

America was founded on a Capitalist trade war. Now, it just so happens that under modern Capitalism, it's usually been white men who were the Capitalists. What's that old Mel Brooks line about being the king?

[whathehell]

84. Sorry, but Christianity is no more "built on misogny" than Judaism or Islam

and Fundamentalist Christians constitute only a thrd of all American Christians.

[brush]

92. Seriously? They're all built on it. Guess you never heard of hijabs?

And aren't all those women televangelists and priests great ?

[whathehell]

97. Yes, seriously...Thanks for making my point, lol.

[Crash2Parties]

131. Adam and Eve. Also, in terms of sex/gender the Catholic Church is damn conservative

Conservative in the Catholic context = "women should be completely subservient" and "women should not be allowed control over anything, especially their own bodies".

Southern Baptists + Catholic Church = just under half of America according to Pew.

[whathehell]

136. The Book of Genesis which contains the Adam & Eve story is part of Judaism

Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2017, 03:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Orthodox Judaism separates men & women at Temple and contains a prayer in which the men thank God for "not making me a woman". In addition, women are required to cover their hair and take ritual baths.. I could go on, but I'll let you do your own needed research.

First of all, there s no formal distinction between "conservative" Catholicism and any other. Secondly, there is certainly no mandate that "women should be completely subservient to men" or that "they should not be in control of anything".
Like Evangelical protestants, they are against abortion, and "artificial" birth control", the latter being something 98℅ of American catholics ignore.

[Gothmog]

106. Misogyny played a large role in this election

[mopinko]

53. mommy issues.

[tammywammy]

121. Similar here.

A young guy at work, 25ish, voted Trump. And when he told me I raised an eyebrow and he said "well better than Hillary". I just looked at him and he said "she's a liar" and I said "and...Trump???" And he said "all politicians lie".

WTF? How do you counter that. Hillary's a "liar", but it's okay that Trump is a pathological liar.

[herding cats]

16. Yeah, I deal with these people, too.

With the exception of some anti-abortion and anti LBGQ rights RW religious folks, you've nailed the ones I also have to wade through.

Economically they're by a majority repressed, but according to them that's all the fault of the liberals, and tax and spend Democrats. It's never been due to their voting against the programs they rely on to survive, because that would go against what they've always been told to believe. It's difficult to express to people in blue states how brainwashed these people are now.

[not fooled]

52. Yep

Currently, I'm in Arizona (temporarily) after living my entire life in coastal California. For the first time I'm encountering large numbers of extremely brainwashed people who ABSOLUTELY believe copious amounts of nonsense re Obama, the Clintons and "liberals" but excuse dump's cataclysmic flaws. Fox watchers and Rush listeners all. The cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy as they try to condemn the mote in the Democrats' eye while excusing and justifying the log in dump's is just surreal. Their brains--including among some obviously otherwise intelligent people--are altered beyond the point of no return. 30+ years of outright propaganda and lies have brought us to this point. I don't see a way out as things stand. History will have to repeat itself with a major depression and war before these fools undergo a shock big enough to wake them from their brainwashed stupor.

[Cha]

66. Well said and described, not fooled.

I even call him dump, too.

Thank you!

[zentrum]

23. No progressive I ever

…knew spread lies about her. They gave her a thoughtful, fact-based critique.

No politician is perfect and pointing out true imperfections based on behavior and the record is not lying.

Really not fair to paint progressives who criticized her with the same brush as the Pizza-gate Benghazi-ers.

[yardwork]

24. Just because you didn't hear it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Highly progressive left-wing people sat in my living room and assured me that Hillary is almost as bad as Trump. That's not fact-based.

[Cha]

67. Exactly, yardwork... I've seen it all too often. No FACTS whatsoever

just spreading negative crap on Hillary.

[progressoid]

27. +1000

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. There were plenty of people who were legitimately concerned

about, for example, the Goldman Sachs speeches - not because they believed this to be actual evidence of corruption, but because it didn't seem to be a very good idea in light of the already existing cloud of suspicion, however unfair. I was one of those people. I never believed Hillary was crooked, and although I started out supporting Bernie I supported her 100% after the primaries. I defended her but I worried about the spin.

[NanceGreggs]

36. You might want to check out ...

.. a site called jackpineradicals.

The site was started by some disgruntled/banned DU Bernie supporters, later joined by many who left here when HRC was declared the nominee (and they could no longer post their BS about her).

According to them, Hillary is suffering from a half-dozen fatal diseases - and they constantly berated her for lying about her "condition" throughout the campaign. They also insisted that HRC had many of her political adversaries murdered, as well as many Democrats who were "on to" her crimes and were about to go public. They were all over the pizzagate story until they realized they were being laughed at for believing it. They also insisted that Clinton's "thugs" had beaten-up Bernie on the night of the Convention to make sure he conceded - and they threatened to kill his grandchildren for good measure if he didn't campaign for Hillary.

That's just the tip of the iceberg - there was no story about HRC they didn't spread, no matter how vile or how utterly ridiculous.

They self-identify as "progressives", and they spread their bullshit on other sites and on FB as well.

[Cha]

69. Thank you for bringing that into the light, Nance.. it really is mind

blowing the extent they go to spread disingenuous negative stories about Hillary.

Like they'll never be held accountable so why not? I feel they're being held somewhat accountable right here right now, though.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. I knew plenty who spread lies from usuncut

ANd other fake left 'news' website

[zentrum]

47. "Fake left" news is

...not the work of a real progressive.

It's more likely a RW front.

I'm talking about real progressives. The ones in the trenches. They actually really give a damn about actual issues---not just my team uber all games.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. Ahh ok. I meant the types of people who call themselves

Progressive and share fake news about the Clinton's on twitter and Facebook and we're lo key ok with trump winning because the dnc was 'so unfair' etc.

[brush]

94. You must be new here.

[zentrum]

113. As a matter of fact

….I've been seeing gratuitously snide from some posters for quite a while now.

[brush]

126. You're probably right. All those "corrupt, crooked and corporate whore remarks" must ...

not have been from real progressives, just people who played progressives online.

[milestogo]

25. So they're extremely gullible.

[yardwork]

26. Confirmation bias. They were looking for excuses.

[Fast Walker 52]

33. yes, also, she wanted your GUNS!!!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. Funny thing, Obama was supposed to have taken them

but even though he had eight years he never got around to it....

[Fast Walker 52]

41. it's almost like the rightwing just believes pure bullshit

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

35. Far too many people are completely incapable of critical thinking.

They NEVER ask themselves, "Is that plausible?" Nor to they do anything that resembles fact-checking.

There are two underlying reasons for this. One is that public schools, even many of the very good public schools out there, simply don't teach critical thinking. They just want you to parrot back whatever you're fed. Private secular schools are a bit better at teaching critical thinking, buy most parochial schools, especially those run by fundamentalists, completely abhor independent thinking on the part of the students. Home schoolers, ditto.

The second is religion. Even liberal Protestant sects can have an undercurrent of "Believe what we teach, don't question it." And it's a raging river in huge areas of organized religion.

And so young people are told by all the adults around them just to believe. When it comes to some of the pure stupidity that shows up on the internet, they believe that also.

Thus you get people who believe whole-heartedly in the points in the OP, as well as other points made in this thread. Plus, too many people were never, ever going to vote for a woman, not even Mother Teresa, were she alive to run for office. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was for a lot of reasons never going to be able to overcome that generic and intense dislike of a woman candidate. Someday some other woman will. I just hope that happens sooner rather than later.

[lancelyons]

38. Im sure progressives probably do spread false hoods but

Im sure progressives probably do spread false hoods but...

i dont frequently see evidence of this like I do from right wing entities.

[DawgHouse]

42. You forgot a power hungry, "will do anything" woman for the Presidency.

Or as they say in men, determined.

[IronLionZion]

44. Was this before Obama took their guns and turned them gay

or after the mandatory gender reassignment surgeries after killing all the coal and oil jobs?

We don't need very red, rural community in the midwest.

We need blue and purple communities in the upper midwest to turn out to vote for Dems in higher numbers.

[Oldtimeralso]

55. But there are rural, very red communities in the Midwest

It was Marion county Iowa where the Independence Day parade was led by the county gop chairs float flying the stars and bars.

As for your question:
"Was this before Obama took their guns and turned them gay or after the mandatory gender reassignment surgeries after killing all the coal and oil jobs?":

No it was after he turned all houses of worship to mosques and all were required to pledge allegiance to Allah.

[Tumbulu]

51. Absolutely my experience in the rural west and southwest

And unless and until the progressives figure out a way to stop this hateful propaganda from being the only thing on the am airwaves, we will continue to be governed by the alt right and worse. This has gone on way way way too long.

[George II]

54. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton was born in the Midwest (Chicago), and served initially in the South....

...(Arkansas) and yet her opponent was born and grew up among the "coastal elite", but that doesn't matter to them.

One grew up in a middle class environment, the other grew up in a millionaire environment, yet they chase "him".

[C Moon]

56. It suprises me everytime I see someone on FaceBook say

that it was an election of two evils.
Unbelievable.

[Willie Pep]

58. I suspect that people believed all of these lies because they were already biased against Clinton.

In my experience it is not just the poorly educated who believe these crazy conspiracy theories. I have an uncle who is an engineer and he thinks that the Clintons have been murdering people since the 1990s (remember the Vince Foster conspiracy theory?) and that Clinton allowed U.S. soldiers to die in Benghazi. He also believes that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation to soften up the American public for gun confiscation, that Obama is a Muslim and a communist and that he was nothing but an "affirmative action case" and had other people do his work for him through college and law school. This uncle also thinks that the Democrats want to put "hardworking Americans" in gulags as punishment for being successful. I have a friend who is a doctor who also believed the Benghazi conspiracy theory and thinks that the Democrats support giving handouts to poor people who then live in mansions, drive luxury cars and eat steak and lobster every night.

People believe this nonsense because it fits the preconceived narratives that they grew up with. If you grew up thinking that black people are intellectually inferior then Obama must have succeeded in school through the charity of liberal whites. If you think that all poor people are lazy and immoral then they all must fit the Welfare Queen stereotype and are out to scam the system. If you think that professionally successful women are all “bitches” who are ruthless and cruel, then it is easier to believe that Hillary Clinton is a murderer. On the flip side, if you think that powerful white men are destined to rule over others and that women are naturally attracted to them even if they claim not to be, it is easier to gloss over Trump’s bragging about groping women and other indiscretions as “locker room talk” or “boys will be boys.”

I mentioned that my uncle is an engineer and my friend is a doctor to point out that I am not sure if this is a problem with education. Both of the individuals I mentioned are well-educated and intelligent in an IQ sense at least. But they still believe in wacky conspiracy theories because it fits the narratives that they grew up with. In both cases they grew up in very conservative households.

I am not sure how you fix this problem other than through calling people out on their nonsense and putting an end to false equivalence in the media. The media is often quite bad at this. I am all for giving multiple voices a chance to speak but when one side is outright lying and cynically spreading misinformation they have to be called out on it. You will never convince everyone but you might be able to convince enough people to win elections.

[KingCharlemagne]

61. This really, REALLY, deserves to be its own OP and receive wide exposure. The

genetic origins of racism and sexism deserves a serious discussion.

[yardwork]

143. I've thought about your points a lot. I've decided that I need to speak up more often.

Looking back, I think it was a mistake to simply unfriend or unfollow people on FB who posted ridiculous lies about Hillary (and ridiculously positive lies about Trump, like the video of how he saved little kids' lives from cancer - the opposite of the truth about the Trump Foundation.)

All we have is the truth, but it's powerful if we each stand up and insist on the truth. It could become a movement.

[MrScorpio]

60. I would be surprised if these people could fine Benghazi on a map

FDT.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

62. Yep. I tried to convince people on some local online forums a few months ago...

that those kinds of ideas were incorrect/misleading with links to fact checkers and the like, but it did no good.

What shocked me was that several of them were reasonable about other topics in years past, even when the topics were political in nature! Even the liberal-minded ones seemed to despise Hillary Clinton and promote all kinds of crazy ideas like the Clintons were regularly murdering people!

EDIT: I went away with the feeling that those people didn't like Hillary Clinton for other reasons, but they didn't want to state them. They instead promoted falsehoods just to help take her down.

[ailsagirl]

63. And, in the final analysis...

"A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves."
Edward R. Murrow

[LaydeeBug]

64. That, and RUSSIA, because it can't be overstated that less than 1% in most swing

states swung this in his favor.

[Cha]

65. Thank you for this, yardwork! I've overheard similar

conversations from dumphans..

"She lies, cheats, and steals.. at least trump is better".. in essence

It's nauseating the way they get sucked into lies about Hillary.



And, our US Fucking Media only enabled..

snip//

Fuck you, members of the media.

Fuck your constant pursuit of ratings, of quarterly profits, of giving this tinpot cumdumpster a platform with which he can influence a large part of our country

Fuck you for buying into the idea that racism should be afforded an equal platform with equality, for calling a Nazi anything other than a Nazi.

Fuck your smarmy think pieces attempting to normalize a new hegemony, fuck your cowardice in the face of totalitarianism, fuck your CEOs and VPs and executive producers who are willing to feed the innocent to the depraved in order to forestall their own demise.

Fuck you for not doing your job.

https://medium.com/ChrisWarcraft/fuck-you-donald-trump-c644ae3dd94c#.ic2dae5n8

Fast Walker http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028414347#top

[Buckeye_Democrat]

70. I've heard people say about Hillary...

"Where there's smoke, there's fire!" in reference to the repeated Republican investigations (more like Spanish Inquisitions) of her and the right-wing media accusations.

Yet Trump's openly deplorable actions/comments didn't seem to bother them as much.

I don't have much education/background in psychology, but maybe there's a psychological aspect to it?

I've also seen African American co-workers act friendlier to openly racist white co-workers and they later told me, "At least I KNOW where they stand. It's the people who try to hide their racism that you have to look out for!"

[Cha]

72. They want to believe it.. they're repubs and it's easier to

believe all the hounding. The angelic repubs in Congress wouldn't have an agenda! And, as mentioned earlier.. it's the m$m..

If they did their fucking jobs and called them on their lies then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

As for people who would rather be around racists then those who are suspected .. well, whatever!

I must live in a bubble.. no friends or family who are racists or bigots.

Wait till the gop starts taking away their SS and Medicare.. maybe then they'll wake the fuck up.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

73. They weren't always Republican, though.

One guy repeatedly argued against various Republican policies over the years, very rarely finding fault with Democrats. Yet he was one of the smoke/fire people in regard to Clinton.

Lots of people didn't trust her according to various polls.

I'm looking for psychological studies on this weird behavior (in another window), assuming it exists.

People's perception of motivation could play a role too. Going back to my former AA co-workers, they would also say things like, "Joe's just an ignorant redneck" to explain some of his racist comments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/04/as-clinton-recovers-in-polls-trust-issue-simmers/?utm_term=.a41bec984dcd

In the latest full Washington Post/ABC News poll, conducted before the first presidential debate, just 33 percent of voters called Clinton "honest and trustworthy," to 62 percent who said she wasn't. Forty-two percent of voters considered Trump trustworthy. After the debate, a follow-up poll found more voters believing she had told the truth. But among the voters who thought both Trump and Clinton had bobbled their facts, more voters thought Clinton had done so on purpose.

[Cha]

74. I know.. the m$m has done a thorough job of getting

the Hillary hate seeped into their psyche..

Although.. This many did vote for her.. just too many believing the lies.. repub or dem.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

75. I'm pleased that MOST people voted for her!

My main approach has been trying to understand how she didn't win an electoral landslide against that asshole idiot!

Polls from months ago had me concerned, but I figured that she'd pull way ahead after the debates and after more people were exposed to both of them.

Flabbergasted pretty much describes my emotions about it, but curiosity too.

Comey's BS didn't help at all! I'm convinced of that! It's sad to me that polls showed a close enough race for Comey to have an impact, though.

[Cha]

80. I know.. right there with ya.. we were all shocked, literally,

on election night.. like someone close to us had actually passed on.. in my case and others I've heard and read about.

There are several contributing factors.. the hate on Hillary and lies drilled into the viewers for over a year enabled by the m$m and whomever else contributed.

The Russian hacking and wikileaks kept the m$m busy sensationalizing that while they were busy making drumpf seem normal and making racism ok and his being a sexual predator not that big of a BFD.

The Voter Suppession and Voter purging was substantial.. I read it was larger than drumpf's win in some states like Wisconsin.

And, I wanted to say one more thing about the "Where there's smoke there's fire" people..

That's a copout .. it only means they're letting someone else do their thinking for them. Lazy.. they don't want to think for themselves.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

81. Yeah. It was more shocking than Dumbya being elected twice for me.

It's not like polls showed Hillary leading by 10% in the days before the election, so I wasn't quickly shocked. It was more like low-voltage shock for many months culminating in a massive jolt on election night.

I'm very disappointed in this country. I'm aware of the many terrible things that have happened in this country's history, but I still expected better than this.

[StevieM]

144. I actually think that Comey did more than just tip a narrow race one way as opposed to the other.

I think he cost her 4 points. Without the Comey letter she would have won by 6 points, even assuming the race closed towards the end, and won by 333 electoral votes, about the same number as Obama in 2012.

Of course, the race never would have been that close if not for Comey's press conference in July. And he absolutely would have held that press conference, Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch not withstanding.

I don't even think that there ever was a legitimate basis for an FBI investigation. But Congress demanded one and Comey complied.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

78. It boiled down to this?

http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/12/the-illusion-of-truth.php

It seems too simplistic that just repeating a persuasive message should increase its effect, but that’s exactly what psychological research finds (again and again). Repetition is one of the easiest and most widespread methods of persuasion. In fact it’s so obvious that we sometimes forget how powerful it is.

That makes the media most culpable as far as I'm concerned.

They covered Trump's negatives too, but those negatives kept changing because it was always something new from him!

Hillary? Private email server. Repeated again and again.

Not to mention the 20+ years of smears. The smears tended to be focused and repetitive, however.

[not fooled]

100. Indeed

20+ years of propaganda...the 'pukes hated Hillary for not being a Stepford First Lady + realized early on that she was likely to run for president. So, they set out to "poison the well" by fabricating a narrative that's been endlessly repeated for the past couple of DECADES.

Despite this, if 'Murikans could think critically and were given factually accurate information, the strategy never could have worked.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

101. Critical thinking and facts...

apparently aren't even taught at Tufts and Harvard, at least in their respective economics and law schools!

I'd actually feel better if Anthony Scaramucci is just a liar!

[Gothmog]

127. Great meme

[R B Garr]

68. What a great thread. Can't rec it enough. This reminds

me of the first time I heard Rush Limbaugh. I had heard about him word-of-mouth but never listened to him during the day because of work. One day I had the day off and was looking forward to hearing him after all the fuss.

After listening, I was actually embarrassed for him. It was so ignorant and low brow and petty, snarky, pure lunacy. I thought for sure it would never last. I was shocked to find out that our military was forced to hear him on their radio with no alternative voice. Same with the Midwest. He was their representative voice. Your explanation shows that their special brand of idiocy really does resonate with the isolated flyovers.

Now Rush doesn't seem nearly as extreme as the outright insane and unprepared people taking over their party. Rush is almost mainstream now compared to the current creeps.

[R B Garr]

71. Another thing especially to your last sentence....

YES, that is why I found Bernie's obsession with smearing Hillary so damaging and unforgiveable. The way he held Democrats hostage with attacks on Hillary and our party only fed their ignorance since no one ever has to prove anything they accuse her of. It was difficult watching his prolonged ego trip that is now resulting in diminished security and lifestyle for so many.

[Hekate]

77. +1

[dionysus]

79. For crying out loud he treated her with kid gloves. I suppose he was supposed to coddle her?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

83. Like the time he said she was not qualified for office?

[Gothmog]

133. Actually you are wrong-it was the Clinton campaign who handle Sanders with kid gloves

Sanders was not vetted and was in fact treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. Like any Democrat elected president in 2016, Sanders wouldn't be able to get much done, but he would block attempts to roll back Obama's accomplishments and have a chance to fill a few Supreme Court vacancies.

When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?

But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.

His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.

Sanders was treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign because of the amusing over-reactions of the Sanders supporters in the primary process. It appears that you are upset that Hillary Clinton did not use all of the oppo research that was available. Sanders was a weak candidate and would have been destroyed if the oppo research was used.

[Gothmog]

134. Hillary Clinton did not attack Sanders because his supporters over-reacted

Sanders was not vetted by the press because no one in the real world believed that Sanders would be the nominee. The Clinton campaign never attacked Sanders because Sanders was a very weak candidate who had no chance of winning and because Sanders supporters over-reacted to any one not treating Sanders like a deity. A good example is what I saw at the National Convention I was delegate to the national convention and I saw the Sanders supporters boo Congressman John Lewis because they felt that Lewis was mean to point out that Sanders was not a major player in the protests. The boos were really discussing but the Sanders supporters felt justified in attacking Congressman John Lewis.

Do you approve of the Sanders supporters attacking and booing Congressman John Lewis?

[dionysus]

149. They both acted poorly on that one. Booing the guy was rude. It was also low

Of him to wave off bernies support of civil rights.

If you recall, people were saying betnie had a problem with, or didnt care much about, minoritirs or civil rights.

When it was pointed iut that back in the day, he indeed marched for civil rights, team clinton taps a covil rights icon to come out and pooh pooh his involvement.

Not a fan of either sides behavior on that.

[R B Garr]

146. In reality, Bernie was the one coddled, mostly because he was not vetted.

He withered under the lightest journalistic questioning when asked to substantiate even a couple of the main tenets of his campaign rhetoric. There was an audible gasp during a debate question about why single payer couldn't get passed in his small state of Vermont when he blamed it on the governor. He campaigned on a national single payer but couldn't get it passed in his home state. Then he blamed Democrats and Hillary for being against single payer when in reality they were seeking more realistic measures. He was given free rein to smear and divide Democrats with no accountability for anything he said.

[Jamaal510]

76. K&R

[hamsterjill]

85. Why do millions of people believe these blatant falsehoods?

Because she's a woman.

[blue cat]

88. I've heard all of the above. Details are always vague.

She was attacked for so long because they could see that she is so strong.

[ehrnst]

89. I think that plenty of damning fiction could have been easily created about other Dem candidates

Being that the rural Americans would have been very suspicious of the alternative, especially fear of "Socialists" got a fresh coat of paint for the last 8 years.

[TNNurse]

93. Like the song says

they "have been carefully taught to hate and fear" by a lot of really wealthy GOP operatives who only care about power and money.

Oh and the racists and small minded bigots they have cultivated and made to feel important. Of course no one in "power" gives one rat's ass about them except for their vote.

[BlueMTexpat]

95. It is those who style themselves

"progressives" that I detest the most.

"Traitors" is too kind a term for them.

[andym]

98. Not just rural red places-- low info voters were at least hearing these fake stories everywhere

Many I talked to who did not support Hillary Clinton believed the Benghazi stuff-- including otherwise intelligent men and women. Even Snopes and other fact checkers couldn't disavail them of the nonsense. That's the power of 3 years of GOP congressional investigations coupled with chain-emails and social networks. The FBI investigation had so much impact because it was reinforcing all the slander.

She would have won going away in 2008, because the GOP did not have much new ammunition against her-- 15 year old stories have far less effect than fresh news,

[Eliot Rosewater]

103. I have personally experienced these people and you are correct.

They have to "want" to believe this nonsense, though.

Their hatred of the black president is an accelerant for their hatred of Hillary.

[brer cat]

104. Good OP, yardwork.

[Gothmog]

107. No, The Systems Not Totally Rigged. But That Idea Sure Helped Donald Trump.

Sanders had no chance of being the nominee after Super Tuesday but continued his campaign which hurt Clinton. Here is a good example Sanders really hurt Clinton I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign

The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal

[LiberalLovinLug]

114. Except its NOT a bogus claim

The system IS rigged to favor the wealthiest. Do you deny this?

So because you contend that Donald Trump said similar things (although I don't think he really did, it was mostly criticizing establishment Washington politicians in some obscure way, not the corporate class they live off of) and that he was going to fix it - EVEN THOUGH HE WAS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH - it was Sanders fault for speaking about those same issues through an honest and integral looking glass?

Sanders refused to slam her for emails, or Benghazi, or other made up Republican smears and focused on things he thought were more important....Like the system being rigged! He did not bring that up on a whim, or more importantly to your argument to specifically attack Hillary, he's been fighting that fight for decades. You wanted him to shut up about it why? Because Hillary is/was caught up in that very system and beholden to that wealthy corporate class your solution is not for Hillary to disengage from those large donors, but for Sanders to just stop talking truth? That because the Don latched onto any and all criticism he could find against her, including the hacked DNC emails about cheating to win against Bernie, and used Bernie's message disingenuously as well in his arsenal, that everything Bernie spoke about was false or even if true, he should just STFU?

It was not on Sanders to shut up, it was for Hillary, and the rest of the Democrat elites to start to listen to their base like the ones that filled giant auditoriums for Bernie. Thank gawd it seems like they are starting to.

[Gothmog]

120. Sanders was rejected soundly by Jewish, African and Latino votes

These groups are part of the base who soundly rejected Sanders. The DNC had zero to do with the fact that Sanders was a weak candidate who was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters in the real world.

Trump quoted Sanders on numerous occasions and Sanders helped get trump elected.

I like living in the real world where facts matter.

[LiberalLovinLug]

123. "Sanders helped get trump elected"

and then

"I like living in the real world where facts matter"



So your theory is any primary opponent, if say it wasn't Sanders, but Biden or Warren, who gets close to defeating your chosen one would have to be the one to blame if she loses? Because Trump would have used anything they may have used against Hillary as well.

That theory should work the other way as well. Lets say Trump lost, which he should have, then Trump supporters could blame Ted Cruz for being too harsh on him during the primary as the reason he lost? lol.

[Gothmog]

128. In the real world in past primary contests, the candidates were all actual members of the party

Sanders was not a member of the party and ran for media coverage Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747

Bernie Sanders on Monday told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he ran as a Democrat to get more media coverage.

During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.

Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.

“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”

In past primary contests, the losing candidates all conceded when they were as behind as Sanders was after Super Tuesday. Sanders had no chance after being rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters but continued in the race by lying about his chances and attacking Hillary Clinton. Sanders was not trying to win the nomination but to gain medial coverage and to hurt the Democratic Party. Sanders succeeded.

Facts are good things and the real world is a nice place. I live in the real world and saw what Sanders was going.

BTW, I was also a delegate to the National Convention and I can assure you that Sanders was not doing everything that he could to help Clinton win at the National Convention.

[LiberalLovinLug]

142. Sanders was absolutely right, he needed to run as a Democrat

And you can thank him for that too because if he hadn't she would have lost by much much worse had he pulled a Nadar.

If he had not run, single payer would not have even been mentioned. $15 minimum wage or free college tuition. Neither the message that the MSM will never champion... the widening gap between the rich and the poor and what that does to the economy. Hillary would not have shifted much at all if he had not been so popular. And isn't it funny, no one is saying she lost because she was too left even after she adopted some of Bernie's platform.

Too many Democrat supporters have been like the frogs sitting in a pot of water as it slowly heats up. It has been slowly changing from a workers, middle class, party to a republican lite party. They have taken over the spot that Republicans occupied 30 years ago. The D leadership since Clinton #1 worked to woo the same elite class as the GOP had traditionally had a lock on. And they brought their members along for the ride. The whole, fighting from the inside theory, only it didn't work. They either got too comfortable and/or the GOP just turned up the heat in their own pot until their voters brains were fried and they'd vote for anyone. Meanwhile it split Democrats into confusion about what or to who exactly the Democrats catered to.

When some frog that has traditional FDR type Democratic party values jumps into the pot he causes a splash. He woke up many Democrats to have hope that the party could still right itself, no pun intended. He was acting more Democratic, than every other candidate. Who cares if he had to use the Democratic party in order to run a truly Democratic campaign based on creating a fairer more egalitarian society for everyone?

And that goal, which he calls "our revolution" is not just a primary fight, it should be a greater fight everyone with those traditional Democratic party values wants to continue fighting. We can't make the same mistake as the Republicans where the party letter is put ahead of the country. This is something some of you don't understand. Its his ideas that are important, which aren't even his own, they are just some of the better ones that exist in other countries. Like that the richest nation on the planet should be able to afford to have universal healthcare for its citizens if every other western democracy, and others as well, can afford it.

I pray that he continues and uses the media capital has gained to continue to fight for these values and against Trump. That he shows there is a better alternative to fascism. The other frogs have gotten too warm and comfortable and have forgotten why they jumped into the pot in the first place. He's a different kind of frog that remains cool and he will hopefully encourage more Democratic reps to understand the best most successful way forward.

I thank god for Bernie coming along, one small gleam of a silver lining in the coming ominous year.

[Gothmog]

153. So you are proud of Sanders efforts to get Trump elected

You appear to be happy that Trump was elected due to Sanders efforts. Are you prepared to see the ACA repealed or to see the SCOTUS become in GOP control for the next generation.

Sanders aided Trump in being elected and you need to accept the consequences. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=2671430

[LiberalLovinLug]

154. I can't argue with someone with such a vicious predetermined opinion

Did you even read my response? No comment on any counter point I made? This is how you help bring the party together?

The biggest most vile insult you could say to a liberal, a progressive, a person that believes in traditional Democratic party values, is to tell them they must be "happy that Trump was elected". So thanks for that.

Sorry that you have to enter the new year with such hatred for such a wonderful man, based on nothing but empty vindictive emotion, and against those of us that were gutted twice. Once when he lost the primaries, once when Hillary lost the general.

[Gothmog]

157. Then prove me wrong- the facts are clear that Sanders helped elect trump

Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2017, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Sanders had not chance of being the nominee and ran for media coverage. Sanders used his doomed run to get the most appearances on the talk shows but to get this media coverage Sanders attacked and hurt the Democratic party.

[Gothmog]

158. Bernie's platform was unrealistic and there was no revolution

Your analysis ignores that there were good and valid reasons for voters to reject and vote against Sanders. A large percentage of the Democratic base rejected Sanders in part because his policies were unrealistic and due to Sanders attacks on President Obama. . Sanders proposals are not realistic and would have no chance in the real world where the GOP would block such pie in the sky proposals. Sanders justify his platform by promising a revolution where millions and millions of voters would show up and force the GOP to be reasonable. That revolution exists only in a fantasy world and has not been evident in the real world http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution

He went on to argue that he's going to win because he'll pile up votes now that the contest has moved out of the Deep South. This is a shorthand version of an argument that Sanders and his allies have been deploying recently in an attempt to downplay Clinton's lead in pledged delegates – "having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality" he told Larry Wilmore, host of "The Nightly Show," earlier this week.

There's a lot wrong with this formulation, as Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times this morning. It suggests a world view redolent of former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's toxic pandering to "real America." In Sanders' case, he's saying that red-state Democrats should be discounted because they're too conservative. But that's simply wrong, Krugman notes: Clinton isn't "riding a wave of support from old-fashioned Confederate-flag-waving Dixiecrats," she ran up the score by scoring lopsided victories among black voters ("let's be blunt, the descendants of slaves," he writes).

And the fact that the Deep South is conservative should be irrelevant, given that Sanders argues the principle obstacle to his super progressive agenda is campaign finance corruption rather than, say, ideology. Either he's leading a national movement, as he claims, or he's not.

Thus more broadly, his attempt to delegitimize a swath of voters lays bare a fundamental inconsistency of the Sanders campaign: One of his basic answers about how he's going to accomplish his aims – whether winning the Democratic nod, winning the general election or enacting his agenda – is the forthcoming revolution. His super-ambitious agenda will prove to be achievable substance rather than unicorns-and-rainbows fantasy, he said Thursday night, "when millions of people stand up, fight back and create a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent. That is what the political revolution is about. That is what this campaign is about."

And that's fine: If he can summon the revolution, then more power to him, literally and figuratively. But the Sanders revolution is breaking on the hard realities of math. The revolution will not be televised, the old song goes; but it can be fantasized – and it can be measured, in votes and delegates. And in every calculable respect, it's coming up short. That leaves Sanders to bank on an anti-democratic sleight of hand to secure the nomination. That's not a broad-based revolution; that's a palace coup.

Here's why: Despite Sanders' recent string of victories, there is no sense in which he is winning this race. As The Washington Post's Philip Bump wrote earlier this week:

In fact, by every possible democratic measure, Clinton is winning. She's winning in states (and territories) won, which isn't a meaningful margin of victory anyway. She's winning in the popular vote by 2.4 million votes – more than a third more than Sanders has in total. In part that's because Sanders is winning lower-turnout caucuses, but it's mostly because he's winning smaller states. And she's winning with both types of delegates.

Sanders' revolution was not real which is why he lost the race in the real world. I and many other Democratic voters never took Sanders seriously because I never accepted the premise of his so-called revolution. There was simply no way for Sanders to come close to delivering on his promises in the real world. Sanders never generated his promised revolution and could not deliver on his promises in the real world

[LiberalLovinLug]

159. You're confused

"Sanders never generated his promised revolution and could not deliver on his promises in the real world "

Of course this is a correct statement.
but the reason this is right of course is that he did not win the primary. He couldn't "generate" that much from a runner up position could he? None of us know just how much ongoing support he could have generated if he would have won and the MSM were forced to discuss his forward thinking ideas.
Besides which, no one thought, or thinks, that this revolution will happen over night. But as has been proven with other issues like gay marriage and pot legalization, attitudes can shift in a tipping point way very rapidly.

Addressing your other post..you say:
"Sanders had not chance of being the nominee and ran for media coverage. Sanders used his doomed run to get the most appearances on the talk shows but to get this media coverage Sanders attacked and hurt the Democratic party."

1. He did have a chance. (And we will never know just how much if the DNC were working for both candidates the same). He may not have thought he had much chance when he started, but most do not. By your logic no one else should run but the one who is the most popular at the start of the primary season. Everyone else is just in it to get publicity for themselves for some kind of undefined monetary gain? I guess Hillary just ran in the previous primary just to sell a book.

2. What is wrong with wanting media coverage and to go on talk shows if what he was promoting were ideas that he thought needed to be discussed and are rarely brought up in the MSM? FDR Democratic ideas for the 21st century? If his ideas sounded good and drew an audience...why would he forsake them or accepting appearances just to not give the impression that he was treading on his primary candidate competitor's toes?
That makes no sense.

3. Coining his criticism of the D party, and by extension HRC as an "attack" is semantics. Obama is for the TPP, Hillary said she was not. Is she attacking the Democratic Party and the President! Oh my!. And he never wallowed in any of those unproven smears that the Republicans were using, he stuck to the same issues he has been fighting all his political life. It is the party that has shifted so far to the right that Sanders ideas are "revolutionary". Ideas that would be a normal platform in many western democracies. Do you think he embarrassed the party brass by highlighting just how far behind the times they are?

There was an appetite for a revolution. If Sanders had had an equal start, plus no DNC sabatage, who knows? And if he had won the primary, he would have been an alternative revolutionary to Donald Trump for many independents. And most every Democrat voter would also vote for him as did Bernie supporters vote for Hillary (right?). THEN this revolution could have taken off. Not overnight, as I said, but a slow educational process that would at the very least steer the conversation. And as with gay marriage and pot legalization, the more it is in the news and talked about, the faster things change. Even if not much happened during his first term, or even after a second. Its about moving the ball forward for all of us.

But he and the Democrats that he works with, did not win. But that is not the end of this revolution. You are confusing a primary slogan with an actual vision beyond who wins or loses an election. It would have continued with a Clinton presidency as well. It takes a village.

[Gothmog]

160. There is so much wrong in this post that it is hard to pick

I have many issues with the above post. The fact is that Sanders made promises that could never be delivered on in the real world. There was no revolution during the primary and if Sanders revolution was real then Jewish, African American and Latino voters would not have rejected Sanders or their rejection would not have mattered.

I found this statement in the above post to be espicially wrong.

Coining his criticism of the D party, and by extension HRC as an "attack" is semantics. Obama is for the TPP, Hillary said she was not. Is she attacking the Democratic Party and the President! Oh my!. And he never wallowed in any of those unproven smears that the Republicans were using, he stuck to the same issues he has been fighting all his political life. It is the party that has shifted so far to the right that Sanders ideas are "revolutionary". Ideas that would be a normal platform in many western democracies. Do you think he embarrassed the party brass by highlighting just how far behind the times they are?

Here is a good example Sanders really hurt Clinton I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign

The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal. The fact that trump quoted Sanders so often is all the proof that one needs in the real world

[LiberalLovinLug]

162. So once again...you do not believe that the system is rigged at all in favor of the wealthy?

You are living in a fantasy world much larger than the one you think Sanders lives in then.

I do.
And just because Trump or Cruz or Bush or anyone else may disingenuously try and co-opt a similar platform does not mean we should cower and shut up about those very real issues. Besides which, I don't agree that he brought up Sanders that often, and most were about how he was treated by the Hillary campaign, whether real or imagined. I never once heard him say he agreed with Sanders on anything. They were talking about two different things. On immigration they were at opposites, and trade agreements were an easy target as they were generally despised, and he never did actually mean any of that.

Sorry, we agree to disagree.

In a dismal year, Sanders was and is one of the bright spots of 2016. And the hope, now small, but still shimmering down in the dust that so many Americans were not put off by a Democratic "Socialist", if they actually got to hear what is meant by that term in a modern context for Americans. That was amazing that he continued to gain momentum even being shunned basically by the MSM. His yuuuuuuge rallies. And I am encouraged by the Democratic leadership now that recognizes, maybe late, of just how ready the country may by for a 'revolution' of sorts. And that revolution starts within the Democratic party.

[Gothmog]

163. I was a delegate to the national convention

I live in the real world. The DNC had nothing to do with the rejection of Sanders by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. I saw the process and the DNC had no role in Sanders being rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters.

I was a delegate to the National Convention and I saw the bright spot of the Sanders campaign close up. Sanders lied to his supporters about the math and did not brief or even vet his delegates. Many of Sanders delegates believed the lie that Sanders was denied the nomination in part because they did not understand the math. I was in the delegation where 20+ of the younger Sanders delegated marched into the delegation breakfast to demand that we condemn Hillary Clinton and vote for Sanders. It was not a fun time.

[Gothmog]

161. The DNC had nothing to do with the fact that Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected

Sanders. This claim is wrong http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.

Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldn’t figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....

According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.

Bottom line: The “scandalous” DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clinton’s, fed into the misinformation.

In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.

I was a delegate to the national convention and I saw much of this silliness first hand. This election was winnable but the sanders campaign did a great deal of damage that is the subject of valid commentary

[dreamland]

110. Because they read the Enquirer

When you have these fake news magazines promoting these fake stories and millions of shoppers reading their stupid headlines at every checkout counter what else will they believe.

[sammcgee68]

111. I have to say

I have always felt welcome here in the past. I was an occasional reader in the past but became a dedicated , everyday follower after Bartcop passed away in 2014 And recently started posting this year. Yes I also live in Trumplandia (Southern Ohio) and have supported Progressive Democratic causes since the Nixon era. The morning of the election as I drove to work I took it upon myself to count the Trump signs and there were just under 100 , the only Hillary support that I counted were the 3 as I left my own driveway. That said, just because I supported Bernie from the beginning until I realized the futility of continuing does not mean that I bought Hillary down. In fact I did everything I could in my limited capacity to help her, which is not easy here in Southern Ohio. I'm even shunned by my neighbors and friends, but I never expected it here at DU . Goddammit but it is Fucking lonely out here. If my (not past but continuing) support for Bernie Sanders means I'm not welcome here so be it.
What brought this election outcome on was not my support for a great man, but 20 years of constant pounding, lies and innuendos from the right ring and recently main stream media.
Thanks for letting me rant, it is lonely out here.

[LiberalLovinLug]

112. I'm with you. Way too much Sanders, and Sander supporters, bashing

At one time I was told that it was an 85% Sanders support on DU. Many left after the Great Purge where, even though it was a month before the nominee was officially decided, we were only to speak compliments about the front runner, and never dare mention anything good about Bernie Sanders being the better choice, or a small but dedicated new rules alert police force would pounce.

But I think many either stayed part time or as lurkers during that time, or came back after the election. So why do we still have this rabid minority of neo-PUMAs, a no more sorry lot of sore winners has ever existed, littering our pages and fighting the primaries....even though they actually won?

Keep ranting sam, eventually I hope these sore winners will get over blaming the primary runner up, no matter how much he backed her and spoke out for her after the convention, for the Democratic loss in the general.

[yardwork]

117. Did you mean to respond to my OP? I said nothing about Sanders.

[n2doc]

119. +1000

I don't know when the Clinton supporters will wake up and realize that progressives aren't the enemy. I hope they do someday. Like before 2018.

Just how many 'progressives' do rural midwesterners actually get to listen to?

[mtnsnake]

138. No offense, sam, but this is called hijacking a thread

When your post has nothing to do with the subject of the OP , why not just start your own thread, or at least post your thoughts into a thread that has something in common with what you're talking about?

[yardwork]

141. Thank you. My OP is not directed at Sanders or the primaries.

I know many people who supported Sanders in the primaries and voted for Hillary in the GE without spreading ridiculous lies about her. I'm not talking about them.

[CousinIT]

115. "We live in a world of radical ignorance" Robert Proctor

A new era of ignorance

. . .

Proctor had found that the cigarette industry did not want consumers to know the harms of its product, and it spent billions obscuring the facts of the health effects of smoking. This search led him to create a word for the study of deliberate propagation of ignorance: agnotology. Agnotology is the study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win favour.

. . .

“We live in a world of radical ignorance, and the marvel is that any kind of truth cuts through the noise,” says Proctor. Even though knowledge is ‘accessible’, it does not mean it is accessed, he warns.

“Although for most things this is trivial – like, for example, the boiling point of mercury – but for bigger questions of political and philosophical import, the knowledge people have often comes from faith or tradition, or propaganda, more than anywhere else.”

Proctor found that ignorance spreads when firstly, many people do not understand a concept or fact and secondly, when special interest groups – like a commercial firm or a political group – then work hard to create confusion about an issue. In the case of ignorance about tobacco and climate change, a scientifically illiterate society will probably be more susceptible to the tactics used by those wishing to confuse and cloud the truth.

. . .

Dunning and Proctor also warn that the wilful spread of ignorance is rampant throughout the US presidential primaries on both sides of the political spectrum.

“Donald Trump is the obvious current example in the US, suggesting easy solutions to followers that are either unworkable or unconstitutional,” says Dunning.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance

[DeminPennswoods]

122. Heard a similar story just today

A friend dropped over for a visit. I had to work hard to keep my jaw from dropping when this smart, educated person said both candidates were "flawed" and Clinton had done some "terrible things". I asked what they were, but the friend just said they wouldn't talk about it. I'm going to guess it was some combination of above or all of the above.

[radical noodle]

125. They heard that "flawed" argument

daily on cable news. Even MSNBC repeated it over and over. I blame the media primarily for this whole mess.

When your friend said Clinton had done "terrible things" but then wouldn't talk about it, that means he/she likely knew it was false but chose to embrace it anyway.

It is so much easier for people to believe something bad about a woman. I'd hoped we were past that, but apparently not.

[mtnsnake]

137. "Because millions of people deliberately spread the lies"

I occasionally have coffee with a friend who once in a while would bring along his right-wing brother in law. This guy, the BIL, is very intelligent, and he considers himself a political junkie, but as smart as he is, he spreads the most absurd lies about Democrats you could imagine. I know he doesn't really believe some of the lies he's telling, but he hates Obama and Hillary so much that he spends most of his free time spreading lies and propaganda to anyone who is naive enough to believe the horrible things he says about them. Many of the rumors he spreads are of a sexual nature. It is so unsettling to be around him that I finally told my buddy never to invite me for coffee again if he ever brings his lying POS brother in law with him. I refer to those kinds of people as breitbarters, the ones who are responsible for spreading dangerous rumors about Democrats. They are a terrible problem.

Other than leaving out the gun issue, your post really nailed it. Well done!

[yardwork]

140. Thanks! I did leave out the gun issue by accident. The NRA was busy this year.

[yardwork]

139. Thank you, everyone, for your responses.

I'm a little overwhelmed by the number of posts here from people who are witnessing the same phenomenon of disinformation being spread - sometimes by people who actually know that the stories are false.

Yesterday in my local paper a person commented under a story that they "voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt politician in my lifetime."

Looking back over the presidents of my own lifetime, which began during Eisenhower's administration, I'd say that Hillary Clinton would have come into office as one of the most honest and least corrupt of any of them - along with Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.

Here's to 2017. I intend to focus on gerrymandering this year.

[Goblinmonger]

147. "They don't know or care what the word deplorable means."

That attitude right there is going to win people over because, yeah, they're too stupid to know what that word means. Maybe that attitude of condescension plays a part.

[yardwork]

148. It's a statement of fact, based on my personal experience.

I think that the problem is just the opposite, actually. For far too long, informed people have been too hesitant to speak up against ignorance and bigotry. Fear of offending people who are engaged in deplorable behavior has kept us silent.

The correct response to bigotry is to call it out, as Hillary did. The correct response to people trying to hide behind the narcissistic whining smokescreen - "you hurt my feelings!" - is to advise them to grow up.

It's time for Democrats to insist on personal responsibility, beginning with an end to coddling bigotry and whining.

[ellie]

152. These people can believe

Whatever they want while I fervently hope they get what is coming to them.

[libdem4life]

155. She abdicated for 2/3 of the year. She never showed up to campaign in Swing States.

Against popular political meme, there never was to be a Coronation...Someone's Turn, as it were. American politics doesn't do that. But they do allow in showy and glittering political carpet baggers...which is my opinion of Trump. Most of his party couldn't stand him. He was a Long Shot, at best.

I'm sorry if some take this wrong, but I'm a Democrat through and through, and my postmortem is that, at best, she had very bad advisors and advice, or at worst, trusted only her own.

I'm still a staunch Democrat hoping that the party can find its sea legs before 2018. If not, it's going to be a long, hard slog back to power and principles that traditional Democrats proudly stand for.

[Rex]

156. From what I understand 80k Red votes in one state, equals 2 million Blue votes in another state.

Even with as such, it still to me does not explain the huge gap in EC votes. She lost, because the EC picked the blue blood plutocrat. They wanted Trump imo.