It’s certainly frustrating to read the reasons women give for having supported Donald Trump. In many ways, their rationales are totally predictable. In others, they are surprising. You see a lot of the themes from the campaign mentioned. The Clintons enriched themselves. She said one thing in public and another in private. She was a flip-flopper. She was crooked. She lied about her email server and Benghazi. As for Trump, he got credit for being honest and saying what everyone else was thinking. He knows how to build stuff and get things done. He’s not beholden to special interests. That’s all the predictable part.
On the other hand, the women in this sample aren’t ideologues. For the most part, they didn’t disqualify Clinton because they disagree with the Democratic Party platform. Some are protective of the police and don’t like how President Obama seems to have sided with Black Lives Matter. Some think the Democrats are too permissive about immigration. But several of them appear to be more aligned with the Democrats on policy. They have personal reasons for being mad at the Democrats, like the price of health insurance or the fact that their mom spent a year unemployed or that too many auto jobs have left the country and middle-aged men are working as waiters instead of in good union jobs.
One thing I know I really didn’t do in this campaign was to defend Clinton. It was difficult for me to accept that she would be our party’s nominee, although I accepted it fully even though I didn’t vote for her. Spending my energy defending her was generally just too much for me, however. I thought she could pull off a victory because I gave the public too much credit for being able to see through Trump. Nonetheless, I saw the main threat as the possibility that they wouldn’t. Trump was getting a lot of press coverage, and I thought it was most important to counter the positive attributes and narratives he was receiving.
The last thing I felt like doing was writing about Benghazi or her email server or (especially) the Clinton Foundation. That appears to have been a mistake on my part. The real threat was that Clinton would be brought down to Trump’s level and seen as equally unacceptable.
A lot of the Clinton bashing was coming from the left and from the Sanders camp, and I was often at least sympathetic to their criticisms. I did, after all, cast my vote for Sanders. I should have been rougher with these folks than I was. At a certain point, they were doing the devil’s work. Still, I refused to get into calling people “emos” or attacking “BernieBros.” I didn’t want to increase divisions. I still don’t think I was wrong to take the high road in terms of making personal attacks, but I should have spent more time pushing back at the lazy consensus among “true” progressives that Clinton was some kind of nefarious and dangerous candidate.
Obviously, there was only so much I could do. The election didn’t turn on my decisions on what to write about. But I wasn’t rowing my oars in an efficient direction so my efforts made less impact than they should have.
What I’ve noticed in the aftermath of the debacle is that most people want to attribute the loss to their pet issue or issues. So, some insist it was all racism or sexism, others that it was a lack of focus on jobs, others that it was the qualities of the candidate or the leadership of the party. If I had to identify the most important factor, it was that Clinton was brought down to Trump’s level in terms of trust.
How was this possible?
There are a lot of contributing factors. Obviously, the leaks didn’t help. The FBI Director made a huge contribution. The contentious primary caused lasting problems. The Clintons provided some ripe areas for criticism. The media was generally good as far as exposing Trump, but they still felt like they needed to maintain some balance and that resulted in a degree of comparability that wasn’t justified. The coverage of the Clinton Foundation vs. the Trump Foundation was particularly egregious.
But the biggest factor, I think, was that there just weren’t enough people (including me) who were willing to carry any water for the Clintons even when they deserved it.
I feel like they brought this on themselves. They disrespected the left for political benefit for so long that it was asking a lot for the left to go to war for them. In my case, I pledged after the impeachment process was over that I would never again lift a finger for their political aspirations. Even what little I did during this campaign often felt like a betrayal of that pledge. I had desperately wanted them both to go away forever, and they kept coming back to try to take over the party. I resented that and wanted to fight it.
It’s true that I resigned myself to the inevitable and was the good soldier, but I never got far enough in the forgiveness process, especially since I’ve always known that the real battle was not over the Clintons or policy or ideology, but over preventing what we have now.
What it all comes down to is that we needed to be united and present this election as beyond personality. It was about shared values and the assault on those values. We didn’t act like a team, so we lost.
I can blame myself, and I can blame the people who made this personal in the primaries. I can blame the Clintons for being bad leaders and inept uniters. I can blame the FBI or the Russians or the people who stayed home. I can blame the intelligence of the American people or the Fake News they subject themselves to.
In the end, though, the primary blame lies with the fascists who will exploit people’s worst instincts to gain power.
Now that they have power, I will not coddle anyone who I perceive as soft on fascism.
To the “true” left Clinton is always a nefarious and dangerous candidate. In the end though, the fascists took advantage of teh stoopid and here we are.
The thing about those women quoted in the NYT is that through their own language you can generally figure out who votes Republican all of the time anyway, and who really cares what they have to say in the end? They’re not persuadable, and that wasn’t clear before then their support of Donald Trump cements that.
Since a lot of them voted for Obama and a lot of them only reluctantly voted for Trump, and their reasons were generally indicative of “persuasion,” I just have to disagree with you completely.
I didn’t say all of them, I said you can generally see which ones are not persuadable through their language. I did not say all included were not persuadable. I’m annoyed that the clear Republicans were included rather than just talking to previous Obama voters.
Victoria Czapski for example. She is not going to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020 unless Trump’s polling at 27% approval in October.
It is what it is.
I mean, the subject is why women would vote Republican, of which Trump is but a subset.
That’s your complaint, because you want the subject to be as advertised, which is what is it about Trump (or Clinton) specifically that convinced them.
Fair point, but it’s just an anecdotal thing.
At a certain point to really understand the why you have to listen to the anecdotal.
You can only go so far with polls and census data.
An election is, in the end, a story with 100 million different characters, each with a unique explanation of why.
First, my voting history:
So, 18 or so months ago, an envelope in the mail reads “ARE YOU READY FOR HILLARY” on the outside, and my reaction at the time was … WTF!!! Then I saw Hilarity’s first public bullshit pitch, something to the tune of “I will be the first Prez with a set of ovaries !!! In the following months I realized that that bitch would say anything, to any one to get back into the WH. It was the “Clnton is out for Clinton” campaign. Then Bernie gets screwed by the Dem elites and that’s it. Then the fear campaign … vote for me or you will get TRUMP !!!! I don’t respond well to fear peddlers. Or maybe I do but not how they’d like.
So, what’s the score? No Repub … No Hillarity … the Libertarian guy is an idiot. Who’s left on my ballot? Jill Stein.
As for other people? The choice was between slow death and quick death. After 2 GENERATIONS of Dem neglect the public sighed, “Kill me quick! Get it over with.” And there you have it. Class dismissed. There will be a quiz. Where’s my apple? Make it an Ambrosia … fantastic apples!
There was no positive case for her on liberal blogs. It was all Trump is bad all the time. I made my own attempt at a positive case here. Meteor Blades noticed the same thing in conversation: there was no attempt at persuading Bernie people.
One reason people were attracted to Sanders was he had a positive agenda. He was FOR things. Beyond the policy issues, the THEME itself has power. It has been a core theme for Bernie since he won the Mayor’s race in ’81. My opponent wants to distract you: I want to talk about how we can make things better.
Bill Clinton used very similar arguments in ’92.
I have had multiple conversations with people since the election, some quite senior. The question I wanted to understand is if the Clinton people realized that their advocacy was very ill suited to win the hearts of Sanders supporters.
I have heard the following as a response:
The blame Bernie crowd is pretty much confined to the Peter Daou’s of the world. There is little difference in favorability ratings for Bernie and for Biden. There is little need for self-flagellation among those who stayed within the Party.
Caucus99 is another story – and I absolutely believe they helped Trump. They were a small group, though, and their impact was not decisive.
In the end, you look at your own behavior and ask what could I have down differently. I knocked on doors for Clinton, I worked legal protection for her and I cheered on cue at the Convention. In retrospect my time would have been better spent in Florida, where there was a shortage of lawyers in comparison to ’12 and ’08 and where the need is great.
But I did what I could.
No – I don’t think what we say in these comments matters at all.
Sigh. From the PPP poll writeup on 8/1:
I thought she was going to win by 10 because I thought the youth vote would in the end would break to Clinton. In fact, the battle ground states the opposite happened. Clinton actually lost the youth vote in Iowa.
No other option to counter bullying tactics …
To retaliate in kind … always!
A recent post of mine:
“Pls reconsider … after the debacle of 8th November, minds are clouded all-around.
I was surprised RS took time to cover this item on his blog. DT bashing is what helped
him get elected IMO, see Geert Wilders in Dutch politics over the years. More respect
for Bernie Sanders who stayed on topic, his very own policy statements”.
Today saw an interview with Lanny Davis to explain why Hillary lost the election in 2 quotes:
No need to analyze further: UK Brexit vote, EU Brussels elitists, austerity measures and a growing inequality.
Globalisation and destruction of middle class, small business, social cohesion, labor rights, and reduction of health care (NHS in UK).
Interesting that it was not “Lanny Davis”.
He has more call than BooMan to ask “What did I do wrong?”
Your choice to continue harassment and bullying,
I have only retaliated in kind as I promised …
You started this bs, You stop it!
Stated so more eloquently by Obama:
Statement by the President on Actions
in Response to Russian Malicious
Cyber Activity and Harassment
“These actions are not the sum total of our
response to Your aggressive activities.
We will continue to take a variety of actions
at a time and place of our choosing,
some of which will not be publicized.”
Enjoy! :-))
Just a reminder how we used to treat one another here at the pond,
yes indeed the symbol of frogs as illustrated by Martin's motto
of frogmarching the criminals, sitting in Washington DC, out.
One of the themes I heard repeatedly was “voting for Clinton because Trump is worse, is not a good reason to vote for Clinton”.
The HELL it is, because EVERY election is a choice between bad and worse. And as I keep saying, even as I was a Bernie voter, is that the anti-Bernie coalition of the DNC was Bernie’s own doing, because he was “johnny-come-lately” to the Democratic Party. All the anti-establishment crap from Trump (and Bernie) was just that: CRAP, as we are now seeing Trump appoint insider after insider to his cabinet and staff. It was all a lie, at least on Trump’s part. We’ll never know what Bernie might have done.
Commitment matters, and Bernie shows NO commitment to the Democratic Party having switched parties just prior to announcing candidacy, so why should DNR show him any commitment over their favorite?
Lastly, the election shows: Propaganda works. But we knew that, didn’t we?
Any attempt to say that about Bernie right here right now is a bald faced lie.
What, exactly, is a “bald face lie”? That Bernie switched to the Democratic Party just prior to announcing his candidacy (and now has switched back to Independent), or that he (properly so) had an anti-establishment message? The problem with that message is that Trump never intended on “draining the swamp”.
I do need to point out there certainly was not a strong turn out of democratic candidates for president. Without Bernie what would there be? Nothing really. That is a serious problem. Not only do we not challenge on local levels effectively but there was no one to make a good run at the presidential level. Bernie, independent or not, made a strong run at what some thought a democrat should do/be.
I totally agree. But, please, we’re not still talking about Bernie vs Clinton, are we? Because that issue was settled in the primary.
No matter how you feel about how great Bernie would have been, the Democrats got the candidate that was elected, not the candidate they wished was elected.
Bernie is in the Democratic party leadership or just below right now so saying right now there is no commitment is false.
You’ll note I said “right here, right now” in the original response.
He is? I grant that he WAS after Clinton won the primary, and I am pleased that efforts to elect Bernie got him a seat at the table. But how is he “in the Democratic party leadership” if he’s Independent? How does that work?
Maybe you should ask Chuck Schumer.
The WP story is from November. How is that “here and now”?
As for the Vox story, caucusing with the Democrats is not being a member of the leadership. See: Joe Lieberman.
Is it any less true now than it was 45 days ago?
You ARE aware Bernie Sanders is no longer a member of the Democratic party?
Please explain how a member of Independent party is in the leadership of the Democratic party?
Because he was chosen by the caucus unanimously to occupy a leadership position. He is outreach chair and that was listed as a leadership position since the election (when it was created). If you fill a leadership position you are in the leadership. It is a simple fact. That has been illustrated with his actions since.
Listed as a leadership position? Link please.
I’m not talking about committee assignments. That’s caucusing with the Democrats. See: Joe Lieberman.
Don’t really agree here but up-rating to counter lame-ass troll rating. Troll rating someone over hurt fee fees is a clown move.
Strongly disagree that
is a valid response to the clown move (ditto for tit-for-tat retaliatory downrating).
Evidence constantly on display here suggests I have very little company for either position*. But they are my positions, I’m sticking to them, and there’s essentially zero doubt in my mind that this would be a far better and more productive place if everyone adopted them . . . both of them.
*otoh (looking for more hopeful interpretation here), maybe more do share my positions than it usually seems; maybe it’s just that those who do share them remain invisible through not engaging in those destructive behaviors; while those who don’t share my positions make themselves very visible indeed by those destructive behaviors, skewing the perception of their prevalence. Or at least, “isn’t it pretty to think so?”
From what I understand, troll rating someone enough times could lead to them loosing “trusted user” status. That should only happen for genuine troll behavior, not “you said some shit I don’t agree with.”
. . . with. It’s the uprating unrelated to the quality of the comment on the merits that I disagree with.
Perceived “downrating/troll-rating abuse” has been getting lots of attention around here recently (most of it stupid and childish, much of it hypocritical in the extreme, e.g., tit-for-tat retaliatory downratings).
Uprating abuse not-so-much.
Ratings . . . ALL ratings! . . . should be honest assessments on the merits of the quality of the contents of the comment. (Noting that also excludes merely “agrees with me”.) Since the two lowest are explicitly defined as “troll” ratings (i.e., not just a negative assessment of quality), they should be reserved for actual trolling (granting that there’s some subjective “eye-of-the-beholder” element to that).
The rating system here is, at best, esoteric, at worst, just kind of weird. You get “4-Excellent” and “3-Good” both of which sound like a quality ratings (and fee fees are always part of that unless you’re not human). But then there’s “2-Warning!” (exclamation point) which sounds to me like it’s all about an emotional response–indicating that there’s a conflict in the making, but says nothing about the quality of the comment rated. And finally, not one, but two levels of troll-ratings: “1-Troll” and, for those that comment and rate comments a lot, “0-Mega-troll.” Those not only have nothing to do with the quality of the comment (its excellence or goodness), but go straight to use of a (perhaps trite) non-qualitative, and more than a little abusive, term of insult–likening the character of a person to a creature that doesn’t even exist in the real world.
If ratings are a quality metric, then “2-Warning!,” “1-Troll,” and “0-Mega-troll” don’t fit in the list. If they’re about a beauty contest (or something), the list should include “4-Wizard,” “3-Hobbit,” and “2-Jackass” or some such labels.
The rating system here is weird, and the reason it’s abused is because the way it’s written permits abuse (perhaps by design or tradition or something). Change the system to “1-Excellent,” “2-Good,” “3-Average,” “4-Bad,” and “5-Awful,” or something where the labels are meaningful from top to bottom. If the point of the ratings is to weed out subversive operatives (or whatever) then, add a checkbox or something labelled “Abusive” or something. Abusiveness is a different measurement altogether than a quality measurement like the Excellent and Good labels imply the ratings here are.
It’s a weird rating system.
The zero was because I interpreted the comment as a blatant falsehood. Not because of any personal hurt feelings.
Who to blame? I like Comey, the Russians and Hillary and her message, and the endless shit about e mails and Benghazi. Take your pick. I never wanted her, but I voted for her. And I voted for Bernie over her in the primary, not even close. There is not a bone in my body that could pull the lever for Stein, not least of which it is an empty gesture. I would like Hillary to go away now and live happily ever after with Bill. Just leave me the fuck alone.Their use by date and all the baggage are past. I hope, I really do, that they leave them alone and let this e mail witch hunt go.
I want to say one more thing about my personal Facebook page. It is infected and has been the past year, especially when I tried to defend Hillary. I never realized how many jerks I had as friends. But I have learned something. It is utterly impossible to change their minds. Trump is their guy and that’s all there is to it. And now it is rub it in time. Guess I am about to disinfect it.
RE: Facebook (and Twitter)
I think you bring up a good point. Normally, when you say “infected”, you mean hacked or virus attack. But this is a more insidious “infection”.
I’ve avoided FB like the plague for several years, just looking and not commenting, and have never considered having a Twitter account. I just don’t need that kind of personal affirmation.
I agree with the concept that we should not cut ourselves off from our friends whose opinions differ from ours. But what do you say to friends when the bulk of their conservative posts consist of, like today, “Look how this CNN reporter was disrespectful to Trump! Why isn’t that a crime?!” while liberal posts go something like “See what this gov’t social program does for YOU”.
At some point I have to turn off the fire hose of BULLSHIT and unfriend. I’ve already done that with a few gun nuts…
The problem with Hillary “going away with her baggage” is that the baggage was mostly manufactured. She did nothing wrong with her email server and there’s nothing wrong with giving bland anodyne speeches to anybody. The Clinton Foundation is very clean and is possibly more responsible than any other organization on earth for preventing HIV-related deaths, by making HIV meds relatively affordable for the most affected nations, which are mostly poor.
What happened was the right-wing noise machine, and the troll armies, were able to manufacture all this “baggage” out of basically thin air. Even many lefties ended up carrying their water, but the worst damage is from the influence on the MSM and right-wing social media. What they did to Clinton they’ll do to whoever we nominate in 2020, and that scares me.
Tell me about it. I tried repeatedly to get that across to my “friends”, a few were lawyers in the corporate world. When Comey came out the first time and said she would not be charged, they argued his own words proved him wrong by the language of the law. This past year has been ugly. Clinton will never be able to outrun the accusations. At some point you need to let it go. But it is baggage nonetheless because so many think she was guilty of something, even her supporters. No proof but who cares. In politics, your baggage is whatever people think about you and from Vince Foster, to e mails, to Benghazi, to the foundation, too many buy into the idea that with all that there must be something wrong.
Let’s not forget that few took Trump as a serious threat until later in the game. By that time he had gained considerable traction.
A lot of ppl voted for Clinton in the General and Sanders in the primary; didn’t want Clinton but, yes, T was/ is worse. But the ongoing “T is scary” campaign was tiring and annoying – yes, the campaign lacked strong statement of what she was for, leaving it to be read between the lines and reading between the lines was TPP, Wallstreet, no fly zone in Syria.
It was a mistake to think voters of the female persuasion would be persuaded by her femaleness – as often stated, she’s a spouse and got where she is by being a spouse. then she brings out the grandchildren -children of a woman married to a hedge fund guy – ppl can relate to that? not many anyway, pitiful. sadly, she had a lot to say about women internationally and if she’d chosen that route instead of what she did, could have made important contribution. who knows, maybe she still can.
that said [and the self promoting slogan “i’m with her” contrasted with Sanders “he’s with us” says it all], but that being said, the election was decided by middle class and formerly middle class voters in the Central States, few of whom are readers of this blog. What you might have done, is take a driving trip out there in the summer, as I recommended btw in a comment in the spring, and see how ppl live and what’s been lost since the 70’s to inform your discussion of the election. now there’s plenty to be done for all the ppl who voted for T but now will get the bait and switch as well as the rest of us. work to be done.
What work would you suggest in the red states? Serious question.
There’s certainly a lot of work to be done in the Democratic Party. The primary this year was not competitive enough; it’s not incumbent on any voter to go along with a pre-selected candidate. I honestly think people who blame Sanders supporters for choosing someone else are themselves a huge part of the problem.
Booman argues that we didn’t lift Clinton above Trump as a more ethical candidate. That’s true. But it’s also true that Trump was never brought down and that people still trust him more than her. Why? Democrats and the media should have been all over explaining why his businesses make corruption inevitable, using all the examples we are only now learning in real time. The reporting that was done never really hit the masses enough to affect the perception of his honesty. That’s a media problem for someone.
But to me the racism and sexism lie at the heart of it all, and I admit I feel more distance from the red states, and from the state I’m from, than ever before. They’re still gloating and I don’t want to talk to them. I don’t really want to travel there any more. Part of me would be happy if the federal government just let states go their own way on healthcare and infrastructure, and if the red states want to vote themselves into second world status then let them do it. I’d rather contribute where I live and where there’s a general consensus at least about what our goals are.
So I don’t know what positive work I could do there, or that anyone could do there. But if you have ideas I’m happy to read them.
good question, some thoughts: first is information gathering, to find out what the issues are with middle class and formerly middle class citizens in a given region of interest to you, where you like the ppl and can relate to them. voters who perhaps voted for T, one on one, talking with ppl to lay out the issues. work on something very concrete, locally. information gathering, and something positive. it’s good to work on something where you can be positive, i.e. ppl you like, an issue you care about.
depending what the issues are, connect with a local group or get together with like minded ppl to develop strategies to address the issues. a key point is that ppl understand the larger picture re: their particular issues.
will think about your question and add more
From what I’ve heard from ppl gender was way down on the list of what was important in voting [anecdotally] and a very large # were voting against the other candidate [would love to see the numbers on that]
like race, gender is not usually a conscious reason and is justified by other answers
yes, you’re right; I’d say gender was a factor for ppl voting against Clinton, but outside a certain visible percent (Gloria Steinem) not a factor for many who voted against T = if you know what I mean, i.e. they voted against T. there were some pretty virulent anti- Clinton bumper stickers with a misogynist tone (iirc I commented on this re: Central States early on).
You write:
“I will not coddle anyone who I perceive as soft on fascism.”
Great.
You “coddled” HRC by not actively opposing her.
She “coddled’…or is it “cuddled”…Kissinger.
He’s already hustling Trump.
The friend of my enemy is my enemy. The friend of the friend of my enemy is also my enemy.
HRC earned her loss. You say so yourself, above.
Do you think that her opponents somehow forced those memes upon her? Hell no!!! She actually embraced them with a hubristic self-pride that was hard to miss.
Just like she embraced Kissinger.
You say:
“…the real battle was not over the Clintons or policy or ideology, but over preventing what we have now.”
No, Booman. You are wrong. The real battle…now lost no matter what happens…was to prevent both Scvlla and Charybdis from further capsizing the ship of state.
You feel guilty?
I don’t blame you.
So…whatchoo gonna do about it, brother?
You will “…not coddle anyone who I perceive as soft on fascism?”
Great.
Good start.
Halfway there.
How about not coddling anyone who is soft on neoliberalism? Corporate-owned-and-operated government? The new fascism.
First step?
Publicly disavow any connection with or sympathy for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party and discipline the centrist downraters who are poisoning this site.
Become a progressive again.
Please.
ASG
Diplomacy is built on confidants.
Confidants may not have the same interest but they can be candid and discreet about what they are doing and why–up to a point.
The failure to bridge the Democratic Party and Republican Party divide with confidants (a deliberate GOP strategy) has made governing worse.
The GOP insisting that US diplomacy not build confidants with nations that are our “enemies” makes international relations more difficult. Kerry has done the best that he can under the circumstances; Obama has been restrained and cautious unless prodded by folks he judges have more extensive experience in international politics (i.e, those he vetted and appointed for political as much as qualification reasons).
There is no excuse for failure, Tarheel.
None whatsoever.
In war, it usually leads to either death or captivity.
In politics?
It often leads to wealth, rerely to punishment.
So it goes.
AG
Sometimes analysis is not offering excuses. US leverage worldwide has been hurt by overreach and persistence in wars of attrition, making the victims of those wars the people the US said it was going to “liberate”, and the division on foreign policy that grew so great that the GOP invited Netanyahu to upbraid the Congress just to spite Obama’s negotiations with Iran.
That’s the way it is, and Trump will have to deal with that loss of leverage.
Too often the GOP gets off the hook by operating consistent with Democrats’ asssumptions of their bad behavior.
“Become a progressive again,” says the Ron Paul acolyte.
Sometimes the world just flips.
That’s where we are at are now.
Mid-flip.
Get with the program or get burned.
AG
No disrespect, in that I think your writing in general is pretty good, but I doubt it could have had much of an impact one way or another in the last election as the people that read you are probably already pretty well up to speed on politics in general. The thing is, the average voter spends very little time and effort informing themselves about candidates and issues. As unfortunate as it is, many voters end up voting primarily on name recognition as much as anything and in that environment the celebrity status and the character Trump played on TV (“successful businessman”) was probably as great a factor as anything in his victory. As I have said before, after I watched an unqualified Arnold Schwarzenegger get elected governor of California solely on his ability to play a killer robot, I sort of realized that our electoral system is eminently exploitable by the right celebrity candidate, and Trump certainly fit that bill.
But the other thing is that I think Hillary Clinton just didn’t run a very good campaign for the swing & rust belt states- She seemed more focused on trying to pick up other states. Didn’t show up to Wisconsin, Wasn’t strong against TPP. Waffled too much on $15 minimum wage. VP choice didn’t help her there very much. Handled email gate poorly. I know, hindsight…
They had one fucking job, and blew it.
Now it’s time to take all that money and retire. Go to Davos with the rest of them.
Don’t go away mad…..just go away.
.
Did she actually say $15 an hour wage? I heard her say it had to be raised but not to $15. But, no matter, that and more are things you hammer home if you are a democrat.
It’s not too late to stand united, Martin. I read somewhere that the one thing Germany did not have was a united resistance. That contributed to the rise of the Nazis. We can have a united resistance. We won’t get there, though, as long as people continue to re-litigate the primaries and the general. Most people who supported Sanders in the primaries voted for Hillary. We lost the mid-west, and no amount of finger-pointing is going to fix that. I’m glad you’re willing to move on from Clinton-bashing. I can only hope more people can find it in their hearts to join you.
What matters now is that we save our planet, our Republic, our lives. If we can’t stand united, we will fall.
First of all this was no loss that better propaganda or better argument could have fixed.
What Trump did was psychographically-based narrowcasting of specific tested messages to social media users identified by a media consultant that uses psychographic tools on Facebook advertising and Twitter advertising media. Through this, they could use social media advertising (i.e. lead generation) data to target specific voters without canvassing and then target different messages to different people and places based on their analysis. Moreover they could do focus-group like analysis on their ads and pitches and rejigger the ads until they struck a chord for that location with that psychologically-bias audience. Then for much of the campaign it was matter of market-testing groups of ads. And focusing on the geography needed to win the electoral college. Moreover, in every one of those states, Democrats were coming from behind after having at some point during the Obama administration lost key state offices to Republicans. This is more obvious in Wisconsin (Scott Walker), Michigan (Rick Snyder), Ohio (John Kasich) than in Pennsylvania. Then they could roll out the finely honed messages over social media to their entire base during the immediate run-up to the election. And let Reince Priebus carry out an on-the-ground campaign from his resources (why he is now chief-of-staff).
You did nothing at all wrong but not suss out what the Trump campaign was up to. Mark Zuckerman has already taken notice of how his technology can propel one to political power. Look for 2024 (or some lesser office before) starring a similar use of Facebook.
Clinton ran 1992 all over again. The world has changed.
For downticket races, Clinton did not depress votes but suppressed the additional votes that could have changed some states. Failure to connect races except pro forma played big in North Carolina but Roy Cooper held some downticket races for Democrats, such as Attorney General Josh Stein.
I’m not sure that using psychographic screening of individuals is compatible with the “democratic” message that most Democrats seek, but we have to be aware of what the GOP is doing and develop more effective strategies for winning through having voters more clearly understand what Democrats are about.
That requires a major style shift in Democratic leadership and establishment at all levels of the political system. As well as more authentic commitment to what they are rhetorically saying.
It is easier for a jerk to match the walk with the talk (“I’m a jerk”) than it is for someone working of the public good. Especially in a zeitgeist that has replaced the “service” norm of the 1950s with the “I have the power; so it’s OK” norm of the last 30 years.
I don’t know why so many Democrats are still fixated on the Sanders campaign. It’s become more of a distraction from effective opposition than the Russian hacking story, which is getting TANGier by the day. As US information warfare, it seems the intelligence community has begun shifting to their new overlords, even the ones who will clearly out of their positions next Saturday.
A three-million margin in the popular vote for Clinton is not about communication but geographical strategy. How many of argued for a full-court-press 50-state campaign?
If you made any error at all, it was the same many of us made in believing that Clinton could hire and manage campaign staff in a way that she could win the electoral college.
Some call the results a “fluke”. By the business-as-usual way of looking at politics, it was definitely a fluke. The evidence for this is how the opinion polls missed it almost consistently.
Given that there’s a heavy “Big Brother” element in using psychographics to manage anything, voters will be less likely to answer opinion polls and perversely more likely to use their social media as usual without reflecting on how they data and metadata they are providing is being used and monetized.
That is the hidden political issue that blogger and the news media should start raising before the system closes in on dissent of any kind, including membership in the Democratic Party.
The public has been letting the government build those tools since 1947. And it has been stampeded with several political campaigns of fear into giving those with the power to use the tools more latitude, power, and exceptions from consitutional rule.
At the same time, the Wall Street media has shifted from mandatory public service under the Federal Communications Act to profit-center news operations aligned with drawing eyeballs and epousing advertiser (and owner) points of view.
Amidst that torrent, what is the Frog Pond?
You do know that the whole TANG story is in fact correct? And that it was all worked out, with documentation, before Rather even got involved? In 2000, before the first Bush election?
Well, yes I do. But what was presented to the public was so botched up with the provenance of the documentation that Rather got fired and failed to deliver a bigger story that was being hype several days before. TANG and the aftermath stepped on this story …and the proto-Breitbart gang was ready to pounce with the fonts charge, which allowed the GOP to organize folks who were witnesses to disclaim the story.
My memory is foggy on what the bigger story was–something about the US Navy I think. (And this was in the era when torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo was new and shocking (at least some members of Congress in both parties said so, including Teddy Kennedy and John McCain.)
The growing consensus of people who do close reading of these sorts of things independently is that we’ve not been given the entire report from Christoper Steele (if that was the source for Buzzfeed), that there are some sketchy things about the report indicating that (1) it was a cut-and-paste from other documents, (2) those documents should be treated as the sources (from 10 to 41 in all) and that some of those documents with 2015 timestamps refer to 2016 events. In some sense, some parts of the report are likely true and might also be traceable back to particular sources, who might experience Dan Rather types of reactions from Trump, Russian authorities, or Putin.
But mostly, the story has been a big distraction from (1) Trump’s transition actions beyond current norms and (2) the GOP caucus warming up the legislative juggernaut to undo anything Obama got past McConnell. It stepped on those two more important stories.
Unless the intelligence community wants to cross a Rubicon and meddle in the Presidential campaign even more than it already has.
Finally, the report does say that there were moles in the DNC and the Clinton campaign. (But that is as open to as much scepticism as anything else in the report.)
Diverting attention and anger from what is happening to our governmental system, ironically, is what the Russian hacking issue has been doing. Relegitimizing what should be a distrusted media peddling the same overexagerated stories is one result. Making an intelligence community that has been surveilling everyone without a warrant, a clearly unconstitutional practice, seem warm and cuddly defenders of democracy is another..
Try 2000. Before the elections. Before Abu Ghraib. Before Gitmo.
The network was repackaging a lot of things that already existed, and putting them back out there before the 2004 elections. Rather was just the name on the tin. And the product wasn’t even new.
Other networks were repackaging the TANG story as well. Rather’s importance is that he went on air with a document that was supposedly the smoking gun that proved W was AWOL.
I’m still curious about the story that was promoted by the network and then scuttled when Rather resigned (or was fired).
“Clinton ran 1992 all over again.”
Clinton’s target in ’92 was the white working and middle class.
I don’t think Hillary’s campaign could have been more different than Bill’s.
I hope this is the last post mortem I participate in as the lessons are quite clear.
Yes, there were tactical and strategic mistakes made. I pointed some out from my perspective, others from theirs. All together they tell a story which can be outlined and used as a guide in the next election.
But there is one GLARING element missing from all these, “should have, could have”.
Never, Never, Never nominate anyone with a long history of huge public disapproval and negatives. The baggage, the hubris, the insiderism, … everything. 6 months campaigning does not undo 30 yrs of public exposure and rejection by large portions of the public.
You can argue its unfair, you can argue that its “our turn for a woman”, you can argue the other guy is worse (which he is); but you know every voter has heard her name and made a decision years ago. Yea or Nay None of the slams against her would have stuck if many of those voters didn’t already have a predisposed negative view of her character. As been pointed out previously, much of Trump’ vote as anti-Hillary.
That is was as close in 3 states just shows how unpopular Trump is. A “Romney” Republican could have won 45 states in Reagan landslide.
And if it had been another Democratic candidate, the reverse may have been possible. A black man did it twice (though a lesser margin the 2nd time).
So, the party has to rebuild in local and state contests. And they need to listen to their voters; who often know what they want. Trump fed into the economic fear and frustrations… all the other stuff is secondary. He may crash and burn with all his baggage, but we can’t count on it.
Ridge
Exactly. I’d add a corrollary: Don’t vote for somebody in a primary because ‘you dont really like the candidate but s/he is more likely to win’. If people in your party dont like the candidate, how exactly do you expect the larger American population to like him/her?
The first part anyway. Maybe less so the rationale for it.
But, yeah, in a primary, vote for the one you think the best candidate. It’s what primaries are for.
Both of these points assume that because Bernie had higher approval ratings that he would have had a greater chance to win. What does it mean that he wasn’t able to beat someone viewed as unfavorably as Hillary? I think there’s probably more to the story of the election than this.
Trump had even higher disapproval numbers in the primaries and general election and managed to win.
But when you win your primary by around 4 million votes, and then the general by another 3 million, wouldn’t that indicate that the “American population” likes you just fine? (Purity trolls and RWNJ excepted)
I have been saying this since Kerry.
It was a big part of why the Republicans couldn’t stop Obama. A lot of his supporters were enthusiastic to vote FOR Obama both times. When your party as a whole is amped up to vote for someone that shines through and makes people want to be part of that.
As I noted above, I think the past imposed limitations on the campaign she was able to run.
It probably did. She was hamstrung by her and Bill’s history and the right’s reaction to it. Someone else would have been freed of that burden.
I have inveighed about the primary process and the institutional slant toward her candidacy. Perhaps they will learn something for the next round. It was all seen as a strength and grossly misread the public sentiment.
Oh well, the horse is dead enough. A portion of the vote for Trump was a protest against being saddled with another Clinton; and an unlikeable one at that. Probably enough to swing the election. Comey, Russkies, voter intimidation are only effective on the margins. If you have millions fighting their way to the polling place with fervent desire to cast a vote for a candidate, then you have a winner. If they trudge out of civic duty and a “lesser of two evils” attitude; then you have a slight winner or a slight loser: susceptible to vote fiddling and propaganda.
R
Thank God we defeated the corrupt warmonger in bed with Goldman Sachs. The world’s a safer place, and on track to be a less unequal one.
You thought that Golman Sachs hadn’t put stakes on both sides?
Then you better start with not coddling HRC who will be legitimizing Trump at the inauguration. Whatever she wants to call it patriotism or leadership etc. the effect is to confer additional legitimacy on him.
Obama, he has to be there. No choice. He has done — is doing — what he can as President to blunt the problems. He’s going to try after he’s president. I don’t think it will work because the good guys always lose in the real world but it’s a worthy cause and if he can pull it off will help.
As to harsher, well I voted third party because nalbar was an asshole all year. Twice I was almost ready to declare my vote for HRC (after debate #1, after the convention) and each time he said something so enraging that I just couldn’t do it. In short, if you were harsher it just would have backfired.
Link, please.
.
What does it matter? You’re going to defend it or refused to acknowledge it was in any way counterproductive. I’m going to continue to insist they pissed me off and were just a piece of something you had done this whole year.
For instance:
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2016/7/25/173350/225/6#6
or this
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2016/7/26/153826/238/12#12
or this (calling Marie3 a republican)
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2016/7/27/135658/014#134
Or maybe it was your signature that was designed with the express purpose of pissing off Sanders supporters. Pick whatever you want and re-read the threads in context.
All in July. Heh. So just a gratuitous insult. No matter where you look, I never called anyone an asshole, which you just did.
If those comments caused you to prefer a third party…. you’re beyond hope.
I stand by them.
.
Do you know why I chose those comments? Because they were made during the convention.
Hey…you looked for an excuse to vote third party, and you found one. You looked for an excuse to call me an asshole in this comment section…and you found one.
Pretty weak tea in those links…..but if in some small way I have helped you find what you really wanted and needed…then I’m happy that you are happy.
.
You decided your vote based on your perception that somebody here was mean to you!?!!?
Wow. Just wow.
Actually little of it was directed at me personally.
(Is it really necessary to insert </snark> here? I guess somebody-or-other’s law says so, so there you have it.)
I would argue that these forums do great damage to party unity and enthusiasm.
Not like it mattered in Minnesota.
In Wisconsin, of course it did, so I voted for Hillary, because it mattered here in Wisconsin. If she were actually, clearly going to have won Wisconsin, I might have voted third party as well so as to diminish her mandate. I surely didn’t want her going back all third-way as she likely would have with a landslide.
I can’t help but find that amusing. You were forced into voting third party by someone’s comments on a blog. Maybe we really do deserve Trump.
Of course we deserve it. But think how much life would suck if everyone got just what they deserve. I’m not saying I was forced in to anything.
The thing is, most people vote emotion. They don’t dispassionately analyze, they don’t vote on principles. If we can’t deal with that fact and use it FOR us, we’ll never win.
But you just said that you aren’t part of we.
I knocked on doors for the local state rep democratic challenger. I did the same for the democratic congressional challenger. I voted down ticket for Democrats. Because I voted absentee I even was able to look up the judges and vote for those with strong democratic leanings or appointed by democrats and not for those appointed by republicans.
How would you describe that.
You voted based on nalbar.
I have no smart things to say to you in response.
Fair enough.
Well, this whole election cycle will be a case study in cognitive dissonance so I don’t really blame you for losing perspective.
The thing I want people to realize is that the lack of cohesion, unity, and vulnerability to exploitation unique on the left is not going away simply because the Clintons are longer relevant politically.
The left blew a big opportunity in 2016. We can comfort ourselves all we want with hypotheticals and the blame game but the reality is that progress will be set back tremendously over the next four years.
This.
There were plenty of people looking for an excuse….any excuse at all, to shove it to America…which is really what a third party vote was. While kind of interesting that any of those three comments were the excuse needed…it’s not at all surprising.
I’m sure it’s no surprise to many here that I don’t hold Sanders in higher regard than I do Clinton…and Vice versa. Both are average politicians. But believe it or not…I held my tongue..particularly after the convention.
July? Heh.
.
So many things went wrong, and given the devastating results, it is absolute torture to think, if only I/we had…I’m done with it.
These women had their reasons, some crazy, some logical given their individual points of view, however misguided. But given their assumptions that led them to Trump, its clear that the main reason Clinton lost was due to the effectiveness of the decades long anti-Clinton propaganda campaign and the dissemination of its messages by the media. Evidence of its effectiveness can be measured not just to the degree that voters absorbed it as “truth” but also to the extent that the believers felt they came to these views independently through their own “critical” analysis.
Russians, Comey, the disillusionment of Sanders supporters/progressives, Clintonite arrogance and complacency, campaign missteps can all be considered factors, but anti-Clinton propaganda won the day for the fascists.
Definitely. Which is one more reason primary voters should not have picked her (note: this is not saying they should have voted for Sanders, there should have been more candidates).
Sure. Who would these candidates be? Biden? Warren? Booker? Some unknown? Who? And would the outcome have been different?
A lot of things would have been different so it’s hard to say. It might have prevented a two-sided protracted battle. It’s possible the fundamentals would have forced a narrow loss on any democrat. Or it’s possible that absent decades of attacks on the nominee defining them in the minds of voters would have gone differently.
If you give in to the decades of attacks on the nominee, you are letting the ratfuckers win. I am not willing to do that.
Well they won anyway.
Political attacks are a fact of life. She had decades of it to try and change folk’s minds in a few months was folly. Her negatives were the highest in US history, except for Trump. To try and force her down the electorate’s unwilling gullet was arrogance of a unknown magnitude. It might have worked, but she made more campaign mistakes than he did.
The wrong person at the wrong time. As she was in 2008. All her flaws and negatives were known then and on prominent display. The primary process picked the right person then, against all notions of US citizen’s racial prejudice. The wrong person came out on top this time with all the known flaws. why?
To me, this is the main thing that has to be addressed. I do not believe that the country is in love with Trump and his brand of capitalism, or the GOP and their brand of governance. But they liked HRC less. Hell of a thing to say. Trump seen as a lesser evil than Hillary; but that’s what I heard on the ground.
R
RE:
His negatives were persistently higher.
More people voted for her.
Facts: Still stubborn. Still things.
Yes more Numbers of people voted for her in concentrated areas, but not geographically. And Presidential elections are 50 state elections. One of the memes going around that Trump won states with 55% of the population, HRC won states with 45%. I’m not interested enough to add it up.
But that was the game from day 1. Everone knew it, and to now say, “she won more votes” (concentrated in fewer areas), doesn’t matter.
Her negatives where high enough for people in critical states to pick Trump over her. That’s all that matters and can’t be spun any other way. If that wasn’t the case, all the paid Russian trolls, hackers, FBI press briefings, spittle covered microphones of RW radio wouldn’t have made a real difference.
I wish her all the best in her retirement, as long as it stays away from Democratic politics. She is done.
R
It does matter. It matters a great deal as a counterpoint to Trump and the Republicans as they go about removing the safety net. Plus, mentioning it bothers the shit out of them.
Why oh why would you want to dismiss one of the weapons against Trump, when we need every single one?
.
As a weapon, vote plurality has limited use as a majority of Congressmen and Senators come from states she lost. As they want to be re-elected, they will be catering to their constituencies. The way to slow Trump until we are in a position to reverse acts is to confront those congressmen/women ON THEIR HOME TURF with demands that ACA, SS, Medicare, Medicaid be protected. Repeated, organized local resistance.
Saying that HRC got more votes in Southern Calif or DC suburbs won’t mean a hill of beans to a congressman in NC whose district doesn’t include the Triangle.
Because of the Internet and national media, its assumed that the US is one big constituency. That is incorrect. It is a collection of regions; of which states are the largest elements. So the vote in Oregon means nothing in Georgia.
This regionalism can be overcome with the right politician endorsing the right themes at the right time. She wasn’t it.
So if you want to resist Trump, the lack of plurality grates on his ego and is a talking point in Washington media green rooms, but without the votes in Congress, it means little.
To change, organize locally and confront the Congressmen in their home districts. Get new blood in local Democratic Committees. Inject some reality into their choices. There has been an overall institutional failure in the National Democratic Party, which has seeped down to the state levels.
What do they say in sports? Its a rebuilding year. Maybe longer.
R
Period. Full stop.
The “one acre, one vote” “democratic” “principle” you’re espousing is a favorite of rightwingers whenever democracy doesn’t get them what they want (because they’re insane/Reality-denying extremists whose radical agenda, if honestly described, consigns them to permanent minority status; hence their massive voter suppression campaign and gerrymandering to thwart democracy).
(That said, the Founders DID build some of that deviation from the actually democratic principle of one person, one vote into structures like Senate composition and the Electoral College, giving undemocratically disproportionate representation to some more-equal-than-others voters.)
But back to the original point: you made two false statements. I presented the facts that refute both. Nothing to do with anything being “spun away”.
Finally, not to pick on you in particular, this just has me thinking about it:
Hillary’s been a “dead horse” since 11/8/16. The compulsion of some here to keep the flogging up anyway (’til what? morale improves?) has been a remarkable (and depressing) thing to witness. Jus’ sayin’.
There is a larger context here.
All over the industrialized World the centrist establishment parties are in retreat. The UK voted against membership in the EU against the suggestions of both major parties. In France the governing Socialist Party is so weak it is unlikely the left will even make the second round.
Against that backdrop, Clinton was the wrong candidate at the wrong time. And she did not help herself.
Obama is not viewed as part of the status quo in the same way that Clinton was. This is why there is such an enormous gulf in their numbers among the young.
“His negatives were persistently higher.”
As I pointed out. But her negatives were high enough to lend credence to all the accusations as to cast doubts toward her character. That is an element for her loss. Not the only element but a part.
Legally, the plurality question has no standing. Politically, it has little force in the nation as a whole.
As I addressed in another response. There is a way to slow the main thrust of GOP towards the ACA, SS, Medicare, Medicaid. Some are working toward that now.
But if you want vote plurality to attains some real world consequence, then start a movement to change the Constitution. Until then, deal with the system we have in place.
R
with the counter-factual assertion that “[the country] liked HRC less.”
The facts just don’t support that.
I find little to object to in most of the rest of what you’ve written in this sub-thread.
You made many valid points, most of which I agree with, including good ideas for going forward, and did it without further counter-factuals or Hillary-flogging.
Good on you. See? Distortions of reality aren’t required to construct a sound argument. That’s my main point and original objection.
I do endorse nalbar’s point that keeping front-and-center the fact that more actual humans nationwide actually voted for Hillary matters. Expanding a bit on nalbar’s point (and also responding to your reply to it): it’s not that this matters because it will be a persuasive datum to rightwingers (duh!), including congresscritters. It matters because it’s a valid argument against Trump/GOP pretense that they received a mandate to do what they’re about to attempt. Obviously, they’re not going to acknowledge that. It’s not about persuading them. It matters for making an argument to the public that could bring pressure on them; including bucking up our supporters (as Bernie and others are doing around the country today re: Obamacare).
I also continue to object to the surrender to rightwing ratfucking that some of your statements suggest to me.
Booman, I’m intrigued and surprised by your sense of personal responsibility regarding the results of the last election.I visit your site regularly because I think you generally offer a clear, reality based view of our politics, plus you are from my neck of the woods which is a plus.
My pov on this past election is that it may represent the high water mark for the conservative backlash to FDR. They been more committed to achieving power thru any means necessary.Their willingness to attack and destroy any threat to their plan to take us back to pre FDR America always has included personal attacks. I dislike the Clintons but give them some credit for recognizing how pervasive the “right wing conspiracy” has been and continues to be. I find some of the policy choices they made over 30+ years very ugly but can’t find anyone with an extended service on a national level who is any more “perfect.”
Hillary’s approval ratings in late 2012 were in the mid 60’s. Four years of relentless attacks later,she could still get 2.7 million votes more then DJT, just not distributed in the way needed to win a presidential election. A small detail with major consequences.
I felt the choice to paint Trump as NOT a typical Republican was a gamble. I thought they were sacrificing down ticket to give the top of the ticket it’s best chance. It looks like it was one of a couple poor choices made in an election that was razor close.
Now the other side will govern like they won by 3 million votes, they will screw things up in ways Hilary could never have approached and I feel powerless to do anything more then symbolic gestures.
But I don’t think she lost because you didn’t stand up for her. This is Amerika, every “product” has a limited shelf life. The Democratic elites (people like Ed Rendell who cost us a senate seat in 2010 and 2016) are to blame. What saddens me even more then the idea that Trump is my president is that Chuck Schumer is the leader of the opposition.His job was to get the senate under Democratic control,he failed, move on, who is up next.
The forces that toppled Hillary were stronger then the base of support she built over 30 years in public life. That is on Bill, Hilary and the Democratic establishment more then you.
I still think the rise of social media is what did the trick for trump. Politics as entertainment and the endless useless polling, analysis and BS that passes for political commentary turns people off. I can’t even watch tv news anymore. It’s all politics all the time. Interview after interview with political hacks who have been saying the same thing for years now. There is literally nothing new being said or written. Nothing. We’ve heard it all before thousands of times.
That’s what’s wrong. Too much BS published and broadcast 24/7.
It’s far cheaper for the profit-obsessed network suits to just have show after show of party hacks spouting off in the studio than to hire actual reporters and send them out into the country and overseas to do actual reporting on important topics.
Want to know what’s going on in the world outside of the politics of DC? You won’t get much watching Msnbc or CNN or Faux. And when foreign relations issues are discussed there, the reporting and analysis seems to go through a heavy-handed pro-Pentagon/CIA censor, resulting in only a very narrow range of points of view being presented.
I have cut way back on Msnbc — it’s show after show in the evening with the same old same old. And one liberal host after another taking the party line on the recent Trump-Russia unproven nonsense delivered by our IC.
Like a plane crash, there’s multiple failure points that all had to line up perfectly to keep a 3M popular vote winner from winning the electoral college. This is a complicated story that is st the confluence of multiple themes:
All this talk about Hillary clearing the field ignores the fact that there was no field to clear. The bench is not just weak, it was non-existent. Name one Democratic senator or governor who could have won – not Bernie, not O’Malley, not Jerry Brown, not Cuomo, not Biden. Including Hillary 4 of these 6 folks are 68 or older. Who else was ready in 2015 to give it run?
4. The lizard brains went on overload after Obama combined with black lives matter, LBGT rights and a female candidate.
Just from the news stories/NFL ratings you could see that even the white straight folks who went with the black man for 2 terms were basically thinking, what? We gave you the presidency for two terms and we’re just getting used to gay marriage – that’s not enough? Now you want a woman who doesn’t share our values to be president AND we’re supposed to stop shooting your black kids, your black husbands, and your black women even though they never really belonged here (in my neighborhood) in the first place?
It was too much for these folks.
A deeper more geographically diverse bench, Hillary doesn’t get the nomination.Smarter people making smarter appointments, Comey or any Republican, is not heading up the FBI. Without the NFL protests the white backlash is contained at a lower level.
I would point out that the negative press on Clinton and the BernieBro stuff were only reinforcing themes on the main 4 I outlined, without the four main themes the media doesn’t have a thing to work with.
Bloggers don’t even rate a mention as far as I ‘m concerned so I wouldn’t beat myself up too much if I’m any blogger.
Just like the Obama senate election proved that an empty suit with an R after the name on the ballot can get 27% this election proved beyond a doubt that the Republican Party is a cult rather than a political operation. I thought Bush II had strongly suggested it but never thought it would be this bad.
Think of any circumstances where a Democratic candidate is caught on tape about sexual assault, documented evidence of stiffing people, admits to not paying taxes, has a 25 year younger wife with nude pictures all over the Internet, petty, uncontrolled tweeting, clearly loves Putin and had his chief advisor on the Russians indirect payroll, and just an obviously defective human being somehow getting the nomination – 27% would be the ceiling, not the floor.
Yet people who proclaim the virtues of patriotism, honesty, integrity, and accountability (until Bush II at least) and profess their absolute fidelity to ‘family’ and ‘religious’ values voted for the ‘anti-matter’ to these suddenly extremely ‘flexible concepts.’ In such numbers to turn PA, MI, and WI red from blue.
Those sick fucks who can reconcile those actions in the vacuums where their brains should be are the real perps in the immorality play.
Your points are very spot-on.
I would add that waaay back in 92 Republicans easily figured out that HRC was one day going to carry the banner for the DP. The incessant attacks on her were not some sort of “Hillary derangement syndrome” — rather, they were very calculated political moves, designed to render her vulnerable to ANY republican candidate. (Added plus, the repub base just loved them some Hillary bashing.)
You’re both spot on in your comments.
But a ‘deep bench’ would include people some would find insufficiently progressive, and any candidate from true blue states would be defined as capitalist hating commies by the lizard brains.
.
I keep bumping up against your #3.
We’ve been doing something very wrong for years, in ways that goes far beyond Clinton or Comey or the electoral college. With a smart, competent, charismatic, informed president, the best we’ve seen in my lifetime, leading the party for the past eight years, we got fucking decimated.
Why?
The election was lost the day Obama appointed Comey to the FBI. Democratic presidents appointing Republicans to the Daddy jobs has got to stop. Obama cost Clinton the election. Full stop.
Very few people seem willing to mention this. Comey was a known partisan asshole long before he was nominated and confirmed. Confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate, BTW. Has anyone asked Obama why he appointed a known partisan hack as FBI director?
Comey embarassed himself but he didn’t force HRC to set up her own email server or start the left/right wing craze over HRC-related emails.
This is one of those times when I wish we could borrow from the Putin playbook: once a year he holds a 3-4 hour televised Q&A with the public, all sorts of topics addressed. Over here however we get, or before Trump used to get, several P press conferences, which have increasingly gotten narrower over the years wrt issues covered. This is not a Q our corporate press would likely ask.
Another good system which tends to at least offer the opportunity to address such questions is the British PM weekly Q&A with members of Parliament.
My take is that a) it was just Obama once again naively trying to placate his political opponents, as he did so often, and b) Mr Hope and Change was really far more of a Mr Status Quo guy all along.
He has one more presser left, but I wouldn’t bet much that this question will be raised, though he might get a What are your biggest regrets? question.
Putin’s press conferences are not press conferences. They’re pep rallies. We might see ours devolve to the same level soon enough, so maybe you’ll get your wish.
I didn’t mention Putin’s press conferences. He has those, how often I’m not sure (probably sufficiently frequent, no worse than the irregularly scheduled ones here), and am not familiar with the degree to which contrarian or confrontational Qs from the press are heard.
I was referencing his annual Q&A with the public, televised before a large live audience (no doubt carefully screened, few hostile questioners among them), also with Qs from Skype/internet. From what I’ve seen, these are rather surprisingly wide open affairs, and not all Qs are flattering soft balls. However, it is Russia, and he is a very popular president.
Just saying I’d like to see that here. Once or twice a year, 2-3 hours each, major events widely televised. Get rid of the recent tradition of presidential Saturday morning speechmaking, no one watches anyway.
Including several that you mentioned, it’s not hard to come up with a list of possible contenders were the 800 pound gorilla not in the running:
Dannel Malloy (CT governor), Tom Udall (NM senator), Bernie Sanders (VT senator), Jay Nixon (MO governor), Bill Nelson (FL senator), Martin Heinrich (NM senator), Tom Wolf (PA governor), Steve Beshear (KY governor), Al Gore (VP), Amy Klobuchar (MN senator), Joe Manchin (WV senator), John Hickenlooper (CO governor), Rahm Emanuel (CHI mayor), Cory Booker (NJ senator), Jerry Brown (CA governor), Terry McAuliffe (VA governor), Andrew Cuomo (NY governor), Jim Webb (VA senator), Martin O’Malley (MD governor), Joe Biden (VP), Elizabeth Warren (MA senator).
Many, many, many folks complained early on in the process (a few of them right here as regular posters on this blog) that the 2016 race was going to be a disaster because of the Clinton / Democratic elite’s pre-determination that Hillary would be the nominee. I’m not supporting a case in favor any of the names listed above, or saying they could have beaten the Republican nominee in November, just to say that there’s always a list if the party leadership allows there to be one. In 2016, for president, as so many times in the past, the Democratic Party leadership emphatically denied an open race. What did any of us “do wrong?” We failed to start early enough to fight to guarantee there’d be a more comprehensive nomination fight. Bernie’s campaign was a Hail Mary pass about six months too late, but blame the party leadership specifically that NOBODY besides Hillary Clinton ever stood a chance. (I remember the post BooMan made here last spring I think where he gleefully ranted on about the awesomeness of the power of the Democratic Party leadership and the Clinton machine, and their incredible ability to squash all of Hillary’s competition like bugs. It was nothing to be proud of.)
Again, I’m not arguing that any of the folks I’ve listed would have fared better in the end than Hillary did, and Hillary had every right to run as well. But it sure shot to hell the image of the Democratic Party as being very democratic when it went ahead and did a coronation instead of an open, fair primary election.
Primarily neglected to touch base with history and consider that it does echo or rhyme.
#1 — bc it was the one factor known immediately after the 2012 election — the Democratic nominee would be going for a third WH term for the party. The generic mood of the general electorate after eight years is for a change. It is also tempered with a generic preference for no change; so, the temperature on that “mood” ranges from 98.7 to red-hot. The popularity or unpopularity of the two-term sitting POTUS may not be relevant at all. Early on, Clinton and her team did appear to appreciate that and distanced herself from Obama, but that trapped her into discounting #2.
#2 — the midterm election results during the tenure of the sitting POTUS. That adds to or reduces the “change” mood. How did those Democratic candidates that followed the Clinton endorsed script — shift right to distance themselves from Obama — do in the ’14 elections? Very poorly which was a clear warning sign that it would be weak in ’16.
The success of the expected challenge from the left by Sanders led Clinton to scurry back and embrace Obama and on some issues espouse a position to his left was better than sticking with the original game plan, but it also confirmed the long-standing, and well-earned, reputation of the Clintons as willing to say anything to get elected.
#3 — how “change” gets expressed in the process of the campaigns is some combination of a) new direction in public policies and b) embodied in the face of the candidate. In 1968, the Nixon’s team branded him as the “new Nixon.” Gore lagged in all the polls up until his nominating acceptance speech when he graphically demonstrated that he wasn’t Clinton and re-discovered his populist roots. But GWB was still a new face with an old name. Obama was almost totally a new face with slight nods to the left that gave the impression that more than his face was new. With more makeovers in over two decades than Oprah has had diets, there was never a new Hillary.
#4 — cheering on the nomination of an objectively weak candidate by the opposing party. Carter and Democrats sighed with relief in ’80 and Gore and Democrats sighed with relief in ’00. McCain was likely pleased as punch when Obama was nominated.
So, why did GHWB win in ’88? And no, Reagan’s popularity rating were low before the election cycle began. Whatever power he had in the Reagan administration, he was a low profile VP. So, he was less of an old face. Added to that, he looked presidential. That may have been enough for him to eke out a win, but Willie Horton undoubtedly put him over the top for which swing voters have as much to be ashamed about as GHWB and the GOP do.
If Trump hadn’t been such an incredibly ludicrous candidate (and that’s in comparison with other ludicrous candidates going back to George Murphy who won), it would have been less difficult as early as July 2015 to postulate that Clinton wasn’t a shoo-in. Watching him pick off his GOP opponents one-by-one with bluster, bullying, lies, and ignorance was a warning that he wouldn’t go down easy.
6 years of losses for democrats from 2010. The trend was clear.
That’s inaccurate for federal elections. In 2012 Democrats picked up eight House seats and two Senate seats and Obama’s re-election numbers were solid enough. The task is how to weigh that correctly in comparison with the two midterms. I would submit that significant losses in either the House and Senate in either of the midterms suggests that a change mood has set in. It’s a stronger force if significant losses happen both midterms or the second midterm. Weaker if the losses happen only in the first midterm but still a forewarning if strong gains aren’t made in the re-election or second midterm elections. Also have to factor in if the losses flips control of the House or Senate.
Consider 1994 — Democrats had huge losses in both the Senate and House, losing majority control of both. Lost two more Senate seats in ’96 and then no gains/losses in ’98. In the House Democrats gained two seats in ’96 and five in ’98. Democrats viewed those results to suggest that they were poised for further comebacks in ’00. Technically that was a correct read as they gained four Senate seats that year, but the comeback was too weak to impact the House and much too weak for Gore to get a solid win.
This formulation is not predictive of whether or not an incumbent president is in trouble for his re-election. If it were, Carter and GHWB would have won in 1980 and 1992 and Reagan, Clinton, and Obama would have lost their re-election bids.