Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:20 PM
computergeek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 706
In hindsight, I'm not sure there was much the Democratic Party could have done differently to win. The mood from a lot of the electorate was for major change and the party in power for 2 terms gets hurt with that kind of mood. Plus, the desire for change seemed to be a rightward shift (though it's hard to tell with Trump) given that it was the Republican voters who voted for an outsider, while the Democratic voters voted for an insider. If those Independents who wanted Bernie more but didn't make the effort to vote in the Dem primaries because they didn't want to change their registration or something else, they only have themselves to blame. If you want to change the system, you have to participate in the system, at least on the primary level

What Democrats, both party and voters, need to do going forward is make sure to get out the vote even during mid-terms. The Republicans do much better there and that's one reason they have control of many governorships and other offices
  #102  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:51 PM
asterion is offline
Your Ad Here
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,787
About the primary, many people questioned the front-loading of the South. The general response was that it captured the desires of black voters. There was also often hints or outright statements that the questioner was a racist for asking why states that the Democrats would never carry had such an early position. Suggesting that open primaries gave a better idea of who would do well in the general was often met with "It's the Democratic primary for Democrats."
  #103  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:58 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,965
Just heard NPR's Robert Siegel talk to Allan Lichtman, professor of history at American University, about his prediction model and the vagaries of polling. His model just asks 13 questions, like "has the party been in power for eight years," "was there a major foreign policy triumph in the second four years," etc. Together they account for all electoral wins and losses (not sure how far back in time) for the presidential party in power.
  #104  
Old 11-09-2016, 06:01 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,965
Asterion, good point. Shouldn't we just nominate candidates who are well liked in swing states? If the only goal is to win (rather than, say, represent the electorate as a whole as much as that's possible), makes sense to me.
  #105  
Old 11-09-2016, 06:26 PM
aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 26,615
Hillary has struck a raw nerve with the public for her entire political life. There's no need to go into detail. The campaign is over.

Why the Democrats thought anything would change is beyond me. Her negatives were just too great.

Trump isn't a popular figure either. But he still was the best choice for many voters that disliked Hillary even more.

Last edited by aceplace57; 11-09-2016 at 06:29 PM.
  #106  
Old 11-09-2016, 06:31 PM
MovieMogul is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 15,947
From Salon:
Quote:
An email recently released by the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks shows how the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party bear direct responsibility for propelling the bigoted billionaire to the White House.

In its self-described “pied piper” strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new “mainstream of the Republican Party” in order to try to increase Clinton’s chances of winning.

The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates “as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.” Clinton’s camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be “elevated” to “leaders of the pack” and media outlets should be told to “take them seriously.”
Playing Chess with all our futures. A colossal blunder, and a strategy that snowballed far out of control of what they expected. If this doesn't force the DNC to reevaluate their core values, nothing will.
  #107  
Old 11-09-2016, 06:42 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMogul View Post
From Salon:Playing Chess with all our futures. A colossal blunder, and a strategy that snowballed far out of control of what they expected. If this doesn't force the DNC to reevaluate their core values, nothing will.
Oh, come on. We all started out hoping the unelectable Trump would be the front runner.
  #108  
Old 11-09-2016, 06:52 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMogul View Post
From Salon:Playing Chess with all our futures. A colossal blunder, and a strategy that snowballed far out of control of what they expected. If this doesn't force the DNC to reevaluate their core values, nothing will.
No, again taken out of context as are most crappy wikileaks: The document stated, “Clearly most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing. This exercise is intended to put those ideas to paper.”

The memo articulated a three-point strategy. Point 1 called for forcing “all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election.”


The GOP does the same.

Bernie woulda lost also. The smear campaign would have been incredible. But the GOp didnt was to eliminate Bernie, they wanted him kept in for as long as possible, so as to lock themselves into extreme liberal positions that will hurt them in a general election.
  #109  
Old 11-09-2016, 11:27 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
After sleeping and looking at the updated results, I have to conclude that the Democrats made mistakes, but none of them really led directly to this defeat, although I'd caution that their downballot issues are another problem entirely, with many causes. But this Presidential election is not really their fault beyond "shoulda nominated a better candidate".

The real issue is that the electorate Democrats saw under Obama isn't the "real" electorate and I don't think Democrats had really prepared themselves mentally for that fact. They ran as if the "ascendant majority" was an actual thing, when it was only there for Obama at this point. We still have a couple of decades to go before it becomes a real thing that all Democrats can rely on.

So for the next few elections Democrats have to appeal to working class white voters, just like they had to do from 1933 to 2008. It's not even a matter of policies, it's a matter of priorities. Jobs have to be ahead of climate change, workers have to be ahead of migrants. This is not actually an abandonment of Democratic principles, it just means going back to being the party as it was pre-2008. The working class comes first.
  #110  
Old 11-10-2016, 12:48 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,204
Also, superficially, the Democrats didn't have a good motto. "Stronger Together" wasn't very rousing, whereas "Make America Great Again" encapsulated several powerful emotions in just 4 words - it communicated that America is no longer great, evoked feelings of sorrow and rage over America losing its greatness, and hope and fervor for America to be great again.


(Whether America DID lose its greatness or not is another issue of course. But the Trump motto was one of the best in recent campaign history, in terms of effectiveness.)
  #111  
Old 11-10-2016, 12:53 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Message was definitely clearer on the Trump side. I don't know if this was part of the actual Trump campaign, but I started seeing signs that said, "Drain the swamp", which even made me cheer. That message is deadly and Clinton just didn't have anything. It had a motto but otherwise there was just no message, no real indication of what she'd do as President.
  #112  
Old 11-10-2016, 02:34 AM
DerekMichaels00 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,337
this kind of thing probably helped Trump:

this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/theova...ence/75281088/

leads to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi1ISQAlTqU

despite this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f9a_story.html
  #113  
Old 11-10-2016, 02:52 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,023
The list of way the Democrats fucked up is endless.

but ultimately it comes down to the fact that the Democrats fucked up by nominating Hillary.
  #114  
Old 11-10-2016, 03:07 PM
joyfool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Texas
Posts: 9,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMogul View Post
From Salon:Playing Chess with all our futures. A colossal blunder, and a strategy that snowballed far out of control of what they expected. If this doesn't force the DNC to reevaluate their core values, nothing will.

Jimminy. What an idiotic idea; right up there with voting in republican primaries to land Trump the nom so they would be easily defeated. Obviously, some weren't as apt at reverse psychology as they thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Oh, come on. We all started out hoping the unelectable Trump would be the front runner.

I think it's worth repeating that not everyone felt this way. I think it was a horrible idea to play with.
  #115  
Old 11-10-2016, 03:13 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,015
Yeah in the end Hillary lost an election which she should have won easily. Forget Obama, if she had gotten the same number of votes in PA, MI and WI as Kerry 12 years ago she would be President-elect. And I don't really blame her; she did the best within her limitations. What I am still baffled by is why the Democratic establishment cleared the deck for her when her weaknesses were all too clear and why so many Dems, including many posters here, overestimated her political skills right till election day.
  #116  
Old 11-10-2016, 03:18 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post

The real issue is that the electorate Democrats saw under Obama isn't the "real" electorate and I don't think Democrats had really prepared themselves mentally for that fact. They ran as if the "ascendant majority" was an actual thing, when it was only there for Obama at this point. We still have a couple of decades to go before it becomes a real thing that all Democrats can rely on.
Which should have been bloody obvious from looking at the midterms and downballots from 2010-2014. Obama's voters were HIS. The people actually showing up for other elections were voting R.




BTW speaking of "ascendant majority", if the cohorts of young millennials, ethnic minorities, "creative class" etc. go on to concentrate themselves in a few friendly Metropolitan Areas, that Popular/Electoral vote mismatch is going to be a headache for a number of cycles yet.
  #117  
Old 11-10-2016, 03:31 PM
Lightray's Avatar
Lightray is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis MO
Posts: 6,051
The US electorate is extremely polarized now, and very closely split between the two parties. That is both why the Republicans succeed with gerrymandering, and why they need to do it. The keys to success in a presidential election are (1) motivate your base to get out and vote, and (2) don't split your base.

Trump certainly motivated his portion of the Republican base to get out and vote. And the Republican base is extremely cohesive; even with all of Trump's awful points and lack of bona fides, evangelicals and the like were still willing to vote for him. The Republicans are much better at party unity, despite NeverTrump making the news.

I think Hillary's portion of the Democratic base was as motivated to get out and vote for her. She had a problem though - Bernie had fractured the Democratic base, and neither he nor Hillary could put it back together. The BernieBros had no enthusiasm to vote once Bernie lost the primary - they even rebelled against their candidate's suggestion that they needed to support Hillary as the Democratic nominee. And yet, Hillary counted on their support. And lost.
  #118  
Old 11-10-2016, 03:33 PM
john b. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 200

Yes


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
One thing I think the Dems need to realize is that accusations of racism and sexism should be used in moderation even when they are true as they undoubtedly were with Trump. It was fine to attack him for some of his worst outbursts and I think they hurt him with voters. But then, towards the end of the race it seemed as if attacking Trump for racism and sexism was all the campaign was doing and I suspect many white voters just tuned it out. Incidentally this was not a mistake that the Obama campaign made; they were very careful about talking about racial issues which is part of the reason he won twice with the help of white voters in the Midwest which Hillary lost.

The basic problem is that many Dem elites live in an identity-politics bubble which is obsessed with issues of race and gender and where all accusations are taken with

deadly seriousness whereas this stuff just doesn't resonate as strongly in the wider
culture particularly in non-urban areas.

Yes, I agree with all you wrote. The harping on the same old same old pc issues deeply alienated average voters, and I'm using the word average with all due respect. It's like Hillary was speaking in some kind of code, one only fully understood by affluent voters in woodsy suburbs and the urban rich in high rises (whatever).

Also, Mrs. Clinton's palpable discomfort in public, on television, vs. Trump's comfortable and confident masculinity sent "messages". Whether one cares for their meaning is another matter. Trump was bold and spoke his mind, while Clinton came across as somehow unreal, as if reading from a script, telling the voters what she thought they wanted to hear

This may all sound superficial and say that in theory it should all be irrelevant: the best candidate should win, the one whose views are closer to those of the American people (etc.). Yes, indeedy, but television is the medium used for communicating with the American people in large numbers, and screw up on the tube, as Hilllary did repeatedly, and you're toast. In this, Marshall McLuhan was right as to how television works. The Dems got it right with Bill Clinton TV-wise, and again with Barack Obama, stumbled, and stumbled badly, with Hillary Clinton.
  #119  
Old 11-10-2016, 03:47 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Nope. The Rove hate machine would have smeared Sanders so bad it would have been nutso.

They did it vs Obama, vs Hillary, vs Bill. They will keep on doing it. It works, the gullible bought it. And the Sanderistas happily spread Roves lies for the GOP.
I don't think it would have worked. I think Sanders would have won, and it wouldn't have been close. You say that the hate machine smearing would have worked, but then go on to cite Obama and Bill Clinton as examples. The thing is it didn't work on those two, because they have charisma that Hillary doesn't. Sanders is definitely more charismatic than Hillary. His supporters were more enthusiastic. The socialist/communist/honeymoon in Russia would not have been a big issue given Trump's Russian ties.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 11-10-2016 at 03:47 PM.
  #120  
Old 11-10-2016, 04:01 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,954
Maybe it really does just come down to which candidate is the most charismatic. Other than maybe Nixon, I can't think of a single winner that was less charismatic than the loser, going at least as far back as FDR. If this is the case then the Democrats failed by not selecting a charismatic candidate.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 11-10-2016 at 04:02 PM.
  #121  
Old 11-10-2016, 04:14 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
What I am still baffled by is why the Democratic establishment cleared the deck for her when her weaknesses were all too clear
They owed the Cintons, politically. Obama may have won the 2008 primary and election but OFA did not displace the old party hands, and furthermore the Tea Party swells of 2010-2014 especially at the state level culled all but the well-rooted, well-established Dems.

So you ended up with a largely "legacy" Establishment and an atmosphere concerned lest you antagonize her, as a member of the Establishment, and you will be denied the mythical Clinton fundraising prowess and Favors Receivable ledger just when you need them most.

In this environment, expecting a "normal" Republican in the race, and aware that "third term" tends to be uphill and even more so for a Dem in the Tea Party age, the establishment wanted someone safe and "reliale" who'd raise truckloads of cash and not be accused of being more socialist than Obama(*).

(*ok so in practice anyone can be more socialist than Obama with minimal effort... that's another story)
  #122  
Old 11-10-2016, 05:10 PM
Fretful Porpentine is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 6,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Maybe it really does just come down to which candidate is the most charismatic. Other than maybe Nixon, I can't think of a single winner that was less charismatic than the loser, going at least as far back as FDR. If this is the case then the Democrats failed by not selecting a charismatic candidate.
Isn't "charisma" in the eye of the beholder, though? In practice, it doesn't seem to have a very firm definition other than "that quality which causes the possessor to win elections."
  #123  
Old 11-10-2016, 05:51 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fretful Porpentine View Post
Isn't "charisma" in the eye of the beholder, though? In practice, it doesn't seem to have a very firm definition other than "that quality which causes the possessor to win elections."
I suppose it is, but it's something that can still be somewhat determined even before the election. In 2000, for example, there was the infamous "who would you rather have a beer with" question that W easily beat Gore on.
  #124  
Old 11-10-2016, 06:17 PM
Clothahump is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebuck20 View Post
Many people, myself included, assumed this would be a blowout for Clinton. Obviously that turned out not to be the case.
So, what were some of the Democrats' biggest missteps here?
Do we seriously have to say this? You ran Hillary Clinton. You could not have picked a worse candidate. Well, maybe you could have; we'll see who you turn up with in 2020..

She was the face and embodiment of the liberal elitism and privileged mentality that the rest of us have come to despise. Not to mention that she was a disaster as SoS.
  #125  
Old 11-10-2016, 06:51 PM
Duke of Rat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Front and Center
Posts: 5,928
This guy appears to have a theory about what went wrong:

Spoiler, NSFW language

  #126  
Old 11-10-2016, 07:21 PM
joyfool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Texas
Posts: 9,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fretful Porpentine View Post
Isn't "charisma" in the eye of the beholder, though? In practice, it doesn't seem to have a very firm definition other than "that quality which causes the possessor to win elections."

Yessssss, but. :/ And although I've seen it explained that Trump was more "real" than Clinton, I'd be hard pressed to believe he has any charisma. Maybe in the past?
  #127  
Old 11-10-2016, 07:27 PM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by joyfool View Post
Yessssss, but. :/ And although I've seen it explained that Trump was more "real" than Clinton, I'd be hard pressed to believe he has any charisma. Maybe in the past?
Are phrases like, "Grab them by the pussy" charismatic?
  #128  
Old 11-10-2016, 07:39 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,862
Given that the numbers I have been seeing lately show her lead as a number of voters who would overwhelm the city of St. Louis MO, I would say that what went wrong was nothing more than effective targeting.
  #129  
Old 11-10-2016, 08:28 PM
joyfool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Texas
Posts: 9,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Are phrases like, "Grab them by the pussy" charismatic?

Not to me, but maybe to them women that voted for him and chose to overlook that. Hell if I know.
  #130  
Old 11-11-2016, 03:39 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by computergeek View Post
In hindsight, I'm not sure there was much the Democratic Party could have done differently to win.
It seems in hindsight this is completely wrong.

It seems from reading this article, It Appears As Though Hillary Clinton Was Ultimately Done In By Low Democratic Voter Turnout, which is showing the American voting data that you have the confirmation it was indeed the collapse in the enthusiasm and the support of Mrs Clinton's own party and not an explosion of the support to Trump
Quote:
Last night and this morning many seemed to think that the reason Trump won was because angry white voters turned out in large numbers to vote for him. But with nearly all the votes now tallied it appears as though that’s just not the case. In fact, Trump garnered fewer overall votes nationwide than John McCain and Mitt Romney, the past two losing GOP nominees, did in 2008 and 2012. As of this writing, with almost all votes counted, Trump has tallied 59,611,678 votes; Romney pulled in 60,933,504 in 2012, and McCain 59,948,323 in 2008.

By comparison, Hillary’s 59,814,018 votes (which won her the popular vote, but not the Electoral College vote) is considerably less than the 69,498,516 Obama got in 2008, and the 65,915,795 he received in 2012. She was particularly hurt by low turnout in crucial swing states.
and

Quote:
Further, Vox notes that “Clinton garnered 129,000 fewer votes in heavily Democratic Detroit than Obama did four years ago — and lost the state by around 61,000 total votes” and that she “got 95,000 fewer votes in heavily Democratic Milwaukee than Obama did — and lost the state by 73,000 total votes.”

Additionally, core Democratic voting groups likes blacks and Hispanics didn’t vote along party lines for Clinton as many assumed they would. As Pew Research notes, “Clinton held an 80-point advantage among blacks (88% to 8%) compared with Obama’s 87-point edge four years ago (93% to 6%). In 2008, Obama had a 91-point advantage among blacks.”

So while the theory that Trump won because of angry white people turning out in droves for him may be popular, the truth behind Clinton’s defeat appears to lie in the fact that voters were just not passionate enough about her to get out and actually vote for her, and the ones who did weren’t as loyal to the party as they were for Obama.

One of the big knocks against Clinton in the Democratic primary was that, in addition to not being particularly charismatic and exciting,
the emphasis added.

This graphic also makes it visually clear the collapse in the voting generally, and the super collapse for the democratic candidate, and it compares to the Obama of 2012.

Trump did not do very well, but Clinton did extremely badly.

So it was a mistake to choose the non-charismatic and also disliked potential candidate, very simply.
  #131  
Old 11-11-2016, 04:14 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
I'd say that's the perfect end to the campaign: neither party one, but one of them lost.

I read an interesting article about how Republicans held the Senate. It was misnamed, because the Republicans didn't actually do anything to hold the Senate. It just sorta happened. There was no brilliant plan, some Senators ran good campaigns, some didn't, but most of them won and some were rather surprised by it. But now we know that all that really happened is that they didn't lose. There was no strategy.
  #132  
Old 11-11-2016, 06:01 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,770
Basically, Democrats (including candidates, campaigns, and grassroots voters) just sat around like doofuses and dribbled away all their advantages, like a football team that manages to fumble the ball away at the end of the game when they're supposed to be in "victory formation". Pathetic. FFS

--------
NB: As of Friday, Nov. 11, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. CST, I'm unsubscribing from all political threads and will no longer participate in discussions in the Elections board, nor in political discussions in the Pit or MPSIMS. If you reply to a political post of mine after that point, I will not see it; please do not PM me to try to pull me back in to the debate. Thanks!
  #133  
Old 11-11-2016, 01:18 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Basically, Democrats (including candidates, campaigns, and grassroots voters) just sat around like doofuses and dribbled away all their advantages, like a football team that manages to fumble the ball away at the end of the game when they're supposed to be in "victory formation". Pathetic. FFS


That's part of it, due to how well she was doing in the Polls.

Another part is GOP voter Jim Crow laws.

Another part is the Bernie-Bros- they didnt know how to campaign for their candidate, so they bought Roves lies and kept using them against Hillary, even long after the Nomination was sealed up. I got a couple in my FB feed, they are still going on how the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie.

Karl Roves lies worked really well. He pushed really hard on the idea that both candidates were so crappy you might as well not vote.
  #134  
Old 11-11-2016, 01:22 PM
kidchameleon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cecil's basement
Posts: 5,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That's part of it, due to how well she was doing in the Polls.

Another part is GOP voter Jim Crow laws.

Another part is the Bernie-Bros- they didnt know how to campaign for their candidate, so they bought Roves lies and kept using them against Hillary, even long after the Nomination was sealed up. I got a couple in my FB feed, they are still going on how the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie.

Karl Roves lies worked really well. He pushed really hard on the idea that both candidates were so crappy you might as well not vote.
Hillary didn't help by lying. She earned the lack of trust of the people all by herself.
  #135  
Old 11-11-2016, 01:34 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidchameleon View Post
Hillary didn't help by lying. She earned the lack of trust of the people all by herself.
Her lies were within normal for any Politico, in fact she lied less than any other candidate except Bernie.
  #136  
Old 11-11-2016, 02:01 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,035
I guess the most obvious one is they had a candidate that clearly didn't inspire enough people to go vote, as Ramira said.

But they also took the "blue wall" too much for granted and there were clues that don't require hindsight. She knew Trump's support was with working class whites. Her primary losses in Wisconsin and Michigan were not well predicted by the polls, so she should have been leary of trusting them in the general. And she never set foot in Wisconsin during the presidential campaign. So they should have recognized a possible weakness, not trusted the polls so much there and made more of a show of giving a crap about them.
  #137  
Old 11-11-2016, 02:27 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Her lies were within normal for any Politico, in fact she lied less than any other candidate except Bernie.
I would argue that she didn't lie enough. She apologized. She walked back some statements. She acknowledged errors.

That was her mistake. She should have lied bigly, and never apologized. I don't like the tactic, but Trump just proved that that is the winning tactic, and winning is everything now.
  #138  
Old 11-11-2016, 02:28 PM
kidchameleon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cecil's basement
Posts: 5,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Her lies were within normal for any Politico, in fact she lied less than any other candidate except Bernie.
I'm going to disagree there. After making up a story about ducking sniper fire she lost my vote forever. I'm used to exaggerations, hidden sins and ignorance but that was in another league for me.
  #139  
Old 11-11-2016, 03:59 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,770
I will admit, the sniper fire thing seemed pretty egregious until Brian Williams did the same thing and I started to wonder. And it just doesn't compare to the insane level to which Trump lies constantly.

--------
NB: As of Friday, Nov. 11, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. CST, I'm unsubscribing from all political threads and will no longer participate in discussions in the Elections board, nor in political discussions in the Pit or MPSIMS. If you reply to a political post of mine after that point, I will not see it; please do not PM me to try to pull me back in to the debate. Thanks!
  #140  
Old 11-11-2016, 04:27 PM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidchameleon View Post
I'm going to disagree there. After making up a story about ducking sniper fire she lost my vote forever. I'm used to exaggerations, hidden sins and ignorance but that was in another league for me.
Perhaps she believed that she did. Perhaps she was warned of snipers, and being afraid, believed that they could be shot.'
  #141  
Old 11-11-2016, 04:58 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramira View Post
....

This graphic also makes it visually clear the collapse in the voting generally, and the super collapse for the democratic candidate, and it compares to the Obama of 2012.

Trump did not do very well, but Clinton did extremely badly.
.....
Thank you for posting that! Makes it much easier to come to terms with how this happened. DEMOCRATS! *shakes fist*
  #142  
Old 11-11-2016, 05:15 PM
KAndre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, TX y'all!
Posts: 147
Yes, thank you Ramira. And in looking at that graph, the Democrats doesn't really need the "deplorables" - they need to really make sure their base can and does turn out - which means in the next non-Presidential election, get rid of those gerrymandering SOBs, protect voting rights, and reach out more to progressives (but don't go balls to the walls crazy on that - push comes to shove, most people did NOT vote for Bernie - I certainly didn't and the majority of people I know thought he was interesting but not interesting enough to vote for. I would have voted for him over Trump but I don't think my mother or aunts or uncles would have. We don't know.) We do need to reach out to those who feel unheard but they don't get to kick other people under the bus. Period.

Last edited by KAndre; 11-11-2016 at 05:16 PM.
  #143  
Old 11-11-2016, 05:29 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,770
That graph is all the more remarkable when you consider that the population of the U.S. has increased by 20 million since 2008, and the largest generation in history has fully come of voting age during that time. But voting turnout has waxed and waned more throughout the US history than one might expect. The all-time greatest level, albeit of just white males at that time, was the late 19th century. They loved to vote, significantly more than at any time before or since.

The problem of course is when it is your voters that wane dramatically while the other side stays steady. Or actually, as a percentage of the population, they are waning as well, but just not as steeply.

--------
NB: As of Friday, Nov. 11, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. CST, I'm unsubscribing from all political threads and will no longer participate in discussions in the Elections board, nor in political discussions in the Pit or MPSIMS. If you reply to a political post of mine after that point, I will not see it; please do not PM me to try to pull me back in to the debate. Thanks!

Last edited by SlackerInc; 11-11-2016 at 05:34 PM.
  #144  
Old 11-11-2016, 05:43 PM
purplehearingaid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,837
That is easy , they let Clinton run again! People didn't want her the first time and she didn't have the emails mess so what made the Democrats think people would want her with all her baggage ??
  #145  
Old 11-11-2016, 05:51 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post

--------
NB: As of Friday, Nov. 11, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. CST, I'm unsubscribing from all political threads and will no longer participate in discussions in the Elections board, nor in political discussions in the Pit or MPSIMS. If you reply to a political post of mine after that point, I will not see it; please do not PM me to try to pull me back in to the debate. Thanks!
This on a post dated today?
  #146  
Old 11-11-2016, 05:53 PM
billfish678 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
This on a post dated today?
I'm wondering if the Time change is included
  #147  
Old 11-11-2016, 05:54 PM
computergeek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 706
One thing to keep in mind is that just because the electorate may change demographically, it doesn't mean the greater number of minorities will automatically vote for the Democrats. It depends on what the Republicans do to try to capture them. There are a lot of conservative minorities out there already who are small government types and if the GOP can manage to appeal better to minorities while still remaining a small government party, then they can win more minorities. At this point in my life, I personally don't care which party appeals to who for what as long as I find something that appeals to me. Right now, I'm a disaffected Republican (due to the party's shift to the far right) who has voted for the Democrats in the last couple of elections. But I'm not a Democrat or a liberal and if the Democratic party moves further leftward, I'm not comfortable with that. I guess I've become more of an Independent these days though I haven't changed my voting affiliation. If the GOP managed to move back more towards the center and eliminated their racist baggage, I'd probably be comfortable voting for them again, at least on the Presidential level. The Democratic Party shouldn't be too smug about believing if they just wait for the electorate to get less white, they can capture all those voters and still win.

Voters shouldn't get too rigid as to which party is "theirs" or that makes up part of their identity, as parties can change their identity over time and have and voters can change over their lives as well. Individuals should probably re-consider regularly which party they should vote for and possibly even work for, depending on what the parties are offering up at the time
  #148  
Old 11-11-2016, 05:55 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
This on a post dated today?
And before 11:59 PM. We'll see how long he lasts. Lol.
  #149  
Old 11-11-2016, 05:57 PM
billfish678 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by computergeek View Post

Voters shouldn't get too rigid as to which party is "theirs" or that makes up part of their identity, as parties can change their identity over time and have and voters can change over their lives as well. Individuals should probably re-consider regularly which party they should vote for and possibly even work for, depending on what the parties are offering up at the time
Yep.

Lincoln wasn't a donkey fan.
  #150  
Old 11-11-2016, 05:59 PM
TruCelt's Avatar
TruCelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 11,698
Honestly?I think "basket of deplorables" will go down in history as the most damaging comment in the history of campaigning. Which is pathetic, but when Trump made far worse comments soon afterwards, it left them no way to switch without losing face. She made it impossible for them to admit they'd been wrong, so thye just doubled down again and again.

She also failed to make it clear that she understood the depth of their problems. Trump didn't offer any solutions, but they agreed with his complaints. whatever else he was, he could see them. The rest of the Washington establishment treated them like ghosts. Trump was all "I can see poor people" and so they gathered around him trying to get help with their problems.r
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017