So, in the Olympics, the two fastest runners run a race, and one comes in a micro-second ahead of the other. Why does everyone insist on claiming that the one who came in second “was a terrible runner”, “didn’t focus on running”, etc. etc.?
A little perspective, folks.
It depends on who the winning runner was.
If it’s Usain Bolt, I’m happy with losing by a whisker.
If you lose by that much to my mother-in-law with her walker, I’d say there’s strong case you’re a terrible runner.
I think you’re overlooking a pretty big component in the last election that remains largely un-discussed. What insider polling data was Paul Manafort giving to Konstantin Kilimnik, again? It was for the rust belt states, disclosing information that allowed finely-targeted social media assaults against Clinton – by the Russians. Trump had some very strategic assistance from them in the closing days of the campaign. No other candidate ever had to address this in any other election.
Putin hates Clinton.
If you don’t like this opinion piece (which I think lays it out pretty well), then I encourage you to read the Mueller report. The election interference by Russia is made extremely clear and is factually sourced in every way.
This was an election obstacle that no other politician has ever had to face. That she did so well, despite Comey’s stupid, ill-fated choice and Russian subversion into our election process, is pretty impressive.
Re future elections, we ignore Russian subversion at our peril.
ETA: So yes, an election was stolen, all right. Just not the one that is the subject of this thread – which we all of us should probably stop hijacking. 
Both 2016 and 2020 were narrow victories (in an actual sense, even if the EVs were pretty different), so everybody is almost equally good/bad candidates from both parties?
Yes, I know that, but I’m sorry, it wasn’t some kind of secret the Rust Belt was close. Trump’s campaign might have played dirty but that doesn’t explain why Clinton’s campaign put too much emphasis on Ohio and Florida. Clinton campaigned in CALIFORNIA in the last two months of the campaign.
People in her camp - and many people who should have known better - thought it was in the bag. They were wrong, and should have known they were wrong.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this point.
The Rust Belt had, up until that point, always reliably been the Blue Wall that Democrats believed they count count on, even in a clutch. I don’t see why Clinton should have thought otherwise, especially since up until the very late polling data, numbers were indicating that she still had the slight edge. In all other close elections, voters in that region broke for Dems.
But somehow you believe she should have been able to see around the corners and factor in the Russian subversion efforts and what Comey did to hurt her in the last days before the vote.
I really don’t get why it’s so important to attribute these issues to her as a person, instead of to rather significant circumstances that didn’t become plain until after the election.
As opposed to the historically shaky support Democrats tend to get from California?
There shouldn’t be states that are “wrong” or “right”. Everyone’s vote should be equal.
How have we come to accept a system where some people’s votes are worth more than other people’s?
Because it’s baked into the constitution, and hard to change.
The ones who benefit from it will never allow it to change, and to those it is a disadvantage will never try.
But, the whole rhetoric behind this line does irritate me in its fallaciousness.
It’s like you had a baseball game where Team A had more batters on base than Team B, but Team B beat Team A in number of runs.
So sure, Team B won by the rules of the game, that’s great. But then people start saying that Team A is terrible at hitting the ball because they lost.
When pointed out that’s not the case, Team A was actually better at hitting the ball than Team B, it is condescendingly “reminded” that that’s not how the score is counted for winning.
But, in the end, it’s all about scapegoating. If we can blame all the electoral failures of the Democrats on Clinton, then the party doesn’t need to change anything at all, just pick a different candidate and do everything else the same. This resulted in a squeaker of an election in 2020 that should have been a blowout, and will likely result in the loss of congress next year.
I agree it would require constitutional amendments and that’s a difficult process to use.
But it can work. Black people won the right to vote via an amendment. Women won the right to vote via an amendment. Eighteen year olds won the right to vote via an amendment.
I’ve said before that the Democrats need to make voting rights a primary issue. It’s not just a moral crusade; it’s also good politics. We should be forcing the Republicans to take a public stand on the issue. They should have to openly declare their opposition to fair voting (and face the consequences in elections) or they should have to pretend to support voting rights (and stand by as we take them at their word and enact amendments to guarantee fair voting).
The problem with this plan is, the GOP has created a rock-solid narrative around the notion that the Democrats are trying to “steal” elections, and that all attempts at electoral reform are part of that effort. And there are millions of Americans who actually believe that crap. They really do believe that “millions of illegal aliens” have been voting in US elections for years now, and that they all vote for Democrats. Trying to get the support needed for actual electoral reform under such conditions is virtually impossible.
At least when the arguments about votes for women, votes for Blacks, or votes for 18-year-olds were being made, everyone agreed about what the actual issues were, even if they disagreed about what to do about those issues. We no longer have that kind of meeting of the minds.
When the 15th amendment was enacted things were a little different. It was pretty much imposed on southern states at gunpoint. There’s no way that the south would have gone for ratifying any of the 13th, 14th, or 15th amendments without having just lost the civil war.
Not sure we can really have another one of those over getting rid of the EC.
And, even with the 15th, the south immediately found loopholes that allowed them to discriminate against black voters and enact jim crow laws.
I don’t know that those were really the same stakes in many ways. Everyone is related to a woman or two, and granting women the right to vote didn’t really favor one party over another.
18 year olds is a fairly minor change, really, it also doesn’t really change any demographics or favor any party.
I kinda thought that they had.
And they didn’t. Partly because their base agrees entirely with the idea that those other people who don’t know how to vote right should be denied suffrage, and partly because they have already have done enough disenfranchisement and gerrymandering that it requires a supermajority of Democratic voters to get a bare majority in office.
And most people who have no problem voting will wonder why they are putting this as a primary issue rather than addressing their problems. Isn’t that the usual right wing tactic, bait the Democrats into spending time and political capital protecting some minority or other marginalized demographic, then claim that that’s all they care about, and are ignoring the problems of regular Americans?
Since when have the Republicans followed through on their promises? Since when have they faced any consequences for it?
I’m definitely not expecting the Republicans to do anything about fixing this problem. But I feel the Democrats can create circumstances that will make it difficult for Republicans to oppose the Democrats while we fix the problem.
I don’t feel so. The Republicans have hid their real plans of voter disenfranchisement and preferential voting under declarations that they are seeking to prevent voter fraud. These are lies and the Democrats need to expose these lies.
As Horatius said, the Republicans have created a narrative. We need to tear that false narrative down and tell the public the truth.
This is why we need to make this a priority. The Democrats need to make people aware that so many good policies are being blocked by a fraudulent voting system that the Republicans have created. If we can tear down that system and ensure a fair voting system, then the path to all of those other goals will become wide open.
And it was the tail-end of the Vietnam War, and a feeling that if 18 years could be sent to war, they should be allowed to vote about it.
I did not know which way they would break, but I am on record as saying that it was a lot more unpredictable than previous elections. I did not know if a lot of people in Rust Belt states would listen to someone who amped up the hatred and stupidity and gave less emphasis to former fiscal conservative talking points, but it was a risk that was Hillary’s since it would flip states that formerly went to her party. So yes, I do think she should have concentrated more on those states.
The Democrats have been flat out saying this for years now. I don’t know what else you want them to do.
I would really like to see Biden’s DOJ taking more action against the instigators of the attempted coup instead of focusing on going after Hillary Clinton.
They seem to be operating on some “both sides” philosophy that says you can’t indict a Republican unless you can find a Democrat to indict for something.
If given up on the FBI, it’s run by a Federalist Society lackey and everyone is still pretending that it wasn’t a political appointment.
The DOJ is going after Hillary Clinton?
They are going after an attorney that worked for her, and using her name to smear him and rile up the right wing base - who are convinced that she’s going to be indicted for lying to someone that lied to the FBI. Really. That last on isn’t going to happen because it’s not a crime, but it’s great propaganda for energizing the base.
As I said a few days after the election, I am deeply disappointed that after four years of the T**** administration doing everything in plain sight more people voted for him in 2020 than in 2016.
I had been saying that the true vote in 2016 was 1/3 T****, 1/3 Clinton, and 1/3 “I don’t care who wins,” and that was the group the Democrats needed to convince in 2020.
I was wrong.