# Here’s a list of reasons from various pundits about why the Democrats got whipped. Agree / Disagree? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 20, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562 "2016-11-20T18:03:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/101 "2016-11-28T01:48:28Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > My feelings at least; > > Hillary campaigned in both 2008 and 2016 on “Inevitability”. It _was_ arrogant and lazy, both times. She lost to an better organized man the first time, and failed to inspire the masses to get out and vote for her this time. Hell, this time it drove voter turnout to record lows, allowing the election of a very dangerous man. > > To the last, Hillary spent the campaign not on the stump, not giving inspiring speeches or at least making the news, but rather giving speeches to rooms full of donors. > > And yeah, I am still waiting for a shoe to drop on Russian influence and hacking. Won’t change anything, hell, probably wouldn’t even result in the Republicans changing any laws, because it worked in their favor. Only thing you can do is be better prepared for it next time. > > Unless someone hacks some fantasy land Russian server which is amazingly holding all the exact information about how votes were actually changed in Trump’s favor. Even then all we’d have is a Constitutional Crisis. Hillary was definitely too “Imperial” in her approach, like some buttoned up queen that was above wading into the fray or outside the lines. As for inspiring speeches… do you think it was even possible for her to give them? She is not that kind of person. At her best she was engaging those blm protesters honestly about what they ought to do politically aside from just complaining. But she never let herself speak freely and honestly about what she really thought. I know she viewed Bernier approach and policies as too strong and perhaps overboard for the country. She should not have run from that, explain why openly. Is that political suicide? Maybe, but at least for once there would be a more open and honest debate. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/102 "2016-11-28T01:54:02Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > These are the main reasons. Voters stayed home (or voted 3rd party). They stayed home as they thought Hillary was gonna win anyway, or they bought into Roves lies about both candidates being horrible, or they were Progressives disaffected by a year of negative campaigning by the Bernie Bros (who often parroted Rove’s lies). This is the greatest power of the rampant belief that politicians are all liars. Said best here. > Exactly so. “They all lie” is a sentiment that most benefits the most egregious liars. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/103 "2016-11-28T13:41:59Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > I really hope the Democratic party pays attention to what actually happened and runs a decent candidate in 2020. Nah, it will be the usual “Ok, who’s turn is it this time?”. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/104 "2016-11-28T14:15:16Z")
Who have the GOP ever selected as a “his time candidate”? Bob Dole in 1996 and maybe McCain in 2008 and to be frank they expected to lose both those elections. They expected to win this time until the Donald showed up. Each of the last three winning Democrat Candidates were outsiders, Carter, Mr Clinton, Obama. The losers, Mrs Clinton, Kerry, Gore were all, “my turn” guys. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/105 "2016-11-28T14:17:49Z")
Putting aside the presidency, the Democrats didn’t win the Senate and are doing terrible in the state level. Most state legislatures and governorships are Republican now. So whatever criticisms of Clinton there are, they do not explain why state politics has moved so far to the right. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/106 "2016-11-28T15:18:13Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Actually, it was December 8, 1941. Actually he’s right about the year of the last use of the ‘declaration of war’ phrasing. The date you listed was the declaration of war with Japan, but it was December 11th, 1941 that the US declared war on Germany and Italy, and June 4, 1942 that the US declared war on Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria, which are the last declarations to use the phrasing ‘declaration of war’. Later wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq don’t use the words ‘declaration of war’, although they are all obviously wars. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/107 "2016-11-28T15:20:27Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Actually he’s right about the year of the last use of the ‘declaration of war’ phrasing. The date you listed was the declaration of war with Japan, but it was December 11th, 1941 that the US declared war on Germany and Italy, and June 4, 1942 that the US declared war on Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria, which are the last declarations to use the phrasing ‘declaration of war’. Later wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq don’t use the words ‘declaration of war’, although they are all obviously wars. Thanks, I did not know that. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/108 "2016-11-28T16:18:55Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Are you serious? One is a single offhand statement with no legal force that doesn’t even indicate strong support, the other is a vote authorizing the president to use military force. Trump could have said ‘no, I guess not’ and it would have made no difference, but if the vote for the authorization was a no then Bush would not have been able to invade. I’m not really sure how you can ask the question with a straight face, one is an offhand comment in an interview and one is a legal grant of authority. So you’re arguing that, in Fall 2002, Hillary Clinton had more political power than Donald Trump did? I’m not aware that anyone was arguing the counter to that, so feel free to declare your victory over that strawman. The opinion Trump actually expressed in the real world in fall 2002 was mildly in favor of an invasion of Iraq. His inability at the time to implement his poor judgment on the matter does not demonstrate any difference in the quality of said thought process with respect to the quality of Clinton’s. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/109 "2016-11-28T17:51:08Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > I have to wonder why you think that a vote for the 2002 Iraq Resolution is somehow a more enthusiastic show of support for the invasion, given that it did not make any declaration of war or indeed make any direction or requirement for force to be used on Iraq. It had a bunch of verbiage about how diplomatic efforts etc. should be used to obtain compliance with Security Council resolutions and went on to authorize President Bush to use force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”. > [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > So you’re arguing that, in Fall 2002, Hillary Clinton had more political power than Donald Trump did? I’m not aware that anyone was arguing the counter to that, so feel free to declare your victory over that strawman. I’m explaining why I think that Senator Hillary Clinton’s vote authorizing President Bush to use force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate,” constitutes actual, definitive support for the war as the yes vote was required for the war to happen, while Trump’s offhand “yeah, I guess so” in an interview does not qualify as meaningful support. It’s hard to provide much more support to the war than authorizing it to happen, while on the other hand one offhand unrehearsed statement in an interview is not significant support. Had Trump used his wealth or fame to express support of the war across multiple venues, or launched commercials, or made donations, or otherwise take a real, meaningful action, I would be glad to say that he supported the war, but I can’t really take one ‘yea, I guess so’ as meaningful support, especially when it’s being compared to the vote that actually authorized the use of force. > [@](#): > > The opinion Trump actually expressed in the real world in fall 2002 was mildly in favor of an invasion of Iraq. His inability at the time to implement his poor judgment on the matter does not demonstrate any difference in the quality of said thought process with respect to the quality of Clinton’s. The idea that Hillary’s decision to authorize the Iraq war and Trump’s offhand comment in an interview are remotely similar in their level of support for the war is simply nuts. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/110 "2016-11-28T17:55:05Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Are you serious? One is a single offhand statement with no legal force that doesn’t even indicate strong support, the other is a vote authorizing the president to use military force. Trump could have said ‘no, I guess not’ and it would have made no difference, but if the vote for the authorization was a no then Bush would not have been able to invade. I’m not really sure how you can ask the question with a straight face, one is an offhand comment in an interview and one is a legal grant of authority. Because Hillary’s vote made no difference. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/111 "2016-11-28T21:23:40Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Because Hillary’s vote made no difference. Without the bill passing, Bush couldn’t actually invade Iraq. That’s a pretty huge difference, since it’s what authorized the use of military force. Hillary and the others who voted yes most certainly did make a difference, and the idea that if 52 or more Senators vote for a bill then none of them are responsible for it’s passage is, again, simply nuts. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/112 "2016-11-28T22:33:41Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Nah, it will be the usual “Ok, who’s turn is it this time?”. Is there\* anyone \*on the Democratic side lined up at this point? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/113 "2016-11-28T22:51:42Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Without the bill passing, Bush couldn’t actually invade Iraq. That’s a pretty huge difference, since it’s what authorized the use of military force. Hillary and the others who voted yes most certainly did make a difference, and the idea that if 52 or more Senators vote for a bill then none of them are responsible for it’s passage is, again, simply nuts. Again, Hillary’s vote made no difference. It passed with 77 votes. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2016, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/114 "2016-11-29T14:04:31Z")
Gaining seats in both chambers and winning the popular vote by more than two million votes is ‘whipped’? If she’d won the Electoral College too, would you have called it a ‘close loss’? ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2016, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/115 "2016-11-29T15:03:17Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Again, Hillary’s vote made no difference. It passed with 77 votes. Hillary’s vote was a ‘yes’, like the other 76 votes. If there had been only 49 ‘yes’ votes, it wouldn’t have passed. Her vote, and the other 76, did in fact make a difference, because they voted to authorize the war. She, and a number of other Democrats (like Kerry, another pro-Iraq democrat who tried to switch history) supported the Iraq war in the most meaningful and significant way they could. The idea that as long as at least 52 senators vote for something none of them actually count as supporting what they voted for is simply insane. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2016, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/116 "2016-11-29T19:16:10Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Gaining seats in both chambers and winning the popular vote by more than two million votes is ‘whipped’? If she’d won the Electoral College too, would you have called it a ‘close loss’? Close only counts in horseshoes. The Democrats had the hide removed from them in terms of results. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/117 "2016-11-29T19:19:13Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Close only counts in horseshoes. The Democrats had the hide removed from them in terms of results. > > Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk Close also counts in the definition of words, and ‘blowout’, ‘landslide’, and ‘whipped’ aren’t even close to applying here. So, OP rejected based on false premising, then. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/118 "2016-12-01T03:29:57Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Close only counts in horseshoes. The Democrats had the hide removed from them in terms of results. Which might be relevant if we were talking about whether they won or lost. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/119 "2016-12-01T18:43:44Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Close also counts in the definition of words, and ‘blowout’, ‘landslide’, and ‘whipped’ aren’t even close to applying here. So, OP rejected based on false premising, then. If it makes you feel better to cling to the notion that the Dems were not pummeled in the electoral vote, which is the only one that counts,[go for it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw) 2016 Presidential Election Results Donald Trump - Republican (Red): 306 Hilary Clinton - Democrat (Blue): 232 ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562/120 "2016-12-01T19:30:58Z")
I kind of suspect that there’s no one deciding factor as to why Clinton lost- it’s sort of a situation where all of the above reasons were probably a small part, and in aggregate were enough to let Trump win. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-s-a-list-of-reasons-from-various-pundits-about-why-the-democrats-got-whipped-agree-disagree/772562.md?page=7)