Hey! Just 46% of them 
One more thing: the DNC must be neutral in the 2020 primaries. It is clear that they were in Hillary’s pocket all the way and this antagonized enough Sanders supporters that we now have a five year old boy with ADHD in the White House.
Why on Earth would they be neutral? It’s their job to not be neutral. And I say this as a Sanders supporter.
Yes and no. I, too, was a Sanders supporter, and although I’m OK with the rules being skewed to favor a more mainstream candidate, you don’t want a situation where the DNC chair is doing things on the fly to help one candidate over another. Everyone knows the rules going into the game, but when someone is surreptitiously tilting the scales, it’s hard to take that into account in your campaign strategy.
My god, if you just replaced the italicized bit with “me,” those exact words could be a Donald Trump tweet.
The DNC shouldn’t favor one Democratic candidate over another. It would be like having the MLB umpires wear Cubs jerseys while working the World Series.
Okay. And if someone who has never been registered as a Democrat signs up as a democrat, should the DNC favor them equally?
The DNC should favor a candidate they think has the best chance of winning the election, and of furthering the goals of the party. That’s not usually going to be such a candidate, but it might be. All depends on who the other candidate is.
It’s a fine line that has to be walked. The parties don’t need to be (small “l”) democratic, unless not being so pisses off too many people.
Do the rules have a seniority test? If not, then hell yes they should favor them equally. The DNC should either explicitly declare their support for one candidate over another, or they should set up the rules of the contest and then back the fuck off and let candidates play the game. The middle ground between the options they chose for the last election was a real problem.
You’re missing the point, here in this thread. There are two scenarios:
Scenario 1:
Candidate A got fewer votes than Candidate B
Scenario 2:
Candidate A got more votes than Candidate B, but still lost the election because of the way the votes were distributed.
The lessons to be learned from each scenario are different. The fact that we are in Scenario 2 means that the problem was not the candidate or the candidate’s message - it was the with the candidate’s game day tactics that didn’t focus on the specific rules of the specific.
That’s a specific problem with tactics. It has nothing to do with Jay-Z or conservative buzzwords like “entitlement”. The Democrat’s gameplay just sucked. We should have ditched Wasserman-Schultz years ago.
In other news - evidence continues to accumulate that Trump supporters were primarily motivated by racism:
(“symbolic racism scale” is his label for the metric he used to measure racism for these statistical analyses).
Given that what motivated people to vote for Trump was mostly racism, I’m happy to let the Republicans keep those voters. Dems should not try to appeal to them. Dems should focus on Bernie’s efforts for economic equality measures and get some election nerds in who know how to play the game.
Direct link:
2016 American National Election Study
http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/anes_timeseries_2016/anes_timeseries_2016.htm
Forgive me, but isn’t that basically the case with you guys and Ariel Sharon?
Why on earth would you think the situation is a simple binary option like that? Why couldn’t it be that the candidate or her message was such that it didn’t appeal to enough voters in the states that matter instead of appealing to a bunch of voters in the larger states where each incremental vote buys you nothing towards winning the election?
…and that’s really the take-away lesson here for Democrats: Not Her in 2020!
Yes, Democrats won a majority of the voters, but not only is that not what’s needed, but that majority was way too thin for comfort. We’d really have liked to have won by a large enough margin that the electoral college wouldn’t matter. We didn’t. Let’s see what we have to do to not repeat that.
That is not what this study said.
The conclusion you can draw is that the subset of voters who scored high (75th percentile) on the study’s “symbolic racism scale” showed a greater increase to vote for Trump compared to those at the 50th percentile as compared to the increase between the 50th and 75th percentile groups on the authoritativeness scale.
This does not say anything about whether racism was the primary motivating factor at all, only that it scored a greater impact than authoritativeness. That would be true if these were the #1 and #2 factors or the #101 and #102 factors for Trump voters.
To get back to the OP… broad accusations of racism among your opponent’s supporters probably isn’t going to help get those on the fence to vote your way. Calling broad swaths of the public deplorables does not help any more than Romney helped his case with his 47% comment. Such statements piss off voters which *may *add to their motivation to get out to vote against your candidate.
This.
Saying “Hillary beat Trump by 2% in the popular vote” is like Michigan saying that they beat Appalachian State by 2 points.
This election was supposed to be a laugher. If five years ago people had been told that the 2016 election would have been Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, the first reaction would have been wide-eyed staring followed by guffaws, followed by predictions of Hillary topping the 500-electoral-vote mark. Hillary herself asked, “Why am I not 50 (percentage) points ahead?”
All the post-election repetition “Clinton won the popular vote” misses the point that it should never have been that close to begin with.
lemocratic?
Mrs Clinton won just under 49% of the vote. Not a majority.
To put it another way, consider two oft-repeated pitches of Trump’s: the Muslim ban, and building the wall. Now, there’s a lot you can say against those – that he can’t or won’t actually do that, or that it’d be an overreaction to a problem that’s not all that big a deal, or that it’s deplorable racism, or whatever. But he still earns a point for kicking off each pitch by effectively telling voters, “Since you’re my top priority, lemme mention what I think is in the best interests of American citizens.”
I never got that message from Hillary Clinton; it sounded like her top-priority pitch was, hey, voters: what’s best for people who aren’t American citizens?
Isn’t it time for someone to come along and give us the After School Special rendition on how to go change the Constitution, and then offer us good luck? That’s my favorite. Just isn’t complete without it, somehow.