Because the point about which states “matter” is, in this election, a question of gamesmanship.
In this instance, we know that Clinton neglected to campaign strongly (or, you know, at all) in the states that ended up mattering. Furthermore, we know that in Michigan at least, she lost by a fairly slim margin.
Because of that we can’t assume that the voters there heard and rejected her candidacy. OTOH, we can assume that campaigning in those states was a tactical error.
I will admit that knowledge of statistics is limited, to put it politly. But the conclusion of the article, which I quoted, put it this way:
Thinking it over now, Iggy, I do see what you’re saying. That said, I think it’s reasonable to conclude from this quote that Trump supporters are more likely to be motivated by racism than by authoritarianism.
To be fair, she is probably well-pleased to have lost the presidency and the Democrats’ chances, since it didn’t mean gaining the votes of deplorables.
Here’s a start.
[ol][li]Work on the state level. State legislatures are where most of the gerrymandering happens. Only a few states pass the district drawing task to an ostensibly non-partisan group. If you don’t control the legislatures you are facing a decade of elections with an unfavorable map.[/li][li]Do not assume any state that went less than D+20 in the last presidential election is a safe state. Campaign in every single state that was closer than this. No blowing off Wisconsin. No half hearted effort in Michigan.[/li][li]Take to heart that if someone took the effort to raise their concerns about an issue to your campaign there are probably a dozen people with similar sentiments who think the same way but did not say anything. Do not downplay those sentiments. Look for patterns in feedback and complaints to recognize simmering sentiments in the voting public. Be damn sure you are addressing those issues.[/li][li]Campaign *for *your candidate. If you don’t give the public something to vote for then you may be stuck relying on a turnout of voters who are motivated more by voting against the other candidate. You need voters to the polls who want both to vote for your candidate as well as against the other candidate.[/li][li]Do not assume that you have any damn idea in 2018 what the key issues are that will drive voters come election time in 2020. These are different races. Be prepared to shift gears if needed.[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
These are really excellent.
I want to stress Campaign *for your candidate. Dont campaign against your fellow Democrat- except on the issues. * Too many Democrats bought into GOP lies and Russian & Rove propaganda and kept spreading lies, negative info and propaganda against Hillary even after she was the candidate.
Let the rank-and-file choose the candidate. Don’t let the leadership choose for you. I know many Dems don’t understand that votes for Bernie or Trump were actually votes for Not-Clinton. A fair primary will get you someone your party can rally around.
Campaign in purple states and red and blue states on the verge of flipping. You don’t need to waste time and money in California and Texas.
Be very careful not to appear as hypocrites. Fair or unfair, the soundbites you made in 2012-2016 about those evil Republicans being obstructionists will come back and haunt you if you do the same in 2017-2020.
You have to work at the state level. The Dems are losing states in terms of Governorships and the Senate and you need to learn from 2000 and 2016 that the Presidential election is a state-by-state vote and not a popular election.
St Cad wrote: “How does that work? You get 60% of the popular vote and they ignore the EVs?”
Not at all, the theory is that if you get enough popular votes, the electoral votes take care of themselves. It usually works.
And as a Michigan resident I can tell you that Hillary’s problem here wasn’t that she “didn’t gain the votes of deplorables”. It was that they didn’t mobilize sufficient numbers of reliable Democratic voters to overcome the “deplorables” that managed, some for the first time in ages, to find the polling places.
That, and not convincing enough normal Republican voters that this was not a year to do their regular thing. This despite the Detroit News failing to endorse the Republican nominee for the first time in their history. This despite the lack of endorsement from the Governor. This despite the fact that much of the regular Republican organization read the same polls as the rest of us and sat on their hands.
The DNC did and Sanders did, but his supporters still had that bitter taste in their mouth and felt like they weren’t beaten fairly. If the DNC had been neutral in the primaries like it would have had Howard Dean been in charge, then the Sanders people would have gotten on board.
You’re right; I should have said “plurality”. But that just makes my point even stronger: We should have done a lot better than that.
No, you still count up the EVs, because that’s what the rules say you do, and we haven’t managed to change the rules yet. But there is absolutely no realistic situation where one candidate wins 60% of the popular vote and still loses the EC. Even in theory, that’s only possible for an extremely geographically polarized nation, but if the polarization ever got that extreme, we’d be deciding the election at Gettysburg and Shiloh again, not in the EC.
This post really illustrates the problem that the Democratic leadership has. In their view, if anyone isn’t supporting them, it must be because that person is getting their news from right-wing sources that distort the facts. And they take it for granted that if any of those people would just read a good liberal news source, then they would shift to voting for the Democrats. But this is not true, and moreover believing it hurts the Democrats because it means that they don’t know what’s believed by the exact voters that they need to reach and convert.
Those who run campaigns and plot strategy for the Democrats should read The Weekly Standard. And also The National Review and The Wall Street Journal and Instapundit. And they should also watch some Fox News and listen to some Rush Limbaugh. That way they would know what is motivating Republican voters to vote Republican. As it is, there are a ton of issues that are a huge deal among conservatives, and are a major motivation of why they consistently go to the polls to vote for Republicans, which are totally ignored by both the Democratic Party’s official voice, and by the liberal media outlets that Republican voters strongly associated with the Democratic Party. As just one example, the scandal of the IRS illegally targeting conservative organizations and then for years stonewalling the investigation into the matter and refusing to hand over evidence. This has been an almost daily topic on conservative media for years, while the Democrats seems to think that if they just refuse to ever mention it, it will go away.
What they used to do was assign monitors for just that purpose, to keep track of Limbaugh, Hannity, that ilk. Given the incidence of mental breakdowns, depression and drug addiction, it became known as “Riding the Disorient Express”.
Also, those wacky goings-on are reflected in sane media, like Daily Show, etc. So, we can gaze upon the snaked-haired bitch without becoming permanently statuesque. Further, we do already kinda know what they think, they think he’s telling them the truth. What are we gonna say to change their minds? All we got is reason and facts. What good is that for a homeopathic intelligence?
Sharon’s a special case. His years in the political wilderness caused most of teh hatred against him to die out, except among the hard-core left, and he won his elections by veering toward the center instead of by riling up his base.
But that’s *definitely *the case with Bibi Netanyahu, especially considering the series of nonentities the opposition insists on sending out against him.
Back in the 80s/90s, I remember that Democrats were often called “soft on defense.” They’ve managed to shake that label. I don’t see it as much, if at all, anymore. These days it seems to be “soft on illegal immigration.” I think the Democrats need to shake that label. The wall is a stupendously bad idea, but there’s a lot of strong sentiment against illegal immigration because, right or wrong, it is viewed as damaging the economy for the little guy. And ultimately it always boils down to the economy. Of course, I’m not sure how they do it.