So, where did the Democrats go wrong?

[iiandyiiii]

@DerekMichaels00

More like that he could come so close with such sagging approval ratings shows that were it not for the issue, McCrory woulda lost decisively.

Considering the polling on the issue, I think you’re wrong.

[Una_Persson]

@DerekMichaels00

All the arguments for it are based on meta-physical gender studies and even the pseudo-scientific studies have serious flaws.

No, they “all” don’t, nor is any part of your diatribe correct - something you have already been schooled about on this message board.

[doorhinge]

@Bridget_Burke

With both Clintons out of office, how much “influence” do they have to peddle?

How much influence is former mayor Michael “16 oz” Bloomberg trying to exert on various U.S. elections? Bloomberg has been tossing around millions of dollars to elect gun-banners, and gun-control advocates. Bloomberg hasn’t been very successful but that doesn’t stop him from trying. Hillary is very trying.

Maybe Hillary will spend millions to buy Chelsea a Senate seat? That should increase the numbers of foreign investors who hope to influence the vote of a future Senator Clinton.

[foolsguinea]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

What difference, at this point, does it make?

• Hillary Clinton

The Clintons are worth millions and their influence-peddling foundation is sucking up more bucks every day. It appears that somebody is thinking of the billionaires.

Whoa, I agree with doorhinge on something. Should I put that in my diary‽

[joebuck20]

Pretty interesting article on Politico today about why Hillary lost Michigan.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

I found this pretty telling:

“I’ve never seen a campaign like this,” said Virgie Rollins, a Democratic National Committee member and longtime political hand in Michigan who described months of failed attempts to get attention to the collapse she was watching unfold in slow-motion among women and African-American millennials.

Rollins, the chair emeritus of the Michigan Democratic Women’s Caucus, said requests into Brooklyn for surrogates to come talk to her group were never answered. When they held their events anyway, she said, they also got no response to requests for a little money to help cover costs.

Rollins doesn’t need a recount to understand why Clinton lost the state.

“When you don’t reach out to community folk and reach out to precinct campaigns and district organizations that know where the votes are, then you’re going to have problems,” she said.

And this;

But there also were millions approved for transfer from Clinton’s campaign for use by the DNC — which, under a plan devised by Brazile to drum up urban turnout out of fear that Trump would win the popular vote while losing the electoral vote, got dumped into Chicago and New Orleans, far from anywhere that would have made a difference in the election.

[squidfood]

@joebuck20

“When you don’t reach out to community folk and reach out to precinct campaigns and district organizations that know where the votes are, then you’re going to have problems,” she said.

You could armchair quarterback this to death; for example, in October the media was full of stories that the Clinton campaign did exactly this… in Florida and North Carolina. Yes, in retrospect her campaign’s resource spread was off - but they did in fact do the “right things” in the places they committed the resources.

[doorhinge]

@squidfood

You could armchair quarterback this to death;

…Yes, in retrospect her campaign’s resource spread was off - but they did in fact do the “right things” in the places they committed the resources.

(post shortened)

What difference, at this point, does it make?

• Hillary Clinton

Hillary’s resource spread was off, but they did do the “right things”???

Hillary lost because she didn’t do enough of the “right things” where, and when, it counted.

Team Hillary had virtually unlimited resources. Hillary ran a race to collect the most Electoral College votes, just as every other candidate did, and Hillary failed to achieve that goal.

[JRDelirious]

@doorhinge

Hillary’s resource spread was off, but they did do the “right things”???

Hillary lost because she didn’t do enough of the “right things” where, and when, it counted…

I think that was the point, that the Clinton campaign thought they were doing the so-called “right things” … but did so in the wrong places and in an untimely fashion-- because they took certain states for granted in the electoral-vote calculus.

[DigitalC]

@JRDelirious

because they took certain states for granted in the electoral-vote calculus.

But it’s not like this happened in a vacuum. Hillary took those states for granted because every poll was telling her they were in the bag. In retrospect Hillary was incredibly overconfident and she lost because of it, but at the time with the information she had she did what looked like the right moves. She should have ran an incredibly defensive campaign focused entirely on holding onto the “blue wall” and she probably would have if she had any real inkling of were the race actually stood.

[squidfood]

@doorhinge

Hillary’s resource spread was off, but they did do the “right things”???

All I’m saying is that a generic complaint from an on-the-ground rust belt campaign worker wasn’t particularly enlightening, when other on-the-ground campaign workers in focus areas were doing the door-to-door thing. If she’d spent the effort to win in the rust belt, but lost by losing Nevada, we’d be hearing complaints from Nevada.

[squidfood]

@squidfood

If she’d spent the effort to win in the rust belt, but lost by losing Nevada, we’d be hearing complaints from Nevada.

I’m going to build on this a bit, since the thread is where did the Democrats (not Hillary specifically) go wrong. Nevada was famously won by the “Reid machine”, and the Reid machine also put a new Democratic Senator in office. If Trump was in office, but the Democrats had won three more Senate races, they’d be in a very very different place. So as far as mistakes go, I’d look towards the individual state party machines and their state of decay. Whether this is the fault of individual state democratic groups, or too much centralization and presidential focus from the top, I couldn’t say - probably some of both. (Those Senate races were quite competitive, so I’d assume discuss it as error in tactics rather than error in ideology).

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

@Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor

Why did Trump win?
It is Rural America, screaming “STOP IGNORING US & OUR NEEDS!”

And, as everything else has failed, they try to smash the plate glass window, by electing Trump.

Seriously.
The Mainstream GOP screwed them by promising things they never intended to deliver, & the Democrats, their greatest strength in the cities, couldn’t care less about them.
My conclusion :
Trump is a non-Democrat, but, at least to the voters, is an Anti-Republican.

as of today’s news–

'Democratic voters, are clustered in urban areas…and on the coasts, and so as a consequence you’ve got a situation where there are not only entire states but also big chunks of states where, if we’re not showing up, if we’re not in there making an argument, then we’re going to lose.

And we can lose badly, and that’s what happened in this election.

There are clearly failures on our part to give people in rural areas or in exurban areas a sense day-to-day that we’re fighting for them or connected to them.

Part of the reason it’s important to show up…is because it then builds trust and it gives you a better sense of how should you talk about issues in a way that feel salient and feel meaningful to people.’

~~Barack Obama

Not too shabby

[doubleminus]

The thing is that Clinton preached to the minorities (educated, ethnic and racial) - and not very well too. Seems those minorities are in in a minority.

[septimus]

Reported.

[septimus]

@septimus

Reported.

No; I haven’t lost my mind(*). There was a spam post which I reported and the Mods deleted.

(* - Well, maybe I have lost my mind; but the “Reported” was not a manifestation of that. )

[JKellyMap]

It’s all good. Dopers who hope to see a Democrat win the election in 11 months could maybe use a refresher course on what went wrong last time around (though perhaps we “get it” plenty by now).

[Jonathan_Chance]

Right, let’s not litigate this again.