So, where did the Democrats go wrong?

[GrandWino]

@eschereal

She had a fucking five percentage point lead two weeks out. Then that FBI guy dropped his bombshell. The decline was gradual, but just enough. She had no effective response. And, of course, we will probably never hear another word about whatever was on Huma Abedin’s computer, unless some agent makes a big noise about how there was nothing there.

You’re talking about polls? After last night? The polls were garbage from the start.

[control-z]

@GrandWino

You’re talking about polls? After last night? The polls were garbage from the start.

Indeed. The polls seemed to accurately reflect general changes in sentiment towards one candidate or another, but I don’t think they ever had the overall numbers right. I just don’t see how polls can work any more, a lot of people don’t have landlines, and those of us who have taken polls in recent years recognized the very obviously loaded questions for what they were, so I just quit responding to them. Also any Internet poll was immediately subject to massive manipulation from various groups on the Internet.

Pollsters need to figure out something fast to remain viable.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Four years ago, people here prepared a eulogy for the, Republican party, telling me how we needed to be more liberal, accept more liberal policies and just generally be Democrat lights (I can certainly bump that thread). Today, I see that much of the same people refuse to acknowledge that maybe Democrats’ social and economic policies aren’t just repugnant to a majority of people, but harmful to our nation.

…Lol, who am I kidding? Democrats obviously didn’t win because of racism.

Bring it out. After the shit you have taken, you’re entitled.

[jsc1953]

@Rigamarole

“Trump is the greatest gift to the Democrats” was a common sentiment - would love to see what some of those people have to say now.

I may not have said it aloud, but I certainly thought it: Trump is the greatest gift the Democrats could have asked for…if our candidate had been Anybody But Hillary.

What I’m saying now: I can’t believe how stupid my fellow Americans are.

[DrDeth]

@Rigamarole

Choosing the most disliked and unlikable candidate in history is where they went wrong. Duh?

Bernie would have won in a landslide. I have zero doubt about that.

Nope. The Rove hate machine would have smeared Sanders so bad it would have been nutso.

They did it vs Obama, vs Hillary, vs Bill. They will keep on doing it. It works, the gullible bought it. And the Sanderistas happily spread Roves lies for the GOP.

[DrDeth]

@Mosier

It turns out Democrats don’t like fake primaries. Go figure.

You mean the caucuses, the ones Bernie won? Yeah, those were not good.

[carnivorousplant]

@Robot_Arm

Trump managed to sell 50 million of them on the idea that a billionaire real-estate developer cares about them and will fix it.

And use his Evile Powers for Good.

[HurricaneDitka]

@eschereal

Really? That is not what I heard. The Rs lost a few house seats and did not gain a supermajority in the Senate. If that is correct, “crushed across the board” is far from accurate. They may not even be able to repeal the ACA if there is a filibuster.

Part of ObamaCare was passed under a “reconciliation” procedure, precisely to avoid the possibility of a filibuster. I don’t see why a repeal of ObamaCare couldn’t utilize the same procedure.

[marshmallow]

Some errors included nominating a candidate who openly allied herself with Wall Street, nominating an establishment politician when the electorate is viciously anti-establishment, nominating a candidate who has been hated by half of America for decades, the candidate saying she’ll put the coal industry out of business, the candidate and party appearing to be corrupt and not taking complaints about the economy seriously and preferring massaged statistics to lived experiences, and the party and its supporters spiking the football of identity politics when half the electorate feels like it was shoved down their throat via court decisions.

Other factors couldn’t have been helped, like the inevitable backlash of electing a black guy in America, or the morass of right wing media. Alex Jones is considered a mainstream source in some communities.

[DrDeth]

@marshmallow

Some errors included nominating a candidate who openly allied herself with Wall Street,… nominating a candidate who has been hated by half of America for decades, the candidate saying she’ll put the coal industry out of business,

1. False and a Rove lie.

2. Yes, because of GOP hate campaigns. They will do the same to any candidate.

3.Cite?

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Robot_Arm

I don’t see how it’s corrupt. It’s their party[sup]*[/sup] and they get to write the rules however they like. If they want to have superdelegates, they can have superdelegates.

Now, they may very well want to change the nominating process for the next cycle. Competition improves the breed, so they say. Abide by the will of the people in the primaries and you should get a candidate who can attract the will of the people in the general.

• And they’ll cry if they want to.

You are of course correct that it is “their party”, and that the DNC was always free to nominate anyone they chose. That’s nothing new. But…I believe that it was “news” to quite a few Democratic voters who assumed that the primary elections were ‘binding’; that is, that the voters were responsible for choosing the nominee. I think that when they found out the the Party had made their choice long before the primaries began, many of those voters (who were primarily young Bernie Sanders supporters) collectively said “Fuck this!” and deserted their party.

I think the numbers show that a fair number of them voted for Gary Johnson. But based upon the drop in his polling numbers in the last few weeks it seems like quite a few of those, in the end, decided to vote for a candidate that actually had a chance to win the election…and that meant Trump.

[DrDeth]

@Suburban_Plankton

.I believe that it was “news” to quite a few Democratic voters who assumed that the primary elections were ‘binding’; that is, that the voters were responsible for choosing the nominee…

“voters were responsible for choosing the nominee”: they were and they did. Voters overwhelmingly supported Hillary, she commanded the popular vote.

[sciurophobic]

Considering that Hilary won the popular vote, too many live in California and New York, and not enough in Michigan, Pennsylvania or Florida.

[Lantern]

One thing I think the Dems need to realize is that accusations of racism and sexism should be used in moderation even when they are true as they undoubtedly were with Trump. It was fine to attack him for some of his worst outbursts and I think they hurt him with voters. But then, towards the end of the race it seemed as if attacking Trump for racism and sexism was all the campaign was doing and I suspect many white voters just tuned it out. Incidentally this was not a mistake that the Obama campaign made; they were very careful about talking about racial issues which is part of the reason he won twice with the help of white voters in the Midwest which Hillary lost.

The basic problem is that many Dem elites live in an identity-politics bubble which is obsessed with issues of race and gender and where all accusations are taken with deadly seriousness whereas this stuff just doesn’t resonate as strongly in the wider culture particularly in non-urban areas.

[Velocity]

@Lobohan

I don’t think steady incremental change is status quo.

Yes, but the average voter might not perceive a difference.

[Rigamarole]

@DrDeth

“voters were responsible for choosing the nominee”: they were and they did. Voters overwhelmingly supported Hillary, she commanded the popular vote.

Here’s at least one big problem with that (and there are others as well): many of the people who supported Bernie were younger voters. Younger voters typically do not make the time and effort to vote in primaries, despite how much they loved and adored Bernie. But they would have voted for him in the general, hands down.

I’m one of those people, to be honest. I loved Bernie, and hated Hillary. But I am registered as no party affiliation and did not bother changing my registration in order to vote in a primary, and even if I had been I still might not have bothered, to be honest. But I did vote in the general. Yeah, yeah, I’m part of the problem, I know. But there are millions of people like me.

If you take a look at Reddit today (which skews youngish, lots and lots of 20-somethings on there), it’s absolutely chock full of posts to the effect of “It should have been Bernie”, “It would have been Bernie”, etc. The old farts around here tend to be so out of touch with the zeitgeist that they actually thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. They have no clue.

[DerekMichaels00]

@Lantern

One thing I think the Dems need to realize is that accusations of racism and sexism should be used in moderation even when they are true as they undoubtedly were with Trump. It was fine to attack him for some of his worst outbursts and I think they hurt him with voters. But then, towards the end of the race it seemed as if attacking Trump for racism and sexism was all the campaign was doing and I suspect many white voters just tuned it out. Incidentally this was not a mistake that the Obama campaign made; they were very careful about talking about racial issues which is part of the reason he won twice with the help of white voters in the Midwest which Hillary lost.

The basic problem is that many Dem elites live in an identity-politics bubble which is obsessed with issues of race and gender and where all accusations are taken with deadly seriousness whereas this stuff just doesn’t resonate as strongly in the wider culture particularly in non-urban areas.

couldn’t be said better. Sadly tho, while Obama didn’t himself use those allegations against his opponents, his surrogates and vocal media fans strongly did. “War on women,” that blocking Obama’s judges was “racism,” that Obama admin people called America a “nation of cowards,” etc. and he clearly was good with it because he let it happen; he thought he was gonna build a permanent liberal coalition like Reagan built a durable, strong, but not permanent GOP coalition. Even tho Obama won in 2012, he won by a lot less than he did in 2008, this stuff continued and saw Democratic registration fall, 2014 be bad news, and position to the GOP nominee fall badly in 2016. Hillary won most blue states by less than Obama, and lost almost all red states by more than Obama.

[Rigamarole]

Also, the young voters are the reason Obama got elected twice. Remember how heavily his campaign encouraged that get out the vote thing amongst the 18-30s? Voter turnout this year was much lower, and guess who the missing demographic primarily was? And guess who they liked, and who they fucking hated?

This isn’t rocket science. Bernie would have won.

[marshmallow]

@DrDeth

1. False and a Rove lie.

2. Yes, because of GOP hate campaigns. They will do the same to any candidate.

3.Cite?

1. If you don’t think Hillary is the avatar of Wall Street I can’t help you. If you think that’s a Rove lie I don’t even know where to start. It’s a common critique of her form the left and something Sanders harped on constantly. This was further shown by the Wikileaks e-mails where Hillary downplays Wall Street’s responsibility in the recession, essentially discounting the idea as a populist meme, and that Wall Street knows best how to regulate itself.

2. I agree that Hillary had poor favorability ratings, in part, due to years of Republican attacks. So why push the poisoned candidate? It doesn’t make sense. The right couldn’t work up that sort of foaming at the mouth hatred at a relatively fresh candidate in only a year of electioneering.

3. Hillary on coal. This was widely spread in Republican circles. Hillary tried to backtrack later and even sat down with some coal miners to explain what she really meant, but it evidently didn’t work.

[Leaper]

@Rigamarole

Here’s at least one big problem with that (and there are others as well): many of the people who supported Bernie were younger voters. Younger voters typically do not make the time and effort to vote in primaries, despite how much they loved and adored Bernie. But they would have voted for him in the general, hands down.

I’m one of those people, to be honest. I loved Bernie, and hated Hillary. But I am registered as no party affiliation and did not bother changing my registration in order to vote in a primary, and even if I had been I still might not have bothered, to be honest. But I did vote in the general. Yeah, yeah, I’m part of the problem, I know. But there are millions of people like me.

Wait a minute… So what are you proposing here? The Dems should have ignored the vote count of the primaries… Which Bernie’s voters couldn’t be bothered to participat in… And given the nomination to Bernie… Assuming and trusting those same voters would come out in the general… And if they didn’t… The party should assume that those same voters will ignore the specific and heartfelt and repeated pleas of the SAME MAN and vote for his opponent or a third party instead?

Please tell me where I’ve missed or misinterpreted something.