They owed the Cintons, politically. Obama may have won the 2008 primary and election but OFA did not displace the old party hands, and furthermore the Tea Party swells of 2010-2014 especially at the state level culled all but the well-rooted, well-established Dems.
So you ended up with a largely “legacy” Establishment and an atmosphere concerned lest you antagonize her, as a member of the Establishment, and you will be denied the mythical Clinton fundraising prowess and Favors Receivable ledger just when you need them most.
In this environment, expecting a “normal” Republican in the race, and aware that “third term” tends to be uphill and even more so for a Dem in the Tea Party age, the establishment wanted someone safe and “reliale” who’d raise truckloads of cash and not be accused of being more socialist than Obama(*).
(*ok so in practice anyone can be more socialist than Obama with minimal effort… that’s another story)
Isn’t “charisma” in the eye of the beholder, though? In practice, it doesn’t seem to have a very firm definition other than “that quality which causes the possessor to win elections.”
I suppose it is, but it’s something that can still be somewhat determined even before the election. In 2000, for example, there was the infamous “who would you rather have a beer with” question that W easily beat Gore on.
Do we seriously have to say this? You ran Hillary Clinton. You could not have picked a worse candidate. Well, maybe you could have; we’ll see who you turn up with in 2020…
She was the face and embodiment of the liberal elitism and privileged mentality that the rest of us have come to despise. Not to mention that she was a disaster as SoS.
Yessssss, but. And although I’ve seen it explained that Trump was more “real” than Clinton, I’d be hard pressed to believe he has any charisma. Maybe in the past?
Given that the numbers I have been seeing lately show her lead as a number of voters who would overwhelm the city of St. Louis MO, I would say that what went wrong was nothing more than effective targeting.
I’d say that’s the perfect end to the campaign: neither party one, but one of them lost.
I read an interesting article about how Republicans held the Senate. It was misnamed, because the Republicans didn’t actually do anything to hold the Senate. It just sorta happened. There was no brilliant plan, some Senators ran good campaigns, some didn’t, but most of them won and some were rather surprised by it. But now we know that all that really happened is that they didn’t lose. There was no strategy.
Basically, Democrats (including candidates, campaigns, and grassroots voters) just sat around like doofuses and dribbled away all their advantages, like a football team that manages to fumble the ball away at the end of the game when they’re supposed to be in “victory formation”. Pathetic. FFS
NB:As of Friday, Nov. 11, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. CST, I’m unsubscribing from all political threads and will no longer participate in discussions in the Elections board, nor in political discussions in the Pit or MPSIMS. If you reply to a political post of mine after that point, I will not see it; please do not PM me to try to pull me back in to the debate. Thanks!
That’s part of it, due to how well she was doing in the Polls.
Another part is GOP voter Jim Crow laws.
Another part is the Bernie-Bros- they didnt know how to campaign* for* their candidate, so they bought Roves lies and kept using them against Hillary, even long after the Nomination was sealed up. I got a couple in my FB feed, they are still going on how the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie.
Karl Roves lies worked really well. He pushed really hard on the idea that both candidates were so crappy you might as well not vote.
I guess the most obvious one is they had a candidate that clearly didn’t inspire enough people to go vote, as Ramira said.
But they also took the “blue wall” too much for granted and there were clues that don’t require hindsight. She knew Trump’s support was with working class whites. Her primary losses in Wisconsin and Michigan were not well predicted by the polls, so she should have been leary of trusting them in the general. And she never set foot in Wisconsin during the presidential campaign. So they should have recognized a possible weakness, not trusted the polls so much there and made more of a show of giving a crap about them.
I would argue that she didn’t lie enough. She apologized. She walked back some statements. She acknowledged errors.
That was her mistake. She should have lied bigly, and never apologized. I don’t like the tactic, but Trump just proved that that is the winning tactic, and winning is everything now.
I’m going to disagree there. After making up a story about ducking sniper fire she lost my vote forever. I’m used to exaggerations, hidden sins and ignorance but that was in another league for me.
I will admit, the sniper fire thing seemed pretty egregious until Brian Williams did the same thing and I started to wonder. And it just doesn’t compare to the insane level to which Trump lies constantly.
NB:As of Friday, Nov. 11, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. CST, I’m unsubscribing from all political threads and will no longer participate in discussions in the Elections board, nor in political discussions in the Pit or MPSIMS. If you reply to a political post of mine after that point, I will not see it; please do not PM me to try to pull me back in to the debate. Thanks!
And although I’ve seen it explained that Trump was more “real” than Clinton, I’d be hard pressed to believe he has any charisma. Maybe in the past?