Support NeoGAF

[YourMaster]

He's right.
Hillary Clinton and the DNC's incompetency are to blame for the loss. Only them and nobody else.

Why GAF and pretty much every media outlet out there is hunting for culprits is beyond me.

I think people also fail to give Trump credit. It's not just that Hillary lost, it is that Trump won. He was both effective in getting people enthusiastic in him and has an undeniable hand in making people look a lot less favorable towards Hillary.

Sure, with some changes to her campaign Hillary could still have won, but had Trump done stuff differently he would have lost.

 

[Melkezadek]

They're two different things. First off, calling 50% of republican voters deplorable is fucking idiotic and guarantees that if someone from the other 50% was thinking of changing their vote that won't happen anymore.
Second of all, how was Hillary addressing minority concerns while doing fancy fundraisers? Whose concerns was she addressing exactly? Why couldn't she show up to at least pretend like she cared?

Gee I don't know, maybe the fact that she was trying to get families who make less than 100k a year into free public college, which would benefit every single minority in an inner city. We'd be getting a higher education to get better jobs.

How about her call for police reform so that black men and women aren't killed every other week in some random shooting for a trigger happy cop?

Yea, she sure didn't address my concerns. Clearly she only cared about herself and fundraising.

In an attempt to call a spade a spade, what would the specific harm be in actively campaigning in areas like the rust belt?

Should people have known enough to make an informed decision? Ideologically, sure. My follow up question then becomes, why leave that up to an ideological position when you can just cement what you need by taking an active role (read: campaign in person).

How many people can pick Noam Chomsky out of a lineup?

I don't disagree whatsoever with calling out bigotry, racism, sexism or anything of the like.

Rather, the rural voter was alienated because Clinton didn't even make the attempt to reach them.

Correlation vs. causation and all that fun stuff.

Because calling out apathy towards racism is the same as being called a racist. White people, in my experience, seem to have issue with this. That is part of a bigger problem that no one wants to address and it makes conversations impossible when you have to ignore the giant elephant in the room.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

Apparently purity of messaging and wokeness are more important than winning elections and instituting policies. The millennial social justice set had the election run the way they wanted: rural whites don't matter, if they care about emails or Benghazi or immigration or appear open or not against a racist's racist platform then fuck em, we're moving forward without them, stay salty lol, focus on Trump's hatred and assume people care about that more than anything else, they're not worth the time of day for any issue if they're receptive or not rejecting Trump's bigotry.

Trump is the fucking president now.

I'd rather have done what it took to won and felt good for four to eight years than have campaigned "right" and deal with Trump and his band of evil henchmen working against everything.

Marcellus Wallace had some words to say about pride.

Good post. Appealing to working class whites doesn't mean going racist. Honestly, I already see people falling into the "we don't need them" trap after Trump won. Victory is never assured, you shouldn't give up on any large group of voters that you can conceivably win. No one should be advocating abandoning one group for another, or abandoning core principles of the party. There's room for everyone under the democrat banner. Different groups have different concerns, this is what happens when you outright ignore a sizable voting bloc. I feel like a better VP pick could have done some of this heavy lifting for Hillary though.

 

[SamVimes]

Gee I don't know, maybe the fact that she was trying to get families who make less than 100k a year into free public college, which would benefit every single minority in an inner city. We'd be getting a higher education to get better jobs.

How about her call for police reform so that black men and women aren't killed every other week in some random shooting for a trigger happy cop?

Yea, she sure didn't address my concerns. Clearly she only cared about herself and fundraising.

You didn't get my point. I'm saying that she wasn't addressing minority concerns while doing all those fundraising events, not that she didn't address them at all. She could have spent that time addressing other people's concerns without subtracting it from minorities.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Gee I don't know, maybe the fact that she was trying to get families who make less than 100k a year into free public college, which would benefit every single minority in an inner city. We'd be getting a higher education to get better jobs.

How about her call for police reform so that black men and women aren't killed every other week in some random shooting for a trigger happy cop?

Yea, she sure didn't address my concerns. Clearly she only cared about herself and fundraising.

That's great - that's why I voted for her. Why did she not show up in large, critical areas of the country that were not urban centers, though? How will those items get advanced with her being out of office? She ceded those areas assuming urban centers will make up for it. She dismissed and took those voters for granted. She had no message for them face to face and did not speak to their more important concerns, which were economic (fully accepting that for many of those voters they were ok with racism or outright racists themselves). Only one candidate did.

 

[pa22word]

Gee I don't know, maybe the fact that she was trying to get families who make less than 100k a year into free public college, which would benefit every single minority in an inner city. We'd be getting a higher education to get better jobs.

Might have been a good idea to put that in a commercial or actually visit these people and tell them that (0 fucking stops in wiscy, fucking /0/) instead of doing nothing but playing identity politics for the last two months of the election.

Meanwhile, Trump ran on the economy in these states and won.

 

[aeolist]

Because calling out apathy towards racism is the same as being called a racist. White people, in my experience, seem to have issue with this. That is part of a bigger problem that no one wants to address and it makes conversations impossible when you have to ignore the giant elephant in the room.

by apparently refusing to address economic issues until we've completely solved racism you are being just as big of an obstruction to progress as any leftist who wants to appeal to open white supremacists. we can do both, we have to do both.

look, the democrats decided that "america is already great" was a good response to the trump campaign. that is simply tone-deaf and will never work for people who have seen their lives stagnate or degrade over the last few decades. recognizing that is not capitulating to nazis.

 

[faisal233]

Might have been a good idea to put that in a commercial or actually visit these people and tell them that (0 fucking stops in wiscy, fucking /0/) instead of doing nothing but playing identity politics for the last two months of the election.

Meanwhile, Trump ran on the economy in these states and won.

And he had no real economic plans. Clinton let him dominate that message.

The candidate with the big data operation and $2 billion couldn't target the right message to the right states. The clown show with the GOP D team did and ran the table on us.

 

[Mesousa]

by apparently refusing to address economic issues until we've completely solved racism you are being just as big of an obstruction to progress as any leftist who wants to appeal to open white supremacists. we can do both, we have to do both.

look, the democrats decided that "america is already great" was a good response to the trump campaign. that is simply tone-deaf and will never work for people who have seen their lives stagnate or degrade over the last few decades. recognizing that is not capitulating to nazis.

That line, above all others, effectively won Trump the campaign. To say America is already great to a bunch of people with no economic future, as it stands, is embarrassing.

 

[E92 M3]

Anyone that feels entitled to the Presidency because "it's their turn" deserves to lose.

 

[Melkezadek]

That's great - that's why I voted for her. Why did she not show up in large, critical areas of the country that were not urban centers? How will those items get advanced with her being out of office?

It's crazy Hillary Clinton never showed up in my town and I still seem to be fully aware of her policies and what she plans to do for me and you. I didn't have to do much digging for that information either. All I had to do was turn on the television.

I understand the need to go campaigning in those areas, but I'm not convinced that it would have made much of a difference, given that she was probably one of the most disliked Democratic candidates ever. But I'm not sure how we can excuse the voter, who knew the options. Who knew what she (or claimed) to stand for and what he CLEARLY stood for. I'm not sure how we can go around acting like everyone was so grossly uninformed about this. Yes, the typical American doesn't know all the nuances of policy, but not being able to spot the difference tells a lot more about the average voters ability to think and their general moral compass. I don't believe any amount of reasoning and debating can change that.

 

[Onemic]

Now that even Obama is saying it, will folks finally drop the act and allow Hillary to take some heat for this loss?

 

[phanphare]

I really don't understand the notion that addressing the poor and working families in this country would be at the expense of addressing issues that affect minorities

doubly so because aren't certain minorities disproportionately represented in those classes? so wouldn't a focus on those economic issues go a long way towards helping them and speaking to the issues that affect them on a daily basis?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Facts matter by the way. Obama's administration took us out of recession and we are back on track Economically after a disastrous republican rule.

This is what people don't get about the rust belt. Saying that the economy is great, look at these statistics, is not the right thing to do lol. The rust belt got burned so bad over the last few decades, they literally want a blood sacrifice of bankers and wall street execs. Any presidential candidate that stinks of wall street or corporate ties is going to have an uphill battle.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

It's crazy Hillary Clinton never showed up in my town and I still seem to be fully aware of her policies and what she plans to do for me and you. I didn't have to do much digging for that information either. All I had to do was turn on the television.

I understand the need to go campaigning in those areas, but I'm not convinced that it would have made much of a difference, given that she was probably one of the most disliked Democratic candidates ever. But I'm not sure how we can excuse the voter, who knew the options. Who knew what she (or claimed) to stand for and what he CLEARLY stood for. I'm not sure how we can go around acting like everyone was so grossly uninformed about this. Yes, the typical American doesn't know all the nuances of policy, but not being able to spot the difference tells a lot more about the average voters ability to think and their general moral compass. I don't believe any amount of reasoning and debating can change that.

They knew what she stood against. She did a great job telling people what to vote against - rather than vote for. And yes, her being disliked meant it was even more critical to get in these people's faces and let them see her in person.

Like I said, Obama won many of these very same voters twice. Largely by getting down on the ground and speaking to these people face to face. I'm not convinced the people voting for him suddenly turned racist and sexist in a span of 4-8 years. I am convinced, though, that they became wary of their economic situations in that same time frame because such little progress was made there and they became open to anyone who spoke to them directly.

 

[SlimySnake]

Extremely disappointed in Hillary.

 

[aeolist]

I really don't understand the notion that addressing the poor and working families in this country would be at the expense of addressing issues that affect minorities

doubly so because aren't certain minorities disproportionately represented in those classes? so wouldn't a focus on those economic issues go a long way towards helping them and speaking to the issues that affect them on a daily basis?

there are people talking about how we have to win the trump electorate away from him, and a large number of them were clearly motivated by racial animus.

though most of the ones saying this are the kinds of out of touch centrist idiots who got us into this situation to begin with, not progressives or leftists.

there's also been a history of tension between labor and social justice movements in america. unions used to be highly segregated and racist organizations. this is less true these days but the memory persists.

 

[Boney]

You literally have people saying that bigotry, racism and sexism shouldn't be called out, or else you will alienate the white, rural voter.

Do people not see the problem with that? Mind you, that doesn't mean we ignore their concerns, as I've already stated. You aren't addressing both, you're trying to hush up one side so you can appeal to another to win the next election.

This isn't about coddling bigots. This is about those hundreds of thousands that casted their ballots without any presidential nominee. This is about those people who were given hope when Trump told the automotive industry to fuck off and pay their workers a fair wage. This is about people that want a less interventionist government.

Even if trump's claims are bullshit and Clinton's plan was more beneficial, that was not the message they recieved. Trump was saying "I'm with you" while Clinton was saying "..." And "Trump is dumb".

Even if you want to argue that even they voting for their self interest but they're enabling the racist rethoric that's tailored for the other contingency, well yeah this would be true, but that is the crux of the matter isn't it? The message from democrats was so hollow that they relied on their own sort of scapegoating to win the election. When the message about minimum wage increase, worker security, infrastructure spending, college tuition reform was absolutely absent after the primaries.

This is what people don't get about the rust belt. Saying that the economy is great, look at these statistics, is not the right thing to do lol. The rust belt got burned so bad over the last few decades, they literally want a blood sacrifice of bankers and wall street execs. Any presidential candidate that stinks of wall street or corporate ties is going to have an uphill battle.

Rightly so.

 

[Kinyou]

That line, above all others, effectively won Trump the campaign. To say America is already great to a bunch of people with no economic future, as it stands, is embarrassing.

That line really was just too reactionary. It also kind of clashed with the party's own direction which is usually very clear about America having problems.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Gee I don't know, maybe the fact that she was trying to get families who make less than 100k a year into free public college.

Going to try again.

What would the harm be about taking this very message to the cities, the suburbs and the country?

Second, if it was truly a harm, what did strictly avoiding those areas accomplish?

You say the typical voter doesn't understand the nuance of policy. I don't disagree. Doesn't that make it even more imperative to deliver your message directly to the people?

That's all ignoring the fact that most people's moral compass is irrelevant if they can't keep a roof over their head and food on the table. Their guiding compass is the one to provide food and shelter. Anything beyond that doesn't see the light of day until after.

 

[LegalEagleMike]

reposting from another thread...

Looking over the data in my little red county in southern Ohio. Obama lost here in 04 by 7%, lost in 08 by 1%. Hillary lost by 28% this election.



Obama came here a few times, Romney came here a lot, Bush and Mccain, came, Bill Clinton still swings by. Hillary did not come once.

 

[phanphare]

there are people talking about how we have to win the trump electorate away from him, and a large number of them were clearly motivated by racial animus.

though most of the ones saying this are the kinds of out of touch centrist idiots who got us into this situation to begin with, not progressives or leftists.

there's also been a history of tension between labor and social justice movements in america. unions used to be highly segregated and racist organizations. this is less true these days but the memory persists.

well we should be winning some of them back, I don't think anyone can question that. with a number of democrats voting for trump and a number of places that went for obama in 2008 and 2012 that went for trump that seems like a foregone conclusion.

the question is how do you win them back and how do you do so in a way that still combats bigotry at every turn, which is what I think people are worried about.

I personally think with stronger leadership and a democratic party that backs up its words with actions that issue will take care of itself without diluting it's social message. I think democrats just need to wake up to the economic hardships that are plaguing the country and really take a good hard look at the message they're sending not with their words but with their actions. do that and I think you can count on higher turnout for young people, who lean left more so than any generation prior, and also win back the people who feel the democratic party isn't the party for them anymore.

 

[wesleyshark]

Anyone that feels entitled to the Presidency because "it's their turn" deserves to lose.

Pretty much.

 

[Inuhanyou]

There's more to being a people's champion than optics, but in general i agree. I still think it would have been a very close race regardless of if Clinton went out and shook every hand in the country.

She didn't have the past record to get off with a high approval rating when she first entered the race, she already had tons of skeletons backed up out the door, and on top of that, it just so happened that she had no major connection to the average person.

Many of her die hard supporters supported her on the basis of privilege of it being her turn as opposed to her actual merit as a candidate and were blind to what her actual faults were. And that was a big failure that they didn't see coming even though many people warned them repeatedly.

 

[Melkezadek]

Going to try again.

What would the harm be about taking this very message to the cities, the suburbs and the country?

Second, if it was truly a harm, what did strictly avoiding those areas accomplish?

You say the typical voter doesn't understand the nuance of policy. I don't disagree. Doesn't that make it even more imperative to deliver your message directly to the people?

That's all ignoring the fact that most people's moral compass is irrelevant if they can't keep a roof over their head and food on the table. Their guiding compass is the one to provide food and shelter. Anything beyond that doesn't see the light of day until after.

Really? You mean my parents and grandparents, who sometimes couldn't even keep a roof over their head? You mean the countless minorities who grew up in impoverished homes who were sustained by the values and lessons taught to them by their struggling parents. The lessons of acceptable and tolerance of those who are different than me?

There were times I went to bed hungry - my parents too. Still, even with all of that, we would never sell our soul to the devil. People mean more than that - or at least they should.

Apparently that is asking the impossible.

 

[shintoki]

I keep thinking back to the very last debate and very last question, with how amazingly bad Clinton responded to it. It was a simple bullshit question about saying something nice on your opponent. It has nothing to do with their policies, but it relates directly to that idea of the president being likable to the general populace. And how she responded vs Trump, I got this sick feeling in my stomach about it. I wouldn't be surprised if that alone swayed many voters from her.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Really? You mean my parents and grandparents, who sometimes couldn't even keep a roof over their head? You mean the countless minorities who grew up in impoverished homes who were sustained by the values and lessons taught to them by their struggling parents. The lessons of acceptable and tolerance of those who are different than me?

There were times I went to bed hungry - my parents too. Still, even with all of that, we would never sell our soul to the devil. People mean more than that - or at least they should.

Apparently that is asking the impossible.

Going to try a third time.

What is the harm of rolling out the free college to households under 100k to areas far and wide, from the cities to the suburbs to the country?

If there was some harm, what was then the benefit of not campaigning elsewhere?

I want to answer the rest, but one step at a time.

 

[nocturnalis]

I wouldn't say that. Clinton also didn't over promise on things we can see now would never happen (closing Guantanamo, how amazing Obamacare would be, dealing with bankers, etc). Remember, Obama won in 2008, but there was a reason why the Democrats lost huge in 2010 and it starts with you.

 

[faisal233]

Really? You mean my parents and grandparents, who sometimes couldn't even keep a roof over their head? You mean the countless minorities who grew up in impoverished homes who were sustained by the values and lessons taught to them by their struggling parents. The lessons of acceptable and tolerance of those who are different than me?

There were times I went to bed hungry - my parents too. Still, even with all of that, we would never sell our soul to the devil. People mean more than that - or at least they should.

Apparently that is asking the impossible.

Then why even bother campaigning? The GOP agenda is reprehensible and trump is even worse. We shouldn't campaign our message in 2018 and 2020, people have a responsibility find out the truth and vote.

 

[RustyNails]

Saying Hillary should have campaigned in Iowa when every poll showed she was trailing Trump is political malpractice. It's laughing in the face of facts. If she had done 100 events and lost Iowa by 2 points instead of 10, we would all be laughing at her dumb campaign strategy. She chose to focus on states where trends showed she got more play: NC, NH, FL, NV and even AZ. Iowa was locked up by Trump. Clawing it back was futile when there were more than half a dozen paths to victory for Hillary without Iowa.

 

[aeolist]

Saying Hillary should have campaigned in Iowa when every poll showed she was trailing Trump is political malpractice. It's laughing in the face of facts. If she had done 100 events and lost Iowa by 2 points instead of 10, we would all be laughing at her dumb campaign strategy. She chose to focus on states where trends showed she got more play: NC, NH, FL, NV and even AZ. Iowa was locked up by Trump. Clawing it back was futile when there were more than half a dozen paths to victory for Hillary without Iowa.

all of which assumed she would win wisconsin and michigan

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Saying Hillary should have campaigned in Iowa when every poll showed she was trailing Trump is political malpractice. It's laughing in the face of facts. If she had done 100 events and lost Iowa by 2 points instead of 10, we would all be laughing at her dumb campaign strategy. She chose to focus on states where trends showed she got more play: NC, NH, FL, NV and even AZ. Iowa was locked up by Trump. Clawing it back was futile when there were more than half a dozen paths to victory for Hillary without Iowa.

But Trump team's data showed different and what turned out to be correct information. Not really an excuse with a skeleton crew versus what was supposed to be a very strong data infrastructure for the Dems. There was also a major error there too. And if the campaign's actions are any indication, they likely oversampled urban voters and downplayed rural - leading them to those conclusions.

 

[tkscz]

It's crazy Hillary Clinton never showed up in my town and I still seem to be fully aware of her policies and what she plans to do for me and you. I didn't have to do much digging for that information either. All I had to do was turn on the television.

I understand the need to go campaigning in those areas, but I'm not convinced that it would have made much of a difference, given that she was probably one of the most disliked Democratic candidates ever. But I'm not sure how we can excuse the voter, who knew the options. Who knew what she (or claimed) to stand for and what he CLEARLY stood for. I'm not sure how we can go around acting like everyone was so grossly uninformed about this. Yes, the typical American doesn't know all the nuances of policy, but not being able to spot the difference tells a lot more about the average voters ability to think and their general moral compass. I don't believe any amount of reasoning and debating can change that.

Because it's the social vs the economical. I'm not sure why that's not obvious.

Say you were in their shoes. Do you, someone who has to worry about that one business leaving town that's allowing you to feed your family and provide them a home, give them a chance at survival, and have watched business after business abandon you for outsourcing and city/suburban areas, vote for the person who ignored you, called you names, see you as a problem, and has a history of working closer to those who have taken jobs away from your area for years (Hillary was already known for working closer with big businesses and bankers over small businesses), or do you vote for the person who gives you a sliver of hope, even if you know their is a higher chance it's bullshit than it is of being true, who promised to bring back jobs to the US from foreign countries. Who promised, to your face, to make sure you and your family would be safe and secure? Regardless of his comments, his stance on the social structure, a structure that doesn't effect you any because you are pretty much not involved in it, and his awful past, he promises you a way of living that has been long gone for you. No more fearing if you'll make tomorrow's payments. No more fearing the one company left is leaving you. This person promised to end all of that, while the other person made no positive comment to or about you at all.

In their eyes, that phrase, Make America Great Again, wasn't about silencing women and minorities and returning to a time where the white man ruled. It was returning to the time where they knew their neighborhood had options, their children had chances, when they didn't need to worry about surviving on the edge everyday. That's when America was great to them. And I understand your PoV as well, but it feels like you make no attempt to understand theirs. You've already marked them off as bigoted racists and that as the reason why they voted for Trump (at least that's what your post make it seem like). You agreed with Hillary's social stance, and despised Trump for his, which is completely reasonable, but that's not what they saw, because they couldn't care less about the social construct of America. They just wanted jobs, and a chance. A chance Hillary didn't give them that even Obama gave them. A chance that republicans have been taking advantage of for a long time. These people are despite and will ignore anything negative about a candidate, as long as that candidate promises them a life they can live in once again.

 

[RustyNails]

all of which assumed she would win wisconsin and michigan

No she didnt assume. Last poll of wisconsin from #MULaw poll which is gold standard in Wisconsin polling had Clinton +6. Her internals showed the same thing. If polling shows you're ahead in Wisconsin then wasting resources doesnt make sense. Michigan was closer and she did campaign there.

 

[faisal233]

But Trump team's data showed different and what turned out to be correct information. Not really an excuse with a skeleton crew versus what was supposed to be a very strong data infrastructure for the Dems. There was also a major error there too. And if the campaign's actions are any indication, they likely oversampled urban voters and downplayed rural - leading them to those conclusions.

I was listening to the Obama people in keepin it 1600 talk about how they validated their polling data.

1. Regular internal polls
2. Automated robocall polls with 10x larger sample
3. Feedback from local operatives

If all three didn't come out the same, they would go back and look closely at whats going on. We have forgotten about the people part of politics.

 

[chubigans]

Jesus Christ. How come no one pointed this out during the election?

You do not dare say a single bad thing about Hillary pre-Nov. 8th. You're basically saying Stinkles or Y2Kev's name three times fast.

Anyways, I hope Clinton stays out of politics forever now.

 

[RustyNails]

But Trump team's data showed different and what turned out to be correct information. Not really an excuse with a skeleton crew versus what was supposed to be a very strong data infrastructure for the Dems. There was also a major error there too. And if the campaign's actions are any indication, they likely oversampled urban voters and downplayed rural - leading them to those conclusions.

I dont know what exactly happened. I want to know why Obama gotv failed the way it did too. But look at RCP's averages of states. The numbers dont lie. Wisconsin was not near bellwhether status. I'm still waiting for an autopsy report. Clinton did make blunders and the WWC liked Trump's nativist message over Hillary's lets work together kumbaya stuff.

 

[faisal233]

I dont know what exactly happened. I want to know why Obama gotv failed the way it did too. But look at RCP's averages of states. The numbers dont lie. Wisconsin was not near bellwhether status. I'm still waiting for an autopsy report. Clinton did make blunders and the WWC liked Trump's nativist message over Hillary's lets work together kumbaya stuff.

I'm not trying to repudiate data. Data should play a large part of any campaign, but it can't be the only thing we rely on. I find it hard to believe that if we had a strong state parties in the rustbelt, we would still miss the changes in the electorate.

 

[maxiell]

I'm sure this was a small factor.

On the other hand, the impact on the race is being way overblown. Her message wasn't resonating with certain voters. Shaking hands is not the optimal way of changing their minds.

 

[Fox318]

He's right. Hillary and her staff cared more about raising record funds and targeting demographics that she would wind up doing worse than Obama.

This should have been a Democratic landslide but we had a candidate who had zero political charisma to a majority of the nation and had 30+ years of political baggage and being the prime target of news.

Hell even her campaigns featured A listers targeted to win over young voters but how should people in rural america relate with a star who makes more money in a year than many will in a decade?

Her data was flawed and her tactics were flawed.

 

[faisal233]

I'm sure this was a small factor.

On the other hand, the impact on the race is being way overblown. Her message wasn't resonating with certain voters. Shaking hands is not the optimal way of changing their minds.

But it was better than schmoozing with her donor base and using that money to run ads that didn't connect.

Obama didn't think the optimal use of his time in the last months of the campaign was to kiss up to his donor base. He didn't abandon the rural vote in hopes of chasing the white whale that has been the suburban GOP vote.

Clinton didn't even play defense in the rural vote. She just gave up and assumed that suburban GOP would vote for her.

 

[Manmademan]

People wanted Biden to run and he's 4 years older. People wanted Warren to run and she's Only two years younger. Trump is 70 and won.

Age was not the issue. (Clinton is 69)

When we're looking at a campaign where stumping everywhere you can with an aggressive campaign schedule was apparently critical and Clinton refused to do it, instead insisting on being in her own bed at night I don't think we can entirely take "age" off the table.

This is going to be even more critical in 2020 when democrats MUST flip state legislature seats, and Clinton would have been 73. Do you have any faith she would have learned anything even if she squeaked out a win, and enacted a campaign schedule that would have put Obama 08 to shame? Because I don't.

To be fair, Trump ALSO insisted on this, but the republican coalition is much more homogeneous, turns out more reliably, and is easier to rally around a handful of wedge issues.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

Being enlightened has nothing to do with it. How badly informed can a person be where they don't turn on their television and see and hear the things Trump is saying? Why are you coddling lazy thinking? If someone was unable to process the very real danger this man posed, then I don't know what to tell you.

And I appreciate the condescension. My family is a wreck and we really are scrambling to try to figure out what we are doing from here on out. Keep talking down to us and continue to coddle your rural white voters. They seem to need it more than ever.

You should run for DNC Chairman and start up our strategic process for 2018 and 2020. I'm sure your brilliant strategy of 'Don't coddle white rural voters' and 'Lol these stupid people are so stupid, can't they look up our policies and vote for us anyway?' will win us the election now!

 

[Euphor!a]

Anyone else finding it ironic that Hillary supporters, in pushing back against the racists that voted for Trump, are more than happy to use the phrase, "calling a spade a spade"?

I must have seen it dozens of times over the past few days.

 

[chubigans]

Being enlightened has nothing to do with it. How badly informed can a person be where they don't turn on their television and see and hear the things Trump is saying? Why are you coddling lazy thinking? If someone was unable to process the very real danger this man posed, then I don't know what to tell you.

And I appreciate the condescension. My family is a wreck and we really are scrambling to try to figure out what we are doing from here on out. Keep talking down to us and continue to coddle your rural white voters. They seem to need it more than ever.

Have fun burying your head in the sand and learning absolutely nothing. something something ironic something.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Given the margins, adjusting Hillary's campaign schedule probably would have tilted the loss. I still think the primary reason she lost was the astounding false equivalency in the media (Trump is an accused rapist, but emails, Trump's taxes, but emails), Comey, and simple racism and sexism. But given her known headwinds, there was no room for errors such as she made.

For everything in the campaign that was out of her control, that was one that was very much a strategic blunder. And given the margins, is what is most easily pointed to for her loss.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Given the margins, adjusting Hillary's campaign schedule probably would have tilted the loss. I still think the primary reason she lost was the astounding false equivalency in the media (Trump is an accused rapist, but emails, Trump's taxes, but emails), Comey, and simple racism and sexism. But given her known headwinds, there was no room for errors such as she made.

For everything in the campaign that was out of her control, that was one that was very much a strategic blunder. And given the margins, is what is most easily pointed to for her loss.

I agree both her campaign schedule and the media each played a role, although I would argue in different facets.

Campaign strategy-- cost her the margins in those states where she made no concerted effort at all, even if that effort would have been to just cement the expected victory.

Media in all its forms-- primary driver for the popular vote even being close.

So one macro and one slightly less macro and slightly more micro? That make sense?

 

[The Shadow]

Obama is 110% right.

He's going down as one of the best presidents this nation ever had, to be followed by fucking Trump.

 

[kaching]

This aspect of the 2016 campaign hindsight still ranks far lower to me than the electorate's responsibility in this mess. Could she have campaigned more in rust belt states and so forth? Sure, but since Trump was already putting in plenty of time in those same places, there's no absolute proof it would have gotten her the EC votes she needed. At almost all of these campaign stops, Trump was spewing sexist, racist, bigoted, divisive and resentful rhetoric laced with the occasional promise to bring jobs back, to which those listening were apparently not bothered enough by it to spend even 10 minutes seeing if the other candidate had maybe a better message and set of policies for this country that didn't come from such petty meanness. Because, if she had just shown up, this would all be completely different, right?

Spending so much time faulting Hillary for where she didn't campaign strikes me as coddling an electorate that couldn't be bothered to do a little basic due diligence, or even show up at the polls, for that matter. The candidates shouldn't have to show up on our doorsteps for each of us to make a proper assessment of their campaign promises and proposed policies for the presidency. Or to have enough empathy to realize that one of them is an unscrupulous bigot whose promises aren't worth the lives of minorities he blithely throws under the bus. Even in rural areas there should be ample enough access to information without direct access to the candidate to make a sensible decision over the course of a campaign that lasts more than a year. Start by switching the channel from Fox News for just a bit.

 

[ESBL]

Water is wet