‘Democratic Party Has No Earthly Idea Why Hillary Clinton Lost’
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:54:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  ‘Democratic Party Has No Earthly Idea Why Hillary Clinton Lost’
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: ‘Democratic Party Has No Earthly Idea Why Hillary Clinton Lost’  (Read 4178 times)
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,109
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 25, 2016, 11:41:59 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiBhGFCZxOw
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2016, 11:51:06 AM »

I like Jimmy but he's made a million videos about this over the past month. It's getting old.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2016, 12:01:37 PM »
« Edited: December 25, 2016, 12:08:59 PM by Virginia »

I'm just going off the title, but I'm pretty sure that while there are a number of ideas floating around, put together, we are plenty sure why she lost. The problem sees to be how exactly to fix this.

Though, one reason I see getting less play than it deserves is the fact that Clinton was an absolutely terrible candidate in so many respects. People just didn't like or trust her. She had too many problems, whether they were fair/deserved or not. She really should have just dropped out when the email stuff hit the fan. Primaries exist to help weed out candidates like this, but it doesn't work if they, in combination with other party officials help dissuade others from running. I'm not offering my own personal opinion of her character, but rather the cold hard reality of her candidacy that quite frankly, was pretty obvious early on in the primaries.

Had Democrats run a better candidate more attuned to the populist anger brewing on both sides, perhaps things would have turned out much differently. Bernie would have been great for this had there not been the democratic socialist angle, imo. Maybe he would have still won, but I continue to believe that would have been a big drag in addition to the rich opposition file that existed for him.
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2016, 12:07:01 PM »
« Edited: December 25, 2016, 12:15:27 PM by ApatheticAustrian »

wrong candidate for wrong year.

in america you don't need to win more votes....just a few "special interest" votes in the right places. ^^

let's call it pander-cracy.


regarding Virginia's post.....i never ever understood, why bernie doesn't just call it social democracy....still best description for the european system and a major difference for the US without the communist stink.
Logged
Deblano
EdgarAllenYOLO
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,680
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2016, 12:36:30 PM »

I like Jimmy but he's made a million videos about this over the past month. It's getting old.

I think they hit the nail on the head, regardless.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,704
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2016, 12:36:40 PM »

Jimmy Dore is moronic trash.
Logged
Chief Justice Keef
etr906
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 25, 2016, 12:43:57 PM »


But he's right, you know.
Logged
Saint Milei
DeadPrez
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,007


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 25, 2016, 02:01:46 PM »

This is why you will lose in 2020
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 25, 2016, 02:13:12 PM »


This is the exact same things Democrats were saying to Republicans after 2008 and 2012. You don't know what will happen.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2016, 02:41:53 PM »

She didn't do anything wrong. Her 3 million vote win loss was just a weird geographic fluke.

The last thing the party needs to do is grossly overreact.
Logged
Deblano
EdgarAllenYOLO
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,680
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2016, 03:01:07 PM »

She didn't do anything wrong. Her 3 million vote win loss was just a weird geographic fluke.

The last thing the party needs to do is grossly overreact.

I'd say giving diddly-squat attention to Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. is something wrong.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2016, 03:08:58 PM »
« Edited: December 25, 2016, 03:29:03 PM by Beet »

As Dore says, Clinton was on the wrong side on a number of issues, including TPP, foreign policy, and banking regulation. Not only did she take the more right-wing position on these issues compared to Trump, but she also took the more unpopular one. The whole point of Clintonite triangulation was supposed to be that left-wing positions are objectively unpopular, so they'll adopt the Republican position so they can at least win and slow the right-wing slide of the country. It wasn't that we adopt the more unpopular position, which is also more right-wing. It would be like Ronald Reagan losing to Jimmy Carter because he campaigned on big government and detente. Triangulation was all well and clever until the donors actually took over the party and their grip on it was more important than actually winning, let alone standing for anything.

Edit: And I'm not one of those "Sanders woulda won, there's zillions of far left communists in Ohio that we just didn't know about who stayed home" types. But good god, the deliberate effort by the Clinton camp to remove any semblance of ideological contrast from the campaign when progressives have spent years building arguments (often successfully) for these positions was just dumb. The policy domain was ceded to Trump, despite the 113,000 words on Clinton's website.
Logged
Hermit For Peace
hermit
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,925


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 25, 2016, 04:01:07 PM »


See, but Hillary did not lose. She won. More people voted for her than for Trump.

So let's get it straight. It's the outdated electoral college gig that needs to get the heave-ho. Hillary was a much more respectable candidate than Trump could ever hope to be. And she won.

It's the Republicans who think they have some sort of "mandate" or whatever. They're the ones who need to do a reality check.

Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2016, 05:05:09 PM »

Reported for making me click on a Young Turks video. Please place a trigger warning on your posts in the future.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 25, 2016, 05:30:00 PM »

She didn't do anything wrong. Her 3 million vote win loss was just a weird geographic fluke.

The last thing the party needs to do is grossly overreact.

When you lose three large states considered a solid part of your firewall, and that voted Democratic since 1988 or 1992, you must've done something wrong. When you're losing the race you were suppoused to win in a walk to a candidate labeled as unelectable, you must've done something wrong.

But you can keep ignoring all the reasons Clinton lost if it makes you feel better about yourself. But don't be surprised later.

Literally the dumbest thing Democrats can do at this point is "oh well, just a weird fluke, we did nothing wrong, carry on Smiley"
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 25, 2016, 05:33:49 PM »

"White males are irrelevant, electorally-wise. All we need is a high turnout among minorities to win comfortably."

"PA, MI and WI are titanium D states. We can't lose them, so let's redirect our efforts to AZ or MS. SWEATING LIKE A DOG!"

"Massive minority turnout? It's as guaranteed as a sunrise."

"There's a dissatisfaction in the society? LOL, Obama has high approvals, idiot."

"Hillary's unpopular? But she had high approvals as SoS!"


To be brief, that what happens when you're blindly overconfident.
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 25, 2016, 05:36:56 PM »

doing nothing at all and double down on your  message is doom? republicans would laugh about this notion.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2016, 06:49:41 PM »

I'm just going off the title, but I'm pretty sure that while there are a number of ideas floating around, put together, we are plenty sure why she lost. The problem sees to be how exactly to fix this.

Though, one reason I see getting less play than it deserves is the fact that Clinton was an absolutely terrible candidate in so many respects. People just didn't like or trust her. She had too many problems, whether they were fair/deserved or not. She really should have just dropped out when the email stuff hit the fan. Primaries exist to help weed out candidates like this, but it doesn't work if they, in combination with other party officials help dissuade others from running. I'm not offering my own personal opinion of her character, but rather the cold hard reality of her candidacy that quite frankly, was pretty obvious early on in the primaries.

Had Democrats run a better candidate more attuned to the populist anger brewing on both sides, perhaps things would have turned out much differently. Bernie would have been great for this had there not been the democratic socialist angle, imo. Maybe he would have still won, but I continue to believe that would have been a big drag in addition to the rich opposition file that existed for him.

But it seems that the Dems deeper question is what to do about a presumptive nominee four years ahead of the election. Are there changes that could be made to stop a nominee that had lined up major donor and political support after it became clear that the nominee was not electable.

One might observe that this is not a new problem, since Mondale started lining up the key insider support even before Ted Kennedy indicated that he would not run in 1984. Gary Hart had a more popular message, and John Glenn probably would have been more popular as a nominee, too. Mondale couldn't even wrap up the nomination without superdelegates at the convention. 1984 was the first nomination with the superdelegate process in place. I'm not suggesting that any Dem could have beaten Reagan that year, but they might not have lost 49 states.

So if there is a parallel, the Dems may have to ask whether it's better to nominate a trusted insider who can lock up support like Mondale or Hillary, but aren't effective candidates on the national stage. Or is it worth the risk of an outsider taking over the party either to lose big like McGovern did in 72, or win as an outsider without DC allies as Carter did in 76?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2016, 12:13:05 AM »

In the future, include some commentary on the link you're spamming if you want to avoid being infracted for spamming.
Logged
Confused Democrat
reidmill
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,055
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2016, 02:43:44 AM »


See, but Hillary did not lose. She won. More people voted for her than for Trump.

So let's get it straight. It's the outdated electoral college gig that needs to get the heave-ho. Hillary was a much more respectable candidate than Trump could ever hope to be. And she won.

It's the Republicans who think they have some sort of "mandate" or whatever. They're the ones who need to do a reality check.



Can we PLEASE stop with this "she won the popular vote" crap. Neither candidate was campaigning to win the popular vote; they were campaigning in swing states in order to win the electoral college.

It's not a fair argument.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2016, 03:33:43 AM »


See, but Hillary did not lose. She won.

Lmao.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2016, 05:15:30 AM »

Hillary lost the election. Clearly.

Why do I say that? She took what should've been a 10 point win and made it a 2% win in the popular vote while losing the electoral college. Enough said.

Why?

She was a elite throwback to the 1990s and honestly she fit neither the Democratic Party, or the country at large. She was the archetype of a Goldman Sachs elitist who wanted to push through the elite's agenda, no matter how much she mouthed platitudes. In the second debate she literally justified having a private and public stance by comparing herself to Lincoln. The country honestly wasn't as willing to tolerate it as they might have in another year. They didn't want Trump, but they didn't want her more.

A cleaner version of Bernie would've blown Trump out of the water in the election. There's no question that a younger refined Bernie would have won Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

At this point, the Democratic Party needs to settle the Bernie v. Clinton fight and decide what it stands for vis a vis its beliefs. A Bernie esq candidate probably wins an open race in 2020 or 2024 but the Republican Party now has the incumbency advantage.

The Democrats have a problem. The Republicans do too but their problems start when they're out of the White House again. (And they're going to be probably in worse shape than the Democrats now when this happens).
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2016, 05:19:23 AM »

She didn't do anything wrong. Her 3 million vote win loss was just a weird geographic fluke.

The last thing the party needs to do is grossly overreact.

Does some third way sh**tty Democrat need to repeat 1984 for Democrats to wake the hell up?
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 26, 2016, 07:46:20 AM »


See, but Hillary did not lose. She won. More people voted for her than for Trump.

So let's get it straight. It's the outdated electoral college gig that needs to get the heave-ho. Hillary was a much more respectable candidate than Trump could ever hope to be. And she won.

It's the Republicans who think they have some sort of "mandate" or whatever. They're the ones who need to do a reality check.



Can we PLEASE stop with this "she won the popular vote" crap. Neither candidate was campaigning to win the popular vote; they were campaigning in swing states in order to win the electoral college.

It's not a fair argument.

Yes, I don't like the electoral college as much as the next guy, but these are constitutional rules in play. You don't get to change the rules in the middle of a play or reject those you don't like, especially after the fact.

Hillary ran to win a majority in the electoral college and she failed.

Now, should we have a serious discussion about doing away with the electoral college? Yes. Is this a valid argument in favor of institution a popular vote system? Absolutely. But let's not get distracted from why Trump is going to be the next President not her.

Following 2000 a lot of people adopted "lol, it's just a fluke, we did nothing wrong and we don't have to do our own autopsy" attitude, ignoring all other factors that allowed Bush to win. Well, it was a mistake.

Kindly, get over with your grieving process.
Logged
Hermit For Peace
hermit
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,925


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 26, 2016, 01:35:28 PM »


See, but Hillary did not lose. She won. More people voted for her than for Trump.

So let's get it straight. It's the outdated electoral college gig that needs to get the heave-ho. Hillary was a much more respectable candidate than Trump could ever hope to be. And she won.

It's the Republicans who think they have some sort of "mandate" or whatever. They're the ones who need to do a reality check.



Can we PLEASE stop with this "she won the popular vote" crap. Neither candidate was campaigning to win the popular vote; they were campaigning in swing states in order to win the electoral college.

It's not a fair argument.

Yes, I don't like the electoral college as much as the next guy, but these are constitutional rules in play. You don't get to change the rules in the middle of a play or reject those you don't like, especially after the fact.

Hillary ran to win a majority in the electoral college and she failed.

Now, should we have a serious discussion about doing away with the electoral college? Yes. Is this a valid argument in favor of institution a popular vote system? Absolutely. But let's not get distracted from why Trump is going to be the next President not her.

Following 2000 a lot of people adopted "lol, it's just a fluke, we did nothing wrong and we don't have to do our own autopsy" attitude, ignoring all other factors that allowed Bush to win. Well, it was a mistake.

Kindly, get over with your grieving process.


Why don't you give me a break. Whether or not people are going through the "grieving process" as you say, it is not your call to tell anyone to get over it. Why don't YOU get over the fact that people are not acting like you think they should or saying what you think they should.

You are in charge of you, not anyone else.

And in my mind and in many people's thinking, Hillary did win. It also happened to Gore. Something is wrong with this picture and I'm surprised that more people aren't outraged about how our undemocratic election process works.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 12 queries.