Democrats finally starting to realize why they lost in 2016: Hillary Clinton

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/democrats-trump-special-elections-235692

It appears the dems are close to making it through the stages of Grief.

---------------

Stages of Grief:

Denial - Election Night (Clinton refusing to concede)
Anger - "Blame Russia!!" "Blame Comey!!" "DEMS DID EVERYTHING RIGHT!"
Bargaining - "Well maybe we can stop Trump's cabinet from taking office!" "Maybe we can get a socialist as DNC chair!"
Depression - Trump's cabinet is confirmed, Perez wins DNC chair
Acceptance - "Okay, fine, we admit it. We lost because we insisted on having Hillary Clinton as our nominee."

[Technocracy Timmy]

Watch them run Tim Kaine or Cory Booker then be confused yet again as to how they lost.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Watch them run Tim Kaine or Cory Booker then be confused yet again as to how they lost.

Booker is way more charismatic then Kaine or Hillary so I don't think lumping him in is fair

[Technocracy Timmy]

Watch them run Tim Kaine or Cory Booker then be confused yet again as to how they lost.

Booker is way more charismatic then Kaine or Hillary so I don't think lumping him in is fair

It's not the lack of charisma I was referring to, it's that neither of them or Hillary would be able to tap into the populist sentiment in the Party.

[Devils30]

Booker is a pawn for Wall Street and Silicon Valley. He is Obama with the liabilities and not the benefits.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The establishment was the problem is selecting Hilary for the Democrats.   Because of Bill Clinton's insides with the Black and Latino caucus and President Obama.  Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden would have had a better shot.

But Dems will recover from this.

[Suburbia]

The establishment was the problem is selecting Hilary for the Democrats.   Because of Bill Clinton's insides with the Black and Latino caucus and President Obama.  Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden would have had a better shot.

But Dems will recover from this.

The Democrats needed someone fresh-Martin Heinrich or Cory Booker would have been better. Biden has baggage-family baggage and other things. Bernie Sanders's skeletons would have came out and the GOP would have pounded him on the socialist word. Elizabeth Warren has the Pocahontas baggage and if she runs in 2020, they'll bring back Pocahontas. The Democrats should have ran a baggage-free candidate, but Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote.

[Confused Democrat]

The establishment was the problem is selecting Hilary for the Democrats.   Because of Bill Clinton's insides with the Black and Latino caucus and President Obama.  Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden would have had a better shot.

But Dems will recover from this.

The Democrats needed someone fresh-Martin Heinrich or Cory Booker would have been better. Biden has baggage-family baggage and other things. Bernie Sanders's skeletons would have came out and the GOP would have pounded him on the socialist word. Elizabeth Warren has the Pocahontas baggage and if she runs in 2020, they'll bring back Pocahontas. The Democrats should have ran a baggage-free candidate, but Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote.

Cory Booker / Baggage-free candidate

pick one

[uti2]

It's unreasonable to point to one factor and say that's what caused this. 

The biggest factor why Democrats are shut out of power nationally right now is structural.  Simply put the demographic realignment has shifted Democrat to Republican states a bit quicker than Republican to Democrat states.  Pennsylvania, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin happened quicker than Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas. 

So Democrats have 2 choices:

1) Appeal/pander to groups in the first set of states in the short run, hoping to win statewide by 2020 so they can redistrict, etc. and buy them some structural support.

2) Wait out the next 6-8 years for the second set of states to start flipping like Virginia did.

They should probably do some combination of 1 and 2.  Try to appeal to voters in the rust belt a bit to control a bit more redistricting there but really focus their message and efforts on growing their base in the second set of states.   

This is exactly why the Dems running Obama 2008 was pointless, if Clinton had won in '08, she would've been able to keep southern and 'middle america' blue dog democratic seats for a little bit longer, and the Dems would've been in better shape downballot. Obama's year was supposed to be this year.

Obama basically jettisoned the blue dogs for no net political gain whatsoever.

[uti2]

By the way, I will add this. Obama played the same ridiculous GOP courtship strategy as Clinton did. He kept whining about how 'Trump is not really a republican' and tried to distance downballot GOPers from Trump constantly. This helped the GOP downballot.

He is just as much culpable for this as Clinton, it was Obama's decision to appoint DWS as DNC chair in the first place too. It was also Obama who appointed James Comey.

[JA]

Good, they needed to realize this. Now the question becomes: what will they do to address the underlying problems? Clinton was a symptom, not the disease. She was the embodiment of everything that's wrong with the current Democratic Party - and I say that as someone who doesn't dislike Clinton and believe she was generally mistreated.

The Democrats' problem is threefold: they appear out-of-touch, inauthentic, and elitist. These are far larger problems for the party than whether they adopt Sanders's left-wing economic agenda or Booker's centrist economic agenda. Sanders would have struck a cord with the voters even if he ran to Clinton's right simply because he was authentic and could connect with the average person, whether they're an autoworker in Michigan or a rancher in Montana. Clinton's policies shifted with the polls, her speeches shaped by focus groups, and her world was of six-figure Wall Street speeches. The Democratic Party has followed their Washington leadership in unison down the rabbit hole of becoming uninspiring technocrats who spend more time talking to than with the people. Republicans may not give a damn about the people, but they know how to speak their language - which *hint hint* doesn't include speeches about how irredeemably deplorable they are.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Democrats do not stop pandering to the Feminist Left and every White-Hispanic and non-white ethnic group in America in the form of the identity politics they are locking themselves into, they are gradually boxing themselves into, they will lose ground, and lose ground quickly.  

It is not that these groups don't have issues that are unique to their demographic, and it is certainly not that the legitimate issues that affect members of these groups ought to be addressed by our leaders.  It is also not that bias and discrimination against these groups magically went away; these issues still exist, and they, too, ought to be addressed by our leaders.

What will cause the Democrats to lose more ground is to continue the trend they have begun to lock themselves into where their only visible path to victory is to cobble non-white blocs of votes together in such huge majorities that they will only need a minority of white votes to win.  The problem with this is that one of the biggest concerns of many white voters is that our politics is going to become ALL about race, gender, ethnicity, etc.  Even the gender thing gets old.  What does a mother of two boys think of a Presidential candidate is always going on about "the condition of women and girls" as if our boys are in such great shape in America?

A novel approach for the Democrats would be to talk to Americans as Americans, and appeal to them in ways that address the COMMON weal and emphasize them.  Emphasize job creation AND workplace rights for all.  Emphasize issues of income inequality and concentration of wealth amongst the top 1% and emphasize increasing the levels of incomes subject to the payroll tax to keep Social Security solvent.  Make the case for unions and expose the GOP as the Right To Work party.  Develop a coherent plan for building and maintaining a viable middle class in America.

Hillary Clinton did little of this.  If this sort of stuff was on hillaryclinton.com or JenPalmieriIsATotalDoofus.org or whatever website you want to name, folks didn't read it.  We heard a lot of lectures about "respecting women", but lots of folks that "respect women" have robbed the middle class blind through NAFTA, GATT, etc.  We heard a lot about choice on bathrooms and using the potty, but how many folks do these really affect versus the issues of income inequality?  (Few people get abortions, not many more consider having one, but everyone is expected to work.)  If 75% of Americans are pro-choice in some form, but only 5% of Americans will ever deal with having one, just how viable of an issue is that.  

Perhaps the Democrats could start making abortion, guns, etc. to be matters for folks to decide for themselves, and not litmus tests for whether or not you're a Democrat or not.  Then, horror of horrors, you'd have a Democratic Party that would be speaking to Americans as Americans and not as special folks with special needs.  Then, you'd not be insulting the intelligence of Americans.  Hillary Clinton insulted the intelligence of the voters that she needed, and should have won over, in MI, WI, and PA, and she still doesn't get that.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Perhaps the Democrats could start making abortion, guns, etc. to be matters for folks to decide for themselves, and not litmus tests for whether or not you're a Democrat or not.  Then, horror of horrors, you'd have a Democratic Party that would be speaking to Americans as Americans and not as special folks with special needs.  Then, you'd not be insulting the intelligence of Americans.  Hillary Clinton insulted the intelligence of the voters that she needed, and should have won over, in MI, WI, and PA, and she still doesn't get that.

I fully agree with this. Social issues are too regional and sectional to be used to form a national far reaching coalition. Democrats have always done better when they focus on kitchen table issues. Emphasizing these issues to bring working class whites back into the fold is a far better strategy than using social issues to reach upper income college educated whites.

[uti2]

Perhaps the Democrats could start making abortion, guns, etc. to be matters for folks to decide for themselves, and not litmus tests for whether or not you're a Democrat or not.  Then, horror of horrors, you'd have a Democratic Party that would be speaking to Americans as Americans and not as special folks with special needs.  Then, you'd not be insulting the intelligence of Americans.  Hillary Clinton insulted the intelligence of the voters that she needed, and should have won over, in MI, WI, and PA, and she still doesn't get that.

I fully agree with this. Social issues are too regional and sectional to be used to form a national far reaching coalition. Democrats have always done better when they focus on kitchen table issues. Emphasizing these issues to bring working class whites back into the fold is a far better strategy than using social issues to reach upper income college educated whites.

The only social issue that is problematic for the dems is gun control. They can give up gun control on a regional level e.g. Kander, but still keep it as part of the national platform.

[Skill and Chance]

Perhaps the Democrats could start making abortion, guns, etc. to be matters for folks to decide for themselves, and not litmus tests for whether or not you're a Democrat or not.  Then, horror of horrors, you'd have a Democratic Party that would be speaking to Americans as Americans and not as special folks with special needs.  Then, you'd not be insulting the intelligence of Americans.  Hillary Clinton insulted the intelligence of the voters that she needed, and should have won over, in MI, WI, and PA, and she still doesn't get that.

I fully agree with this. Social issues are too regional and sectional to be used to form a national far reaching coalition. Democrats have always done better when they focus on kitchen table issues. Emphasizing these issues to bring working class whites back into the fold is a far better strategy than using social issues to reach upper income college educated whites.

I think the bigger question is why VA, CO, AZ, GA, the Philadelphia area of PA, etc. didn't swing massively to Clinton like everyone expected?  I think it was clear by late summer that there would be a massive swing to Trump in the rural North, but the counter-swing Clinton was counting on never materialized.  It's really less about why Clinton lost WI than why she lost NC worse than Obama did in 2012 and didn't win VA and CO by 12.  The latter part was the surprise last year.

[uti2]

Perhaps the Democrats could start making abortion, guns, etc. to be matters for folks to decide for themselves, and not litmus tests for whether or not you're a Democrat or not.  Then, horror of horrors, you'd have a Democratic Party that would be speaking to Americans as Americans and not as special folks with special needs.  Then, you'd not be insulting the intelligence of Americans.  Hillary Clinton insulted the intelligence of the voters that she needed, and should have won over, in MI, WI, and PA, and she still doesn't get that.

I fully agree with this. Social issues are too regional and sectional to be used to form a national far reaching coalition. Democrats have always done better when they focus on kitchen table issues. Emphasizing these issues to bring working class whites back into the fold is a far better strategy than using social issues to reach upper income college educated whites.

I think the bigger question is why VA, CO, AZ, GA, the Philadelphia area of PA, etc. didn't swing massively to Clinton like everyone expected?  I think it was clear by late summer that there would be a massive swing to Trump in the rural North, but the counter-swing Clinton was counting on never materialized.  It's really less about why Clinton lost WI than why she lost NC worse than Obama did in 2012 and didn't win VA and CO by 12.  The latter part was the surprise last year.

The Clinton team actually originally had the right strategy. They wanted to make the election about base turnout.

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

They shifted the strategy to something else due to Trump as a result of arrogance, that's when they started courting republicans at the expense of progressives. The DNC told them not to do this as it was hurting the Dems downballot.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/how-a-decision-in-may-changed-the-general-election

[Green Line]

That's funny.  Please explain why Hillary ran ahead of the vast majority of Democrats sharing the ballot with her?  I'll wait.  She was the greatest thing to happen to the Democrat Party and you all are going to piss it away out of spite.

[Skill and Chance]

That's funny.  Please explain why Hillary ran ahead of the vast majority of Democrats sharing the ballot with her?  I'll wait.  She was the greatest thing to happen to the Democrat Party and you all are going to piss it away out of spite.

If we had PR or city-states, she would have been.  As it is, they need to either figure out why the suburbs of small cities didn't swing as expected and throw everything at those voters or give the Bernie strategy a try.  If they decide to go all in on getting another 10 point swing out of Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta (and, probably by necessity, Minneapolis), they still need to get past the 2018 midterms first.  Right now, priority #1 needs to be keeping enough rural Dems afloat to contest senate control in 2020.  They can reevaluate 2020 strategies after the midterms if districts like GA-06, TX-07, TX-32 and MN-03 flip their way. 

[Technocracy Timmy]

The only social issue that is problematic for the dems is gun control. They can give up gun control on a regional level e.g. Kander, but still keep it as part of the national platform.

I would also add abortion to the list and keep that issue on the state and local level. Also whenever they discuss transgender rights they should talk more about combating the sheer amount of violence this group faces in their daily lives instead of bathrooms. When transgender rights is centered around bathrooms then it begins to sound ridiculous to most people who don't know much about the issue at hand.

I agree that her strategy of targeting moderate republican suburbanites was a disaster. I am worried that the Democratic Party will look at their numbers with college educated whites vs noncollege whites and will try to tailor their message to somehow form a coalition of college educated whites and minorities. They don't seem too open towards the economic populism that's coming from their base. They're afraid that embracing economic liberalism will scare away big money donors even more.

So instead of that, they'll focus on social justice and justice abroad. They'll use social issues to win over secular, socially liberal college educated whites and won't veer too far left on economic issues to scare away the high income college educated whites in this demographic. They'll either double down on identity politics, or just bank on minorities showing up anyways to vote for them. Justice aboard will include a more hawkish foreign policy that emphasizes the need to preserve the post WWII order that Trump is seeking to destroy.

This may very well be their plan going into 2020. Afterall maybe the Obama coalition just didn't show up for her because she was a boring old white lady and he's a charismatic young black man? That seems to be their line of thinking. The number one phrase that came from them after the election was "turnout was down, turnout, turnout, turnout" So they'll try and fix this by running somebody who's younger, more charismatic, and probably either nonwhite or a woman.

I guarantee that the "demographics are destiny" talking point will come roaring back for 2020. They're too fixated on those demographic numbers showing that the Obama coalition is growing.

[uti2]

The only social issue that is problematic for the dems is gun control. They can give up gun control on a regional level e.g. Kander, but still keep it as part of the national platform.

I would also add abortion to the list and keep that issue on the state and local level. Also whenever they discuss transgender rights they should talk more about combating the sheer amount of violence this group faces in their daily lives instead of bathrooms. When transgender rights is centered around bathrooms then it begins to sound ridiculous to most people who don't know much about the issue at hand.

I agree that her strategy of targeting moderate republican suburbanites was a disaster. I am worried that the Democratic Party will look at their numbers with college educated whites vs noncollege whites and will try to tailor their message to somehow form a coalition of college educated whites and minorities. They don't seem too open towards the economic populism that's coming from their base. They're afraid that embracing economic liberalism will scare away big money donors even more.

So instead of that, they'll focus on social justice and justice abroad. They'll use social issues to win over secular, socially liberal college educated whites and won't veer too far left on economic issues to scare away the high income college educated whites in this demographic. They'll either double down on identity politics, or just bank on minorities showing up anyways to vote for them. Justice aboard will include a more hawkish foreign policy that emphasizes the need to preserve the post WWII order that Trump is seeking to destroy.

This may very well be their plan going into 2020. Afterall maybe the Obama coalition just didn't show up for her because she was a boring old white lady and he's a charismatic young black man? That seems to be their line of thinking, after all the number one phrase that came from them after the election was "turnout was down, turnout, turnout, turnout" So they'll try and fix this by running somebody who's younger, more charismatic, and probably either nonwhite or a woman.

I guarantee that the "demographics are destiny" talking point will come roaring back for 2020. They're too fixated on those demographic numbers showing that the Obama coalition is growing.

Polls have shown abortion to be in favor by the majority of the public. Giving up on that issue is ridiculous, because pro-lifers are not logical, they will always vote for the politician that gives them more bait on that issue, and Dems will never be able to compete with that. On the other hand, a substantial number of upscale dems would turn away if the Dems gave up on those core social issues.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/

Gun control is another story.

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

That's why Hillary outperformed nearly every other Democrat downballot?

[Pericles]

These elections were held after 2016 and show the Democratic base is enthused and perhaps 'Trump fatigue'. It shows that the midterm effect is not that Democrats don't turn out in midterms but incumbent party voters don't turn out in midterms.

But Clinton was still a terrible candidate, you didn't need to wait till now to figure that out.

[uti2]

These elections were held after 2016 and show the Democratic base is enthused and perhaps 'Trump fatigue'. It shows that the midterm effect is not that Democrats don't turn out in midterms but incumbent party voters don't turn out in midterms.

But Clinton was still a terrible candidate, you didn't need to wait till now to figure that out.

They showed up for Bush in 2002, and even if turnout during mid-terms is generally muted, you still need some resilience to prevent disasters like 2014 from occurring.

[Hindsight was 2020]

So dems ran on identity politics but "bad hombres" "muslim ban" Trump isn't?

[Hindsight was 2020]

These elections were held after 2016 and show the Democratic base is enthused and perhaps 'Trump fatigue'. It shows that the midterm effect is not that Democrats don't turn out in midterms but incumbent party voters don't turn out in midterms.

But Clinton was still a terrible candidate, you didn't need to wait till now to figure that out.

They showed up for Bush in 2002, and even if turnout during mid-terms is generally muted, you still need some resilience to prevent disasters like 2014 from occurring.

The midterm after 9/11? You're seriously using that?