Do Dems have a losing platform or was Hillary just a bad Candidate?

[Nyvin]

Obviously we know that the voters are out there that are willing to vote Democrat, but it seems like this election things really took a turn for the worst.    Should Dems attempt some kind of realignment to a more rural-friendly platform or should it just be wrapped up as Hillary having too many flaws to make a successful campaign?  

I would normally say it was Hillary since she's been in public view for so long, but Trump is such a god awful candidate I really can't say that's definitely the case.

Even though rural America is losing electoral clout by the year...it's still not a viable strategy for the Dems to just ignore them and focus on large urban areas,  especially not with how the Senate is elected.

What exactly are the issues that Rural America hates about Democrats so much?   Should Democrats maybe consider dropping gun control as a national platform?    That's the one issue I see affecting rural America most specifically,  is there anything else?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

People are really overestimating the importance of a platform.

[Panda Express]

People are really overestimating the importance of a platform.

This. Charisma and personality matters more. This election showed that nobody cares about the issues. next time? Nominate someone with charisma.

[Blair]

She won the popular vote

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

She won the popular vote

OK, we can use this argument all over again to ignore all other factors that led to Trump's victory, and feel better about ourselves. The fact remains she blew a winnable race, just like Gore had in 2000.

This is literally the worst thing Democrats could do: cling to one reassuring talking point and be just as blind as before the election (except before it was overconfidence).

[Zarn]

Clinton had been toxic to many people for decades. That was the biggest problem. The skeletons are numerous and were talked to death. Denying Clinton was a crook through the election (primaries and general) was bad on the Democrats and Democratic voters parts. Democrats (and not just the politicians) should have made sure she was never the candidate.

Another issue is that people don't take too kindly of having fingers pointed in their faces, when they did nothing wrong. That would be 'white privilege.' Even though I'm Hispanic, I'm still creeped out by such a disgusting accusation and inaccuracy. You cannot talk down to people and expect them to vote your way.

Finally, people know unemployment is higher than the official statistic. No one wanted the stock market thrown in their faces, when they don't have a job or are hanging by a thread. It is kind of a "You may not be well off, but hey Wall Street is doing great!"

[JA]

People are really overestimating the importance of a platform.

Agreed. However, the losses suffered by Democrats during the past several years downballot has been devestating. This we cannot attribute to the lack of charisma and likeability of Hillary Clinton. There is some flaw in the Democratic Party and it's appeal to voters.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Clinton had been toxic to many people for decades. That was the biggest problem. The skeletons are numerous and were talked to death. Denying Clinton was a crook through the election (primaries and general) was bad on the Democrats and Democratic voters parts. Democrats (and not just the politicians) should have made sure she was never the candidate.

I guess it's fair to say that due to a toxic perception Hillary's campaign was indeed on the defensive for substantial part of the time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

People are really overestimating the importance of a platform.

This. Charisma and personality matters more. This election showed that nobody cares about the issues. next time? Nominate someone with charisma.

No, it showed that nobody cared about the issues Clinton raised. Immigration, trade, and the continuing economic malaise among the working class all proved to be potent issues. Trump addressed them directly while Clinton gave them secondary importance. When she talked about those issues, she came across as someone who had come to a position because she had to, not because she cared about those issues. The electorate wanted something done and reached the conclusion that a flawed plan that would get acted on was preferable to a better plan that would gather dust in an Oval Office desk drawer.

[krazen1211]

The Bernie bros and populists might want to take note that Russ Feingold lost bigly even with a money advantage.

Free advice: Deal with your entertainment wing. Lol.

[Blair]

People are really overestimating the importance of a platform.

This. Charisma and personality matters more. This election showed that nobody cares about the issues. next time? Nominate someone with charisma.

No, it showed that nobody cared about the issues Clinton raised. Immigration, trade, and the continuing economic malaise among the working class all proved to be potent issues.

Why did African-American and Latino working class voters back Hillary in such large numbers?

I take what Kal said- democrats did awfully in this election, especially in the Midwest. There's just a lot of analysis that I don't agree with

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

People are really overestimating the importance of a platform.

This. Charisma and personality matters more. This election showed that nobody cares about the issues. next time? Nominate someone with charisma.

...or a nominee who will actually campaign in swing states that she needs to win instead of f**king Arizona, or who isn't under FBI investigation, or who doesn't have a personal and political history fraught with horrifying associations, or who will run a campaign focused on something other than shaming voters away from the other candidate.

This is true. I honestly thought that Hillary learned from her 2008 fiasco and won't take things for granted. Sure, Democrats made it closer in traditionally Republican states such as AZ and TX, but lost states that mattered, electorally-wise. They just assumed it'll remain in the column. Heh, at least the "blue firewall" idiocy is now dead.

The same with minority turnout. Hillary and her "superior" campaign just assumed there will he a huge turnout, just because "she's not Trump". Obviously didn't work out.

Hillary strikes me as somebody who can be really blind about crucial factors. First, she never seemed concerned with her popular perception (big mistake) nor that it won't be a cakewalk (as evident with Bernie's results).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sexism is surely a factor for some voters, just as was racism, and those votes helped Trump win. No one can dispute this. A lot of sexists assholes would be just as triggered with another woman candidate. The difference is, someone like Elizabeth Warren doesn't have Hillary's additional heavy baggage.

What really worries me is that Hillary blowing her race is only going to make more people believe there's no chance for a woman President I know it may sound nasty, but she was just a bad pick for someone trying to break the glass celling.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

She won the popular vote

OK, we can use this argument all over again to ignore all other factors that led to Trump's victory, and feel better about ourselves. The fact remains she blew a winnable race, just like Gore had in 2000.

This is literally the worst thing Democrats could do: cling to one reassuring talking point and be just as blind as before the election (except before it was overconfidence).

Of course, this begs the question as to whether or not Trump would have won the popular vote if the focus of this election was on winning the popular vote, and not "Battleground States".

The Electoral College is "the rules" that dictate strategy of "the game".  It's like NFL football; would strategies be different if there were no field goals, or if they had only 3 downs (as the CFL does) rather than 4 downs to make a 1st down?  The electoral college turns our Presidential selection process into 51 separate state elections, and a huge number of these separate elections have foregone conclusions.  This dictates (A) where candidates will expend resources, and (B) what sort of policies the candidates will emphasize.  The issues pertaining to Hispanic Americans, for example, are legitimate issues, worthy of discussion, but they took on even greater significance due to the demography of FL, AZ, CO, NV, and, to some extent, NC, GA, and even TX.  Issues of the environment took on extended importance because of the role these issues play in PA and OH, and (arguably) MN with its coal miners and workers in fossil fuel-related industries.  Clinton rolled up huge majorities in CA because it wasn't even close, and because there were races locally where Democrats were poised to make advances.

What would be the real world differences if the President were chosen by popular vote?  One difference would be where Presidential candidates spent there time.  Yes, Hillary would have been aggressively campaigning in all of CA, but Trump would be there contesting areas like Bakersfield, Orange County, and Republican pockets of CA where people do vote.  Trump would have spent FAR more money and time, and in WV, MO, OK, etc., trying to ramp up majorities in states where his campaign mailed it in.  

In that case, I believe that Trump would have had at least a 50-50 shot at winning the popular vote because that's how the game would have been played.  

[Erich Maria Remarque]

^^^^^ Agree.


I mean, it's Trump. He used a "loophole" again. And won.

[Ljube]

Both.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Both.

[Trapsy]

I supported Hillary all the way but any other dem would have beaten Trump. She just had too much baggage.

[angus]

What exactly are the issues that Rural America hates about Democrats so much?   

Remember how a year ago we had poll questions on this forum like, "Are the Republicans dead?" and "are the Republicans doomed to being a regional party?"  However, in January they will control both chambers of the congress and the executive branch.  Probably the posters who made such threads want us to forget all about them.

Don't read too much into all this.  National mood swings come and go.  Trump, the firecracker, tapped into a cultural anxiety and played it up.  Foreigners are coming to steal your jobs and rape your daughters and terrorize your villages, despite the fact that a number of objective indicators indicate that we are safer than at any time in history, and that the unemployment rate is actually going down.  Combine that with the fact that the Democrats nominated an unlikeable, smarmy candidate with a closet full of baggage, and you have a recipe for a Republican victory.  

No, the platform is fine.  In fact, polling data suggests that people largely agree with it.  But people also want "outsiders" for president.  Experience used to be important fifty years ago, but the last three presidents-elect, Bush, Obama, and Trump, had very little Washington experience.  Contrast them with their rivals, Gore, McCain, and Clinton, who were virtually bolted-in furniture in Washington.

[CatoMinor]

Perhaps years from now, some day, the Democrats who pushed so hard for her in the primaries will come to terms with the fact that she was an objectively terrible candidate.

[Maxwell]

I think we're genuinely under-valuing how effective Trump was at bringing out rural voters.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

The point that candidates would campaign differently in an election decided by a national popular vote is well-taken. I think that it's the best answer to anyone who insists that a PV/EV discrepancy is a meaningful vindication of the losing candidate.

On the other hand, the campaign with a more sophisticated organization, better funding, and a more advanced data apparatus appears to have blown this presidential election pretty thoroughly, so there's some reason to believe that campaign effects just don't matter that much.

The EC undoubtedly affects voter behavior independent of the campaigns as well. How many Johnson voters would have broke for Trump if their states were competitive? It wouldn't take much of a skew toward Trump over Clinton or non-voting to change the result. My best guess is that this would have given Trump a plurality even if the campaigns hadn't conducted themselves any differently under PV rules.

It's also possible that if you reallocated votes from CA to PA, WI, and MI (if you could), Hillary would have won the EV.  In that case, with nothing different, we'd be talking about all of the things Hillary did right and how Trump shot himself in the foot, miscalculated the mood of America, etc.  Robby Mook, and not Kellyanne Conway, would be in the spotlight, and would be the hottest ticket around.  The pollsters would be praised for pointing out how the fundamental structure of the race gave Hillary an insurmountable advantage, just as it did for Obama in 2012, when Romney picked up late momentum.

Think about 1960.  Nixon was 100K votes shy in the popular votes.  A small shift would have given him the EV, with no fewer votes.  Stephen Ambrose wrote, in his biography of Nixon, about how he'd have been viewed if he had won the EV with the election being as narrow in the PV as it was.  In that case, Nixon would have been viewed as young and vital; HE, and not JFK, would have been the 1st President born in the 20th century.  Nixon, and not JFK, would have been viewed as the winner of the debates.  JFK's youth and inexperience would have been viewed as a huge negative.  And Nixon would not have entered office with the kind of bitterness he entered it in 1969.  One of my biggest reservations about Hillary Clinton is that if she were elected, she would have had the same kind of sense of entitlement and vindictiveness that Nixon came in. 

[RaphaelDLG]

Fuzzy, I don't think your "if the electoral college wasn't in place, Trump still would have won because he would have shifted his campaign strategy to win the popular vote" makes any sense, because Trump had a totally nonsensical campaign strategy where he was pissing away time in Washington DC, etc.

[Person Man]

Fuzzy, I don't think your "if the electoral college wasn't in place, Trump still would have won because he would have shifted his campaign strategy to win the popular vote" makes any sense, because Trump had a totally nonsensical campaign strategy where he was pissing away time in Washington DC, etc.

Didn't he campaign in Oklahoma?

[Virginiá]

She was a bad candidate. Period:

1. No charisma
2. Not very likeable
3. Comes off as an opportunist
4. Seen as a huge liar. For whatever reason Trump seemed to get a pass (or more of a pass) on this despite lying far more than her, and far more shamelessly. But, you know, it is what it is.
5. Seen as corrupt
6. For so many people, seemed to embody almost everything they hated about politics, a problem which was magnified in an election built around populist anger / a repudiation of business as usual.


And (drum roll please)  last but not least:

7. She had 54819290056 problems/scandals/whatever! Whether or not you consider these "scandals" real or just blown out of proportion, people thought they were important and it contributed immensely to her character problems. She spent almost the entire election defending herself against one scandal after another!


-

Please, let's not be so foolish as to think this election was an indictment of Democratic policies, or really, even Republican policies? This was an election where people chose who they hated less, and it turns out that in critical states, Hillary is hated or not trusted more.

And I must say, one of the biggest changes in the party going forward should be to ensure that the DNC never again rolls out the red carpet for a candidate as vulnerable and plagued with problems as Clinton, or really anyone for that matter.

[Confused Democrat]

She won the popular vote

OK, we can use this argument all over again to ignore all other factors that led to Trump's victory, and feel better about ourselves. The fact remains she blew a winnable race, just like Gore had in 2000.

This is literally the worst thing Democrats could do: cling to one reassuring talking point and be just as blind as before the election (except before it was overconfidence).

This makes me wish that she lost the popular vote.