Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 06:38 PM Nov 2016

Eichenwald: The Myths that Cost Democrats the Election

I've noticed that people are reading the election results through their preexisting views. Some are taking advantage of it for their own purposes. If that analysis were sound, it would be one thing, but it isn't. This article by Eichenwald explores a number of the myths some, particularly Bernie or Busters, bought into. If we are to believe the exit polls, which given how lousy polls have proved to be is a major question, Clinton won those making less than $30k and less than $50k. Trump performed better with higher incomes. I seriously question the media narrative that the white "working class" cost Hillary the election due to economic decline since Trump voters averaged above the median income. Eichenwald's piece lends some insight into voting results:

Awash in false conspiracy theories and petulant immaturity, liberals put Trump in the White House. Trump won slightly fewer votes than Romney did in 2012—60.5 million compared with 60.9 million. On the other hand, almost 5 million Obama voters either stayed home or cast their votes for someone else. More than twice as many millennials—a group heavily invested in the “Sanders was cheated out of the nomination” fantasy—voted third-party. The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would have won the state. And there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump.

Of course, there will still be those voters who snarl, “She didn’t earn my vote,” as if somehow their narcissism should override all other considerations in the election. That, however, is not what an election is about. Voters are charged with choosing the best person to lead the country, not the one who appeals the most to their egos.


I share Eichenwald's disgust for the liberals who collaborated with Trump. Anyone who didn't vote for Hillary in the GE is my view indistinguishable from the deplorables. I don't care what they call themselves; they chose to stand with the Klan in enabling a racist, sexual predator to usher fascism into this country. That makes them my enemy. Unfortunately, my own brother is a Bernie or Buster. Despite making 4x the income I do and owning three rental properties, he refused to vote for Hillary in the GE. He instead wrote in the name of his 6 yr old son, as though a child were better suited for the presidency than Hillary Clinton. I suppose like many he thought Hillary would win and he could maintain his sexist purity by making sure his write-in had a penis. Only our state of MN came 1.4 points from going for Trump. I will have to figure out how to deal with him on Thanksgiving. In all likelihood, I won't say anything (partly because Republican in-laws will be there), but I will not forget.

Now to the rest of Eichenwald's piece. You really need to read the whole article, but here are a few paragraphs.

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044


1. The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee

Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.

Almost every email that set off the “rigged” accusations was from May 2016. (One was in late April; I’ll address that below.) Even in the most ridiculous of dream worlds, Sanders could not have possibly won the nomination after May 3—at that point, he needed 984 more pledged delegates, but there were only 933 available in the remaining contests. And political pros could tell by the delegate math that the race was over on April 19, since a victory would require him to win almost every single delegate after that, something no rational person could believe.

This is important because it shows Sanders supporters were tricked into believing a false narrative. Once only one candidate can win the nomination, of course the DNC gets to work on that person’s behalf. Of course emails from that time would reflect support for the person who would clearly be the nominee. And given that their jobs are to elect Democrats, of course DNC officials were annoyed that Sanders would not tell his followers he could not possibly be the nominee. Battling for the sake of battling gave his supporters a false belief that they could still win—something that added to their increasingly embittered feelings. . . .

2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump


It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach. . .

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers. . . .


Please read the rest.
41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Eichenwald: The Myths that Cost Democrats the Election (Original Post) BainsBane Nov 2016 OP
This is an absolutely first-rate article that I've been sharing around. LisaM Nov 2016 #1
Excellent teach1st Nov 2016 #2
Only because they refuse to look honestly at their actions BainsBane Nov 2016 #3
Exactly! n/t teach1st Nov 2016 #4
I will bookmark for later. kentuck Nov 2016 #5
Well worth a click-through longship Nov 2016 #6
This is a VERY informative article, filled with evidence and data addressing the myths. spooky3 Nov 2016 #7
K&R Starry Messenger Nov 2016 #8
Again, the media deserve the ENTIRE blame for this travesty duffyduff Nov 2016 #9
Big kick! mcar Nov 2016 #10
He has been stellar all though the last few months. Lucinda Nov 2016 #11
Read this yesterday and I was surprised at the anti-Bernie files he talks about Maeve Nov 2016 #12
I think we're all looking at this election through our biased lenses including Eichenwald aikoaiko Nov 2016 #13
The party elite opposed Trump BainsBane Nov 2016 #15
Well said. Sanders used us and his "mask slipped" quite a while ago. bettyellen Nov 2016 #16
a book deal? BainsBane Nov 2016 #22
Cosign everything in your post. nt Maven Nov 2016 #20
True, but the Rep party elite didn't rally behind one candidate before the primaries. Big difference aikoaiko Nov 2016 #40
K/R Maven Nov 2016 #14
Sanders would've been blown away. He also would "have been in Washington for nearly 30 years" ericson00 Nov 2016 #17
Eichenwald is a dingbat. DemocraticWing Nov 2016 #18
If you voted for Hillary, he's not blaming you BainsBane Nov 2016 #19
THANK YOU!!!! This is the TRUTH!!! nt LostOne4Ever Nov 2016 #21
Your "truth" has noting to do with the article linked BainsBane Nov 2016 #23
Eichenwald said that "Bernie would have won" is a myth LostOne4Ever Nov 2016 #24
How could he win the general BainsBane Nov 2016 #25
Sorry but I am still going to post. LostOne4Ever Nov 2016 #26
You - in fact - believe the two myths? yallerdawg Nov 2016 #27
I don't meet his Criteria LostOne4Ever Nov 2016 #28
Hillary won the popular vote. Period. yallerdawg Nov 2016 #29
Our elections are determined by the Electoral College. LostOne4Ever Nov 2016 #31
You are completely right DeeDeeNY Nov 2016 #36
This is all nonsense because the third party protest votes were planned by R B Garr Nov 2016 #38
all excellent points... for all the good it will do Fast Walker 52 Nov 2016 #35
Yes, let us sing the praises of white straight men ehrnst Nov 2016 #30
that wasn't the point of the Eichenwald piece at all Fast Walker 52 Nov 2016 #33
Indeed BainsBane Nov 2016 #34
Yes, a very important excellent piece Fast Walker 52 Nov 2016 #32
K&R. X 1000 COLGATE4 Nov 2016 #37
If Bernie won the primaries I would of rallied behind him...but I believe he would of been TrekLuver Nov 2016 #39
My opinion is that the expectation of women and "the black vote" is what beat Hillary. I was a ..... dmosh42 Nov 2016 #41

teach1st

(5,928 posts)
2. Excellent
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 06:42 PM
Nov 2016

I shared this on Facebook yesterday. It went right over the head of my Green Party friends. Thanks for posting!

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
3. Only because they refuse to look honestly at their actions
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 06:46 PM
Nov 2016

and face the extent to which they share common cause with the alt-right and the rest of the Trumpsters.

spooky3

(34,302 posts)
7. This is a VERY informative article, filled with evidence and data addressing the myths.
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 07:42 PM
Nov 2016

Thank you so much for finding and posting it.

And thank you, Kurt Eichenwald, for working so hard for so long, to tell the truth. It's tragic that more people did not take advantage of all of his investigations and clear writing to be better informed about the candidates.

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
9. Again, the media deserve the ENTIRE blame for this travesty
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 08:08 PM
Nov 2016

Last edited Wed Nov 16, 2016, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

ALL OF IT. Not Hillary Clinton, not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not dirty tricksters like Roger Stone, not Putin, not Comey and the FBI, not Wikileaks, not third-party candidates.

The media OWNS this disaster. It is unprecedented in the history of the United States that basically ONE individual, Jeff Zucker, used a NEWS network to openly promote a candidate who did NOT run a serious candidacy and pimped that man 24/7, for months on end, undermining the voters' right to an informed choice. The conflict of interest was NEVER disclosed in the primaries, where this could have been prevented.

It just boggles the mind what happened. I don't think I will EVER recover from this. I recovered from 2000 fairly quickly even though pissed, but this just takes the cake because DONALD TRUMP DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IN THE HELL HE IS DOING. That is because he was a joke candidate who ran promoting his brand. That is until Zucker used him for ratings and ad revenue knowing Trump was a ratings and ad revenue winner when he had his reality TV shows. Zucker, a real sociopath if there ever was one, didn't care that promoting Trump would create a vicious, messianic CULT.

Maeve

(42,224 posts)
12. Read this yesterday and I was surprised at the anti-Bernie files he talks about
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 09:38 PM
Nov 2016

Love Bernie, voted for him in the primary, but....he would have been eviscerated in the general election.

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
13. I think we're all looking at this election through our biased lenses including Eichenwald
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 09:59 PM
Nov 2016

Just so that we're all clear, I voted for HRC for the sake of the nation and I wish she had won.

But I don't think liberals who voted for Trump, third-party are disgusting or deplorable, or evil simpletons.

You quote Eichenwald when he declared, "Voters are charged with choosing the best person to lead the country..." and that's just not completely true. There is no charge. That's how he framed the election, but others have different reasons.

Most people who vote blend voting in their self-interest with voting their conscience.

I think liberals who voted for Trump made a bad decision, but I also think they thought that shaking things up with a Trump presidency might serve the US well in the long run.

People supported Hillary from the beginning don't like the work rigged and I understand why, but the party elite conspicuously rallied around HRC at a very early stage in the primary campaign and having HRC's former campaign manager in charge of the DNC was bad optics if not a conflict of interest.

Eichenwald is correct that HRC had to strike a balance with criticizing Bernie because if she went full-out negative, it would have backfired. But the case could be made that the same issue would have existed for Trump.

Bernie might have beaten Trump, but we'll never know. The primary polls pitting HRC and Trump showed that race a dead heat or Trump winning and that is what happened. One of the few sets of polls that were correct. There is a reasonable case that Bernie might have won because he could have taken the rust belt, west coast, the mid-Atlantic, and New England. But I will admit there would have been HRC supporter backlash and I don't know how that would have panned out.

Eichenwald says that DNC spring emails showing a bias were evident, but natural since Bernie had already lost. Others might say the mask had come off.

Again, I think most of us will be looking at the primaries and the election through certain lenses that align with preferences -- mine included.

All I'll say is I wish HRC were the president-elect.







BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
15. The party elite opposed Trump
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 10:38 PM
Nov 2016

That didn't stop him, did it? Bernie's inability to win the election were entirely his own doing.

He had no business in that primary in the first place. He never joined the party, continued to raise money for his Senate race as an independent, and trashed the party throughout his campaign. He kept up the rhetoric long after it was obvious he couldn't win so he could continue to raise money. He got an estimated $14 million dollars out of that campaign for himself by paying ad placement fees to his wife through Old Towne Media. Now he's starting up again. Yes, he campaigned for Clinton, and because of that I actually initially cautioned people not to blame him for the results of the GE. But that was before he started to exploit the results. He has reminded me exactly why I took such a strong dislike to him during the primary. He continues to be a very divisive figure, still hasn't joined the party, still is running as an Independent, yet feels entitled to dictate the future of a party he considers beneath him. I want the rules changed so that independents cannot use the party's primary system to advance themselves. It should be for Democrats only, with membership of a certain length of time, like 5 years.

I would have voted for Bernie in a GE despite the fact I consider him unqualified for the office because I would not enable fascism. I agree completely with Eichenwald's assessment of the narcissism of the voters you defend. I have no doubt their racism and misogyny is part of the reason they celebrate Trump's victory with such glee. They can rot in hell.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
16. Well said. Sanders used us and his "mask slipped" quite a while ago.
Tue Nov 15, 2016, 11:59 PM
Nov 2016

Heard he was in NYC making a bold deal this week. Cashing in while he can.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
22. a book deal?
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 02:46 AM
Nov 2016

Yeah. I think we need to reevaluate the party, but we need someone 1) who is actually part of it, and 2) is less divisive to help us do it.

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
40. True, but the Rep party elite didn't rally behind one candidate before the primaries. Big difference
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 12:32 PM
Nov 2016

I think the GE proves that Bernie was right to challenge Hillary until the very last moment, but circumstances can change in a day or two.

He campaigned well for Clinton and he is now going after Trump. What do you take to be evidence that he is exploiting the GE result?



 

ericson00

(2,707 posts)
17. Sanders would've been blown away. He also would "have been in Washington for nearly 30 years"
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 12:01 AM
Nov 2016

which was one of Trump's biggest pluses in the first place.

Also, seeing how BLM got his mic at that rally, how the hell would he have stood up to Trump?

Sanders would've lost both the electoral AND popular vote; Trump could've more easily claimed a mandate.

DemocraticWing

(1,290 posts)
18. Eichenwald is a dingbat.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 02:38 AM
Nov 2016

Johnson and McMullin hurt Trump way more than Stein hurt anybody. 90%+ of Sanders supporters voted for Hillary. 55% of voters under 30 voted for Hillary. I'm tired of being blamed for this when we all went to the mat and voted/donated/volunteered for a candidate that who beat our candidate in the primary.

We lost the damn election because we didn't turn out enough voters in the Midwest. I don't know exactly why but I bet it was for a bunch of reasons, and not just because of Eichenwald's pet theory.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
19. If you voted for Hillary, he's not blaming you
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 02:40 AM
Nov 2016

It's not about who people supported in the primary but how they voted in the general election. You should actually read the article before you take offense.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
23. Your "truth" has noting to do with the article linked
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 02:51 AM
Nov 2016

as I already pointed out. The poster is angry about something that is not at all what Eichenwald says.

LostOne4Ever

(9,267 posts)
24. Eichenwald said that "Bernie would have won" is a myth
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 03:32 AM
Nov 2016

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]The poster was disproving that.

Almost everything in the article is on a slant. It ignores the "verified" emails from Donna Brazile and the role Superdelegates played in suppressing the vote from Sander supporters. Seriously 400 of them had dedicated themselves to Clinton before a single primary vote had been cast and ignored that their states went overwhelmingly for Bernie!

And yes, Alan Greyson should have heeded the will of the people of his state too and went Hillary. Everyone who ignored the people deserve blame.

It is also full of bologna on Bernie's chance of winning.

Voters without college degrees would resent Bernie for allowing them to be able to attend College by having the government fund the tuition? How many times did he have to have his mind do mental gymnastics to come up with that piece of tortured logic?

How about claiming Bernie said rape is A-Okay? He never said that! And someone writing essays about something that really happens is somehow worse than a sexual predator who assaults women? Again, that is some amazing mental gymnastics there.

It does that again and again, distorting reality.

It talks about positions costing Bernie Florida-ignoring that Clinton Lost Florida. It glosses over that she lost almost every battleground state save NH (which went to Bernie in the Primaries) and Nevada (which would have went against Trump for his anti-latino bigotry). Not to mention that it ignores that the states that cost Clinton the election were strongly pro-Bernie.

It glosses over that people didn't give a shit about anything else but economic fairness. Trump had so much Baggage that any democrat with a heart beat should have beaten him. He didn't pay taxes, he stiffed his employees, he bragged about buying politicians, he conned people with Trump U, he was a bigot, and was a sexual predator.

None of that mattered to the people who either stayed home or voted for him anyways. That message of bringing back manufacturing jobs was that strong. Now imagine if it was Trump vs Bernie. Same message of bringing back jobs, but with the chance to vote for someone who wasn't a bigot nor a misogynist nor a person who preyed on women and young girls?

In HISTORICALLY BLUE states?

Bernie would have hit a home run!!!

And it disparages millennials while ignoring that if it was just us Hillary would have won in a landslide and ignore that it is the OLDER Generations who ACTUALLY VOTED FOR TRUMP.[/font]

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
25. How could he win the general
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 04:38 AM
Nov 2016

when he trailed in the primary by 3.8 million votes? Obviously he couldn't. I'm sorry you are so angry that Democrats didn't vote as you and your friends commanded. You have no idea what would have happened in the general, but you do know he couldn't win the primary. And you have to win the primary to even be in the general election.

Those historically blue states were run by GOP governors who exercised great voter suppression. Bernie may well have won more white male votes. You seem to assume the women and people of color who voted for Hillary would have all turned out for Bernie, yet you of course have no evidence to indicate that. Your entire argument is that the more important white male voters who supported Bernie in the primary didn't support Hillary in the general, yet it doesn't occur to you that those other Democratic voters might actually matter as well, and that they might not turn out for someone who couldn't figure out how to talk to them. And those voters are in fact the Democratic party base. No Democrat wins any election without them.

Clinton never used the opp research on Bernie, and there is tons of it, as the article alludes to. I suppose you think you think Bernie supporters would have managed to keep the GOP from using any of it by the kind of bullying and harassment that was used against Clinton supporters in the primary. The GOP doesn't play that, and those Trumpsters proved that nothing is beneath them.


And yes, it's horrible for Clinton to care about economic fairness. What kind of Democrat does that? Now what a good politician does is channel hatred, use scapegoats, make promises he has no intention of keeping. Clinton didn't do that. She treated voters with respect. It turns out they preferred to be insulted, assaulted, and pandered to.

If you wanted your candidate to be in the general election, you might have tried to turn out voters or even persuade them. None of that was part of the primary campaign. Instead we were told we had no right to even ask about his policies. We owed him fealty. And you wonder why he fucking lost? As reporting after the close of the primaries demonstrated, his supporters took their cues from the top.

Alan Grayson--jesus. Talk about baggage. Again, voters in Florida got to chose their nominee. Maybe they wanted someone who did more than play to the cameras? A novel concept, I know, but it happens.

Clinton has a free public college program. What good did it do her? The media didn't cover it. You don't even seem to know what her basic policy positions are, yet you think voters would have gone for Bernie's more? Why? Because he's male? Maybe, but he's still Jewish, and that crowd made their hatred of Jews a key cornerstone of the campaign.

I know the concept that just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so is alien to you. You go right on believing Bernie would have won. That it wouldn't have mattered that he had the nomination of the incumbent party and that he had been in Washington for 30 years. It doesn't matter than he couldn't get a majority of Democrats in all but a couple of the states he ran in. That the opposition research wouldn't have mattered because Bernie is just magic. That racism suddenly wouldn't have propelled Trump to victory. Whatever you believe really doesn't matter because it is nothing but wishful thinking.

Those millenials you hold in such regard voted for fucking Trump in one way or another. So fuck them and the rest of the Vichy "progressives." They will age, as we all do, and they will either get smarter or remain allied with the White Supremacists. That is their decision to make. I myself did stupid shit like them, voted for Nader in 2000 in FL. If I managed to smarten up, they can too. Or maybe they'll decide they really do prefer fascism. Their call.

I can't read through another post of your annoying blue font--which by the way is how everyone identifies you--so don't expect a further response.

LostOne4Ever

(9,267 posts)
26. Sorry but I am still going to post.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 07:10 AM
Nov 2016
How could he win the general when he trailed in the primary by 3.8 million votes? Obviously he couldn't. I'm sorry you are so angry that Democrats didn't vote as you and your friends commanded. You have no idea what would have happened in the general, but you do know he couldn't win the primary. And you have to win the primary to even be in the general election.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]Many presidents lost primaries before winning the presidency. Reagan lost the primary to Gerald Ford. Bush to Reagan. Johnson to Kennedy. Lincoln lost his primary to become his state's senator before winning the Presidential election. In fact, a quarter of all presidents had to lose before they won.

Sorry I lost? AMERICA LOST! LGBTQ people LOST! Women LOST! Minorities LOST! This type of attitude is exactly why we lost and why we will continue to lose. Because the elites of the democratic party think they know better than the people.

How many times did the American people say they don't want another Dynasty? That they were sick of insiders and typical politicians? That they wanted something, anything done about their jobs being shipped over seas? Even if it was just a bunch of words?

WE LOST because of this type of Hubris. It is obvious to even the most casual of observers.[/font]

Those historically blue states were run by GOP governors who exercised great voter suppression. Bernie may well have won more white male votes. You seem to assume the women and people of color who voted for Hillary would have all turned out for Bernie, yet you of course have no evidence to indicate that. Your entire argument is that the more important white male voters who supported Bernie in the primary didn't support Hillary in the general, yet it doesn't occur to you that those other Democratic voters might actually matter as well, and that they might not turn out for someone who couldn't figure out how to talk to them. And those voters are in fact the Democratic party base. No Democrat wins any election without them.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]Tom Wolf is a Republican? Maybe you should double check your facts?

Proof? Bernie had arenas full of people, including women and minorities! He had high ratings from PP, ACLU, NACCAP, and many others. Not only that, Trump would of pushed many of those people to Bernie naturally. Lets also not ignore that Hillary had low turn out for all those groups, so even if Bernies turn out was low the new people he would have drawn to the party would have made up for that fact.

And, no, you don't get to tell me what my argument is. No you don't get to strawman me. No you don't get to shut me down with your implicit and WRONG charge of bigotry for daring to disagree. That type of attitude is what drove the working class who had qualms about Clinton (including many minorities and women) underground and screwed up the polling. That ship don't float no more.

My argument is that we can't win ignoring the middle working class people of any color or gender. This is a fact Hillary Clinton has proven. Disdain for a SEGMENT of these people just because they are white goes against the principles of inclusivity and is a large part of the reason we lost. Even Obama acknowledges this.

WE HAVE TO BE A PARTY FOR EVERYONE!!! Female AND male. Black, Asian, AND CAUCASIAN. Everyone. No one more important than anyone else. [/font]

Clinton never used the opp research on Bernie, and there is tons of it, as the article alludes to. I suppose you think you think Bernie supporters would have managed to keep the GOP from using any of it by the kind of bullying and harassment that was used against Clinton supporters in the primary. The GOP doesn't play that, and those Trumpsters proved that nothing is beneath them.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]He would have easily bypassed it simply by debunking it, cause it was alll Bull. He wouldn't have the FBI working against him to legitimize those claims.

And no, we aren't the GOP. We don't need to bully anyone. We have truth on our side. Nice cheap shot by the way. I have bullied no-one and there were just as many Bullies on the Clinton Side if not more. Bernie had to build his support from the Ground up, he didn't have the DNC and name recognition on his side.

And of course Clinton didn't use it, she left that to her surrogates. The Clinton campaign brought it up all the time even if she didn't bother to do so directly. Like when they had Dolores Huerta LIE about yelling "English only" or other people LIE about throwing chairs.[/font]

And yes, it's horrible for Clinton to care about economic fairness. What kind of Democrat does that? Now what a good politician does is channel hatred, use scapegoats, make promises he has no intention of keeping. Clinton didn't do that. She treated voters with respect. It turns out they preferred to be insulted, assaulted, and pandered to.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]She didn't care about Economic fairness till it was an issue. That is why she called the TPP the gold standard and then did a complete flipflop. Probably a point that helped lose her the rust Belt to Trump. Though picking another free trade advocate in Kaine didn't help either. And I am sure her comments on getting rid of coal mining jobs did her no favors:



But blame the people for caring about their lively hood. For wanting comfort. Something Clinton wouldn't do. We will never win another election again.[/font]

If you wanted your candidate to be in the general election, you might have tried to turn out voters or even persuade them. None of that was part of the primary campaign. Instead we were told we had no right to even ask about his policies. We owed him fealty. And you wonder why he fucking lost? As reporting after the close of the primaries demonstrated, his supporters took their cues from the top.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]We tried. But with the DNC helping her, super delegates, people lying about sander it was beyond us. That is where we Sanders supporters do have blame. We needed better minority outreach. Especially to the African American community.

But, I maintain had there been a level playing field we could have won. Now the country will pay for that.

You had a right to ask about his policies! But that is not what happened. We had a DNC set against Sanders from the beginning who used a smear campaign to turn a person who fought for Civil rights in the 60s into some faux racist. Now That wasn't right.

Owing Fealty? That was Clinton's game. And if that was the Case then all Sanders supporters would have worked as hard for Clinton as he did. I did. 80% of us did. But the other 20% didn't. I guess he wasn't as influential as you think.

I personally think all the smears clinton supporters made against him and his supporters turned them off maybe?[/font]

Alan Grayson--jesus. Talk about baggage. Again, voters in Florida got to chose their nominee. Maybe they wanted someone who did more than play to the cameras? A novel concept, I know, but it happens.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]And that has what to do with the price of Tea in China? The article just said, and I used it purely to show, that there is evidence Bernie would have won. It had nothing to do with him.[/font]

Clinton has a free public college program. What good did it do her? The media didn't cover it. You don't even seem to know what her basic policy positions are, yet you think voters would have gone for Bernie's more? Why? Because he's male? Maybe, but he's still Jewish, and that crowd made their hatred of Jews a key cornerstone of the campaign.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]They would have gone for Bernie more because they were desperate that their way of life was going away and he made helping them the central theme of his campaign. He paid attention to them and cared about them. He showed that they weren't invisible to him. Clinton didn't even step foot inside of Wisconsin after the Primary.

And above all the electorate as a whole was MAD that politics as usual failed them. They didn't want another insider. They didn't want another politician. They damn sure didn't want another dynasty. They wanted Change...and Bernie represented all of that. Clinton was the antithesis of it.

My Critiques of Clinton have nothing to do with her being female or Bernie male. Whether our candidate was a woman, jew, african american, LGBTQ or even a straight cis-gender protestant male we would have faced their hate and insinuations. That is what they do to Liberals.[/font]

I know the concept that just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so is alien to you. You go right on believing Bernie would have won. That it wouldn't have mattered that he had the nomination of the incumbent party and that he had been in Washington for 30 years. It doesn't matter than he couldn't get a majority of Democrats in all but a couple of the states he ran in. That the opposition research wouldn't have mattered because Bernie is just magic. That racism suddenly wouldn't have propelled Trump to victory. Whatever you believe really doesn't matter because it is nothing but wishful thinking.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]This is the type of condescending attitude that drove moderates underground again. It is this type of attitude that caused us to not know how badly we were losing because of "secret voters." Quit telling me what I think. You have no clue. I have spoken to you as an equal, despite you talking down to me repeatedly. If you want dems to win again you are going to have to deal with those who don't agree with you.

It is obvious that Bernie would have won. The states she lost were Bernie country. Had she simply held them the dems would have won. The voters said they were voting for change. Again, a Bernie characteristic. Historically Blue voters given the economic message they craved would have had a choice between the old socialist and the sexual predator bigot.

EASY choice.

Blaming the people for Hillary's loss won't win us more election and it is too easy of an explanation. There is nothing we can do but hope for some magic messasiah to save us. No, that is the view that will give Trump a 2nd term. We need to advocate for the working class and show them we care. We need to stop holding them in contempt. We need to go into rural areas and engage the people and see what their worries are and provide solutions while continuing to standup for social justice.

It will be hard work but we can do it. That is how we win.[/font]

Those millenials you hold in such regard voted for fucking Trump in one way or another. So fuck them and the rest of the Vichy "progressives." They will age, as we all do, and they will either get smarter or remain allied with the White Supremacists. That is their decision to make. I myself did stupid shit like them, voted for Nader in 2000 in FL. If I managed to smarten up, they can too. Or maybe they'll decide they really do prefer fascism. Their call.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]The millennials you scorn so much WENT OVERWHELMINGLY FOR CLINTON and she would be president if only they voted. You need to take a look at the OLDER generations if you want to assign blame.

That is a FACT. You are attacking allies and blaming them for the fault of others. There is no reason for that.[/font]


I can't read through another post of your annoying blue font--which by the way is how everyone identifies you--so don't expect a further response.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]And another condescending insult. I get it, you don't like me poking holes in your argument. Its fine. I accept your white flag of surrender.

Oh and its not blue. Its cyan/teal. Somewhere between blue and Green. During the General I posted in blue because I wanted to get the green out Now that it is over I am back to annoying all the people who can't stand something being different.

Seems to do a good job of ticking off the right people!

And I don't care if you respond or not. I am not posting tonight for you. I am posting for all the others who are FURIOUS that the Hubris of the DNC has cost us everything. The presidency, the congress, the judiciary, and most governorships and legislatures.

We have had it and will be heard!!![/font]

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
27. You - in fact - believe the two myths?
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 07:55 AM
Nov 2016

What about the OP, Eichenwald's beef?

A certain kind of liberal makes me sick. These people traffic in false equivalencies, always pretending that both nominees are the same, justifying their apathy and not voting or preening about their narcissistic purity as they cast their ballot for a person they know cannot win. I have no problem with anyone who voted for Trump, because they wanted a Trump presidency. I have an enormous problem with anyone who voted for Trump or Stein or Johnson—or who didn’t vote at all—and who now expresses horror about the outcome of this election. If you don’t like the consequences of your own actions, shut the hell up.

LostOne4Ever

(9,267 posts)
28. I don't meet his Criteria
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 08:04 AM
Nov 2016

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]I didn't traffic in false equivalencies-Trump was worse. MUCH MUCH WORSE.

I was not apathetic. I voted (for Clinton) and donated (to Clinton), and advocated for the democratic nominee despite my personal feelings.

I do believe Bernie could win. It was Hillary who was not electable. At least not this year.

I was a good liberal and I earned my right to VENT!!![/font]

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
29. Hillary won the popular vote. Period.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 08:21 AM
Nov 2016

The Electoral College is another vestige of our racist slave heritage, built into the US Constitution to preserve slavery. It's disturbing to imagine Bernie would have done better in this system. If we'd only gotten more white males...

Where were the "good liberals" in a handful of blue states?

That's where the venting should be aimed!

LostOne4Ever

(9,267 posts)
31. Our elections are determined by the Electoral College.
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 08:46 AM
Nov 2016

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]No matter its origin that is the rule of how we choose presidents.

It needs to be changed, but that is the way it will remain till we get the power to change it.

Anyhow, He would have done better by appealing to the working class in BLUE rust belt states and independents tired of the same tired politicians.

If they were "good liberals" they were voting for Hillary. If they were bad and didn't vote for Hillary they deserve the blame the same as the DNC. There is plenty of blame to go around.

But, we "good liberals" vented at the "bad liberals" all general long. They heard us. THE DNC needs to hear us now. They need to hear how because of their Hubris of ignoring the people the democratic party is now in ruins.

The people said they didn't want anymore dynasties. The people said they didn't want anymore insiders. The people said they didn't want any more typical politicians. And the DNC did all it could to make sure we nominated a person who was the opposite of all that.

They need to be held accountable. The DNC need to be reformed and we need to clear house! We need a Chairman who listens to the people. We need to do away with the Superdelegates and make all primaries open primaries.

Reforming the party is the only way to move forward![/font]

DeeDeeNY

(3,352 posts)
36. You are completely right
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 09:04 AM
Nov 2016

People forget about the intangibles. Bernie was without question the stronger candidate. He never had a chance in the primaries because there were forces against him that were out of his control. I of course supported Hillary in the general election, but on some level I knew she wouldn't make it and that with Bernie it wouldn't have been close. He came across as genuine and inspired great enthusiasm.

R B Garr

(16,920 posts)
38. This is all nonsense because the third party protest votes were planned by
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 12:01 PM
Nov 2016

the alt-left. If they couldn't have Bernie, then we couldn't have anyone. So this was a definite strategy. Quit blaming an intentional plan on the DNC. These phony talking points about Bernie are total nonsense. The strategy was called "Bern it down". And it's laughable that you think Reagan Democrats would support a socialist.

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
35. all excellent points... for all the good it will do
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 08:51 AM
Nov 2016

I'm really getting annoyed at the Berners who think Hillary lost because she wasn't lefty enough

 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
30. Yes, let us sing the praises of white straight men
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 08:27 AM
Nov 2016

and how they were 'ignored' by Democrats, and their refusal of the "establishment' coalition of women, blacks, LGBTQs and new Americans to put their needs first.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
34. Indeed
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 08:48 AM
Nov 2016

Some can't help but reveal their views that votes of some citizens just matter more than others.

 

TrekLuver

(2,573 posts)
39. If Bernie won the primaries I would of rallied behind him...but I believe he would of been
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 12:24 PM
Nov 2016

destroyed in the General just because of one very dirty dirty word...he is considered a "socialist" and America is certainly not ready for this type of thinking.

dmosh42

(2,217 posts)
41. My opinion is that the expectation of women and "the black vote" is what beat Hillary. I was a .....
Wed Nov 16, 2016, 12:51 PM
Nov 2016

Bernie backer and I think a very large percentage finally backed Hillary when we voted. Where else would we go, especially since most of his ideas were added to the platform? Meanwhile all we heard was about
the "suburban white women" and the black vote would turn the tide against Trump. From what I heard so far, the white women, especially college, backed Trump and the black vote was down 7%. Big numbers right there.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Eichenwald: The Myths th...