Democrats swallowed these two giant myths and it cost them the election

[yallerdawg]

'Cause this done got on my last nerve already.

Source: Raw Story, November 14, 2016, Kurt Eichenwald, posted with permission from Newsweek

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...” Much more at link.

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. Much, much more at link.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/democrats-swallowed-these-two-giant-myths-and-it-cost-them-the-election/

Kurt Eichenwald sums it up why "some Democrats" who should have didn't vote for Hillary.

"And that's all I've got to say about that."

[Lucinda]

1. They will become fighting words...but I agree that they were a factor n/t

[femmocrat]

2. How about the myth that the well-organized ground game would prevail?

t-rump had no state organization, no volunteers, no nothing on the local level. Hillary supporters worked their hearts out. It didn't matter this election.

[Lithos]

3. I disagree

First, I think your language is wrong - the actual issues were related, but not couched in those terms.

The issue is the DNC (which you can argue represented Hillary in the primaries) were fighting the wrong campaign. There was very little distinction between the DNC and Hillary from the early primaries thru the general election. They made very bad assumptions.

The issue is again, was the DNC against the majority of people, or did they fight the wrong campaign which would win in the electoral college? The former they did well, the latter they failed. They thought that showing up was just enough. I read articles that Hillary's GOTV efforts energized Trump supporters as well, which is a bad thing.

The Sanders/Trump head to head is a distraction which I think did not impact the election very much. I think it is a distraction used to hide the failures of the DNC/Hillary campaign. I was a Bernie person who felt that Bernie had a better message. However, once he lost, I ended up giving far more practical support to Hillary than I ever gave to Bernie. (Both $$$ and time).

The reason why "Some" democrats did not support Hillary has to do more with self-identification than anything else. I think her "Deplorables" comment while correct was as damaging as Comey's emails. These portrayed her as "elitist" and thus out of touch, even though we all know Trump has far less in common - he at least sold himself better.

Trump is a salesman who wins through shaping words, Clinton requires more energy and thought which made her harder for people to develop an affinity.

[stevenleser]

5. Well, if you start with the fact that Hillary got the most votes, a lot of what you write falls down

and falls down hard.

[Lithos]

7. Spoke to that

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Witness the main complaint about the protests which want to reform the use of the electoral college

The campaign played well to the masses, yet failed in the key states that mattered to our form of government.

She failed a little over 100k voters, yet those voters decided many key states in Trump's favor.

Her failure was in the appeal to the Rust Belt voters - blue collar people - the Reagan Democrats. These people are turned off by "intellectualism" and language which challenged them at a core level. She did not use vocabulary which appealed to them and thus failed miserably at creating an empathy to these key voters. I think the start of this occurred when she used "Deplorables" which was seized by her opponents. What's worse is that her ground campaign saw this and appealed to her to make more stops in the Rust Belt to try and shore up and rectify this issue - she only did so late and too little.

[MyNameIsKhan]

4. I agree, our voters did not turn out in the swings states... except FL, where don had rural support

[jimlup]

6. I disagree

sorry. I'm pretty sure he's just flat wrong especially about #2.

[Nevernose]

8. Good article, but disagree on one point

Bernie might have won, even with all the oppo against him.

We also know that Trump is an absolutely terrible human being with much worse stuff on him, and we know with 100% certainty that Hillary couldn't win.

[FrenchieCat]

9. The taller candidate usually wins....

even in the case of Bush Jr.....since it was stolen from Al Gore!