Yes. There were numerous factors that swung the race narrowly to Trump.

[Tom Rinaldo]

None of them are trivial. Republicans practiced wide spread voter suppression efforts against minority voters in particular this year. Trump got hundreds of millions in free publicity early in the race before the media quite belatedly began to actually cover him beyond the buzz they generated for him - and then for the most part only the print media got real. The overt actions of the FBI Director had him jumping into the scale for Trump rather than just putting a finger on it. Russia intervened in the election on Trump's behalf, hacking and facilitating the release of tens of thousands of emails meant to discredit Clinton. Facebook allowed fake news stories in favor of Trump to proliferate, virtually unchallenged. Third Party candidates muddied the field and got significant numbers of votes. Some Americans simply were not ready to accept a woman as President, no matter how qualified. The electoral college is undemocratic, and Hillary probably got million of more votes than Trump without winning. Others can add to this list no doubt.

All true, but Democrats still should have easily won this election for President. Ongoing demographic shifts have favored Democrats increasingly each Presidential election. The unemployment level dipped below 5% before this election. The Republicans could not have nominated a less qualified and more universally disliked and distrusted candidate for President than Donald Trump. Hillary had a well oiled highly professional campaign team, Trump ran through three different campaign managers. The official Democratic Party was unified behind Clinton; Trump couldn't even get endorsements from previous Republican Presidents or most prior Republican Presidential candidates - nor several of the candidates who ran against him for the nomination, including the Governor of Ohio where their convention was held. Trump had no high profile surrogates who significantly campaigned for him aside from his Vice President and his daughter. Hillary had her daughter and VP too. She also had Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden, and Al Gore, and Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. And she had a very popular two term Democratic President and his even more popular wife pulling out all of the stops for her. Trump had Ted Nuggent, Clinton had Bruce Springsteen, and Beyonce etc. etc. etc.

After Romney's 2012 loss to Obama the RNC determined that Republicans needed better outreach to Latinos in order to win national elections. Instead Trump did everything in his power to push them away. Despite all of his boasting about his personal riches Hillary raised and outspent Trump by hundreds of millions during this presidential campaign. Although there were small numbers of Democrats vocal in opposition to Hillary, there were many more Republicans vocal in opposition to Trump. The Democrats had a fully functional GOTV machine, the Republicans did not. Trump was caught on tape boasting about sexual assaults. Women who were molested by him came forward. Teen beauty queens related how Trump barged in on them while naked during Trump promoted pageants. There is a trial date pending for the victims of the Trump University scam. Trump refused to release any of his tax returns. Trump admitted that he doesn't pay Federal Income taxes. Trump said he admires Putin, who most Americans knee jerk hate. The Ku Klux Klan endorsed Trump. The list of reasons why virtually any Democrat should have beaten Donald Trump is simply too long to list.

I don't say any of this to bash Hillary. After she secured the Democratic nomination I wanted her to win the election, and I worked toward that end. None of this denies her ample qualifications to have become President, nor the fact that millions of voters sincerely love Hillary, nor the obvious good that America finally electing a female President could have brought this country, and the world. But Clinton didn't win an election that never should have been close enough to slip away from her. To pretend otherwise is denial.

Yes Virginia, this was a “change election” and Hillary Clinton was never a change candidate. She was the establishment candidate all the way. Back when pundits were assuming that another Clinton Bush match-up was virtually inevitable, someone should have gotten a clue when Jeb totally bombed in the primaries. Americans were restless. Hilary's campaign doubled down on assumptions that did not bear out, and that unfortunately means flirting with the political death penalty. About 57 percent of eligible voters cast ballots this year, down from 58.6 percent in 2012 and 61.6 percent in 2008. The “Obama coalition” did not come through as strongly as hoped for, even with record levels of Hispanic participation. Yes, it turns out that it was significant that the maverick campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were bringing out crowds of tens of thousands during the primaries while Hilary was struggling to crack three digits at hers. Hillary always had the Democratic Party machine wired for her, and I'm not even referring to anything unethical in saying so. She spent decades in the trenches; she knew people, lots of people, and many of them personally admired her and/or owed her favors. She essentially cleared the field well before the primaries ever began (it's always been my belief that O'Malley was always running to become VP). When a 73 year old little known Democratic Socialist Senator from Vermont, who the media kept on ignore well past any semblance of objective coverage, gave her such a strong run for the money – that should have been wake up call enough. Instead, after Hillary won the nomination her campaign systematically neglected the rust belt, which ultimately resulted in her defeat.

If Democrats now ignore the above realities we will remain out of touch with a dangerously large swath of the electorate. The Democratic Party brand has suffered with working and middle class Americans in recent decades. Look below the level of presidential elections and that could not be more obvious. Democrats have repeatedly been routed in more and more state legislatures. The Clinton era is now officially over. Yes many things had to go wrong for us in order for Trump to become President. Had a few of them broken differently we would narrowly have dodged that bullet, but it was heading toward us none the less.

[liquid diamond]

1. So to summarize

We democrats should have nominated Bernie. Amirite? Give it up. Bernie couldn't even win a primary contest let alone the general. He had his say and lost. Your I told you so rants are a waste of time.

[Else You Are Mad]

5. Well, the poster did make legitimate points...

Hillary ran a flawed campaign. That is not rehashing the primary battles, but an important critique of the mistakes that were made this campaign. Had Hillary ran a more populist style campaign, she would have won.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I agree with your conclusion

Hillary still could have won this even with the breaks that broke against her.

[duffyduff]

62. More trashing Clinton. Let me guess you supported Sanders.

It is astonishing the level of DENIAL over what happened.

[Else You Are Mad]

64. And, I actively campaigned for Hillary.

Yes, the level of denial is astonishing, the first person to blame for losing is the person that ran.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. I didn't say that, you did

It could also have been Warren or one of the Democratic Senators and Governors who were no doubt dissuaded to run against Clinton this time.

[TDale313]

22. Primaries are not General elections

It's not crazy to believe one candidate would be a better General election candidate even if they lost the primaries. Or to take away from a loss in the General that we might need to rethink our approach. This was a change election year. Hillary was a far better option than Trump, but was always going to have a hard time selling herself as a change agent. Supported Bernie strongly in the primaries, supported Hillary in the General. I believe Bernie would have won the General- because he appealed to independents, and I'm sorry, Hillary lost big among rust belt Independents. I can give you two states Bernie likely would have won in the General that she lost. Michigan and Wisconsin. He did far better than she did there in the Primaries. What states that Hillary to you actually believe Bernie would have lost? Cause just picking up those two narrowly lost states woulda been enough to spare us President Trump.

[Ken Burch]

23. Not necessarily. THere are other interpretations.

The campaign could have been as a partnership: The Clinton emphasis on social justice(which Sanders supporters actually never disagreed with her and her supporters about)combined with the Sanders critique of corporate control.

I think we could have had a multimillion-vote plurality for a Clinton-Kaine ticket that did that.

[bettyellen]

33. Where's the "Sander critique of corporate control" and shouts of "corruption" now?

Was that just an "ends justify the means" thing he's discarded? I'm shocked he's not been very vocal about it, wasn't while campaigning either.

[Ken Burch]

42. Sanders has been denouncing Trump all fall, and continued since the election.

It's time to accept that he's on our side and so are MOST of his supporters.

We can't win in 2018 OR 2020 if we put the blame on the left and on the myth that white leftists didn't want a female president.

Virtually all Sanders supporters started out as Elizabeth Warren supporters. That fact proves that misogyny wasn't the issue on the left(I do denounce and have always denounced anyone who claims to be a leftist and did vote against Hillary solely on gender grounds. Doing that would be nothing but stupid). Bernie didn't even WANT to run. But what was he supposed to do when Warren ruled herself out as a candidate? We usually don't win in years where one candidate was nominated with no serious opposition anyway.

FDR had to go to multiple ballots. JFK just barely got a first-ballot majority. Carter blew a thirty-point lead. You saw what happened in 2000 and 2004. Making the primaries an issue-free dead zone doesn't gain us votes in the fall.

[bettyellen]

44. Have t heard him shout corruption about Trump once - quote please?

You really have to stop with the multi paragraph lectures - after 3-4 OPs this week saying the same stuff.
Don't tell us what it's time for, it's obnoxious and an oft repeated refrain from those who think it's time to roast Hillary. It's always time for that with some of you.

[Ken Burch]

46. I've never been a Hillary hater.

My intent here is positive. Purely positive.

And I post simply as one person expressing opinions.

[bettyellen]

52. So.... he hasn't said anything lately about the huge conflicts of interest Trump has?

Stop making this personal, stop with the spamming paragraphs of pro- Sanders and stick to the question at hand.

[Ken Burch]

55. Bernie has attacked and will keep attacking Trump.

He has attacked him on corruption as part of everything else he's attacked the guy on. I don't have to prove that. And it doesn't matter whether he uses the word "corruption" or not.

Bernie is on our side.

[bettyellen]

56. I've googled and am coming up with him "hiding taxes" an old and ironic attack....

Can't find much at all on him attacking Trump and you know it just seems bizarre. Taxes? He had no standing to complain about that. Can't find anything recent either huh?

[R B Garr]

43. Exactly, bettyellen! I don't see Bernie or his supporters now outraged that an actual 1%

GOP billionaire rigged the corrupt system to gain power.

I haven't seen Bernie red in the face shouting angrily at Donald and his actual fraudulent practices the way he shouted at Hillary for knowing some people on Wall Street. There is an actual fraud case against Donald in which be bilked consumers, but not a peep from Bernie about it. So phony.

[bettyellen]

54. It's insane. I guess if Sanders is not complaining they can't either? It would appear so.

All of a sudden corruption is not a thing, and baby steps pragmatism is awesome. Very strange to see.

[Ken Burch]

67. Bernie has attacked Trump's actual proposals. Why is it so important that he says "corruption"?

Bernie has proved he never wanted Trump to win.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. models of this election that were created to predict this election before polls

all showed republicans with a clear advantage

so i am not sure 'we were destined to win this, but for Hillary' at all explains what happened.

What the major political science models said
In fact, of the major political science models that try to explain presidential elections, three predicted Trump would win and three others predicted only a very narrow Clinton victory.

http://www.vox.com/2016/11/9/13571872/why-donald-trump-won

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Agreed were it it not for how deeply flawed a candidate Trump was

I would have expected a Romney or a Kasich, or a Rubio, or even a Walker type Republican to have put up a very serious challenge this year. Trump's weakness was a potential gift that alas now has backfired.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. white supremacy is a powerful drug, and we undervalued its power

yes, she lost because of FBI, Russian hacks and wikileaks, sexism, but she also lost because she proudly believed black lives matter and queers deserve equality and immigrants have value.

[Else You Are Mad]

9. To an extent, yes.

But, the same voters that voted for Obama (a black man with a Muslim sounding name) twice voted for Trump this election. And, Trump won the majority of the female vote.

I think it did play a part, but it wasn't as big of an influence as most think.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. people have different motivations at different times.

when obama ran, mccain and romney did not offer a message of white supremacy. obama's message on economy was power and theirs was weak.

this is the first time in my life that someone has run on an openly white supremacists message.

[Else You Are Mad]

13. True.

But, I believe it was Trump's message that I am here to help you (I am not saying his policies are correct, because they certainly are not.) and change the system. That sounds a lot like hope and change to me. I think that is the message that resonates most with voters.

Sure, there are a whole segment of his voters are white nationalist racists, but a lot of his voters were once Obama voters.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. and the fact that you think white voters who voted for obama cannot vote for white supremacy

in another year, shows that you don't necessarily recognize how people behave.

people can think of obama as an exceptional black and think of white supremacy as a right of white people at the same time.

[Else You Are Mad]

16. I cannot imagine that a white supremacist

Would vote for a black president. People aren't selectively racist and most white supremacists were going to vote Republican regardless of who the candidate on the right was.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. people actually are selectively racist. they can be primed to enhance their racism

and denounce it.

believe what you will but this is what i study and have actually expertise in.

[bettyellen]

34. People are absolutely selectively racist and sexist. It'd be better if you studied a bit on the

Research instead of presenting your gut instincts as "facts". You're discussing this with Priyanka, who has been working on untangling these issues for years. You're lucky to be talking to someone with deep insights on these issues.

[Else You Are Mad]

40. I actually have studied the subject quite a bit.

Last edited Sat Nov 19, 2016, 06:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Obviously our research has led to a different conclusion. Please see, e.g., the papers about innate racism. Also, then apply that to hidden vote casting. Thqt subject group would not vote for a black person for two elections then remember their racism.

[Grey Lemercier]

58. people are selectively racist, Nazis in Germany had Jewish

wives and mistresses, but still were down for the holocaust.

[JI7]

74. yup, that's why we laugh at the "my best friend is black" line. not because we don't think they

actually have the black friend but because that doesn't mean they can't be racist.

Trump and Ben Carson are friends and largely get along better than Trump did with the white candidates . but doesn't change Trump's racism at all.

[atreides1]

27. That's the disconnect

Trump kept saying "i'm here to help you", but hardly provided anything more then talking points, his "policies" were superficial at best.

The reports of his loss of almost a billion dollars, at a time when the economy was actually doing well, the soon to be closing of his casino in Atlantic City, the bankruptcy of a Trump Hotel in Toronto, and his constant refusal to show his tax returns, what help was he promising?

And he's not changing the system, all he's doing is repopulating the swamp with his hand picked swamp dwellers! He's president not emperor for life...there is little he can do by himself!

Those former Obama voters, if not white nationalists, are the stupidest f**king people to ever walk the face of this or any other planet!!!

[Else You Are Mad]

29. My feelings exactly.

He didn't drain the swamp, he added alligators to the swamp. A lot of my family are working class whites that voted for Obama then Trump. They have no idea how bad the working class is going to do under a Trump presidency.

[JI7]

84. he did say how he was going to help them. by building a wall and deporting people and muslim bans

etc.

they agreed with those things.

[spooky3]

18. No, he did not. He lost women by 10 percentage points

As per the current counts. He won only subgroups of women, such as white women who did not have college degrees.

[Else You Are Mad]

19. I stand corrected.

Thanks for the heads up. That gives me just a little more hope in the nation.

[spooky3]

20. Thank you! Good point. And here's an article you might like:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/507422/?client=safari

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. She did proudly believe those things, much to her credit

She is not the only national Democrat who shares those beliefs. Obama beat back the white supremacists and won the individual votes of many who turned to Trump this time.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. obama never ran against an open white supremacist

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. True, he didn't. It can be argued either way...

...whether Trump gained or lost more votes by being so openly aligned with white supremacists. It motivated some minority voters to go to the polls to defeat Trump, and it disgusted some none racists whites, including some Republicans and Independents, that Trump went where he dd, causing defections from his support. Hillary's campaign acted like it was to her political advantage - they wove it into their play book to drive up Trump's negatives and help turn moderate Republican women against him. Her campaign adds focused on driving up fear of Trump more than on exciting and inspiring voters to support her.

[Else You Are Mad]

30. Bingo.

Hillary ran a campaign with a message that gave the people something to vote against -- the monster that Trump is. Trump ran a campaign with a message that gave something (which is completely wrong) to vote for -- that is a vote for him is a vote to better those that vote for him.

[radical noodle]

79. Well, she DID have a message that gave people something to vote for

but the media would normally play the "bashing Trump" part and then cut off the plans and policy part.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

69. Could you stop pretending everything I say had

Has to do with fucking Bernie?

This did not. Just get over your self.

[Ken Burch]

70. OK...if that's not what you meant, that's fine.

Given that the lie about Bernie and his supporters only caring about economic issues and being a campaign for white men only was spread for months without let-up even after we did everything we could do to prove it wrong, you can understand how some of us wanting to make sure that nothing like that is still being spread.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. Again, nothing I said was about Bernie.

You made that out of thin air.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. Also just for clarity you are the only person

Lying here, when you accuse me of saying something about Bernie when I clearly was not. You lie and you don't apologize for lying. Hence I have a very hard time believing any of what you wrote.

[Ken Burch]

75. I didn't say YOU personally started those things last spring.

No one person here did that.

And no, it wasn't clear today that you weren't saying that. I accept that I misunderstood and you didn't say that.

If I had known that wasn't your intent before posting, I wouldn't have posted that.

To move on from this, I'll delete the post.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

85. you made an accusation in a post that did not at all refer to primaries or bernie.

[Ken Burch]

86. I deleted the post.

There was no way to know that what I was responding to didn't refer to that when I posted. The candidate I supported was relentlessly and falsely attacked on that set of issues for months, so it shouldn't be that hard to understand why I might assume that it was.

I accept that you didn't mean it the way I took it. Sorry for misunderstanding. Can we leave it at that, please?

[Grey Lemercier]

57. you should make an OP with that

[Else You Are Mad]

3. Well put.

This was well thought out and interesting to read. And, 100% correct. The Democratic party needs to learn from this election's mistakes. I am not insulting the candidate at all. Rather, the Democratic party NEEDS to tear up the play book that was used this time around and go back with the Obama play book.

[MFM008]

14. The biggest thing

FBI Comey.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. That is the major variable that swung enough votes at the end

But the race had to be close enough for that to be enough. It wasn't a brand new "scandal"- it reactivated a preexisting negative. And the "original sin" of that negative was Clinton's poor judgement about use of her own email account, compounded by her use of a private server that she never voluntarily revealed until the Republicans found proof of it. She could have survived all that most likely without Comey, but ultimately it was a self inflicted wound at root.

[andym]

21. Consider how this election would go if Obama had run against Trump

I think President Obama actually gets a landslide even in this year of change. If so, it would suggest that other factors are at least as important as those you listed. It would be interesting to find polls to back this up. Of course this scenario was prohibited by a constitutional amendment.

[moonscape]

82. Approvals matter n/t

[elleng]

26. 'Yes Virginia, this was a change election

and Hillary Clinton was never a change candidate. She was the establishment candidate all the way. Back when pundits were assuming that another Clinton Bush match-up was virtually inevitable, someone should have gotten a clue when Jeb totally bombed in the primaries. Americans were restless. . . Yes, it turns out that it was significant that the maverick campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were bringing out crowds of tens of thousands during the primaries while Hilary was struggling to crack three digits at hers. Hillary always had the Democratic Party machine wired for her. . . When a 73 year old little known Democratic Socialist Senator from Vermont, who the media kept on ignore well past any semblance of objective coverage, gave her such a strong run for the money – that should have been wake up call enough. Instead, after Hillary won the nomination her campaign systematically neglected the rust belt, which ultimately resulted in her defeat.

If Democrats now ignore the above realities we will remain out of touch with a dangerously large swath of the electorate. The Democratic Party brand has suffered with working and middle class Americans in recent decades. Look below the level of presidential elections and that could not be more obvious. Democrats have repeatedly been routed in more and more state legislatures. The Clinton era is now officially over. Yes many things had to go wrong for us in order for Trump to become President. Had a few of them broken differently we would narrowly have dodged that bullet, but it was heading toward us none the less.'

THANK YOU, Tom.

[spin]

31. It's hard for any party to hold the presidency for more than two terms. ...

But the more immediate trend is that in seven of the last nine elections, voters have decided to switch the party controlling the White House when a candidate (or his successor) had won two prior elections.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/01/historic-re-election-pattern-doesnt-favor-democrats-in-2016/

What amazes me is that a candidate like Donald Trump who appeared to be doing everything he could to lose the election actually won. It's hard for me to believe that any candidate who was a total jerk like Trump appears to be could have any success in the business world. Therefore I suspect much of who Trump seems to be is just an actor playing a character on a stage. He is obviously not a true conservative but he played the role of an extreme far right bigot. Surely any serious candidate for President would not act like a total asshole as Trump did. He definitely was the bad guy in a grade B movie.

Unfortunately I suspect Trump is stuck in a job he never really wanted and we are stuck with him.

One other factor that might have cost Hillary the election is that Bush the Younger was a total disaster as president. That led many voters to dislike putting members of the same family in the Oval Office. One common slogan was. No more Bushes and no more Clintons.The fact that many American voters dislike dynasties may have proved to be one of many factors in the unusual results in this election.

Another factor is that many American voters are convinced that many of those we elect to represent us sell out to the Big Doners, Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry and the military industrial complex in order to get enough money to run a campaign to get reelected. Bernie pushed that message he was surprising successful in the primaries. If true that may indicate problems in the future for long term elected representatives of both parties. Another slogan I have often seen is Throw all the bums out.

I can sit around and come up with many reasons Hilary lost but that fact continues to simply amaze me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. The only worthwhile reason to give much thought to why she lost...

is to see what lessons we all need to learn from it. Some factors were hard to foresee and/or counter, others were not. It is true that it's much easier to see things in hindsight - so now it the time when we should be paying attention to what went wrong and why.

And yes, no matter what is said, I too still can't really believe Trump won. I am still partially in denial about that.

[spin]

38. Lessons can be learned from a defeat. In this case ...

they definitely need to be.

For one thing It was so obvious that Hillary would win that many people decided to avoid standing in long lines at the polls. Many Trump supporters might have believed Trump would lose but showed up to vote to defeat a landslide.

I wonder how accurate the polls actually are. Many people have no interest in taking them. I'm one.

In passing I did vote but didn't stand in line. I love absentee ballots. It gives me time to do research and try to pick the best candidates. In my state it's easy for anyone to obtain an absentee ballot and I have been voting that way for years.

[Ken Burch]

49. Thank you. Learning is not bashing or hatred.

n/t.

[Lithos]

28. There are a couple of myths here

I first think both Bernie and Hillary could have won. This is not a Bernie *or* Hillary dilemma here.

The loss was caused thru several things:

I agree with you about voter suppression. If you add the votes back in which were suppressed thru the GOP dominated voter purges, the numbers would have matched those predicted by the pollsters.

I agree this was a change election which centered on the differences between the urban and exurban needs. Clinton had zero identification with he exurban areas whose top issues were about being "heard", finding some stability for jobs and healthcare. Trump excelled at this outreach with his highly unsophisticated speech and "locker room" mannerisms even though we all know he's going to fail miserably here.

The rise of social media to disseminate "news" was unparalleled here and one of the big differences between 2012 and today. Facebook and twitter had a huge impact on setting the tone. This allowed funded third parties (Russia, alt-right) to have a huge impact. The Democratic Party had zero response to this. Going high when they go low failed here as it denied the use of a huge tool.

And I think Hillary suffered one big difference here - the GOP knew she was going to run for 8 years and had plenty of time to prepare for her. However, given that Bernie also had a "nuanced" past, this is not as huge a difference as it would seem.

[Ken Burch]

51. And it's not even about saying it should have been Bernie instead of Hillary.

What I argued, for example was that Hillary should have treated the fall campaign as a "partnership" election...that is, combined the social justice agenda she emphasized(and which everyone who backed Bernie also fully supported, as did Bernie himself) with the economic democracy agenda Bernie's supporters gave more emphasis to.

As a campaign, we needed to find a way to say "no, we won't be able to instantly do everything the majority wants...but we always be fighting for that and encouraging people to fight for it from below, and we will make sure woman is left behind, no person of color is left behind, no LGBTQ person is left behind, no New American is left behind, no worker is left behind, no one in poverty is left behind, no dream of a better world is left behind".

We were never going to win just by pointing out that Trump is a racist bastard...any more than we were ever going to beat Nixon just by pointing out that he was crooked, OR that we were ever going to beat Reagan by hugging the center and painting him as an extremist.

Campaigns that win need to be FOR something better...not just warnings that things will get worse if we don't win.

Now, we need to be about redeeming the country from hatred and misery in 2018 and 2020.

And the first step towards doing that is being open to real, respectful discussion of THIS campaign.

[Lithos]

65. Agree with you on many points

I think Bernie would have had a hard time as well - his own primary campaign had some of the same flaws used in the Hillary campaign. His nuance would have been used against him.

It is a waste of time to keep pointing out Trump on a personal level. Take Italy, for example, personal attacks on Berlusconi - another Fascist billionaire who screwed Italy over pretty good - gained in popularity the more people made it personal about him and not the issues.

I also think we blew it with how we handled identity politics. We framed it about groups who obviously are left behind either economically or legally which is of course necessary. But we never made it a vision for everyone, a point seized by the Alt-Right who used it masterfully to use their buzz-word loaded identity political rhetoric to get millions of disaffected White voters to vote for Trump, even if many knew he was a bad candidate. And once it was in play, it became an emotional discussion where there was absolutely no way for real issues to come into play. Trump and allies used social media to help keep this emotions in play. Facebook and Twitter were gamed very effectively. Comey did his part to provide the last minute fuel to this which kept people not thinking.

The other thing we're going to have to do is attack the base of the noise which frames these issues. The conspiracy theories, the fake news, and the other forms of propaganda which help shape people's minds. Until you get rid of this, you will never have an honest discussion. We also need to start using emotional appeals to everyone to highlight the damages which are being done.

L-

[Ken Burch]

66. I agree with all of that. Thanks for the openness. n/t.

[andym]

35. Tom, How do you think Obama would have fared against Trump?

I think that would most help in understanding which factors were most critical in the outcome. In spite of the electorate wanting change, and the always present racism, I think Obama wins in a landslide. However, I haven't been able to find any polling for this hypothetical matchup.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. His approval ratings are a huge clue

Especially when compared to Trump's. Yes I agree, Obama would have beaten Trump easily - even in a change election. Obama. as it turns out, is a damn good campaigner as well as being a good leader. That's an advantage he has over Hillary. And Obama wasn't under FBI investigation during an election year either. I'm not sure a Obama win would have been a given though had a Republican like Marco, but with a little more substance than him, been their nominee instead of Trump.

White racism is real, and there is soft as well as hard racism. All other things being equal many whites are more comfortable trusting another white for their leader than an African American - but with Trump as the choice even many of those would have voted for Obama I feel. And like I said above, Trump's overt appeal to racists also cost him as well as assisted him. It cost him among some white moderates, even moderate Republicans, and it motivated some minorities to get out and vote against him.

[moonscape]

83. I think Obama could have taken a more substantive-type Rubio

in a fair election where every vote counts. With the suppression going on, I've no clue.

[ismnotwasm]

37. And the loss of the House and the Senate?

With all the talk of presidential candidates, let's not overlook local failures as well. To me, this changes the metric. What exactly happened here? Flawed Hillary so I won't vote down ticket? No Bernie so I won't vote don't ticket?

And what would Bernie have done with a Republican House and Senate? He was well known for reaching across the isle as a independent, but as a Democrat? With his proposed changes? Nope.

No, we are looking at--among other things, yes-- a whitelash. Never underestimate the anger of the people who could not stand the fact we had an African American President, and now we had the nerve to present a women? Quel Dommage. Not happening.

Unless you have blame to spread around--As I certainly do--for losing the House and Senate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. We gained seats in the House and Senate - but fewer than hoped for

Prior to Coney's letter "reopening" the investigation of Clinton it seemed Democrats were on track to do better than we did. I believe that our side did face an "enthusiasm gap".

I also would not underestimate the damage done by our fielding a presidential candidate who was under investigation by the FBI for possible criminal activity during an election year. Even though Comey tipped the scales, that investigation was still real, and people got reminded of that by his letter 11 days out from the vote

Just think, what kind of field day would we have had at DU during, say the 2012 election cycle if Romney had been under an FBI investigation that ultimately cleared him by saying his actions were reckless but did not rise to the level of criminal intent?

Hillary made the centerpiece of her 2016 campaign driving up Trump's negatives because there was little she could do to drive down hers. And she simply wasn't a credible populist candidate in a year when the electorate craved one, and she made little concerted effort to counter the impression that she was an establishment insider. Far far superior to Trump she indeed was, but the better person doesn't always win, even when racism isn't involved. There are other less tangible factors also, things like "the mood of the country".

Look, I always vote each and every election day and I don't truly understand why everyone doesn't, but I know they don't. Our party branding has, in general, become less compelling over time. More and more we sell ourselves as the grownups in the room; competent, rational, and well connected. The Right increasingly has the most passion - often ugly granted, but enthusiasm helps generate victories.

[ismnotwasm]

41. So you think people voted locally because of national Elections coverage?

Just said, fuck it, I'm voting for the Republicans--they are anti-establishment?,what I meant by loss, is that we have a majority in neither--despite Trump being horrifying to us, he wasn't horrifying to the Olympic pennensula in Washington state--or Eastern Washington either for that matter.

And don't you mean Hillary was under the perception of criminal investigation?

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Parcing words is important, but difficult

If I fell short in that regard about the FBI investigation I apologize. There was an investigation. The FBI found that there was no basis for a criminal indictment. Presumably one purpose of the investigation was to resolve that previous uncertainty.

I was saying among other things that some people didn't vote - the percentage of registered voters who made it to the polls in 2016 dropped from 2012. Democrats tend to do best wen turn out is highest.. And yes there will always be blue areas and red areas; birds of a feather tend to flock together and all that, but much of the country that is not so strongly identified with either party has been slipping away from Democrat for some time. The fact that Hillary headed our ticket this year did not cause that - but the Democratic Party has been strongly influenced by both Clinton's for some time now. The almost instantaneous line up of a huge majority of super delegates to Hillary so early in this contest before the first primary is objective evidence of that. Had Hillary won in a landslide of historic proportions much would have been made of the wisdom so evidenced by their early loyalty. It is appropriate to ask what should be made of that now, in hindsight, after her loss.

[ismnotwasm]

47. See, I think people agree on the "various causes" part.

Where we disagree is proportional blame. I blame inherent racism and sexism for the lions share of how the entire campaign from primary on rolled out. Sanders had a lot of baggage and while his platform was fabulous--how it was going to be paid for was also fabulous, in the original meaning of the word. Could he have beaten Trump? Not by my metrics, but we will never know

A change of pace here, Since you started such an interesting thread, will you do me a favor and give me your opinion on this article?

http://qz.com/834735/want-to-understand-how-trump-happened-study-quantum-physics/

I find it a fascinating take--it's less "he said she said" or "us and them"--a wider view

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. OK, I will. Don't have time right this second but I will. n/t

[JI7]

50. it was mostly white people angry over increasing diversity

[uponit7771]

53. One mention of voter suppression and no mention of Comey?! :rolleyes: Stop, ok... jus stop

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. Umm: "The overt actions of the FBI Director had him jumping into the scale for Trump

rather than just putting a finger on it."

OK, I didn't actually spell out his name. I was in a rush and wasn't sure if there was an "e" n it

[uponit7771]

63. ok... I'll cede you mentioned Comey in context but not those two playin more of a factor then the

... others ... IMHO.

For voter suppression they only need to suppress ~.2% of the vote
For Comey it gave nearly perfect cover.

She wasn't that flawed of candidate, like the guy who sung happy said... "she lies no less than any other politician"

There was a tactical mistake of not campaining in the rural areas but I don't believe for 1 second DPutin won by 1% in all the states projected for Clinton...

That's a 1 in a trillion chance

Clinton wasn't that bad IMHO... she had more going against her than herself

[Ken Burch]

87. Why is it so important to force everyone to see it as Comey and voter suppression and nothing ELSE?

Agreed that Hillary had been attacked for years...but that was one of the reasons why some of us were against nominating her at the time. We KNEW the fall campaign would be like this, we KNEW Trump would be running against Bill as much as against Hillary, and we didn't want the party to be put through that.

Obviously there were rotten things in the vote count and what Comey did was criminal. But if we leave it at that, if we assume we don't need to change anything, we guarantee that we can't do better in 2020. We can't just run the exact same campaign again four years from now.

I wanted Hillary to win and the Sanders people who campaigned hard for her are just as devastated about the apparent Electoral College loss as those who backed her from the start. But we weren't the bad guys and it isn't a personal betrayal of our nominee to ask hard questions about what we might have done differently, and it isn't kicking her when she's down.

Most of us who have posted critique threads since the site re-opened have been totally respectful(the few who weren't got the blowback they deserve). The point of raising questions is to make sure we do better next time, because if we lose in 2020 it may not be worth ever trying to win in any year after that. It might be too late to change anything at all if Trump gets two terms.

[uponit7771]

88. Because those were the two biggest TANGIBLE factors that can be measured, everything else is basical

... basically opinion.

[duffyduff]

61. You have NO clue what happened. There was only ONE factor at work: the media

Google "Jeff Zucker and Donald Trump" and you will have an inkling of what happened.

This blame the Democrats and blame Hillary Clinton bullshit needs to stop. The garbage that she didn't pander enough to the entitled white dudes who don't deserve one minute of support or that she "abandoned" so-called Democratic principles, is just BULLSHIT.

I am sick of MEN trying to mansplain what a WOMAN candidate for president should have done.

She did everything right. It was the FUCKING MEDIA WHO WANTED Trump for ratings and ad revenue and that created this messianic cult.

And you have a SANDERS avatar. You discredit yourself right then and there. Sanders would have LOST to both Bloomberg and Trump had he been the nominee.

[still_one]

81. The other factor not mentioned was that a significant number of Sanders supporters refused to vote

for Hillary.

The Russ Feingold and Zypher Teachout loss is also rarely mentioned, as is that everyone of the swing state Senate Democrats lost to the establishment republican incumbent.

This post-mortem bullshit is just that. Besides the FBI interference, too many Sanders supporters refused to vote for Hillary

The way Hillary has been treated by the media, the republicans, and those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for her is a disgrace. This has been going on since 1993 when she first introduced her healthcare plan.

What was done to Hillary will not be forgotten, and for the many who supported her, it will not be forgiven

[gulliver]

68. The Dems got caught up in the "change" contagion.

If Donald Trump has shown us anything it is that elections are fluid. This election was like no other. None of the physics of previous elections proved reliable. Big media ad buys? Endorsements from politicians, the media, and celebrities? Ground games? Polls? Debates? "Norms" of decency? Observance of government policy and precedent? Tax returns? Concrete proposals?

Had Bernie not run, Hillary would have won the election handily, and we would not be in the predicament we are now in. The Republicans would have cracked up. The world would have been a much better place. We would now be talking about this election as having been a "stay the Obama course" election.

It's not just "Bernie's fault." It's all of our fault. Sure, Bernie definitely got a big head somewhere along the line and started going into the "brothers and sisters" mode. Trump did about the same thing. He and Bernie fueled one another. Their themes resonated with one another, mirrored one another. They both became cult phenomena, heroes of the downtrodden, the forgotten...and other such melodrama. Rallies like rock concerts. Oxytocin everywhere.

The fact is that Clinton had the goods on paper, a track record and the support of essentially everyone with any sense. We shouldn't be honoring the concept of "change for changes sake" as if it is something handed down from above and inherently worthy of respect. The job wasn't to sell a flavor of magic beans. It was to lead the country.

I agree with practically everything in your analysis, by the way. I just think we need to get more aware that these realities we are currently thinking we didn't respond to are realities that we created in the first place.

[Hugin]

72. A cogent and perceptive analysis...

Thanks for taking the time to share it with us.

[ancianita]

76. You've put a LOT of thought into how Trump won, but I think it came down to math and Crosscheck.

A report on its strategy was posted here a few days ago. Apologies to the poster whose name I've forgotten. In sum...

A system called Crosscheck, used by Republican governors and their Secretaries of Election, determined the margins of Republican losses across a bunch of red states.

Then, this is how the Crosscheck system helped Trump win:

Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107

Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257

North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393
Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008

Of course, those three example states were not the only ones who used the software. Crosscheck noted the GOP presidential election loss numbers in Republican states, then beat those numbers by purging Democratic voter rolls far greater number of minority vote purges between elections.

It was that strategy that won the necessary 270 electors. All the rest, the PR, the crazy rhetoric, media 'normalizing' was window dressing. The GOP kind of let the Democrats proceed with their Rube Goldberg-style complification of all the campaigning and polling. Because they knew that the drama could bring out numbers above the ones they beat through Crosscheck.

That's what Democrats -- who thought that all manner of ground game, ads and polling would bring voters to the polls -- didn't see. Basic numbers that it took to win. Democrats put themselves in a bubble and never clearly saw what the Republican establishment and their governors had really done.

Democrats should have had court fights in those states, but the ACLU, or party lawyers in general, dropped the ball on it. One North Carolina case overruled the state's purgings and/or voter ID suppression, I can't remember, now.

But. An army of ACLU lawyers and the Democrats could have taken Crosscheck and their states bosses to court, and governors still could have kept mum about Crosscheck and their number goals.

More problematically for Democrats, paperwork that the purgings were based on were only about 50% accurate, anyway, so it would take massive man-hours to locate living, purged voters, restore them to polls. Then it might have taken a lot of data entry into state voting systems to be reflected at local precinct levels.

The battles were there. Democrats just couldn't see it, or if they did, pull a network of legal fight together to make it in time roll out court decisions. Democratic voter turnout failure made up the rest of the numbers.

So the Republicans won by the slimmest, most elegant of methods. All the drama -- Hillary's evilness, media, bum rushed rallies, signal-to-noise commentary -- was cover.

We need to learn from this. Seriously.

What I learned? It's less important to know how we lost. It's more important to learn how they won.

[ancianita]

77. K & R Because some postmortem analysis really needs to get beyond culture wars.

[ancianita]

78. Here you go: Botany first called how Republicans won by the numbers -- ahead of time.

When the important thing is to win, the party that does what's really necessary wins. Electoral votes.

How we lost is because we're more lost in culture wars than in the mechanics of winning. Whether the Kochs know it, Republican governors know it, and whether this schlub of a president-elect knows it or his coterie of wangstas know it, the important thing is that WE have to know it.

Man, Botany woke me the hell up. Thanks, Botany!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512611017

[still_one]

80. The one thing you did leave out though was that a significant number of Sanders supporters did NOT

vote for Hillary. Polling numbers of Sanders supporters who didn't vote for Hillary range from 10% to as high as 40%

As for that rust belt:

Hillary lost Michigan by .3% of the vote. Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Similar tabulations occurred in Wisconsin, and other critical states.

Those Sanders supporters who refused to vote for Hillary, either voted third party, Stein or Johnson, wrote in Bernie's name or refused to vote.

Besides the FBI, the media, and those self-identified progressives who didn't vote for Hillary, this is why Hillary lost. It isn't rocket science.

Another tiny point that is forgotten is that every swing state Senate election, the Democratic candidate lost to the ESTABLISHMENT republican incumbent. That included Russ Feingold, who Bernie actively campaigned with and endorsed.


Cypher Teachout, who echoed the Sanders' Platform, lost by 10%

Typical Monday morning quarterbacking

[mtnsnake]

89. Yes, any Democrat should have beaten Trump. As capable as Hillary is, she was a flawed candidate

I supported Hillary all throughout her years, but I hoped beyond all hope that she would not run again in 2016. The right wing had been preparing for her for 30 years, and by 2016 there were just too many people on both sides of the fence who were tired of the Bushes and the Clintons. Way too much baggage. Whether half of that baggage was nothing more than right wing propaganda, there was still too much baggage.

The only thing that gave me hope that Hillary would win was when we had a gift handed to us on a silver platter by the republicans: That gift was Donald Trump. I mean, how could ANYONE lose to that flaming asshole? Yet we lost. Unbelievable.

What I don't think a lot of people realize, or are not willing to admit, is that a significant portion of the votes that Hillary received were "Anyone But Trump" votes.