Oh, I agree that Hillary lost because she failed to appeal to Democrat voters the way Obama did. Despite receiving more votes than Trump, she failed to garner the votes she needed form minorities and young voters in key swing states. That's why she lost. So this notion going around that things have swung back to the far right is laughable, because the current GOP president elect first off is NOT a conservative, and second off actually received less votes than his opponent. I also agree that both candidates sucked. That said, Trump is very easily beatable, and if the Dems are smart, they'd let go of the Clinton's and try and find a viable candidate to defeat Trump in 2020.
Somebody in another thread mentioned a Biden/Webb ticket. I think that ticket could have garnered some of those working class white voters in rust belt states that voted for Trump. I think Biden/Webb ticket could have defeated Trump/Pence. however, the reason Trump won really didn't have a lot to do with white voters. He did no better than Romney with white voters, and Romney lost. Clinton failed to gain the support she needed from minorities and young voters in key swing states. Had those voters came out for her like they did Obama, she would have won.
Obama probably hasn't realized it yet, but GOP voters elected a guy that will cement his legacy as a good president. The more Trump opens his mouth, the more Obama's approval ratings rise. It's awesome. In fact, Obama's presidency will be between two completely incompetent and inept GOP presidents, which will make him even look even MORE better.
It's possible that Biden could have beaten Trump, gaffes and all. He would cut into that white working class that Trump ran away with. Julian Castro? Eh...he's on the back burner right now until he learns Spanish. But he may be a possibility in the future, but not 2020.
apparently obama was not so popular that the citizens wanted to see 4 more years of his policies under a clinton presidency
I see three main problems with the idea that Clinton's loss was because of policy: - Clinton got a majority of the votes. She lost due to the distribution of those votes and the rules of how we select a president. That's a loss, but the fact that a majority voted for her is a rejection of your post. - the election wasn't about policy. Trump never debated on policy and he has never stuck to policy directions he has stated. He countered his own policy in his campaign. His policy statements were considered by experts to be unbelievably weak - causing rejection by key experts of both parties. Even today, we have no idea what Trump will do. He's not standing behind a wall. He isn't standing behind killing the ACA. Etc. Claiming this is a policy loss is just not supported. - The major knocks on Clinton weren't about policy. They had to do with likeability and concern about trust. Without those, it's crystal clear she would have won easily. In fact, the claim that Comey alone could have changed the outcome is quite believable. In the last weeks, Trump's primary point was that Clinton is a criminal on the basis of what Comey said - a lie, but one that raised doubts and had absolutely nothing to do with policy.
It's the Democrat National Committee (DNC ) who decides who will win the Democrat Presidential nomination not the people who are registered Democrats. If you didn't know that you should by now with the DNC and Pedosta hacked e-mails that Wikileaks released. It's the MSM who indoctrinates the low information voters who they should vote for. If you didn't know that you should by now if you have gone through the Wikileaks e-mails. Back in 2005 the DNC decided they would run a black man for President. In 2008 they decided they would run crooked Hillary in 2016. In 2024 the DNC is likely to run a drag queen for President.
I've thought about this thread for a while before responding. I'm an independent, so take this with a grain of salt, if you like. There's an old political saying that goes… Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. Sanders got his followers to fall in love with him or his ideas, but not enough to win the primary. Hillary didn't have good messaging. Trump painted her as "crooked" and by ignoring it, she let him define her. He took the "first woman President" talking point away from her by pulling in her husband's indiscretions. She wasn't leading a crusade to do something new, like Kennedy's Moon shot. She didn't have the charisma of her husband, nor his way of making people think he empathized with their problems and needs. She didn't have new ideas that might inspire voters- she was going to be the third term of Obama. Even Obama said so. Her Veep pick was as ho-hum as she was during the campaign. There wasn't anything to fall in love with… no inspiration… no enthusiasm, at least not enough to get people to the voting booth, and they didn't go. The campaign mainly portrayed her as the anti-Trump. Then there was Comey's letter, followed by lower turnout. Even the internal polling done by Trump's campaign didn't have Trump winning. Something shifted close to the election. I think the old adage held true. Democrats didn't fall in love, but it's fairly obvious that most Republicans did fall in line and voted for Trump, even if they had to hold their nose to do so. A charismatic, energetic candidate with new and fresh ideas and the personality to sell them to the public may be what the Democratic party needs for their next candidate, if they have one.
You think Republicans fell in love with Trump? I'll grant you that he had more enthusiasm for his campaign, but he has trouble with other Republicans. It's not like he won in a landslide. I don't see that Democrats fell in line or in love. The reasons Hillary lost was the Democratic vote in certain states didn't come out like they were expected to. They didn't come out because they were uninspired.
A Biden/Webb ticket could have garnered working class whites to the Dems. Webb in particular is pretty conservative for a Democrat, far more than Trump (who is not a conservative). It's all pipe dreams now, but the Clinton/Kaine ticket was just awful. But at the end of the day, the lack of white voters isn't why the Democrats lost. Many younger American born hispanics don't even speak spanish. Any way, an interesting and perhaps unbeatable ticket could be Booker/Castro. I doubt that's what will be the ticket in 2020, but that ticket has potential to destroy Trump/Pence, IMO. An interesting match up would be Booker/Castro vs Kasich/Rubio.
I agree this election had nothing to do with policy, it had everything to do with sex tapes, classified e-mails and wiki leaks. Basically it was a smear election from both sides. The kind of negative election that causes people to hate one or the other candidate. Trump won, but it may have been too costly in the way he won. Time will tell. I think more than Comey, what really hurt Clinton was the Podesta e-mails which proved the Democratic Primaries were rigged to ensure Clinton's election. I think that caused a lot of those very young Sanders supporters, the college kids to stay home. They didn't like Clinton to begin with dubbing her "Wall Street Hillary." those in the 18-29 age bracket did vote for Hillary by a 55-37 margin, but 8% voted for third party candidates. Obama won this age group 61-37 in 2012. There probably is no way to figure out how many Sanders supporters stayed home, but with a group of voters Clinton needed that didn't like her much, proof that the Democratic primaries were rigged in her favor didn't help her out one bit.
A good portion in both parties trudged to the polls and did their duty without much enthusiasm. However such enthusiasm in the election as there was fell on the Trump side. Trump won the primaries against the wishes of the entire party apparatus. He was a populist choice. Hillary used the machinery of the party to put it's thumb on the scales in order to win the primary, because the enthusiasm was all on Bernie's side. The only people excited about Hillary were employees of the DNC, the Clinton Foundation, and over 60 white lady feminists. If you are saying that the Democratic base was "uninspired," you're kind of making my point. The Republican base was plenty inspired.
For the Democrats, that's too much white. You're never going back to that again. A Biden/Booker or Booker/Webb would give a chance to recapture some white working class and at the same time keep minorities excited enough for Obama-level turnout. But I can't see any scenario in which Webb could get anywhere near a Democratic Presidential ticket. It's true that many Hispanics don't speak Spanish, but that was the reason he was benched. You have to have a Hispanic candidate who can go on Univision and make your case to an audiance that primarily consumes Spanish language media; a core Democratic constituency. I don't think there will be a Kasich/Rubio ticket. Kasich has burned himself in the party and Rubio is badly damaged (on the national level).
Eh, Trump got a little less than half of the votes cast. I don't see that as being "plenty inspired." It's not like he won in a landslide. He didn't even win the popular vote.. He motivated some people to come out and vote that hadn't in a while, but his numbers were very close to Romney's, so he also lost some of the Romney vote. Trump didn't win this election because he inspired all kinds of people to support him. He won because Clinton voters didn't turn out, especially in the numbers expected in swing states. I see that as much more Republicans falling in line, as they did with Romney, and Democrats failing to fall in love, causing low turnout. Back to the topic of the threadÂ… an inspiring Democrat could have won this election.
I'm not sure that anyone thought it was a good idea to depress the vote. The media wanted a horserace, because that brings in viewers. Clinton's campaign preached not to be complacent and think that the election was a done deal, but they didn't convince voters in the right states to get out and vote. She's going set a record and win the popular vote by about a million more votes than Trump, but they just weren't in the right places to get the electoral college. After Gore lost to Bush in a similar way, you'd think they Democratic party would have been more careful about their campaigns, but they took states for granted, and it happened again.
It was one of the reasons and they need to figure out how to get more of the white vote especially white males whom they not onky ignore but seem to run on a we're out to get white males. I saw Booker and I thinkbit was Ellison who may be choosen as the new head of the DNC. They are both totally oblivious to the rejection their positions just received. Stuck with they "if we just got our message out" canards.
Actually he more than half tthe votes in the majority of the elections held. Sanders wasn't inspiring? He almost beat Hillary had it not been for the corrupt process.
Possibly. Hillary (with Obama) had 8 years of strikes against her name which the voters couldn't forget, namely- Getting 2000 US trrops killed in the pointless Afgh war Leaving Stevens and his staff hanging out to dry in Benghazi Turning a blind eye to the muslim terror threat to the homeland Allowing Iran to build nuke plants Constantly poking Putin with a stick Leaking classified material
Uhmmm… Trump will lose the popular vote by about a million votes. He won more votes in more states, but the margin was razor thin and amounted to about 100,000 votes in all those states out of 120 million votes cast. I said Sanders inspired, but not enough. He lost the Democratic primary by over 3 million votes. He didn't almost beat her. He didn't come close to beating her. America was not quite ready for Sanders' message, and may never be ready for it. In hindsight, I think there were many things the Clinton campaign might have done better and may have changed the results, but hindsight is always 20/20. As far as the process being corrupt, "corrupt" isn't a word I throw around much. Politics is a dirty business and always has been. While the candidate's hands have to stay clean, what goes on in campaigns is often a "win by any means necessary." His campaign was playing hard too, but didn't have the connections that her campaign did. That's completely understandable, since he wasn't a Democrat until he decided to run for President. I can't blame her campaign for using their connections to their advantage. Politics is dirty.
A month out the Clinton campaign and the media were telling Trump to drop out, it was over. One of the dumber tactics ever employed
Yes, but Trump said (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and is a mean bigot, and so are his supporters. And, the election was in the bag for Hillary. That's all they focused on. Couple that with "I made a mistake" and "I can't remember" 55 times, and you sure had one brilliant strategy.
