1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Politics What went wrong with the Democrats in 2016?

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by ASU2003, Dec 5, 2016.

  1. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Where ever I roam
    So, a month after the election, there has been a lot of blame and reasoning going around for why Hillary lost the election (even with a large popular vote win). What do you think was the reason, or something that wasn't done right? The Democrats had lots of people who could hold rally's around the country, they had a perfect convention, and the debates went well. Yet they are only a few state legislature seats in 4 states before the far right Republicans will be able to pass all the Constitutional amendments they want. And I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have a list of those written down and ready to go. Yet, the leaders of the DNC and the leadership in the Democrats continue to stay in power. I don't think that Keith Ellison is any better, and is too busy to do it. They should have 5 to 10 regional leaders that knows about the local elections, can follow the local issues, can get on local news and can meet local groups.
    CBS' Face The Nation: As We Enter The Trump Era, Democrats Have Been 'Hollowed Out'

    This article was written back in April, and besides thinking that Trump wouldn't win the GOP nomination, it got everything else right.
    The Democrats Are Flawlessly Executing a 10-Point Plan to Lose the 2016 Presidential Election | The Huffington Post

    My current opinion is it's the following 10 things:

    1. Democrats moved to the coasts and forgot how to campaign in the Midwest. It might be jobs, college, laws, culture or weather, but I have a feeling that more liberal minded people have moved to California and New York than Kansas and Iowa. The census is supposed to balance it out, but each state gets 2 votes regardless of population size.

    2. Hillary had too much baggage, was hated by the right wing media, and needed better speech writers to be halfway inspiring. She had closed door dinners with rich donors, but never met with poor people and students. She didn't just release the transcripts of the Wall St. speeches. Was she on the Sunday morning talk shows and on the national talk show circuit? She didn't have a big plan like "Build A Wall" or "Free College". She needed to have a large rally with 100,000 people. She had the music acts and movie stars that could have gotten people out.

    3. 24/7 Right wing media and Trump's campaign manager was able to spin the news and events effectively.

    4. Sanders wasn't picked as VP, or Bernie didn't come out and say he rejected it to continue his Senate campaign. Maybe even having Clinton say that she wanted Sanders to be the Senate majority leader if enough voters would have come out to vote for the Democratic senate candidates would have brought the party together. But she did nothing to work with progressive groups and activists. Even the Trump team thought it was a mistake.
    Kellyanne Conway: Race would have been tougher if Sanders was VP pick - CNNPolitics.com

    4.5 Trump picked Pence for VP, that got him the evangelical vote and was the best choice he could have made.

    5. Stupid e-mails begging for money and didn't get people involved, even if it was just liking pages on Facebook and explaining why the issue they care about would get advanced when Democrats get elected. And showing examples of this in the past 8 years. Explain away people's concerns if things haven't been completely fixed too.

    6. Knocking on doors and calling people doesn't sway people on the issues they really care about. Facebook and forums along with misinformation and memes were much more effective. Facts didn't matter, it was more on where people and their friends stood on a few big issues. Religion, gun control, gay marriage, blue collar jobs...

    7. Way too much focus on the national election and not enough on getting state and local candidates elected. Along with helping them run halfway decent campaigns. They are the ones who need to go door to door and call people.

    8. Her damn e-mails. Was there anything over the confidential classification level? I doubt even Top Secret level stuff would have been anything interesting. The congress investigation didn't seem to find anything.

    9.#BernieOrBust and unenthusiastic Democrats who nitpicked Hillary and didn't show up to support her like the other side did for Trump. 100 million didn't vote for one reason or another.

    10. The way ObamaCare was passed, gay marriage was passed, and the national debt increases of the past 8 years. The Democrats don't have a good plan for what should be done in the future, and pissed off a lot of people with the what they did do.

    11. The DNC didn't have a true 50 state plan, even if it was to run candidates that would say far-left things and get the media to debate the far-left and central-left positions on the issues. Instead they just let the Green Party tempt Sanders supporters and millennials who want big change and see the corporations, military intervention, and fossil fuel industry as the biggest reasons the country has problems. And the DNC was really corrupt in the primary and then Hillary hired Debbie Wasserman-Schultz after that came out for some stupid reason. Hillary Clinton Hires Debbie Wasserman Schultz

    12. There are too many left wing groups and they aren't working together. And they didn't push detailed plans for candidates to campaign on. There was no plan to fix poverty, environmental issues, race relations, housing prices, education, job/infrastructure plans, etc...

    A few more reasons I read:
    Things I Blame For Hillary Clinton's Loss, Ranked | The Huffington Post

    The race shouldn't have been close enough for Jill Stein or Comey to swing the result.
    Blaming Jill Stein and James Comey for Hillary Clinton’s Loss Is a Waste of Time

    This article came up with these reasons:
    These 15 Startling Election Takeaways Reveal the Surprising Electorate That Resulted in President-Elect Trump

    I re-read my earlier post I made in March 2015 about the Democrats before this election started and the problems they had, and it wasn't too far off. :)
    The Donkey in the room...the Democrats today
  2. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    What went wrong??
    They forgot to hype FOR things.
    Hillary even forgot to make some promises (just kept referring to her website)
    You've GOT TO inspire people. (Obama did, Bill did too)

    sorry, I have to discuss your list a bit...because that was a focus.
    1. yes
    2. her baggage was given to her, by the GOP, opponents and media...nothing was real or substantial though
    And the damned emails are a joke (and I do govt cybersecurity)
    3. nah...but the media did give the spotlight to Trump and false equalivalence to Hillary
    4. she went with the classic status quo safe bet, she's never been a rock the boat type
    4.5 I don't even think Pence was considered, even by the Evangelists...truly
    5. Agreed, they didn't fire up people...other than don't vote for him.
    6. Agreed, it's all about spin & the catchphrase these days
    7. The presidential election is always the focus, always has been
    8. It was all a red herring. (If Comey could have got her, he would have...really)
    9. 100 million is more about apathy, asumption and taking things for granted (really, they couldn't be inconvenienced)
    10. They got through what they could. Seriously, many cater to the lobbyists, both sides.
    11. Actually, they did...but there was a transit strike in PA and Wisconsin/Michigan got suckered thinking the manufacturing jobs could be brought back
    The DNC really didn't know how to counteract blatent lies
    12. Oh they planned, they just SUCK at marketing and hype

    **The Huffington Post link was "spot on" perfect correct.

    Personally, there's just too many that believed the lies and rumors.
    And the media focued on the constant doubt. (true or not)

    The Dems just have to learn to fight dirty like the GOP does.
    Fight hard. Make the GOP sweat. Do NOT play honorably.
    Be consistent with their spin. Be on point. Support each other better.
    Show some spine.

    The GOP is hungry. They're scared. They know they're losing the volume and time.
    The fight like they're in a corner. Like they want it.
    The Dems are shocked every time their hand is bit. (how dare they??)

    They're a bigger guy being beaten by one with a napoleonic complex and an attitude.

    Mostly they've resolved to...don't you want vote for us, we're smarter...of course, you do.
    NOT inspiring. True, but VERY annoying.

    Start getting some guts.
    Some real charisma.
    And...do NOT go for a uber-liberal candidate. Remember, there's others that vote besides true Dems. (sorry Bernie believers, it's the truth)
    • Like Like x 1
  3. wye

    wye Getting Tilted

    The minority-elect managed to perform as competitively as he did simply because his profoundly ignorant and hate-mongering rhetoric received so much exposure. In debunking his continual lies, the news media continually made the mistake of repeating the lies and then negating them, which has the unintended effect of activating the cognitive frame used to tell lie and strengthening its salience in the mind. To better achieve debunking's intended effect, one must avoid any mention of the lie and solely advance a competing narrative of truth more loudly than the lie is shouted.

    But in favor of ratings and profits, the news media far from avoided repeating his lies. They aired his campaign speeches in full and interviewed their pundits daily on the subject of his latest offhand Tweets. Last February, Les Moonves (the CEO, president, and chairman of CBS) said of the free airtime his network was giving the increasingly popular Republican candidate "It may not be good for America, but it’s good for CBS".

    The Clinton campaign contributed to this just the same. Their television ads replaying his hateful rhetoric ad nauseam told Americans "Don't think of an elephant!"
    Those attack ads reached a lot of voters to whom that insensitive elephant was appealing and thus may have promoted him far more than they benefited her.

    This is the answer that I've distilled from cognitive linguist George Lakoff's insightful and very long blog post on this subject. Nevertheless, I highly recommend reading the post at least for his explanatory background on frame semantics and the metaphorical understanding of governance as parenting.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Where ever I roam
    How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election

    Here is a good article about how the campaign was too overconfident in their numbers and didn't get people motivated in the "leans Democrat" swing states. They failed to have a message about what they would do for people, what regulations they would support, which taxes they would try to reduce, where they stood on energy and environmental policy, and on and on. Trying to get big campaign donations from the powerful and connected corporate leaders, instead of being concerned what image that sends to ordinary Americans.

    One thing I hope whoever writes a left-wing analysis of what happened in this election looks into is what the DNC knew from their surveys and focus groups about what percentage of voters believed in the misinformation that is all over the internet. And why they didn't ask the volunteers or people who get flooded by the donation begging emails to help their on-line message effort?

    There is also the trust issue. Obama never came for people's guns, Obamacare would setup death panels, and on and on. But that was the fake media message from the right wing that made people fear what could happen, or what they would desire to happen, from what was going to happen. And the Democrats did a poor job at debating it and selling their vision of the ideal America.
  5. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Funny how the Dems are exclaiming on Trump not giving press conferences or investing in the briefings
    but they allowed Hillary to do the same in the campaign.
    She barriered herself often away from them and didn't invest into her own briefings where to push. (and it's understandable to a certain extent on how they harped on her over the years...but still everything counts at the time)

    She's standoffish and doesn't inspire to many.
    She relied on the debates and the "don't vote for him" emphasis.
    Trump simply hyped, hyped, hyped...and kept "on message" (I'm the best, vote for me. I'll make it better, vote for me She sucks, vote for me. She's untrustworthy, vote for me ...repeat, repeat, repeat)

    Her presumption is what killed her against Obama too. (He came in on the "hope & change" mantra)
    • Like Like x 3
  6. Fangirl

    Fangirl Very Tilted

    • Like Like x 2
  7. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    I think they had the right idea towards the end with the "A Bitch Who Gets Shit Done" angle.
    Running on the idea that you might not like her but she knew how to handle the tough problems and could deal with the assholes of this world because she had been doing it for frelling ever was a good move but it was too late by that point.
    They should have started with that.
    Admit that she could be cold and hard.
    Take her negatives and make them positives.
    She's a bitch but she is our bitch and she will do the job better than any man ever could.

    It would have worked.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    I agree...and I would have loved it.
    But that got the men...everytime she was hard, she lost the women...
    And when she showed emotion, she rocked the female vote.
    No opinion...that's just what I saw...and the stats showed it. (in her campaign vs Obama too...remember New Hampshire??)

    So it seemed for the guys, she had to show the bitch, hard, strength.
    But for the ladies, compassion, emotion, being feminine.
    Who can do that?? On cue, satisfy everyone?? Every time.

    Obama did the hope & change bit...but he was firm and in control. (the fairness mindset bit him in the ass...once in office vs. the GOP...much less controlling the investigations in the campaign)
    Trump could just be a hardass...one-side, linear. (and many women didn't mind this...actually expected it..."oh, that's just men")
    • Like Like x 1
  9. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Where ever I roam
    Trump knew how to lie, and wanted to win at any cost. Clinton either was fearful of being labeled a flip-flopper like Kerry in 2004 or something, because a $15 min wage, criminal justice reform, even basic Medicare for all who are paying into it should have been put out there. She could have dealt with not doing any of them in 2020 in the next election.

    But why she picked Kaine, when she knew that Trump had picked Pence doesn't make sense to me. Either pick someone who will get people on your side. Pick someone that would help in the Midwest. Pick someone who will excite the base...

    And while I don't mind her having high dollar fundraisers. I think that for every one she had, she should have had one with average people that didn't donate to her.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Apparently they lost the election by a combination of three states:

    She lost Wisconsin by fewer than 23,000 votes
    She lost Michigan by fewer than 11,000 votes
    She lost Pennsylvania by about 44,000 votes.

    78,000 votes (more or less) between winning the Electoral College and not.

    She won the popular vote by about 2.8 million.

    This wasn't the rout that some people have described. It was very close.
    • Like Like x 3
  11. ralphie250

    ralphie250 Fully Erect

    At work..
    1 word.

  12. omega

    omega Very Tilted

    So why did you dislike Hillary? Would you have voted for another Democrat?
  13. ralphie250

    ralphie250 Fully Erect

    At work..
    my personal opinion is that she should be indicted. and in jail. and no I wouldn't have voted for another democrat
  14. Borla

    Borla Moderator Staff Member

    What went wrong?

    They decided before the primaries that Hillary was going to be the nominee, and worked backwards from there to force it to happen.

    I firmly believe that if Bernie had won the primary, and I think he would've if the playing field had been level, he would've swept the election easily.

    Trump's election was, in many/most cases, not a vote for him. It was a vote against the establishment. No candidate was more "establishment" than Hillary. Bernie would've been just as anti-establishment as Trump, except with experience and a decades' long track record to back it up, not to mention being far more inclusive of various minority groups. The DNC, in concert with much of the mainstream media, decided to shut Bernie out and attempt to coronate Hillary. They drastically underestimated, or ignored, the fact that the general non-partisan voter has grown tired of both parties.

    Like it or not, the Republicans have done a better job in the last 8 years of running out candidates that appear to be "anti-establishment", and have made big gains in basically every aspect of state and federal government. Here in IL we have a great example in Gov Rauner. In an overwhelmingly Democratic state, he won his election by basically running a Trumpesque election, sans the racial overtones. He ran on the idea of pushing out the establishment and running things like a business. I can't say he's been successful with what he wanted to do, but that type of rhetoric won him the Governor's mansion and has motivated far more people to be critical of Mike Madigan's death grip on the state.

    You can argue against the results, but look it up. The Rs have more governors now than they had 8 years ago. There are more R Senators than there were 8 years ago. There are more R Reps in the House than there were 8 years ago. They control more state legislatures than they did 8 years ago. They just won the presidency. I feel that most of this is because the DNC has grown far out of touch with the things that really matter to voters. When Obama ran, and when Dems made their last big batch of gains elsewhere, it was on "change". The results obviously didn't resound well with voters, and/or the party grew complacent since then.

    Reading in this forum the last month or two it seems to be an echo chamber of how much it's everyone else's fault except Hillary's or the DNC's, but I firmly disagree. They ran an elitist, establishment driven, big-money worshiping campaign, and the general voter who is willing to look at either party's candidates is tired of that.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. omega

    omega Very Tilted

    If you don't mind me asking, who did you vote for and who would you have preferred to vote for? And why?
  16. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Where ever I roam
    And if these pollsters want to be relevant again, try and track how many people have fled from those states to California and New York in the past 6 years. And ask if it was due to the political climate. Find out how many 18 year olds would rather go to college where you can't be arrested for weed and birth control is easily accessible... I know 3 people who moved from Michigan personally.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    • Like Like x 1
  18. Fangirl

    Fangirl Very Tilted

    Those states are dying--have been for decades. Add Arizona to your count of states where people have "fled" from dying states. I was completely unsurprised to read this:
    Americans aren't having as many kids: 8 states post population loss
    which names Illinois as the state that lost the most population last year and Arizona as one of the highest gaining population states. Me and 2 family members exited Illinois for Arizona last year specifically because of Illinois' stagnant economy.

    Arizona is a red state in the process of turning blue. My bet is Illinois, like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will flip and turn red, too.
    Though I'm not thrilled that Arizona is historically Republican, the Phoenix mayor is Democrat and Phoenix accounts for 65% or the entire state's economy.
    The Dems have some major lifting to do.
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Fangirl

    Fangirl Very Tilted

    Blows my mind that Illinois has finally gotten a Republican
    governor which reinforces my belief that the state of Illinois will continue to turn Republican. Illinois' stagnant economy is mimicking the other historically blue states that turned red.
  20. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Foggy Bottom
    This shows trends as well:

    Where are Americans Moving? According to New Census Data, Utah.

    Salt Lake City , in the heart of Mormon Utah, now has a liberal Democrat lesbian mayor. Utah, particularly SLC, is becoming a new tech center in the West replacing the more costly Silicon Valley. Boise, Idaho, is also attracting and building a tech industry and will attract young liberal techies.
    • Like Like x 1