Will the Democrats nominate a George McGovern or a Bill Clinton in 2020?

[dismal]

Actually, quite a few people thought that these states were in play. For instance, the Democrats on the ground in those states were saying that for months but Clinton and the DNC chose not to listen and provide them extra resources. Trump's team said that they were in play but Clinton and the DNC chose to ignore him and decided not to look into the matter to see if their claims were justified. Taking a look into those things could have revealed the holes in their strategies and helped them elsewhere as well, but they chose to stay within their little bubbles and not pay attention to contrary data.

But ignoring the people in the field and making decisions contrary to the evidence is why she was such a great candidate. She clearly knew better.

Yes, it's not her fault. It's the people in rural Michigan's fault for not coming up with her $500,000 speaking fee.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But ignoring the people in the field and making decisions contrary to the evidence is why she was such a great candidate. She clearly knew better.

Yes, it's not her fault. It's the people in rural Michigan's fault for not coming up with her $500,000 speaking fee.

Actually, wouldn't it be Bill's fault for passing NAFTA and shipping their jobs to Mexico so that they're all unemployed and therefore couldn't come up with that kind of cash?

 

[skepticalbip]

I wouldn't say no one http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-campaign-neglect_us_582cacb0e4b058ce7aa8b861

Like I said, couldn't possibly lose MI or WI but win VA by 5 pts. It sounds like they were complacent.

It turns out, she should have bunkered down in the midwest and not gone to GA or AZ, but that point was to landslide Trump. All Clinton had to do was win the wall and Nevada, Virginia, and New Hampshire. She didn't win the wall.

To give you some reason to be even more angry, if the Democrats had won all the Libertarian vote in just Florida and Pennsylvania then they would have won the election. Do you think that Democrats will take this into consideration for their next platform? I doubt it because the Democrats don't seem to listen to even their own party members (e.g. Sanders), but the Republicans may.

 

[skepticalbip]

Even now, after she lost to "the worst candidate ever" you still insist that she was the good candidate.

Making a couple flawed (in hindsight) campaign decisions doesn't make he a terrible candidate. She had experience for the position she was running for. Trump didn't.

Experience of holding a government job is not necessarily a positive qualification. In Clinton's case it was a negative because it gave the voters a chance to see how many fucked-up, piss-poor decisions she makes when given a position of power.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, I'm saying that Clinton was the good candidate. Won the popular vote by at least 1% too. The polling was historically wrong and she won the three states she had to win. What happened was she lost blue wall states, which no one saw coming. No one thought it was possible to win Virginia by several pts and lost Michigan or Wisconsin.

Not true at all. The Trump team saw it clearly and took advantage of it. It was only smug arrogance that allowed the Dems to not see that there was significant discontent with Democrat policy in Mi and WI. VA is blue because a significant portion of those government bureaucrats who work in Washington live in VA.

Virginia is a new blue state. It has hardly swung towards the Democrats consistently.

The ground game existed... in states that were presumed to be close, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia.

They didn't think that Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania were in play. Almost no one did. In hindsight, she took those states for granted. Ultimately, Michigan and Wisconsin would not have been enough. Clinton lost big in Iowa and Ohio (losing Ohio by a margin similar to Texas!). So the get out the vote mistakes in close states wouldn't have been enough, unless they could have made Pennsylvania blue, but that was lost by a decent margin (relative to getting more turnout). North Carolina and Florida were also lost, but the ground game existed there.

Actually, quite a few people thought that these states were in play. For instance, the Democrats on the ground in those states were saying that for months but Clinton and the DNC chose not to listen and provide them extra resources. Trump's team said that they were in play but Clinton and the DNC chose to ignore him and decided not to look into the matter to see if their claims were justified.

Trump also said that NY and NJ were in play.

Taking a look into those things could have revealed the holes in their strategies and helped them elsewhere as well, but they chose to stay within their little bubbles and not pay attention to contrary data.

Little bubbles? You mean the polling info and elections in the last 30+ years? You keep acting like you called this election. You were as shocked to the outcome as nearly everyone else.

Like I said, couldn't possibly lose MI or WI but win VA by 5 pts. It sounds like they were complacent.

It turns out, she should have bunkered down in the midwest and not gone to GA or AZ, but that point was to landslide Trump. All Clinton had to do was win the wall and Nevada, Virginia, and New Hampshire. She didn't win the wall.

To give you some reason to be even more angry, if the Democrats had won all the Libertarian vote in just Florida and Pennsylvania then they would have won the election. Do you think that Democrats will take this into consideration for their next platform? I doubt it because the Democrats don't seem to listen to even their own party members (e.g. Sanders), but the Republicans may.

The DNC platform was expanded notably to include a good deal of Sanders' platform. Regarding Libertarians, what exactly do you think the Democrats need to change to get the fractured and inconsistent Libertarian vote?

Making a couple flawed (in hindsight) campaign decisions doesn't make he a terrible candidate. She had experience for the position she was running for. Trump didn't.

Experience of holding a government job is not necessarily a positive qualification. In Clinton's case it was a negative because it gave the voters a chance to see how many fucked-up, piss-poor decisions she makes when given a position of power.

Well, at least you expose how partisan you are on the subject.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Trump also said that NY and NJ were in play.

Taking a look into those things could have revealed the holes in their strategies and helped them elsewhere as well, but they chose to stay within their little bubbles and not pay attention to contrary data.

Little bubbles? You mean the polling info and elections in the last 30+ years? You keep acting like you called this election. You were as shocked to the outcome as nearly everyone else.

Ya, but I've never been paid money to do something more than glance at a summary of the polls and assume that they're accurate, so it's fine for me to be shocked - as I have specifically mentioned in previous discussions with you about this topic. If I had been paid to do more than that and then that's all that I did in exchange for this money, I'd be an absolute failure at my job. The information was out there for the DNC to look at and then use this expertise that they're being paid to provide to determine what's valid and what isn't. Their job was to make sure that the Democratic Party did not do exactly what the Democratic Party ended up doing. Their job was to go down all the rabbit holes and see if there were any gaps which they were overlooking and then shore up those gaps.

When, on election night, they were telling all the news organizations that Michigan wasn't lost because of all the truckloads of votes which would be coming out of Detroit, it was their job to have spent the previous few months making sure that those truckloads of votes actually existed because they followed up on reports from their Michigan operations that there were potential problems in the state which needed to be addressed. The same held true in the other rust belt states where they were told the same thing and did nothing in response. Their complacency and acceptance of the prevailing narrative was a failure on their part because they were taking money to not be complacent and to challenge the prevailing narrative in order to see potential issues before everyone else, not months after everyone else.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Like I said, couldn't possibly lose MI or WI but win VA by 5 pts. It sounds like they were complacent.

It turns out, she should have bunkered down in the midwest and not gone to GA or AZ, but that point was to landslide Trump. All Clinton had to do was win the wall and Nevada, Virginia, and New Hampshire. She didn't win the wall.

To give you some reason to be even more angry, if the Democrats had won all the Libertarian vote in just Florida and Pennsylvania then they would have won the election. Do you think that Democrats will take this into consideration for their next platform? I doubt it because the Democrats don't seem to listen to even their own party members (e.g. Sanders), but the Republicans may.

The Democratic party runs by faith and not by sight. The party establishment believes that what they are doing is what it takes to win. And no amount of showing them otherwise will shake their faith.

 

[skepticalbip]

To give you some reason to be even more angry, if the Democrats had won all the Libertarian vote in just Florida and Pennsylvania then they would have won the election. Do you think that Democrats will take this into consideration for their next platform? I doubt it because the Democrats don't seem to listen to even their own party members (e.g. Sanders), but the Republicans may.

The Democratic party runs by faith and not by sight. The party establishment believes that what they are doing is what it takes to win. And no amount of showing them otherwise will shake their faith.

I think it is more DNC arrogance than it is faith. They seem to believe that their job is to dictate the platform without bothering to consider what their faithful actually want and that whatever they decide should be blindly accepted. That anyone who doesn't accept it is just bigoted, sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic idiots. Unfortunately, it seems that far too many Democrats fall in line and agree.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The Democratic party runs by faith and not by sight. The party establishment believes that what they are doing is what it takes to win. And no amount of showing them otherwise will shake their faith.

I think it is more DNC arrogance than it is faith. They seem to believe that their job is to dictate the platform without bothering to consider what their faithful actually want and that whatever they decide should be blindly accepted. That anyone who doesn't accept it is just bigoted, sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic idiots. Unfortunately, it seems that far too many Democrats fall in line and agree.

Well, doesn't faith require a bit of arrogance? I did not say they were walking humbly with their god. If anything, humility is the farthest thing from their minds. When it comes to the rank and file, the party establishment is of the mind "There there now. We know what is best. We all decided one night in the TV lounge in our dorms at Harvard. We went to the right schools, we have the right pieces of paper hanging on our walls, we live in the right neighborhoods in the right kind of houses, we have all the right friends. Everything about us is right from the height of our foyers to our SubZero refrigerators in our industrial kitchens. So the decisions we make must be right too. Trust us and everything will be all right."

No wonder there are today more registered independents than there are either Dems or Repubs.
No wonder the numbers of voters fell from 08 to 12 and 12 to 16.
No wonder even those who show up think the whole process is a joke and have now elected an evil clown.

 

[fromderinside]

Not literally of course, the one is dead and the other served two terms. No, the question is what type of candidate will emerge after Democratic Party spends 3 years in the wilderness. In 1972, after 1968 loss to Nixon, Democrats nominated a creature of the base who then lost everything but Massachusetts and DC. Except for the brief Carter intermezzo, that led to a 20 year wandering of the Democratic Party, until they nominated Bill Clinton who went on to serve two terms.
Do Democrats need to spend a lot of time in the wilderness to make a smart choice or can they wise up after only three years?

Other than you got your facts all messed up you then go and mess up the Democrat possibilities. We'll nominate a Brown who is a liberal who listens and gets things done. We might elect a Clinton type, but we're all through with Laborite socialists since we haven't a labor base any more. My chips are on a golbalist-educatiaonalist-socialist. The US is basically done with concern over oil so the middle east is going to hang on its own petard. If Russia wants domination there so-be-it (soviet).

 

[bilby]

Making a couple flawed (in hindsight) campaign decisions doesn't make he a terrible candidate. She had experience for the position she was running for. Trump didn't.

Experience of holding a government job is not necessarily a positive qualification. In Clinton's case it was a negative because it gave the voters a chance to see how many fucked-up, piss-poor decisions she makes when given a position of power.

I agree; But it should be pointed out that not even knowing what the job entails should be a positive disqualification.

When given a choice between someone less than ideal, and someone who doesn't even know that he needs to form his own staff if he wins, picking the ignorant blowhard with the popular appeal seems to be a suboptimal choice.

 

[Elixir]

When given a choice between someone less than ideal, and someone who doesn't even know that he needs to form his own staff if he wins, picking the ignorant blowhard with the popular appeal seems to be a suboptimal choice.

B-b-ut, Trump gonna drain the swamp and make America Great Again!
I think that he could have gotten a majority of the popular vote if he hadn't been so timid with his promises. If he had promised that everyone gets a million dollars, a brand new mansion and a puppy, 70% would have voted for him. Instead, he only promised his supporters a six figure job and the right to string up anyone who looks or sounds different from them. That only gets you around 47%. He will probably raise the stakes in 2020 (if he lasts that long).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To give you some reason to be even more angry, if the Democrats had won all the Libertarian vote in just Florida and Pennsylvania then they would have won the election. Do you think that Democrats will take this into consideration for their next platform? I doubt it because the Democrats don't seem to listen to even their own party members (e.g. Sanders), but the Republicans may.

The Democratic party runs by faith and not by sight. The party establishment believes that what they are doing is what it takes to win. And no amount of showing them otherwise will shake their faith.

Can you blame them? After 8 great years with Clinton, the people went for W. Dems try to expand health care access to as many as possibly, record landslide as if they passed a kill all Conservatives bill. After 8 very impressive yrs economically under Obama, they went with the pervert who had to refund every student at his 'school' their money.

 

[Trausti]

The Democratic party runs by faith and not by sight. The party establishment believes that what they are doing is what it takes to win. And no amount of showing them otherwise will shake their faith.

Can you blame them? After 8 great years with Clinton, the people went for W. Dems try to expand health care access to as many as possibly, record landslide as if they passed a kill all Conservatives bill. After 8 very impressive yrs economically under Obama, they went with the pervert who had to refund every student at his 'school' their money.

Perhaps the "people" you so despise were already familiar enough with the "pervert" not be fall for the media slander campaign.

 

[skepticalbip]

Can you blame them? After 8 great years with Clinton, the people went for W. Dems try to expand health care access to as many as possibly, record landslide as if they passed a kill all Conservatives bill. After 8 very impressive yrs economically under Obama, they went with the pervert who had to refund every student at his 'school' their money.

Perhaps the "people" you so despise were already familiar enough with the "pervert" not be fall for the media slander campaign.

Not that I was a Trump supporter but I think you are right.

The head of CNN took a mia culpa that they had made a mistake of running Trump's speeches "unedited" and that could have contributed to Clinton's loss. The people apparently listened to what Trump actually said rather than what the media claimed he said and what the media claimed he meant.

Other than that the Democrat campaign seemed to rely mostly on ad hominem attacks which apparently resonated with their base but also appear to have repelled from them those not in their base.

 

[ElectEngr]

What, no bukake face shield?....

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[Trausti]

What, no bukake face shield?....

Later,
ElectEngr

Yeah, so, don't Google that.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The Democratic party runs by faith and not by sight. The party establishment believes that what they are doing is what it takes to win. And no amount of showing them otherwise will shake their faith.

Can you blame them? After 8 great years with Clinton, the people went for W. Dems try to expand health care access to as many as possibly, record landslide as if they passed a kill all Conservatives bill. After 8 very impressive yrs economically under Obama, they went with the pervert who had to refund every student at his 'school' their money.

Not every one has been washed in the cleansing waters of the economic recovery. And access to health insurance is not the same as access to healthcare. And along with the wonderful things of Clinton years and the Obama years, we got a shredding of the safety net, mass incarceration, a continuation of stagnant wages, reregulation of business for the benefit of business, band bailouts, and a bunch of really credentialed people telling all other people what bad choices they made by not getting the right education. What kind education teaches you how to keep tech and outsourcing from taking jobs away.

BTW, calling people low information won't make them vote for you.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's part of the brilliance of Hillary's strategy. She was the best candidate her party ever put forward because she knew calling people "deplorable", "racist" and "low information" was the perfect way to make them like her.

 

[Elixir]

That's part of the brilliance of Hillary's strategy. She was the best candidate her party ever put forward because she knew calling people "deplorable", "racist" and "low information" was the perfect way to make them like her.

Yeah - honesty is nothing but dangerous to a political career. The way to go is to lie and contradict oneself, as the pandering orange hypocrite has proven.