Never Forget: Hillary won by 3 million votes and is a two-time White House winner

[TreeStarsForever]

Already a two-time White House winner (Hillary and her husband left us a booming economy with 7 million fewer Americans in poverty, minimum wage up 20%, and a budget surplus after a successful two-terms — the prosperous 1990s),

Former Yale Law graduate, Children’s Defense Fund lawyer, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, two-time New York Senator, Secretary of State, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes — she became “THE PEOPLE’S PRESIDENT” despite…

—Decades of right-wing smears (they have always known she is more than smart enough to be President)

—Manufactured “Clinton scandals” & “investigations” (Hillary has never been charged or convicted in 40+ years)

—Fox News (imagine what they will do to Bernie “Socialist” Sanders)

—Russia targeting 125 million Americans on social media with anti-Clinton & pro-Trump propaganda in swing states (foreign interference into our Democracy and the promise of “free & fair” elections — Putin has always feared Hillary)

—James Comey tipping the scales in the final days of the election (unprecedented, especially since there was also an open investigation into Trump’s Russian ties at the exact same time — obvious double standard)

—Sexism (any man with Hillary’s political skill & qualifications would have easily won and been given the benefit-of-the-doubt on issues like gay marriage — Obama, Bernie, and Biden were all against gay marriage at one point, too. Hillary, however, passed the first-ever U.N. resolution on gay rights as Secretary of State —“gay rights are human rights”— and made it so trans Americans could change their gender on their passports)

—The historical trend of one party staying in power for only two-terms at a time (8 years total). We were already headed for a Republican after 8 years of a Democrat

—Obama racist backlash in Middle America (ie: the racist people in the swing states: “the deplorables” — Hillary was right on-the-money when she called out Trump’s dog whistling to racists)

—American Brexit: use propaganda & nationalism (“America First!”) to manipulate the bottom feeders to fall for a con-man charlatan (these propaganda artist Dictator types love demonizing the media—“Fake News”— and seeking revenge against political opponents — like Trump is doing by investigating the bogus “Hillary-Uranium One” fake scandal)

—The media treating the infamous “e-mails” as equivalent to the dozens and dozens of horrific things Trump has done (false equivalence) and never covering actual policy (Hillary had the most progressive platform of all-time and worked on a debt-free college plan with Bernie)

—Voter suppression that cost Hillary Wisconsin (also the most underreported story of 2016 — Trump won Wisconsin by such a slim margin that the amount of minorities suppressed would have put Hillary ahead of Trump)

…and yet despite everything, Hillary still won the total popular vote by 3 million total votes.

A true champion — a warrior.

“Nasty Woman.”

Hillary truly was on her “A” game. She had to be. And was. Defeating Trump in all 3 debates.

Sadly, outside forces beyond her control derailed her campaign. The reality show candidate won enough votes in Middle America to win the outdated electoral college.

Truly a “perfect storm.”

Never Forget: 3 million more Americans voted for the slogans: “Stronger Together” & “Love Trumps Hate.”

Hillary…

The woman held to impossible standards. Decades of battles. And the scars to show for it.

A true pragmatist.

And she’s still fighting for us with her new organization: “Onward Together”

Two-time White House winner and the first woman nominated as the nominee of a major political party in the United States…

The remarkable, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton:

“I’ve been called many things by many people. Quitter is not one of them.”

PS: Abolish the electoral college. It gave us George “Dubya” Bush. And now Trump.

Are Republicans unable to win the popular vote?

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are our rightful Presidents. We are the *MAJORITY*!!!!

Vote in 2018!!

#strongertogether

What a missed oppurtunity. To have Bill and Hillary back in the White House.
Where they belong (and you know it!)

Let’s throw away a 40+ year career on the front lines of politics because “e-mails”

[Ken Burch]

1. TreeStars, HRC WOULD have been a fine president...but what's your point with this OP?

She's not going to run again...she has repeatedly said that.

The way to win in '18 and '20 is to focus solely on the future.

[TreeStarsForever]

2. I disagree 100%:

Unless we learn exactly "What Happened" in 2016, we won't win in 2018 and 2020. The majority of this post is discussing the lessons we need to learn from 2016. How did Trump "win" (or steal) the election. That is the heart of this post. That is the majority of this post.

PS: The first woman nominated to be the nominee of a major party *DOES* deserve some praise. If you don't want to talk about Hillary Clinton, you are free to ignore this post.

[Ken Burch]

5. Praise is fine...but it sounds like you want her to be re-nominated.

HRC is going to have a role as a leading figure in this party and a leading public champion of the causes the cares about, and that is the best role for her to play. She's not going to be erased from politics.

What some of us have said is that we don't have to make it an "either/or" choice between understanding the role of the Russians/Comey/voter suppression, OR acknowledging that the Trump electoral coup was, at least in part, caused by things this party might have done better.

(self-deleted this section because I realized it shouldn't have been part of this thread).

So yes, we need to study "What Happened"...but we also need to make a case for "What CAN Happen" if we win. We need to focus mainly on running "for", rather than running "against". Democrats don't win the presidency by running "against".

[TreeStarsForever]

6. I'm not sure what any of your long-winded post has to do with my post.

Oh and I never mentioned Bernie Sanders.

Please stop.

PS: You even said that I haven't done any of the things you mentioned. Stop hijacking my post or I will report you.

[Baconator]

78. Really?

[Midwestern Democrat]

102. LOL - be careful or he/she might "report you". NT

[TreeStarsForever]

119. SO sarcastic omg lol

[TreeStarsForever]

8. Personally...

I loved the slogans "Stronger Together" and "Love Trumps Hate"

That is exactly the type of slogans you run on if you have someone like Trump as your opponent.

I also don't think Bernie would have won. But again -- you brought up Bernie (I didn't). It seems you are trying to pick a fight with me because I like Hillary. Stop hijacking my post, please.

[AncientGeezer]

11. Slogans...how'd did that work out?

[TreeStarsForever]

14. Those slogans were incorporated into most of Hillary's speeches...

not her fault the media didn't cover it and only wanted to focus on "e-mails" and mud-slinging...

[Wwcd]

50. Actually TreestarsForever, I recall a campaign rally of Sanders' where they

..had a big banner on stage saying, "Love trumps Hate".
Kasey Hunt was broadcasting from that event, and there she stood crediting Sanders camp with those strong words, as tho they were their own.
Not one mention of credit went to the woman who owned the quote.
Much like the women's march who's own website quoted the iconic words "Women's Rights are Human Rights" ~ with not one bit of honor nor mention given to the woman who owned that quote either. (HRC~Bejing)
I recall many words, quotes, & data stolen, borrowed & plagerized from HRC by others who climbed on her back to carve themselves a place in the daily newsfeed.

Hillary Clinton has rightly earned her place of honor & its time the but..but..but'ers step back for once and allow those who wish to honor her remarkable life & the work she has yet to bring the world, the opportunity to do just that.

Thank you for the tribute.
🍃HRC

[Ken Burch]

112. What the hell is a "but'er"?

You make it sound like Hillary's this horrible victim and that people in this party are trying to erase her from history.

That isn't happening.

It's just that we're looking to the future now and Hillary, with all her achievements, is not going to be the central figure IN that future. The next generation of this party and this country will play the leading roles in that part of the story.

And even with that, she will play a vital role.

Hillary I someone who can't BE silenced, can't BE erased. You really need to trust in that.

Were she reading this thread right now-I'm fairly sure she'd have more important things on her schedule, but assume for a moment she was following what we're writing to each other here-I seriously doubt that she would be comfortable with the idea of her supporters demanding continual expressions of reverence and adulation towards her, or of anyone equating support of another candidate in the primary OR critique of how the general election campaign was run on her behalf with personal disrespect or insult.

Hillary Clinton is a strong, resilient, tough-minded grownup. She recognizes that honest discussions of how a campaign that did not end in (Electoral College) victory was run are simply part of what happens in politics. It's a certainty that she herself has spent years participating in such discussions when they followed other disappointing election nights. She knew those conversations would be happening regarding her campaign if Trump(with Putin's help) pulled off an upset.

And I truly believe she would never demand that the party refuse to listen to new ideas or different strategies, or that she would take any differences at all in our approach to the next campaign as disrespect of her legacy or her life.

People respect her. They recognize her role. How much more than that is needed?

[Wwcd]

116. I'm sure you have no idea what she is doing rather than going away.

Ignore is a welcome & necessary tool.
Thanks DU 💌

[Ken Burch]

117. She's giving speeches, she has started a new organization

and she has every right to do those things.

I wish her well.

It's just that she's not our leader and the party doesn't begin and end with her.

She's an important Democratic public figure-how much else needs to be said?

Most of the thread that poster responded to was PRAISE for Hillary.

[LanternWaste]

189. Odd you'd argue against a point no one is making.

"It's just that she's not our leader and the party doesn't begin and end with her..."

You're the only one expressing that sentiment. Odd you'd argue against a point no one is making. Consistent, though...

[MFM008]

156. In any other country

She would be president .
The Republicans got away with stealing the election in 2000.
They did it again in 2004 in Ohio.
In 2016 unprecedented theft and Russia handed it to the Republicans again.
The " main stream" republicanso were enthusiastic participants in this endeavor so they could begin dismantling the social safety nets.
Slogans worked. She won the popular vote.
Until we dems start playing blood sports with these assholes they will continue to see how far they can go.

[Ken Burch]

15. I wasn't talking about the slogans.

I was talking about the focus on pointing out how horrible Trump is(something everybody already knew), rather than leading with what we were FOR and why voting for our ticket and our platform were better choices.

The voters want to vote FOR things.

And I'm not trying to pick a fight about you(nor was I arguing that Bernie should have been nominated-just that there's no reason people should be blaming his presence in the race for Trump).

What I was responding to was the fight it sounded like you were starting.

Nobody in this party is trying to drive HRC out of public life or to silence her. She's here and she's going to go on being here.

So why are you starting an OP from the seeming premise(if you AREN'T arguing that she should run again, and I'll take your word that you aren't) that there's some sort of active effort to erase HRC from Democratic memory. That simply isn't happening.

She is a respected figure and will have a role to play for many years to come. That is not in question.

The calls for change within the party some of us have made do not in any way equate to a call to drive HRC into the outer darkness OR to abandon any of what she centered as issues.

[TreeStarsForever]

17. But Hillary had dozens and dozens of policy speeches and proposals that

the media never covered. The media only covered the mudslinging and the e-mails. If Hillary didn't engage in mudslinging, she wouldn't have been covered. That's what happens when you face someone like Trump. Sad but true.

Read Hillary's book. She has studies that document how much the media ignored policy and focused only on the negative. They always do. That's the sad reality of American media. Accept it and move on.

PS:
You projected a lot onto my OP. Stop making assumptions.

[Ken Burch]

19. Your OP was predicated on some sort of campaign to erase HRC that simply doesn't exist

in this party.

She's not going to be discarded.

Just relax on that point.

[TreeStarsForever]

21. I'm simply explaining how Hillary is hardly a "loser"

She already lived in the White House for 8 years and won by 3 million votes despite an illegitimate election.

Why are you trying to rain on my parade?

[Ken Burch]

24. OK, and all of us here recognize all of those facts.

I respect your loyalty to our last nominee.

And we all pretty much agree that she should have a role in public life.

What I responded to(and if I've read your intent wrong, I'm sorry)is that the things you've posted in that OP were the basis for the argument that we don't need to change anything for the future and that we shouldn't critique those aspects of 2016 this party had control over.

I'm now going to delete some of what I wrote, because some of it should not have been part of this discussion, but could you at least agree with me that there isn't a conflict between respecting HRC and accepting that it's valid and party-loyal to call for change within the party in the days to come?

[TreeStarsForever]

37. If the change is towards Bernie, count me out

[Ken Burch]

48. I've repeatedly said I don't think he should run.

The change I seek(and that I think most Dems could live with) would be to incorporate a lot of the economic ideas championed(but not originated)by the Sanders campaign and movement, and a commitment to end the failed Western military interventions in the Arab/Muslim world, with a continued and strengthened commitment to the fight against social injustice and oppression that was championed(though also not originated)by HRC's campaign, as well as to a reduction with the corporate role in funding our party and the ideological constraints that role imposes.

My focus is on issues, not personalities or candidates.

[TreeStarsForever]

72. But the actual 2016 Democratic platform did include almost all of those things

Sure -- they weren't as grandiose as other candidates, but everything included in the 2016 Democratic platform was achievable goals that a pragmatist like Hillary came up with. Everything proposed didn't add to the debt nor raise taxes on average Americans.

[Ken Burch]

91. Yes It included them, but the fall campaign ads(the most important communication medium...)

...almost never told voters that People like me were trying to make the point that those things were in the platform, but we had no way of demonstrating that when it wasn't referenced in the ads.

To hold the attention of younger voters in particular, information in the advertising medium has to be repeated endlessly. The ads should have focused on the platform and shouldn't have spent any time attacking Trump on character-not because Trump isn't a scumbag, he is, but because we already knew from the GOP primaries that attacks ads never ever worked on Trump.

And at the same time the ads focused on attack when we already knew attack didn't work against Trump, they generally neglected to mention the platform and the contributions the Sanders movement made to it, Sanders supporters kept being made to feel that their campaign had been a failure and that the party didn't want to hear anything they had to say and didn't respect anything they cared about. We needed buy-in from those voters and instead of engaging them and treating them with respect, they were basically told to shut up and know their place. The party was demanding their votes when, if it had only been a bit more inclusive and open-minded, it could have won their votes by leading with the platform and acknowledging that they'd made a difference, and by presenting this party as an organization in which they could have a real say and keep working for what they cared about.

We had a lot to offer. We needed to lead with ALL that we offered. We needed to run "for". Instead, we simply ran "against", ran based on warning what the other party would do, and as was the case in every other campaign where we ran "against" rather than "for"-1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004...we came to grief.

Had we run "for", had we led with the platform, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the person you wrote of in your OP would be president.

One final thing...about the whole "pragmatic" versus "grandiose" dichotomy...look we need offer practical policies. But seeking practicality doesn't have to mean being dismissive and insulting towards those who believe the limits of the possible can be expanded. Nobody should be given the "oh, grow up!" treatment simply because they seek greater change than you may be comfortable with. We need the pragmatic AND the visionary. And we need as many of the visionary as possible to embrace this party as a place to fight for their vision.

At one point, it was considered "grandiose" to speak of nominating a woman for the presidency.

Without dreams, life is merely physiology, merely respiration.

[TreeStarsForever]

120. I don't care about the ads. The media didn't cover policy or Hillary's platform.

That's not her fault?

[betsuni]

81. "My focus is on issues, not personalities or candidates."

[Ken Burch]

87. I don't operate out of personal animus.

My choice in the primaries was solely about the issues.

If I hated HRC, I wouldn't have spent weeks campaigning for her as soon as there was a Clinton-Kaine hq where I lived.

[betsuni]

95. The state of one's personal animus really should be a private matter between

you and your health care provider.

You're awfully fond of "strawpersons" tho! Also too, you forgot to say "fall campaign."

[Ken Burch]

103. Why does it matter that I said "fall campaign"?

I simply meant the time after the convention...most people think of the post-convention part of the electoral process as the fall campaign.

In the summer of 2016, I was moving from my long-time home of Juneau, Alaska to Olympia Washington. This involved a lot of packing and cleaning work and numerous thousand-mile trips.

I arrived in Olympia to stay at the end of July. There had been no post-convention campaigning for HRC in Juneau before I left(though I was wearing her button), and there wasn't Democratic campaign headquarters in Oly until at least mid-August.

I started working for her heavily as soon as that office was opened. I doorbelled, I phonebanked, I did everything I could do.

And on the handful of occasions where I did speak bluntly-as people generally do in a contested primary-it was invariably in response to HRC supporters(HRC herself NEVER acted this way, to her eternal credit) acting as Bernie had an obligation to leave the race early, as if the primaries should simply have been a formality, as if it was a personal insult to their candidate for anybody else even to be running, as if support for anyone other than her for the nomination was sexist, racist, and homophobic even though both candidates had identical views on what were called "social justice" issues in those primaries.

The simple fact is, it wouldn't have made any difference in outcome of the Trump-HRC contest if Bernie had withdrawn in March OR if he hadn't been allowed in the primaries. The fact that HRC had 49% support in the polls before he entered and ended up with 49% against Trump proves that. There simply wasn't some additional bloc of voters who'd have voted for our nominee if ONLY the nomination had been settled before college students went on spring break.

Nobody who posts on this site is happy about how 2016 came out. Those of us who supported HRC AFTER the convention were just as heartsick and despondent about the Trump putsch as those who supported her from the start. We wanted HRC to be president just as much as you did. Why can't you just accept that and stop blaming us for a situation we are not to blame for?

Why do you care more about settling scores and placing blame regarding the past than you seem to care about winning the future?

We can't win in '18 and '20 by making our message "Hillary was robbed and the Left is to blame".

Hillary was robbed. The country was robbed. Leading with that, focusing on that rather than on talking about what we have to offer, can't elect us.

If you want to avenge '16, you should be focused on what we need to do to win in '18 and '20.

[betsuni]

147. I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER

[Ken Burch]

153. In the summer of 2016 all I did was move from Juneau to Olympia.

I endorsed Hillary a week before the convention.

I did nothing that harmed Hillary or helped Trump.

What the hell do you THINK I did?

If you're going to claim I did something, If you're going to accuse me of something...just say it.

[betsuni]

157. Google "meme I know what you did last summer."

Oh, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

161. I know about the horror movie.

I did nothing comparable to what happened in that movie.

If that's meant as a joke, it doesn't work.

[betsuni]

183. "I did nothing comparable to what happened in that movie."

I know what you did last summer and during the fall campaign, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

186. I helped Hillary is what I did.

If you actually know what I did, than you know you've got no reason to vilify me.

I made a few mild, respectful suggestions of how the campaign might be run better, NONE of which would have compromised who Hillary was and all of which, if implemented, would have gained us vote.

None of those suggestions were implemented, and I accepted that.

And all the while I worked hard "in the real world", in pragmatic politics, for the Clinton-Kaine campaign.

If there'd been a Dem hq open in Olympia when I moved there at the end of July, I'd have started working for Hillary then. But there simply wasn't. I was already unambiguously supporting her by then.

Look, we both know would have made no difference in the final result if she'd been nominated without contest, and it would have made no difference if there'd been NO Sanders items in the platform. The fact that she left Philly twelve points ahead, as far ahead as she could ever have been under any scenario, proves that. Nothing that happened in the primaries helped Trump.

So what the hell are you angry with me about?

And why do you keep acting like I'm lying about something?

If you've got something to say about me, just say it directly.

[TreeStarsForever]

130. Consider me "shocked" at who you supported in the primary.

[Ken Burch]

137. Never hid my PAST support. Since I don't support him now it doesn't matter that I used to.

Last edited Mon Jan 1, 2018, 01:32 AM - Edit history (1)

And I supported and worked Hillary as soon as she was nominated, so it's not my fault we got stuck with Trump.
Nor is it the fault of Sanders supporters as a group.

[NurseJackie]

145. LOL

[LanternWaste]

191. The important thing is that you continue alleging how much you have done.

The important thing is that you continue alleging how much you have done. Without slavish self-advertising, we're forced to live with the reality...

[TreeStarsForever]

198. Consider me shocked at who you supported. You seem to hate any posts that give Hillary credit.

I watched her policy speeches. I listened to her themes of "Stronger Together" and "Love Trumps Hate." Not Hillary's fault the media didn't cover this. I watched. I saw what her true campaign was really about. The media only wanted to focus on Trump and the mudslinging.

[Ken Burch]

205. I don't hate her or the idea of giving her credit.

My question is: what's the point of posting a thread that implies that she hasn't been GIVEN credit, that everybody here is disrespecting her or something?

I wish the Electoral College result had gone our way. I wish Hillary was president. But that isn't ever going to happen, and the time when that was settled is in the past. There's no way to use blame-placing, score-settling, and lashing out at people(which seems to be your real agenda)to undo that OR to get us to a better result next time.

The way to honor Hillary is to focus on winning in '18 and '20 and to work for the unity we will need to do that.

Our voice and our message need to be positive, inspiring and specific to do that.

BTW...you have no reason to act like it's scandalous that I supported someone else in the primary.

I never at any point hid that from anyone here, and there was nothing evil in supporting the person I originally supported.

[NurseJackie]

184. Anyone who spent any time campaigning for her would know...

... exactly what her message and her campaign was about. Anyone who's being honest about their participation in the campaign would know that Hillary's vision was much more than a simplistic "Trump-bad-Hillary-good", and they wouldn't still be spreading the "she-was-a-flawed-candidate-without-a-message" nonsense. It's clear that the media was complicit in creating this myth-perception, but there's NO REASON at all that anyone who was even REMOTELY connected with her campaign would believe such a thing.

Something's not right here.

[TreeStarsForever]

121. I knew they were a huge Bernie person from the start. I had a good sense of that.

[betsuni]

134. All roads lead to Bernie.

[Ken Burch]

141. No. They don't.

I just support including the ideas his campaign championed as a permanent part of our message, because the economic ideas are valid and we can't win without keeping the people he brought into politics active and working for our party.

You know perfectly well that I don't want him to run again-I've proved that by repeatedly posting that he shouldn't run-and I've done nothing to deserve you acting like I worship him as a god or something.

So stop acting like I'm the enemy or that I have a hidden agenda. I've never been done anything to deserve that sort of implication.

[NurseJackie]

143. The majority disagree.

[NurseJackie]

144. Oh good! You noticed too. I was afraid it was just me.

[betsuni]

146. I have eyes and I know how to use them.

[Ken Burch]

140. I don't want the guy to run again.

And I campaigned for HRC after she was nominated.

It's not anathema in this party simply to defend his presence in the last primaries.

Trump isn't Bernie's fault and he isn't my fault.

[Baconator]

79. Because she did in fact... lose...

Raining on your parade, among some others, appears to be necessary to try and keep the same stupid mistakes from popping up again.

[flotsam]

151. Actually you called her a two time White House winner, which she is not.

Her husband was in fact a two time winner and she won the popular vote in the last election. But under the constitution she was never a White House winner and wishing for or claiming so don't make it so...

[Wwcd]

51. That's how I read it also.

K&R

[Baconator]

207. A campaign that was driven by personality and not the finer points of tariff regulations?

I'm shocked... shocked I tell you...

[NurseJackie]

26. Clearly you weren't paying attention to what she was saying...

... if you honestly believe that her campaign was ONLY about how awful Trump is. Anyone who claims that Hillary's campaign failed to be "FOR things" (or that she lacked any vision or plans) is someone who has an agenda.

All I'm saying is that these claims are demonstrably untrue. It serves no good purpose to "rewrite history" or to say things that are untrue and that are NOT supported by the FACTS.

Good grief! Give it a rest!

[TreeStarsForever]

38. Sad people don't think Hillary focused on policy

She did. The media didn't cover it.

Sad

[NurseJackie]

42. When someone claims to have supported her and...

... canvassed for her, it's amazing that they would actually believe the "Hillary didn't have a vision" nonsense, or that they'd repeat the lie over and over on this website. These things are incompatible... So what purpose does it serve for someone to say untrue things about Hillary's campaign? How could it be possible that any Hillary supporter would not be aware of her vision? Something is wrong here. Something doesn't fit.

[Gothmog]

194. Yet another great post NurseJackie

[NurseJackie]

185. Actually... she *DID* lead with what we're for. She *DID* lead with her vision...

... she did not run a simplistic lackluster campaign that was focused on "how horrible Trump is".

I'm surprised that anyone who actually campaigned for her would still be spreading these myth-conceptions.

I wasn't personally involved in the actual feet-on-the-ground campaigning as you claim to have been, and still from my "long-distance" view... and as someone not as involved as a you were... I could EASILY see her vision and focus. Something isn't right here but I can't figure out what the disconnect is.

All I'm saying is... it's odd that you managed to overlook that.

[Gothmog]

193. Another great post NurseJackie

[Wwcd]

56. Why wouldn't we want her re-nominated?

We are her supporters.

[Ken Burch]

59. If for no other reason than the fact that she has SAID she doesn't want to be renominated.

I also don't think we should nominate anyone ELSE who sought our nomination last time. Or Biden.

I think we need someone from the next generation, like Kamala Harris or Tammy Baldwin.

[Wwcd]

69. Even Bernie?

C'mon, say it ..

[Ken Burch]

92. Yes. I've said it over and over again, in thread after thread.

I said "nobody who sought our nomination in 2016".

I don't think Bernie should run again...he'd be 79 and there are still too many people in the party who have bad blood towards him.

At this point, I don't have a candidate for '20.

OK?

[David__77]

148. I think Sanders would be a fine nominee.

I can understand wanting someone who didn’t run before.

[Baconator]

208. She isn't the best we can put forth...

... as evidenced in 2008 and 2016.

She had a go... twice... and wasn't good enough. We need something better instead of trying the same thing again... and again... and again...

[Wwcd]

47. K & R

And Thank you for this honorable tribute to Sec Hillary Clinton.

[lunamagica]

23. Come on, Ken, was this post really necessary? Why did you waste time reading and replying to this

post instead of solely focusing on the future?

There are some...many of us who will never forget Hillary, or get over what happened last year. She is NOT going to go away, NOT going to disappear, OK?

Get used to it.

[Ken Burch]

25. I agree that she's not going to go away.

And I don't even WANT her to go away.

But we also need to be about the future at least as much as the past.

[lunamagica]

35. These board is full of posts about the future. Why the diss at ONE post about Hillary?

[TreeStarsForever]

36. I think because they supported the other person during the 2016 primary????

[NurseJackie]

43. ...

[Ken Burch]

46. No. I supported her in the general, so it doesn't matter who I supported in the primaries.

I endorsed HRC on this site a week before the convention and worked for her from the moment a Clinton-Kaine campaign office existed in my town.

You can't hold a lifetime grudge about the fact that the primaries weren't an uncontested formality, for God's sakes. That made no difference in the final result.

[lunamagica]

63. You can't hold a lifetime grudge about the fact that the primaries weren't an uncontested formality"

You know perfectly well that's not it, Ken

[Ken Burch]

67. OK...what is it, then?

It's not the fault of Sanders supporters or of the Sanders campaign that Trump snuck in.

And Trump's electoral coup would not have been prevented by barring Bernie from our primaries.

The Russians/Comey/voter suppression factors contributed significantly to the outcome-it's just that we can't put all of the outcome down to that. And other than fighting voter suppression, there's little if anything we can do about those factors.

BTW, I was one of the people pleading with voters supporting Stein in the general to vote Clinton-Kaine instead(Bernie did all he could to help HRC in the fall, too), so we're in agreement that nobody should have voted for Stein.

So what is it that anyone on this side of the spectrum did that you can't let go OF, that you would rather rage about than find common ground for future victories?

What do you want here?

[shanny]

171. Crickets. How shocking. nt

[TreeStarsForever]

122. Your bias was shown in your first comment.

[lunamagica]

62. I think you hit the nail on the head. That's exactly it

[Ken Burch]

44. It's not a diss. And there have been hundreds of OPs here

based on grieving over the fact that she's not president-and also being used as a pretext to blame the electoral coup on everyone who didn't support her in the primaries.

I get the emotional aspect and I was as devastated as you were that the result was what it was.

She would have been a fine president. But we can't win in '18 and '20 by making mourning the fact that Hillary isn't in the White House the organizing principle of our party.

[lunamagica]

61. Hundreds of posts? are you kidding me? I'm talking about RIGHT NOW. Today, or even this week

It's been I don't know how long since we've had an OP regarding Hillary, and you just chime in to say "what's the point"? That is obviously a diss. Posts like yours prove that you were no nearly as devastated by her loss as I was.

And you know what? I never thought or wasted the fact that Hillary is not in the WH the organizing principle of our party...but since you mentioned it, it wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Ignoring what happened in '16 will only lead us to more losses, no matter who is nominated.

Give it uo Ken. We will never forget. We will never get over this. We will never shut up

[Ken Burch]

65. Nobody in this party is saying to ignore what happened in 2016.

What happened was a combination of the Putin/Comey/voter suppression effects and flaws in our general election strategy and tactics.

(note: I said flaws in the strategy and tactics...not "we nominated the wrong person". With a different strategy and tactics we could have elected the person we nominated and I wish our nominee was president as much as you do).

The point is that we can only win in '18 and '20 by focusing on what we're proposing for the future. We can't win by leading with "Putin stopped Hillary". It's most likely true, but pointing that out won't win us votes. A commitment to undoing the damage Trump's doing and to create a just and egalitarian nation are the way to do that.

And If there have been fewer threads about HRC recently, it's simply because it's the natural progression of events to spend more time talking about people who may run and may be nominated next time.

By the end of 2005, there were hardly any threads exalting John Kerry. Pretty sure that, by late 2001, there weren't that any about Al Gore. A lot about the theft of the election, but not that many about Al himself.

As you see it, how much, at this stage of the game, SHOULD we be focusing on Hillary? How much time do you think SHE wants us to spend focusing on her and on the past?

[TreeStarsForever]

123. The Trump backlash has already started in the special elections though?

I think you are trying to make a big deal out of a thread honoring Hillary. It's weird?

[Ken Burch]

187. Yes. But we didn't win ANY of those solely on a "Stop Trump" theme.

In all of those, we ran FOR, rather than just against.

Changes were made and things got better.

Why depend solely on the backlash?

Why not make sure we win by offering stronger, better proposals and campaigning ON those proposals?

I'm just saying you can't take Congress and the White House by default, and that there's no reason to assume that we can't win on our ideas. What we stand for is not unpopular

Or, as Naomi Klein says "No Is Not Enough".

[NurseJackie]

188. Were you paying attention to the candidate you "campaigned for" last year?

She did NOT run "solely on a "Stop Trump" theme". It serves no good purpose to continue to repeat myth-information.

All I'm trying to say is this... anyone who was paying attention (and I presume that someone "actively CAMPAIGNING" for her was actually paying attention) would know that HRC and our party had a vision and goals and a clearly defined plan for the future.

[Gothmog]

192. Great post

[ehrnst]

196. +1000.

[NurseJackie]

64. What purpose does it serve for anyone to shit on a positive thread about Hillary?

[ClarendonDem]

3. Voted for HRC

Really can't quantify how much more qualified she is than Trump, but she ultimately lost the electoral college vote, which is how we elect our president.

[TreeStarsForever]

10. Should have changed the electoral college when we got Dubya

[AncientGeezer]

12. That would require a Constituational Amendment...we still haven't got ERA

[ClarendonDem]

13. Not sure I agree we should abandon the electoral college

But even if I did it isn't going to happen any time soon. Perhaps ever.

[Ken Burch]

55. Yes, but we didn't have the votes to do so.

A constitutional amendment to do that would have had to pass both houses of Congress and then be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

So we couldn't get rid of the EC.

We can reform it, though.

What COULD be done would be to pass laws in the states that would require electoral votes to be distributed proportionally in each state.

That, by itself, would remove much of the undemocratic nature of the EC.

[Cha]

4. Mahalo for this, TSF.. Hillary's

Not running again but this should be recognized because trump is trying to revise history and erase it from everyone's memory.

[Wwcd]

57. K & R 🌴Cha

[Voltaire2]

7. We need to look forward.

Dwelling on the past accomplishes nothing. She would have been a fine president, but we lost that election and she is not running again.

[TreeStarsForever]

9. We must learn the correct lessons from the past or we will make the same mistakes again:

Like Nader.

[Ken Burch]

16. The way to avoid another Nader or Stein

is to make sure the progressive wing of the party is put as massively far out in the cold as it was in the Nineties.

If we are going to insist that ALL progressives have an obligation to vote for our presidential ticket, we need to change how we relate to progressives who happen to be to the left of our party leadership's comfort level.

That's why I've talked so much about the mistake made in putting the ambiguous TPP language in the platform. That was a massive issue to the people who'd backed Bernie, HRC had been saying she was against it in the primaries...if she'd only put the specific wording in the platform or at least her acceptance speech, we'd have left Philly with unity and good feelings. NOTHING would have been lost.

It's also why I've referenced the decision not to mention the platform much in the fall campaign ads. That platform represented unity and centering it could only have increased our vote.

What is NOT going to work is an approach based mainly on being MORE aggressive in shouting "You have to, you have to, you HAVE to!" at them, OR an approach based on demanding that such people make a public admission of error in not voting for our ticket in 2000 and 2016. We already know that it can never work to shame people into switching their votes to us.

Mainly what we need to do, in addition to re-credentialing and re-registering suppressed voters, is to run campaigns that increase turnout and that connect with those with the lowest turnout rates...the poor. And the way to do that is to move away from our fixation with looking "pro-business" and, instead, stand for the idea that the hopes, dreams and dignity of those without money should matter as much as the profits of those who are lucky enough to have it.

[TreeStarsForever]

18. 3rd party people only care about 3rd party stuff during Presidential elections

Sad

[RazBerryBeret]

29. that's a pretty gross generalization. n/t

[Ken Burch]

30. That's the organizers of those parties

People who might vote for us but then vote for those parties mainly do so, I think, as an expression of frustration or despair-which is also, I think what some who might vote for us simply don't vote.

I fully agree with you that nobody SHOULD vote third-party in presidential elections.

But that isn't one-way. It has to be about, in some ways, addressing at least some of the things that drive voters to make such a choice.
People running those parties are often electoral nihilists and some may well be in the pay of Putin or the GOP. But the voters for those parties are often a different matter. We could win a lot of them over, as well as turning a lot of nonvoters into voters, by making egalitarian economics a part(not all, but a part)of what we are about.

And it might also involve coupling a pitch for third-party tending voters to vote for our ticket when measures to give them other outlets to vote for alternatives-we could start supporting proportional representation for local government and state legislative elections.

[TreeStarsForever]

39. Why do 3rd party people make a big stink during Presidential elections?

I thought we already went through this with Nader?

[Ken Burch]

49. Ask them. I'm not a third-party person and have no use for Nader OR Stein.

Not only have both of them harmed the country and our party with their useless focus on presidential politics, they've harmed their own party-there are fewer GPUSA officeholders than there were before 2000.

What I suggested in the post you responded to there was ways we can be more effective at neutralizing them.

The approach we've been using towards the Greens has been an unqualified disaster.

Being more aggressive in the same approach won't work any better.

[TreeStarsForever]

73. Remind them of the past. Constantly.

Nader. Nader. Nader. Now we have yet another example.

[Ken Burch]

84. 2016 proves that doesn't work, though.

That was done constantly and it never made a difference.

[TreeStarsForever]

199. Hopefully the consequences of a Trump Administration make them never do it again.

Some people have to learn the hard way.

[lunamagica]

20. K&R. Thank you so very much for this. It needs too be repeated. We will never forget

[shanny]

22. your concern is noted

[shanny]

27. btw, what is a "two-time White House winner" as applied to Hillary?

[Ken Burch]

31. It's a reference to her being First Lady in the Nineties.

n/t.

[shanny]

32. Yeah, I get that's what the poster was asserting.

I just don't see how "being First Lady" = "being a White House winner."

Would anyone say Melania "won the White House?"

[stevenleser]

166. Do you equate Melania with Hillary? Please enlighten us. nt

[shanny]

167. lol

Bored today?

[stevenleser]

168. That's about what I expected. Not even a nice try.

[shanny]

169. Whassa matter? Dont you like Melania?

Hey--don't worry! Maybe in a few years you will change your mind. Decide she has integrity or some such thing.


for those without a sense of humor

[TreeStarsForever]

74. Remember the Clinton slogan: "2-for-the-price-of-1"

The Clintons have always been a team. Hillary was Bill's #1 strategist and adviser since their days in Arkansas.

[shanny]

100. Slogans aside, Carville was lead strategist.

And only one name was on the ballot. Btw, those who wish to give Hillary credit for Bill's policies and accomplishments should also accept that she has some blame for his failures.

[TreeStarsForever]

132. Hillary was credited by Bill for all of his victories. Hillary was Bill's #1 adviser since Arkansas.

[shanny]

173. So she deserves credit for his failures too?

[snowybirdie]

28. THANK YOU

I U LOVE THIS!

[TreeStarsForever]

75. Of course!!

[Kilgore]

33. Hillary and all boomers need to stop running for office

And allow the next generation to lead. And I am saying that as a mid sixties boomer myself. Our national leadership looks like poster children for Geritol for peets sake.

Before you jump on me, I am not alone. Howard Dean is saying it publically.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210031679
Howard Dean: 'My Generation Needs to Get the Hell Out of Politics'

“I’m very much for someone who is younger. I think my generation needs to get the hell out of politics,” he said. “Start coaching and start moving up this next generation who are more, I think, fiscally sane. Neither Republicans or Democrats can claim they are fiscally responsible anymore.”

[TreeStarsForever]

40. That's why Hillary started the organization "Onward Together"

[Wwcd]

45. Hillary has created foundations & funded organizations to see that the torch is passed on

This OP is an honorable tribute to a remarkable humanitarian and her life's work.

That some fear her power so much that they feel the need to stop by to crap on the tribute tells us who is still fighting the past primary.
She has long moved on from that day, yet here in this fine tribute are the but..but..but'ers.

Next time an OP yearning for Biden, Warren, Sanders appears I hope the but..but..but'ers are the first to step in with the "next generation" reminder.


We see you

[NurseJackie]

52. We all do ... We see more that some realize.

[Ken Burch]

53. The OP wasn't a tribute.

It was a strawperson...it was predicated on the assumption that there's some sort of orchestrated effort going on to try to erase HRC fro party history, as if she's being vilified within this party-that her very survival as a public figure is in jeopardy.

That isn't happening and nobody in this party is trying to shut her up or make her go away.

She is not under siege by Dems.

By the Right, yes-not by the Left.

HRC will always be a major figure within this party.

Her voice will always be heard.

All that is happening is that some people are saying other voices need to be heard, that we can't win in '18 and '20 if our main focus is
on mourning and raging over HRC not being president, that there's no conflict between respecting her and calling for change in the party in the days to come. We can do both.

I join you in wishing she was president.

But that wish can't be the organizing principle of the Democratic Party.

HRC is already being shown the admiration and reverence she deserves. Such things don't need to be demanded.

[Wwcd]

54. Haaaahaa ..Geezus Christ on a pogo stick

I don't have hip waders high enough for this one.
Sorry, as I said, We see you.
Paaallleeeezzze excuse me while I go barf now.


"....HRC is already being shown the admiration and reverence she deserves. Such things don't need to be demanded. "

[Ken Burch]

58. The vast majority of the party loves her.

She will always be respected by Democrats for her achievements and for being nominated.

She will always have a place in public life and her voice will always be heard.

How much more can be asked than that?

[Wwcd]

68. Nice try.

You fool no one.

[Ken Burch]

93. I'm not trying to fool anyone.

I have no candidate for '20 and I don't hate HRC. I simply think that neither HRC, nor Bernie, not Biden, nor anyone else who sought our nomination last time should run in '20.

And I've been posting repeatedly that I don't think Bernie should run, so you have no reason to imply that I'm being dishonest on that point. Or that I have any hidden agenda at all.

Let me go through all the possibilities that might be in your mind

I've never been part of JPR.

I'm not a closet Green.

I'm not a right-wing troll.

I'm not a Russian plant.

I'm not under the control of our new robot overlords.

I did not shoot the deputy, AND I've got an alibi for the sheriff.

And I neither put the bomp in the bomp she bomp she bomp, not the ram in the rama lama ding dong, nor, for that matter, the dip in the dip da dip da dip.

Any other questions?

[TreeStarsForever]

200. So why do you sabotage and hijack posts honoring Hillary and defending her?

You should make your own thread. 2016 was stolen. Hillary's real campaign wasn't covered by the media. You should read her book. She gives studies on how much the media covered policy/mudslinging vs. policy.

[Ken Burch]

204. I'm not sabotaging anything.

Hillary has been honored and will be honored many times to come.

I campaigned for her once she was nominated(which was as early as I could) and am glad I did.

This OP, though, doesn't help us move forward. It doesn't bring us towards unity and common ground.

It's got a tone that is hectoring and score-settling, and its focus on how bad that election was.

Look, that election WAS stolen.

Fine.

But there's no way to overturn those results and have Hillary be sworn in after all.

Focusing on the injustice of Hillary not being president will not elect us in the midterms and in 2020.

To win those races, we need to start focusing now on not only denouncing the administration but getting out in front and presenting real alternative policies, in the ways the media can't suppress-through social media and grassroots work and through whatever televised ads we might run. We need to lead with what we are proposing and to do that by any means necessary.

Between now and November, we have the power to do something about that. We have NO power at all during that time period to do anything about Russian interference, or what Comey did, and as to voter suppression, all of us AGREE that we need to address that by re-credentialing and re-registering suppressed voters, so there's no point to hammer home to any of us on that.

That's my point here-we need to focus solely on the things over which we actually have agency. Banging on about Russia, in a situation where we have no actual power to do anything to change what Russia has done and may be doing, is about as useful as all of the rhetoric we wasted during the Cold War over what the USSR did to people at home or in Eastern Europe-none of which ever did the peoples behind the Iron Curtain a single bit of good. It's the kind of thing that is emotionally satisfying but useless.

I agree with you that we would all be better off if Hillary were president now and that there is a great wrong in the fact that she isn't. And that she is a great public figure who has a lot to say on domestic and human rights issues.

Hillary wants us to win. She wants us to beat the Right. The way to honor her is to focus on that. I'm pretty sure the last thing she'd like us to dwell on is placing blame for the past.

What can and WILL help us win-and winning is the ONLY real way to honor Hillary-is developing better policies and finding ways to increase our vote total-an effort that involves, at least partially, finding a positive way to connect with those whose votes we should have been able to win last time but were not able to) Cand also a conscious decision to bring the hostility between Clinton and Sanders people, once and for all, to an end. What happened was neither primary "side"s fault.

It's time for dialog and unity.

[TreeStarsForever]

124. You tried to hijack this thread with your longwinded posts that say nothing.

You are proof people freak out whenever Hillary is honored. Stop raining on my parade. Hillary was already in the White House for 8 years and won the popular vote. Why did you decide to hijack my thread? Answer: You seem to have some weird hatred for people that honor Hillary. Go away. You are just making yourself look bad.

[ffr]

34. You have the podium!

Please continue.

[TreeStarsForever]

41. Thank You!!!!

[Wwcd]

66. Continuing with your fine Tribute to a remarkable & truly future focused Hillary..

https://still4hill.com/2017/12/29/9th-annual-hillary-clinton-year-in-review-installment-x-october-2017/

9th Annual Hillary Clinton Year in Review: Installment X August, Sept, October 2017

******

Still4hill presents a yearly review of Hillary Clinton's events, honors, appearances.
Near the bottom page, you will find archives of her many years of politics & policy from June 2008 to present, as well as links to supporting Onward Together & more.


Here you will find that the life of this truly great woman, Hillary Clinton, continues to evolve yet always focuses on humanity, fairness & fact.

Here are also many pics that speak to the life of HRC, her friends, family, travels, policies, concerns & loves.

Her brilliant depth of knowledge, humor & compassion is reiterated in the many friends & admirers around the world.

Forever Grateful & Proud to stand on the side of those who know & honor Sec Clinton.

Thank you

[GaYellowDawg]

60. She's not a "two-time White House winner."

Bill Clinton is a two-time White House winner.

We were told during the last Presidential election that Bill Clinton's sins did not default to Hillary. I agreed with that completely. Neither do his successes.

[Wwcd]

70. Yes she is. It has nothing to do with Bill. She has her own accomplishments & the unique position

of being First Lady, Sec of State & Senator,

No one holds that honor but her.
The personal accomplishments she made globally through her speeches in challenging human rights policies are distinctly her signature.

Actually she is far more than a 2 time White House winner.

[Ms. Toad]

107. No. she's not.

Bill Clinton won the White House.

The fact that Bill Clinton won the White House twice does nothing to diminish Hillary Clinton's accomplishments, but those accomplishments (including those whils she was a resident of the White House) do not include winning the White House twice.

[Wwcd]

109. Depends how one defines winning, I guess

Later

[shanny]

172. Or how one defines "is"?

[Agschmid]

179. Nope it doesnt depend on how you define winning at all.

That IS a foolish point.

[flotsam]

152. That would make Eleanor Roosevelt

The only four time White House Winner to survive her terms...

[Agschmid]

178. Actually it is debatable that she even one it once.

This “two time winner” moniker is just bullshit.

[TreeStarsForever]

76. Remember the Clinton slogan: "2-for-the-price-of-1" ??

The Clintons have been a team since Arkansas. Hillary was Bill's #1 strategist and adviser.

[GaYellowDawg]

104. I really like her.

I thought she was way ahead of her time in the 90's. I thought her biggest threat to conservatives and fundamentalists in particular was that she is an extraordinarily intelligent and gifted woman who is not deferential.

But she's not a two-time White House winner. If she was, she would have been ineligible to run. She wasn't a President. She wasn't a co-President. Her name wasn't on the ballot in 1992 or 1996. I really wish she was a one-time White House winner (2016, of course). Not just because that would have kept Trump out, but because I really think she would have been a brilliant President who surrounded herself with brilliant people. We would be immeasurably better off.

She is a remarkably accomplished person. But I will not give her titles or accomplishments she hasn't earned. Hillary Clinton needs no exaggeration for greatness.

[TreeStarsForever]

125. You always give credit to the strategist if they win the election. Steve Bannon got credit.

Why shouldn't Hillary get credit for 1992? Bill said she was his #1 adviser. She has been Bill's #1 adviser since Arkansas.

[Baconator]

77. What's your point?

How does any of that change the fact that her decisions and her campaign are a huge part of why we are where we are in 2017?

[uponit7771]

82. So to you comey Russia and voter suppression work the main cause but her campaign was?

[Baconator]

105. Absolutely...

Comey was a blip and voter suppression, while significant, doesn't account for a weak campaign.

Anyone going up against someone who was literally the most unliked candidate in modern history should have had an enormous buffer.

Instead, we had a razor-thin margin, poor campaign strategy, and an unmotivated electorate. When something happened, which it always does, it was enough to tip the scales.

[uponit7771]

106. I'll take silvers words and facts vs your conjecture, you've shown nothing to back up your claims

... while silver has in regards to Comey.

Voter suppression does account for every VSM state goin against her in election night. ...Another fact not in dispute

And Russia was a factor in changing votes, it would only take two votes that changed in the last election due to said propaganda to make that statement true ... I'll put up something valuable as vouch that's true seeing there were 130 million people who voted and again I only need two of them who changed there votes because of Russian propaganda to win.

Clinton wasn't perfect and didn't need to be ... this wasn't a legitimate election... The facts alone bear that to be true

[Baconator]

110. You are missing the point...

A proper candidate would have been competent enough to have adequate cushion across the board.

This was literally the most unpopular candidate of all time and we still found a way to lose to him.

I'm not saying those things weren't a factor. I'm saying that they were all something that could have been reasonably expected and we deserved better.

She had a house of cards and as long as nothing went wrong... It would all stay up and we wouldn't let Mr. Tiny Hands into the most powerful office in the world...

There was zero room for error and there absolutely should have been because nasty shit goes on every election.

[uponit7771]

115. So we're agreeing they cheated, great. Speculating she was supposed to have an overwhelming.

... enough margin to overcome the cheating is.. TEXT BOOK.. victim blaming and proffers she did NOT already have said margin without proof.

"...They cheated bad but she still should've won..." is the height of unfair criticism ... aka bashing.

Come on, you even admit"as long as nothing went wrong" she would've won
... Well cheating is something wrong, just not with her.

The onus of the cheating belongs on the head of the cheaters

[Baconator]

149. They all cheat... They all do dirty shit... and something bad always happens...

A house of cards that depends on nothing going wrong is going to collapse in the real world...

[uponit7771]

158. Obama didn't cheat this statement is wholly false on its face

[Baconator]

174. If you don't think that the democratic campaigns of 2008 and 2012 weren't pushing the boundaries...

... and running bare knuckle down in the mud politics then I have a surprise for you.

Maybe it's not always cheating... but something... something... always happens.

Fair or not... true or not... Shit happens

[uponit7771]

180. Bare knuckle down in the mud politics isn't breaking the law and cheating like Red Don did

... and of course shit happens

In this case Red Don and bad Vlad helped the shit happen vs shit just happening on its own ... that's cheating.

That's fucked up

[Baconator]

182. No one is saying otherwise....

My point remains...

A decent campaign against Mr. Tiny hands should have had room to spare in Alabama... Let alone the rest of the states...

[Ken Burch]

154. Why does it have to be "either/or"?

Why assume that the only way to acknowledge the Russians/Comey/voter suppression factor is to deny that there weren't any significant mistakes in the way our campaign was run or to acknowledge that some things need to done differently in the next campaign?

And why treat any critique of the general election campaign as if it's an attack on Hillary OR an assertion that she shouldn't have been nominated?

Hillary would have been a fine president. but we can't win in '18 or '20 by making "Avenge Hillary!" our dominant theme. We have to run as a party of the future and we have to base those campaigns on what we are FOR as much as, if not more than, raging against Trump. We can't win just by running against.

[uponit7771]

159. Cuz even if she was a bad candidate and they cheated she still should have won.

I do understand there are some who do not want to acknowledge that the Trump campaign cheated to any degree with Russia and that the kgop is not shaving votes I understand that.

That's not reality both of the aforementioned have effects

To minimize the effects of their cheating on the outcome of political races is unfair criticism AKA bashing

[Ken Burch]

162. I do acknowledge that Trump cheated and that the Russians played a role.

And that the Electoral College made this a "wrong winner" total.

It's not bashing to say those factors weren't the only things that matter.

And I hold the views I hold as a person who WANTED Hillary to win. The vast majority of people who supported other candidates in the primaries worked for her in the fall.

The problem with insisting it was just cheating is that's the argument that will be used by those who want the party to run the exact same campaign in 2020. Yes, the last election was crooked, but focusing on that(correct as it is) and "staying the course" isn't going to help us in the next election.

It's no disrespect to Hillary to try and find a better strategy than the one we used last time-a strategy(especially in the campaign ads, the form of communication that mattered more than any other)that was based heavily on attacking Trump and said almost nothing about what we proposed to do. We already knew from the GOP primaries that attack ads against Trump didn't ever work, so why repeat them in the general and why ever try them again in '20?

The best way we can avenge "what happened" is to make damn sure we get elected in '20. The way to do that is to run "for" rather than "against", to get an effective GOTV operation working this time, to make sure that all those who were suppressed are re-registered, and to offer policies that will turn nonvoters into voters and minor party voters into Dem voters-policies that can be adopted without renouncing any policies that "the base" favors.

I'm saying let's take a positive approach based on the idea that what we stand for is popular and that we can win by leading with it.

[uponit7771]

163. That they weren't the only factors that mattered is 100% irrelevant to the point that Russia, Comey

... and voter suppression were the most gating

It ... IS ... bashing to infer that the ONUS of the loss belongs on Clinton or her campaign by proffering the Red Herring of "there were other factors" seeing those other factors were minimal relative to Comey, Voter suppress and Russia.

The next red herring strawman is the usual "she wasn't perfect" false argument because she didn't have to be she just had to be good enough to win sans the cheating and she was.

PERIOD.

[Ken Burch]

164. I'm saying nothing against Hillary.

I agree with you that she was a far superior candidate to Trump.

And I share the feelings of everyone who sees it as a tragedy that she isn't president.

Critique of the campaign is not attack on the candidate, because the candidate is not the campaign manager.

But what purpose is served by running a campaign in 2020 that focuses on the injustice done to our nominee in 2016?

Focusing on that isn't ever going to gain us votes. No party ever won an election by making "we were robbed!" their slogan.

And nothing Mueller does is going to be affected by whether or not we acknowledge flaws in our campaign.

[Baconator]

209. It was her campaign and thus it was her fault...

Neither the Russians nor Donald Trump made the decisions about what to do in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan.

Period...

[uponit7771]

210. "its her [fill in blank] thus her fault" :rolleyes: and again she didn't have to be perfect to win

... just not have those 3 factors working against her and they were.

Bacon, you're not one of those who are going to ignore that all the states she was projected to win that she lost were voter suppression states too are you including the 3 you named off.

If you didn't know then you're being fed and that's fucked up, if you did know then you're bashing and that's still fucked up

[Baconator]

211. Fact is fact...

Voter suppression, Comey, Russians... Whatever...

A better candidate would have a cushion of 30 percent against someone like trump.

Instead, we put up the second least liked candidate in modern statistical tracking against the most disliked.

Anyone else see a problem with that?

[uponit7771]

213. "Voter suppression, Comey, Russians... Whatever... " Try and minimize all you want those are the ...

... facts and nothing you or I discuss are going to change the fact that those 3 items affected the elections outcome.

An apple is an apple and there's no way you're going to convince any adult that its a banana.

A better candidate would have a cushion of 30 percent against someone like trump

You literally just made this shit up, you know that right?

That doesn't even fit with today's reality that people who vote republican have a whole different set of facts that they listen to.

~ 50% of Trump voters thought Pizza Gate was real (link)... you SHOULD know this and if you do know this again you're bashing if you don't know this then you're being fed and not paying attention.

[Baconator]

216. Yes, it was a wee bit hyperbolic for effect...

... But the point stands.

A better and more motivating candidate with a stronger strategy would have had more than a razor thin margin to combat all of the things you listed.

[triron]

176. Conspiracy with a foreign adversary to win an election is beyond extraordinary

compared to anything any campaign has engaged in the past;
not to mention the somewhat less extraordinary intervention
of the FBI.

[Baconator]

177. Ok...

But they didn't turn millions of people one way or the other... They put targeted influence in key vulnerable spots and nibbled here and there past a tipping point.

All I'm saying is that a better campaign with a stronger strategy would have had way more wiggle room, against the most unpopular candidate of all time, that would have been nowhere near a tipping point.

Instead, here we are...

[TreeStarsForever]

126. She won by 3 million votes. The electoral college has screwed us twice in 20 years.

[Baconator]

150. Good, bad or other... That's the system...

It's like comparing time in possession of the ball in the Superbowl instead of points scored...

[uponit7771]

160. We score more points you understand that in your analogy right?

[Baconator]

175. Look... There's no reason to be willfully ignorant...

One statistic (important but not the deciding one) is strongly correlated to the one that matters...

If you were right then we would have a popular vote system and that's not just the way it is... Quit pretending that it's something other than reality.

[trueblue2007]

80. i am crying again.

[betsuni]

83. I knew when I saw this OP's title that there would be a few ...

angry people repeating yet again the anti-Democratic propaganda that Clinton ran only a negative campaign, that her campaign was the problem, that she was not THE ONE. Never disappointed. On a forum for Democrats.

[melman]

85. She lost

That's the reality.

[betsuni]

86. She did not run only a negative campaign or a bad campaign. That's the reality.

[melman]

88. That's an opinion

The reality is she lost. Over a year ago.

[betsuni]

89. And the person who won had a terribly run, completely negative campaign.

So what?

[melman]

90. So what?

Here's what. These threads are pointless and very tired.

The OP says she won, and that is not accurate. She did not win. She lost. Way past time for people to accept that very simple truth.

[betsuni]

96. DU is a forum for Democrats who support and talk about Democrats.

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, didn't become president, and this has been devastating for the United States and the world. We will talk about it if we want. That's the reality. Don't tell us what to do.

[melman]

98. Yes, Democrats with an 's'

As in plural. Not a fan cub for one particular Democrat. Unfortunately that's the way many treat it. But I didn't tell anyone what to do.



And btw, as for 'us', I've been here half a decade longer than you. I don't need to have DU explained to me.

[betsuni]

99. "Pointless and very tired."

[NurseJackie]

170. "half a decade longer" ... LOL

Why stop there? Might as well go BIG! Go ahead and call it one-twentieth of a CENTURY!! (That sounds much more impressive!)

[TreeStarsForever]

127. Putin and Russia stole the election from the 3 million majority.

[Ken Burch]

165. What, however, can we DO with that?

We're not going to win in '18 and '20 by making "Trump and Russia stole it" our dominant message.

And it's not as if there's going to be some magical reversal of fortune that leads to Hillary being sworn in after all.

I wish there could be, but that isn't possible.

Wouldn't you agree that we also need to focus on finding a more resonant message for '18 and '20?

And a more effective GOTV operation?

[TreeStarsForever]

197. I loved the message of "Stronger Together" and "Love Trumps Hate"

[herding cats]

94. I get your point and I agree.

Hillary had, and has, a lot of staunch supporters for decades. We’d be idiots to not respect them and their passion. Not to mention their votes. She has a decades long following of people who have adored her, and that’s a fact.

FWIW, this is from an Obama delegate in 2008, and a Hillary supporter in 2016. I’m a veteran at burying hatchets and uniting for the better good.

[Scurrilous]

97. K&R

[Mc Mike]

101. As a side note, remember how much respect they gave our Prez,

who won 6 to 10 million more votes over the candidates they wanted?

She won millions more votes, he lost by millions. And she was the most experienced and credentialed candidate we ever offered.

I did back Bernie in the primary, admittedly, but she was THE most experienced prez candidate I've ever seen.

[mcar]

108. She should be President

[Scurrilous]

113. Boink.

[Raine]

114. I don't want to get hung up in the past

and continually dwell on what might have been, best to look forward and make plans for that.

[TreeStarsForever]

128. Gotta know the past accurately to win the future.

[Ken Burch]

139. Knowing the past accurately doesn't mean no one should other than Hillary

should have run for the nomination.

And it doesn't mean demonizing the Left.

We'd have had the exact same result in the end if the primaries had been uncontested, or if Bernie had withdrawn after Super Tuesday.

Hillary was winning 49% in the polls in 2015...and that's what she ended up with.

What's needed now is dialog, common ground and unity-not blaming and shaming.

Please stop picking the scab.

[jalan48]

118. I've moved on from Hillary just like I have with Gore and Kerry.

[TreeStarsForever]

129. I'll never get over Gore. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. BERNIE!!

[liberalnarb]

131. +1000000

[jalan48]

136. I've moved past the blame game too. It's self-defeating.

[Ken Burch]

138. Bernie is not Nader. He campaigned for Hillary against Trump.

He turned down the chance to stay in the race on the Green ballot line.

And Bernie didn't harm Hillary's chances by seeking the nomination.

[KTM]

195. And those who only look at history with blinders and rose glasses on will repeat the same mistakes.

Sure, we need to learn from the past. I dont think you nor many others here are truly willing to do that.

[liberalnarb]

133. A 3 million vote lead is practically a landslide, but tRump is in the WH anyway.

The electoral college system is complete bullshit.

[kennetha]

135. Go Hillary Go

If you run again, I would be with you again. Amazing Woman! Would be a great president!

[triron]

142. yes and yes

[AlexSFCA]

181. She lost to the weakest candidate in history

I am sorry but winning a popular vote against the weakest candidate in our country’s history is not exactly an achievement. She has plenty of achievements but 2016 election was not one of them.

[TreeStarsForever]

201. We almost always switch parties every 8 years. Comey screwed us at the end.

Hillary still won by 3 million votes.

[lunamagica]

202. Trump beat 16 other candidates to win the GOP nomination, so not that weak. And the GE was STOLEN

from her.

[Eliot Rosewater]

190. Didn't she also release full tax returns for several years? And I believe she is FOR russian

sanctions.

Two points that distinguishes her from SEVERAL folks.

[lunamagica]

203. Yes she did. she was the most transparent candidate running last year

Those other SEVERAL folks had obvious matters they wanted to keep from the voting public

[melman]

214. 'SEVERAL folks'

I don't get it! This thing here that you're doing is too subtle

[Baconator]

206. Two time White House winner?

Reminds me of the stories of wives of senior(ish) military folks who demand that the MPs cut them some slack because "Do you know who my husband is..." or "We are getting promoted in May..."

[TreeStarsForever]

212. Hillary was credited by Bill for all of his victories. Hillary was Bill's #1 adviser since Arkansas.

[Baconator]

215. Good for him...

... And?

[fescuerescue]

217. She would have spent more time in the Whitehouse than FDR

And the Republicans couldn't stand the thought of another FDR.

She was robbed of her destiny. Heck the world was.

[TreeStarsForever]

218. Hillary had the most progressive platform of all-time

She knew policy. She knew how to get things done. The 1990s were a very pragmatic and successful era. The Clintons were made for the White House. Everyone knows it.