It's clear people have not fully considered the con job that has been pulled on them

[BainsBane]

I still hear people repeating GOP propaganda that Hillary is a corporatist, beholden to Wall Street and therefore unfit to be President. That is supposed to explain her loss, even as Trump has appointed circa five billionaires to his cabinet and is preparing to privatize Medicare, Social Security, and undo regulation of finance, the environment and business in general. Yet somehow watching this doesn't cause people to reflect on their knee-jerk use of buzzwords that show an astounding lack of awareness of what we face under the Trump administration.

That rhetoric about Hillary's as beholden to Wall Street was created by the GOP, planted by them and their allies in the Kremlin in order to enable Republicans to seize control of the presidency and give away fucking everything to the obscenely rich. And that is exactly what Trump is embarking on now, as is evident from his cabinet appointments. Yet the same people keep parroting ahistorical talking points about the Democratic Party and Hillary in particular selling out, corporatism, blah, blah, blah.

You all got played, and badly. And what's worse is that you haven't figured it out. You got rid of the evil "corporatist" Democrats and circulated and continue to repeat propaganda that enables the GOP to open the federal treasury directly to pilfering by the richest men in the nation as they prepare to give away to Wall Street trillions Americans have contributed to SS and Medicare throughout their lives. The knee-jerk repeating of GOP propaganda continues to be entirely devoid of any relation to policy. It did not matter what Clinton actually voted or or proposed as policy. What mattered is that you decided she was a "corporatist." You even bought into the con job that Trump won based on his self-professed concern for the working class. It is obvious that his focus during his presidency will be further enriching himself and those like him, as has been his practice his entire life. He has never done anything but screw over ordinary people.

So many it's time to stop aping the buzz words that helped get him elected? Maybe it's time to focus on what politicians actually do rather than what people say about them? Maybe it's time to reflect on how you play into the hands of the powerful by doing their rhetorical bidding? Because if anyone still thinks there is any equivalency between Clinton and Trump, you're too fucking stupid to contribute to our party or this society.

[el_bryanto]

1. If only we had trusted Clinton instead of looking at her history.

Oh well. live and learn; I'll know not to question the wisdom of centrist democrats in the future.

Bryant

[bravenak]

2. I suppose next time we should pick the candidate that lost the primary? And disenfranchise millions?

[BainsBane]

6. Exactly!

Disenfranchisement is the key. Is there any wonder there is so much resentment toward the ONE candidate who proposed automatic voters registration at age 18? But I'm an evil centrist because I don't care more about empty buzzwords designed to promote the GOP than actual policy or accomplishments.

[BainsBane]

3. I looked at her history

Her voting record, what she actually did. Many made a point of ignoring all that, which your comments indicate you are still doing. So by all means, remain attached to the labels that you care so much more about than policy or accomplishments. Who cares what actually happens to America anyway?

[el_bryanto]

10. Well I care what happens to America - thats why I supported another candidate in the primary

I voted for Hillary in the general of course. If you looked at her voting record and are comfortable with the positions that she took over the years than I'm glad you were happy to vote for her. I found her record wanting on a number of issues that I care deeply about, so I voted for someone else in the primary.

Bryant

[BainsBane]

34. I don't care who you voted for in the primary

That's been over for a long time now. The primary has long ceased to be relevant since she won it by 3.75 million votes. I think I made my point clearly enough in The OP, yet you continue to be more concerned with what you perceive as centrist Dems than thinking about how too many fed into the GOP's hands by repeating insults about Clinton instead of discussing policy. We are faced with the equivalent of the rise of Hitler in Weimar Germany, and you're still pissed off she refused to lie to primary voters about the feasibility of single payer and the like. You carry on with your war against "centrist Dems" as Trump raids the national treasury, creates a Muslim registry, and rolls back rights for the "centrists" you so resent. But at least you've been spared the horror of "centrist policies" like reforming Obamacare, expanding Medicare, reforming campaign finance, regulating Wall Street, moving the US off fossil fuels, and equalizing education.

The notion that Clinton alone bears responsibility for what in fact has been a 240 year relationship between the state and moneyed interests is absurd, but that argument helped the GOP gain control of congress and the presidency.

[DemonGoddess]

39. This!!!

[CountAllVotes]

4. the pres-elect

He is being trusted and has provided nothing to earn it. No tax returns, no nothing and that is all you will ever see from this CON, that is nothing.

IDIOTS!

[el_bryanto]

13. I voted for Hillary in the general election. So who exactly are you calling an idiot? nt

[CountAllVotes]

30. Calling tRump supporters idiots

and no, I am not calling you an idiot. I am calling tRump supporters IDIOTS because that is exactly what they are!

[jambo101]

21. For most of his hayseed followers

Saying he was going to make America great again was all they needed to hear for them to vote for the guy, what a bunch of simpletons. 4 years of this Trump thing and i think the pendulum will swing the other way big time.

[CountAllVotes]

28. Exactly!

It is difficult to believe that these IDIOTS are out there and they obviously do not think nor read nor know anything of any value.

They lack judgement, and that is just the tip of the iceberg!

[TwilightZone]

7. Right, her voting record. The one that puts here squarely on the liberal side of Congress.

That voting record?

[el_bryanto]

14. Yep that's the one - She is a liberal; just not as liberal I would prefer, on a number of issues.

If you found her satisfactory, good for you; I just wish she had won.

Bryant

[BainsBane]

35. That you even think that relevant now

Is the problem. How can it possibly matter now whether you think she's liberal enough, and why would you imagine anyone gives a shit? It's like you have no idea what is going on right now.

[el_bryanto]

36. well you cared enough to reply.

Also - isn't this a postmortem forum? Isn't the whole point to look back at what happened and figure out what to do now? If I think that we need to look for more liberal candidates who are going to upset the democratic party status quo, isn't this the place to say that?

Bryant

[emulatorloo]

9. if only we had believed Clint Eastwood and Empty Chair strawman Obama

I'll know in the future to trust all fake internet memes thanks to your wisdom.

[still_one]

26. Well it seemed that people weren't interested in Russ Feingold's record or Cypher, Teachout, or

every swing state Democrat running for Senate against the establishment republican incumbent. They all lost, many extremely progressive.

[TwilightZone]

5. Trump is the *ultimate* elitist and the *ultimate* corporatist. He's a fricking BRAND, for heaven's

sake. His entire existence is defined by his corporate identity. It's been his entire life for decades.

The level of delusion required to think the guy's a populist who's going to fight for the "little guy" just blows my mind.

And the fact that some alleged liberals, progressives, and Democrats could buy into it is depressing in the extreme.

On the other hand, those who said they wouldn't vote for Hillary because Goldman Sachs was going to be running the country should be happy now that one of their execs will, indeed, be helping run the country.

[BainsBane]

8. But those Goldman Execs are being appointed

by someone with a penis, so that makes it okay. Just like it was fine for JFK and FDR to be born into extreme wealth but not okay for Clinton to earn money from speeches and book sales.

[TwilightZone]

16. I think some of them just bought their own BS

Some people actually argued - Jill Stein was one of them, and there were many on DU - that Trump could turn out to be more liberal than Hillary. That she would nominate a bunch of conservatives and that Trump might be more middle-of-the-road.

That is weapons-grade stupidity, based on everything that happened during the campaign and everything we know about them. It's just...insane. HDS.

Agreed re: the speeches and book sales. Former politicians become motivational speakers (and lobbyists) all the time, but for some reason, the only one that got attacked for it was Hillary.

[BainsBane]

20. weapon-grade stupidity is right

and it's about to explode.

Great phrase.

[BeyondGeography]

11. You got played too if you think Hillary did everything she needed to do to win

Believe it or not, I wanted her to win every bit as much as you did. Everyone my age (57) is looking at a whole lot of hurt because of this. So stop acting like you're the only one who gets it. You're not.

I'm disgusted by a lot of things. Like losing states that have been in our column for decades because someone (that would be our candidate) didn't see the writing on the wall after the primaries. I had a sick feeling when MI and PA were her last stops on the campaign. I get a sick feeling when I read things like this:

It is now becoming clear that Clinton’s ground game — the watchword for defenders of her alleged competence — was actually under-resourced and poorly executed. Like so much else in this election, her field strategy was hostage to the colossal arrogance and consequent incompetence of the liberal establishment.

At the heart of the failure was the notion of the “new emerging majority.” According to this argument — pushed by, among others, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira — women, Latinos, blacks, and skilled professionals who support the Democrats were becoming the demographic majority. Thus the traditional white working-class base of the Democratic Party could be sidelined.

Back in July Chuck Schumer summed it up: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

From this theory and strategy flowed a deeply flawed set of tactics, and a badly fumbled get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort.

A labor organizer in Ohio, who wished to remain anonymous, reports that Clinton’s early GOTV effort there focused on Republicans in the mistaken belief a significant number of them could be peeled away. This play largely failed. And it also involved serious opportunity costs: traditional Democratic constituencies like African Americans and the white working class were neglected, and Clinton ended up badly under-performing Obama among both groups, especially in the Rust Belt.

Only in the last two weeks, according to this labor source, did the Democratic Party outreach effort really switch back to traditional Democratic voters. By then, it was too late. Due to lack of preparation, the voter lists guiding the effort had not been updated. Because poorer voters tend to relocate more frequently than home-owning suburbanites, many addresses were wrong. And for lack of more frequent contact the campaign was often unsure about the voters’ current political attitudes.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/clinton-campaign-gotv-unions-voters-rust-belt/

I never called Hillary a corporatist, I honor her lifetime of public service. She has touched many lives for the better, and I will take her in a debate against any Republican in creation. But, godammit, her campaign FUCKING SUCKED! She blew it. She was working with Obama's turnout model and she is not Obama. In 2008, it was clear she had strengths that he didn't have and, yes, they were with the white working class voters. She blew him out in OH and PA and eight years later all those votes go poof? Why...because she didn't work hard enough for them, that's why. Now excuse me while I ponder a future without Medicare as we know it.

[BainsBane]

19. I read that article

1) I don't think she did everything she needed to. 2) I think it general she ran a good campaign but in retrospect I think the messaging could have been better honed and directed.

Now, that article. It shows little understanding of how voter turnout operations work. It's clear the author has never worked for or volunteered for a campaign. It's not true that they didn't focus on Democrats until two weeks before the election. They were in my state of MN--not a swing state--in the summer registering voters and recruiting volunteers. I myself worked on voter registration in 100 degree heat at a street fair. They did try to win over Republicans and swing voters because there was polling to indicate Trump's support was soft with them. But a key point of the author's claim that is false is that two weeks before an election is too late. How is it too late?
The point of the ground game is to turn out voters, not persuasion. Research indicates that personal contact from a volunteer in the THREE DAYS before the election is the most effective way to get people to vote.

Then the author says the campaign was incompetent because 5-25% of contacts were Trump supporters. Identifying supporters is key to getting them to the polls. If there is no party registration in a state, you can't know (aside from market data indications and voting history)how they are thinking about the election until they tell you. And even if there is party registration, people do cross party lines. Part of a ground game is to gather than information. When someone indicates they are not a Clinton supporter, the volunteer marks that and they are then removed from the list. If respondents are undecided, they will continue to be contacted.

Now I will ask you if you volunteered for the campaign? A ground game depends on volunteers. If you didn't, you really ought not be pointing fingers.


MY OP, however, is not a general assessment of why Clinton lost but an observation about the continued repetition of propaganda generated by the GOP to tarnish Clinton and help their own party. People should think about their role in that. Also the entire concern about "corporatist" Dems is made moot from this election. How people can imagine that's a problem when faced with what Trump is doing is bizarre.

[BeyondGeography]

23. Sam Stein wrote a pretty definitive autopsy, if that one doesn't work for you

In Michigan alone, a senior battleground state operative told HuffPost that the state party and local officials were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004. Desperate for more human capital, the state party and local officials ended up raising $300,000 themselves to pay 500 people to help canvass in the election’s closing weeks. By that point, however, they were operating in the dark. One organizer said that in a precinct in Flint, they were sent to a burned down trailer park. No one had taken it off the list of places to visit because no one had been there until the final weekend. Clinton lost the state by 12,000 votes.

...As Democrats begin to repair their party and learn from the shortcomings of the Clinton campaign, one of the primary arguments being made is that candidates have to show up if they expect to win. Obama said as much in a recent press conference when he tied his success in Iowa to the sheer number of stops he made in the state while campaigning. And the data strongly suggests that this was a vulnerability for Clinton. As the Washington Post reported, Clinton’s campaign and outside groups supporting it aired more television ads in Omaha during the closing weeks than in Michigan and Wisconsin combined. And as NBC News reported, during the final 100 days of the election, Trump made 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin while Clinton made 87

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-campaign-neglect_us_582cacb0e4b058ce7aa8b861

There is still a lot of reporting yet to be done on the quality of the supporting data operation (at least I haven't seen any), but it's obvious they weren't within miles of Obama 2012 in terms of understanding their voters and anticipating the outcome. You can read alll about that here:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-used-big-data-to-rally-voters/

[kcr]

33. You might not have called her a corporatist. But a whole lot of people did. Constantly.

I'm sorry, but I blame them, particularly those on the left side of the isle because of the damage they inflicted. To then turn around and blame Hillary for running a bad campaign chaps my ass. Maybe you didn't do that. But it's not fair to ignore those who did and put the blame squarely on her. Everywhere, it was Hillary was winning. Trump had no chance. A vast majority of the time she was ahead in the polls. She even won the popular vote by a huge margin. The claim that she lost because she she ran a bad campaign is beyond weak. I'm not saying she made no mistakes, but there are bigger reasons she lost.

[brush]

12. It was a silent coup, right before our eyes, with Russian help and assists from the FBI and Assange

Wasn't it Sinclair Lewis who said fascism would be voted in in America?

No revolution or overthrow of government needed, just a complicit media and useful idiots who responded to the right wing dog whistles with their votes.

[Tumbulu]

25. Yes it was nt

[world wide wally]

27. This

[Lucky Luciano]

15. It was a con by someone screaming from the rooftops with a megaphone

...(and a twitter account)...."I am a motherfucking conman!!!!111!!!!11!"

[Yavin4]

17. Some people have to be in pain in order to learn.

I had similar arguments about Gore right here on DU back in 2001. It took 8 years of sheer hell for people to finally understand what they had done.

So, I guess we'll just have to endure another 4-8 years of super hell in order for people to learn.

[flamingdem]

18. Sorry, think MUCH LONGER because the billionaires will never let us have

our rights back.

[KT2000]

22. they are drunk on hate

and cannot let it go. They have created loops in their thinking and until something breaks those loops they will continue to repeat the propaganda. I guess that is what Bannon is there for - keep the loops intact.

[jambo101]

31. addicted

We are getting a large demographic of the USA addicted to the emotion of hate.its going to end badly.

[R B Garr]

32. Yeah, it's a billionaire lollapalooza now. A veritable billionaire shindig.

Party time.

And Trump did pick up his wedge issues from Bernie during the Primary. That's what makes it all the more maddening to those who saw this all very clearly.

Who in their right mind would believe anything from a con man like Donald. He was never elected to anything in his life, so he had no record to run on and was never accountable to anyone. He earned his money the old-fashioned GOP way: have a rich parent die and leave you money.

Great post, Bains.

[JSup]

37. Most of people...

...that have supported him that comment in threads seem to not care, they just wanted 'liberal tears'.

[colsohlibgal]

38. Many Will Soon Enough

I still cannot believe this was even close, but 20 years of Fox News propoganda has led to this disaster.

[triron]

40. +1000000