No matter WHAT Democrat was going to run for POTUS, they were going to LOSE because of all of the extenuating circumstances surrounding the 2016 General Election. You had voter-suppression off the chain being practiced against Democrats all across this country and in swing states he magically WON on election day, and I see NO end in sight with that. You had ruskie interference which I also don't see ending anytime soon, and you also had people who didn't care enough to vote PERIOD even though they KNEW that tRumputin WAS/IS a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, a RACIST, A SEXIST, ignorant, evil--an all-around hideous person who is hell-bent on destroying the USA and world per his puppet-master and Lord putin.

"Give us the real criminal, instead of the good person. He's most like us that is why we want him."

Biden would have won. And of course Obama would have destroyed Trump. Not sure about others, but a Democrat without Hillary's unfavorables would have had a much better chance.

Additionally, Trump's win was with a deficit of 3 million votes. In the three states that he carried, the spread was less than 75,000 votes. Such a narrow margin suggests a great many things.

With my point or not. A "narrow margin" suggests only a narrow win. But a win. Agreed.

You wrote, "...a Democrat without Hillary's unfavorables would have had a much better chance."

The narrow margin of victory in the Electoral College was overshadowed by the Clinton win in the popular vote. I know that's not how our system works but that means there are more issues in effect than just popularity.

The outcome could have been very different without the Russian interference and the prevalence of voters' rights being violated.

However, we do agree. Trump won.

Sucks to be us.

And for those who blame Hillary...I point to so called progressives (Green trash) who didn't vote, voted for Stein, a gorilla or stayed home...these people elected Trump...33,000 votes in three states was the margin of victory...yes, the election was stolen just as in 2000, but like Nader, these folks made the election close enough to steal...fuck all of them...they have blood on their hands- Faux progressive Green leaning riffraff.

...Steve Kornacki interpreting data more closely. I still feel he misuses words like "win" and "lose". Hillary won. Trump was elected, although he lost. If he wants to base thoughts on minority (Electoral College) victories, he should stop using majority (popular vote) data. He is not clear on this point.

...when you consider what "LenaBaby61" posted, which I agree with, plus the fact that Hillary Clinton overcame the obstacle of "running for Obama's [the same party] third term" - her victory was even more remarkable. And, this doesn't even facto in her gender!

spreading negatives about Hillary during the campaign by parroting GOP/Russian talking points slathered within his data sandwich.

for people who don't like Democrats.

and until Nomiki Konst succeeds in her efforts to keep the poor, people of color, elderly, shift workers, and the disabled from voting for the Democratic nominee, Democrats will continue to vote for Democrats who represent their interests rather than those of more affluent white men who constitute the base of the GOP.

Those who resent the fact that the Democratic Party adheres to the principle of one person one vote are within their rights to continue their collaboration with fascism and in so doing demonstrate very clear where their values and priorities lie.

Hillary lost. Do you think the electors should have ignored the results and appointed her president anyway?

If it does not, then it is (as we've now seen twice) simply a tool for undermining democracy.

That's fine if states are electing state governments, but on the presidential level, we need to do better than a system that gives Wyoming's 563K voters a much louder voice than a California's 32M voters.

In discussions about how to overcome GOP strategies of vote suppression, some well-meaning individual always rises up to say "gerrymandering doesn't affect presidential elections."

Well, now we can all see how delightfully naive that is; the presidential election can absolutely be gerrymandered, and this has happened at least twice--both times in favor of the GOP (and to the horrific detriment of the world at large).

The electoral college must be abandoned if we hope to maintain any illusion of democracy.

Congressional districts do not cross state lines. We can rail against the Electoral College all we want, but it doesn't have anything to do with gerrymandering

As far as voters in some states having more say than others; Superdelegates in primaries are even more influential in negating the will of the ordinary voter

With very precisely targeted voter suppression and the (fairly likely possibility of) precise vote-flipping, the election was stolen by 77,000 votes surprisingly going to Trump in exactly the right states there he needed them.

It's not gerrymandering in terms of selection of electoral districts, the effect is more or less the same: votes were shuffled enough to minimize Democratic impact while strengthening Republican totals.

If you want, we can quibble about whether or not this strictly qualifies as gerrymandering, but the strategy is roughly the same and the intent is identical: to secure a dishonest and non-representative election result in favor of Republican interests.

The electoral college also has the right to vote against someone who is unfit. I can't imagine anyone EVER more unfit than Trump.

That they would have been happy with some non-democratic candidate other than Trump?

Who do you think the Russians would have liked more than Trump, and why?

Putin has LOTS of footage of Red Square parades that could easily be turned into anti-Sanders campaign ads.

It is very simple: If you think the Republicans wouldn't have latched onto Sanders' declared socialism, you are insane. Between "he's a communist" and "he just wants to give away free stuff," Bernie wouldn't have been able to get a word in edgewise.

Secretary Clinton was not a uniquely weak candidate, or for that matter a weak candidate at all. In fact, not only does the meme unfairly attack Secretary Clinton, it diminishes her power as a uniquely qualified candidate. She was the master of her fate and this insistence that she was not is simultaneously demeaning and enabling.

In the summer of 2016 she was 15 points in the hole - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/31/a-record-number-of-americans-now-dislike-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.32c28dd44115.

The attacks on her started when she formed her exploratory committee. That is not a coincidence. She was not a weak candidate. She was a candidate that had all the obstacles stacked up against her and still overcame most of them.

Because she was running against a few second string Dems at that time. In the summer of 2016, when folks were paying attention, she was the second least popular candidate in history. That is undoubtedly part of the reason she lost.

What I said was that her popularity was higher than that of any active politician, including President Obama, UNTIL she started considering a run.

The ANTI-Clinton machine started to gear up he moment she considered running. It wasn't that she was just not popular. She was MADE unpopular on purpose by smears and lies. THAT is undoubtedly the reason why she did not win the electoral college. It was the lies and the cheating, not anything to do with Hillary.

Made Hillary unpopular? I'm not sure she would have polled 50% on DU in the summer of 2016.

Including America Rising Superpac which would spread disinformation about Clinton via a site that "appeared" Liberal. Even Liberals fell for this.

you're also conveniently ignoring how the special rules for the Clinton kicked in when it comes to covering them, the NY Times bungling of the email story, the barest attention to policy by media ( especially cable news media), the determination to turn the election into a horse race and grading Trump on a curve...The hacking of emails and the dissemination of uncurated data... I could go on and on..

As I type this I think you ought to at least know these things - DU'ers have shared articles about these things, there's been discussed all over media (finally) about these issues...

Where have you been?

Presidential nominee, or something else? Do you think the issues regarding Clinton's email server were created out of whole cloth? What "uncurated data" are you referencing?

How did an email server story drown out the Russia collusion story?

Give me a break. You're also missing the point of the piece and why Trump resonated the way he did.

I'm stating that the email server issue was a self-inflicted wound.

Because you can't be arguing Hillary Clinton is the only politician to make a mistake correct?

Politicians make mistakes all the time, Campaigns make mistakes, but there are sometimes double standards in the way some mistakes are amplified and others ignored, and which Politicians get the treatment and which don't. Charles Pierce, Tom Junot, Michael Tomasky, and even Vox has covered this: https://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9059953/clinton-rules-new-york-times ... There's even a name for it "The Clinton Rules" and in 2016 those rules resulted in journalistic failure: it is a stunning indictment of certain popular, respected, publications that an email server story drowned out a story about possible collusion between a foreign adversary and advisors in the Trump campaign.

In any case, the salient point of the piece in the OP is how Trump exploited resentment and destroyed conventional politics, and infected the 'body politic'.

If you're not interested in delving deep into the points of the article, your purpose is what?

Did i say that Hillary was the only one to make mistakes? And what points do you want to dig into?

I point out the email story was blown out of proportion, I provide context about media coverage, your response to me is that her email server was a self inflected wound, which doesn't refute my point about how the story was covered . You recognize that politicians make mistakes, yet I don't see why mentioning it was a self inflicted wound is any kind of point to make. It doesn't really refute or expand on anything I said or any point in the article itself.

The article is short, it succinctly describes the Trump phenomena which saw him beat a host of supposedly talented republican rivals. His politics exploited resentment and fear in a very obvious way unseen in politics in recent memory. This gave life to anti establishment arguments and antagonized opposition to him which while polarizing, energized his base. Fear/cultural anxiety dominated his rhetoric and pulled people in. It worked for him to denigrate the entire system which disarmed politicians who made working within the system their life's work. He was able to tap into a zeitgeist of last year, aided by rat fucking and , as I mentioned, inexcusable journalistic failures.

The issue here I think is that you're determined to paint Clinton as a horrible candidate and dismiss out of hand any other factors, circumstances, double standards, or influences impacting the election itself or how the candidate was perceived. I don't get dogmatic thinking so I can't help you there..

Before the election. They did find evidence of Russian interference which was covered. Email became a story every month as each tranche of emails was put out.

I think the OP has an interesting perspective. It was a culture war. Trump even created hats for his team. He got his team to learn chants. Many on the team had felt that they had been forgotten and that Trump was the first to value them. The loyalty was intense. It really does explain how they stayed with him after the Access Hollywood tape.

Looked at that way, for many, it was not an unbiased looking at each of the two nominees.

However, mentioning the timeline doesn't refute any of the things I said:

- "Clinton rules" and how the NYTimes bungled the email server story and how the rest of mainstream media followed suit (and not only with regard to the email server story, there were also massive fails w.r.t the Clinton Foundation) still shaped how stories were covered even after it looked like Russia used her intelligence "arsenal" to target Americans.

- Russian interference didn't resonate with Americans from the get go: when the DNC was hacked. Possible Russian interference wasn't unknown until the Obama administration made an announcement , the talk began right after it was discovered the DNC was hacked. There were even books and articles written about this way back in August last year and I still remember a determination to throw cold water on the Russia story- whenever the Clinton campaign made a noise about it they were accused of making excuses. Maggie Haberman recently tweeted something to the effect that maybe The Clinton Campaign should have talked more about Russia to get the media to focus on it more last year - if Maggie could tweet that nonsense just weeks ago, I can't even begin to imagine the mindset among her colleagues last year.

I KNOW that various Clinton allies - including David Brock said so. The corrections that the NYT made from their first story were very minimal. The basic outline - that she used a private server, did not separate business and personal email, did not sort the email and archive the work email with the state department, in mid 2014 the State Department negotiated with her to get the email back, when by August 2014 they did not have it, they went back to Clinton with a public request sent to ALL previous SoSs to get the email, and they were given the email in late 2014. What I wrote is consistent with BOTH the first NYT and the SD IG report in 2016.

As to the Russian involvement, there were long articles after the election that spoke of the Obama administration not going with Comey's idea of speaking of this in August - instead waiting until early October when they had the joint intelligence agencies put out a very strong, detailed accusation. Clinton referenced that in the debates. It is not clear that having Comey comment in August, when people are said not to be paying attention would have been better than the statement on October 6 joined by every US intelligence agency.

I agree that Maggie Haberman is crazy that Hillary should have talked more about this. She did speak of it and brought it up in the debate. I suspect that in August,one reason for HRC not to speak of it - it would bring up the entire story of what was put on wikileaks from the DNC every time she did and her goal had to be uniting the party at the convention. I also do not think there were credible books and articles in August 2016 on this.

I'm not repeating a David Brock point:

David Brock isn't the author of these articles:

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9059953/clinton-rules-new-york-times

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/brettedkins/2016/12/13/trump-benefited-from-overwhelmingly-negative-tone-of-election-news-coverage-study-finds/&refURL=https://t.co/I50lOf8Sqb&referrer=https://t.co/I50lOf8Sqb#5c19a2b83202

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brettedkins/2016/12/13/trump-benefited-from-overwhelmingly-negative-tone-of-election-news-coverage-study-finds/#682b30433202

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit
https://curiouscivilian.com/admit-it-the-clinton-email-controversy-bothers-you-yet-you-dont-actually-know-what-the-clinton-511dc1659eda

those links barely cover it...

I could go on and on...

I don't see how anything you're saying excuses the way the email stories ( including the dissemination of uncurated data on the wikileaks website) gives the media a pass on how they handled all these stories resulting in this : https://t.co/Dc6geXuNdd

We already know Clinton made an error in judgement, the salient point I'm making is the degree to which that error of judgement dominated the entire election campaign, so much so that more serious Trump scandals never resonated.

In fact, only the first one - a clear polemic just from reading the title does. The second next two actually would back the op of this thread -- the coverage of the election on both sides was very negative - both sides predominantly attacked each other in their ads. The last one simply makes the case that while HRC was wrong, people should vote for her if they agreed with the policies.

I think people heard the various Trump scandals - the Access Hollywood tape, the shady deals and bankruptcies, all the outrageous comments that SHOULD have ended his chances. However, they still voted for him in spite of everything. I suspect that very very few if any people did not vote for HRC because of her email practices - and it even less likely they voted for Trump just because of that.

For years after 2004, that ignoring that he actually would have won had there been enough voting machines in Ohio, my husband constantly told me that it was not that people did not see who Kerry was ... and who Bush/Cheney were. They got the differences and too many were all too willing to vote for Cheney, not in spite of things like Abu Ghraeb, but because of them. (In fact, in more diplomatic words, Kerry said the same thing that in the wake of 911, too many people were still too bonded to B/C.)

In essence that is what this op is saying about 2016.

else it would be absent of facts to back the points it makes. It makes a very reasoned case about the first impression set with the initial coverage of the email story. The second set of links point to how email coverage shaped how one candidate was viewed - How did the email story "trump" Trump University, and other scandals, which shaped how the candidates were perceived. The NYT itself admitted that they originally bungled the story. We already know that Clinton used a private server, I'm not arguing she didn't or that her use of one should not be reported. We're passed that.

Trump's rhetoric about the establishment and immigrants ( two big issues that followed him throughout the campaign and made him a divisive figure) were tied to the message of his campaign, email story coverage - on the other hand - sucked out a lot of energy from the Clinton campaign. The confusion about emails reached levels of ridiculous even after it was found out emails were classified retroactively - AFTER Clinton left office. This did not help change the impression that Hillary was uniquely reckless with classified data, thus uniquely irresponsible in her actions.

The point of all this is how an error of judgement was magnified beyond belief - unless you are arguing to me that the email coverage was all fair?

Furthermore, no other year in politics in recent memory (including 2004), comes remotely close to the dynamics of 2016 -

Were you watching trends on political sites at the time? That would be interesting information for sure, if you would like to share it (I see you weren’t a member then) DU isn’t necessarily representative of national political trends.

Really?

Her numbers worsened with her book tour where even supporters called her "rusty". Then she poorly handled the email mess that should never have happened. Also, she argued on that tour and in her book that Obama should have been more aggressive in Syria. It was reasonable to differ with Obama, but that is not the direction the country was wanting. I assume those two hits, not a very unsurprising announcement of an exploratory committee brought down her numbers.

I agree with the OP though and it deserves real consideration. Any Republican would have used these real negatives against HRC and as we saw they made stuff up as well. Back in 2005/2006, one strong argument for HRC was she was too well defined and vetted for the Republicans to swiftboat. The OP actually explains why that was not true for her or probably anyone else.

Yet even if her numbers were bad, Trump's numbers were worse. This tribal explanation explain why that did not matter. I am more optimistic than the OP for the future. Bush's disaster of a second term shifted the playing field from 2004. Obama was an incredible candidate, but by 2008, any Democrat nominated would have won. Trump is far worse. I think ANY reasonable nominee in 2020 will beat him.

The least popular candidate in history beat the second least popular candidate in history. That's a fact. I'm not making an "argument."

You will obviously try to spin it differently. And no, the popular vote vs electoral college issue has nothing to do with it.

You are arguing she is unpopular, but she won the popular vote.

Your argument doesnt work.

The fact that Hillary won the popular vote doesn't undercut my point at all. I'm not trying to spin anything (why do people always think there's some underlying motive?). Who even cares if she won the popular vote because that doesn't matter. The votes that matter are those that get you elected president, and Hillary lost in PA and WI, and she knew it was close because she spent the day before the election in PA.

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that she was unpopular.

If she was that unpopular how did she win the popular vote?

Whether you recognize it or not that is a fatal flaw with your argument.

popular vote doesn't make her popular (and I recognize there's some contradiction there)

Why would any other Dem or non-dem have been able to withstand that?

But her high negatives do not mean she was a weak candidate, particularly against a candidate with even higher negatives. In a binary election, everything is relative.

As a strong Sanders supporter who continues to be a strong Sanders supporter, I would like to believe that Bernie's radically higher favorability rating would have propelled him to victory, but if favorability ratings were all there were to winning in 2016, Secretary Clinton would have won because her favorability ratings were higher than her opponent's.

From the standpoint of preparing for the next election, it is a mistake (not to mention denial) to believe that Clinton could not have won because she was simply not stronger than the forces aligned against her. This is true for two reasons. First, it is defeatism taken to the "n"th degree, because if she could not win, no Democrat can win. This appears to be the BS conclusion of the article. Second, it discourages any meaningful analysis of what we could have done differently to win.

We just came off of two presidential elections in 2008 and 2012 where our candidate didn't just win the popular vote by a plurality, he won it by a MAJORITY. To spew this tripe about Democrats being doomed because "Russia" or "voter suppression" or any of the other shit we are getting thrown at us (as the article appears to do) is counterproductive.

It makes the opposite point.

Over 30 yrs political enemies were able to build a war chest of scandals with just enough truth to make them believable to too many people. The email thing was obviously an ethical lapse not worthy of the full blown FBI investigation. However, that along with the wall street speeches gave the appearance of secrecy. There was enough truth to force her to address it made it easy for them to spin into a charge of corruption. Having close proximity to an impeachment also didn't help. That kind of baggage is definitely unique. Carrying that and having been on the public political stage for 30+ years made her vulnerable to a campaign that accused "career politicians" of dishonesty and corruption.
She was a strong qualified candidate who was unusually vulnerable to dirty politics. It's not the first time it's happened.

REPUBLICANS CHEATED. They have been doing it here for 7 plus years...they cheat lie and steal to win. Now the rest of the country is finding out.

And steal Wisconsin?

Aggressive voter suppression targeting Democrats on a state-wide level, not to mention gerrymandering which gives the GOP a nearly 2-1 advantage in the state legislatures, in a state where registration in the two major parties is about even. Also, Wisconsin's recently enacted right-to-work law further weakens the ability of organized labor to mount an effective campaign in support of progressive candidates. On the other hand, the deep-pocket Koch Bros considered Wisconsin to be a proving ground for pushing state government and policies to the right, and at this point they cannot be too disappointed.

He could do a complete 180, start supporting every single Dem position while opposing every Repub position, and he would still have his supporters so long as he was still an asshole to everyone who crosses him.

<headslap> This is obvious to any media observer.




The GOP press has been using polarization to win elections since 2000, at least.

“This interpretation of [GOP wins] poses difficult questions for Democrats. It would mean that almost any candidate they run against him would be at risk of suffering Clinton’s fate.”

No, really? Tell us something we don't know about Fox, Limbaugh, Breitbart and the GOP identity politics that started with the southern strategy and today is realized in a huge GOP propaganda machine. All Trump did is say out loud what the GOP has been dogwhistling for years.

Barack Obama was a great president but even the best presidents make mistakes. And appointing James Comey to head the FBI was hands down the worst mistake Barack Obama made as president.

Maybe my ass. It definitely was

Since the early 90s. And we should think about how to win elections, instead of blaming losses on "vote flipping," which might be true, or might not be, but can't be proven in any event.

They've stolen at least two of the last presidential elections, maybe thtee. Burying our heads over the obvious is long term losing strategy. No strategy is going to win voted if the system is rigged

I hate to say it but I think he had a strong understanding of how some people in the country felt, especially in the Rust Belt. He used demagoguery and the media circus to his advantage. It also helped that there is a very strong anti-politician feeling in the country where some people see experience and professionalism as negatives.

Worse on a staggering scale, in the manner of having a candidate who was a direct reflection of their own ignorance, prejudice, greed, perception as reality, and vehement opposition to all things "guvmit".

Keep Matt Damon or whatever liberal celebrity you wish to name on ice.... If America wants another "popularity contest" with anti-candidates in 2020, this time we'll beat them at their own game...

that NO Democrat can beat Trump for re-election.

Are we SURE we want to go there?

Facebook is becoming a fake news monster. Did anyone else see the interview this morning that aired on MSNBC? Sandberg said that Facebook would allow Russian Fake News on Facebook - she did not mince words.

http://www.caelusgreenroom.com/2017/10/02/facebook-publish-fake-news/