.

What Hillary talked about all year.

Apprenticeship programs, she acknowledged the job shifts from sector to sector.. and discussed ways to circumvent this...

Apparently I and I alone heard all this.

Maybe she would have fared better if she just lied all year.

She talked about jobs, certainly, but it did not come across, to me, as a core issue that she was passionate about.

and

1) wall street obsession with quarterly profit
2) the fact that the federal government hasn't equitably given contracts to minority owned businesses.
3) the fact that we shouldn't shut down fossil fuel extraction completely because of the effects on jobs- and using natural gas as a bridge to renewables - while retraining workers for renewable energy jobs.
4) mental health care initiatives , which would cover drug abuse /addiction


And a bunch of other things. It was all drowned out, this was not a policy driven election campaign. It was all about slogans, and lazy media personalities didn't help.

This was not an election for a bunch of policy speeches. Actually, I don't think any election is about a bunch of policy speeches. You need to have the policies, no doubt, and you give speeches on those policies, but you must emotionally connect with the top three or four issues that are facing the electorate. She was, in parts of the country, unable to do that sufficiently, given these parts of the country are very worried about globalization and their jobs. She may have given policy speeches about apprentice programs, etc., but that was not enough.

In my opinion she did not portray jobs as an emotional core issue. She did not seem to care enough about the topic.

She did seem to feel more intensely about other issues.

And, it may not have mattered because, most certainly, Carlos Danger having her emails on his laptop hurt her badly. She could not have seen that coming. I think that cost her the election.

Policy Speeches matter to me .Details matter to me..

At some point the electorate has to take a more vested interest in what Politicians say and hold them to account instead of being lazy - and take their civic responsibilities seriously. All the information was there for any inquiring mind.

"And it may not have mattered because, most certainly, Carlos Danger having her emails on his laptop hurt her badly. She could not have seen that coming. I think that cost her the election." -- yes, duplicate emails connected to a BS faux scandal into her use of the wrong server to send emails - that this would cost her the election tells me all I need to know about the sorry state of our politics.

I have not seen much change in my lifetime.

This race hasn't been any dirtier than Willie Horton, the Atom Bomb and little girl. Heck a "crazed rabbit" helped kill Pres. Carter's re-election.

Policy is important, but connecting with voters is more important.

Que the orange idiot.

but it still frustrates me. I'm a millennial, nothing I wanted analysed or challenged was discussed in great detail this year.

A whole year of total BS where I couldn't even rely on a sane media personality to engage forthrightly with the claims any of the candidates made.

And of course I couldn't rely on the the debates to enlighten me further because they were about zingers and presentation rather than a hardcore dissemination and dissection of the philosophies of the candidates. I had to hunt HRC speeches to get a sense of where she stood on issues, I also tortured myself watching Trump rallies, - he tapped into something disturbing and dark, that his obvious lies are so convincing to his followers scared the hell out of me.

The funny thing is I didn't even like HRC last year, not that I hated her - admittedly I was ignorant about her. At first I supported Sanders, became quickly frustrated with him, and took a second look at O'Malley ( who I like) and Clinton and ended up throwing my support behind HRC. I made the effort to understand all the candidates - from examining their views, track record, even reading biographies, I came away more informed. I wanted more this year and got - instead - a nauseating election cycle where a short fingered vulgarian was graded on a curve against a far more competent self aware candidate who sincerely wished to improve the lives of Americans.

So I'm still smarting, still bummed out.

Hang in there.

You think, you read, you listen, you try to understand. Our country, while I love it, is just not packed full of people like that. Those traits alone put you into a minority group.

I hope that we continue to try to understand why the Rust Belt changed significantly from Democratic Party to Republican during this election cycle. While there are "deplorables", it is unwise of us to cast PA, MI and WI in that bucket. These same people voted overwhelmingly for President Obama. We need to try to relate to the realities of all the people of the Democratic party, unite, then beat back the orange idiot!

Thanks for all your posts.

Even here, when Hillary supporters tried to talk about her record and how she and Sanders were similar on 90% of the issues, we got shouted down by people making it seem as though Clinton was the anti-christ compared to the saintly Sanders. For that matter, often Sanders supporters were shouted down by Clinton supporters as though Sanders was the anti-christ compared to the saintly Hillary. I think the key lies somewhere in how we talk to one another. Encouraging policy discussion rather than overheated rhetoric.

The Media gave absolutely no coverage of the issues. How are we supposed to talk about issues when it's all about emails and and tRumps short fingers?

Hillary Clinton did talk about issues, but they were never covered or talked about in the media. It was 24x7 tRump.

talking about policy that she had to revert to "go to HillaryClinton.com" just to get her message out.

It was 24/7 Trump ALL the time...and reporting on rumor as if it were true.

Was she sidelined in her ads too?

Plenty of her ads were about issues, though. I'm sorry you didn't see them.

Her ads were all about what he said. I don't think the media had creative control over her ads.

1. Give up on any strategy of appealing to rust belt men. Too many are out of reach for Dems, for many reasons (some of which were noted in the article).

2. Adopt a strategy of appealing to rust belt WOMEN; talk to those women about what Dems will provide for their children, themselves, and very importantly, the men in their lives (regardless of their support, or not).

We don't necessarily need the men, we can succeed with just the women (and if you get the women on board, a fair number of the men will likely follow).

Didn't work too well.

Working class white males are about as obtainable as Alabama at the moment.

We used to have a lot of white men on our side. Our losses with that group should concern every Democrat, and we should strive to learn why those losses happened....and do something about it.

We lost that demographic by:

1. Supporting disastrous trade policies and cozying up to Wall Street
2. Supporting ethnic and social diversity

We can change our approach to item #1, but do you really want to sell out on #2?

No, only political morons will not court white men and doing so doesn't mean shit for "supporting ethnic and social diversity"...really some of the dumbest and losing thinking that got is where we are now....

we have to choose one or the other when it comes to ethnic and social diversity vs. white (rural) voters. It`s a big, big mistake.

As an educated upper middle class white woman, I truly do not see it. Which is odd, considering the people you are speaking of are my family. If there's a path to them that I do not see, I'd like to know it.

I'm the opposite, an uneducated, lower class, 71-year old white woman. Many of the issues facing people of color are the same issues facing white people, especially in rural areas. I communicate with these folks (poor folks) every single day. Many, if not most, are Democrats at heart, but they're desperate for some way forward in their neighborhoods. I can't tell you how many times they commented on why there were so few Democratic leaders showing up in Flint, in Chicago, in Detroit, with the Standing Rock Sioux. They wondered why there were so many new bike paths and so few safe rural bridges.The list of what binds us is immense. The list of leaders willing to do that binding is not. We MUST reach out, as the saying goes, all for one and one for all.

However, if Drumph fails (and I fully expect him to fail in this regard) to bring blue collar jobs back to the Rust Belt states, the folks who voted for him are not going to be happy.

Dems have a LOT of fence mending to do from PA to WI, and not a lot of time to do it.

It's so damn simple, it really, really is. Most rural working class voters (unless they are super religious) do NOT care about all the same things the religious right care about. Most of them aren't really bigots either. They just resent the hell out of those sanctimonious city folk trying to tell them what they can/can't do, think, say, believe, etc. They want to live and let live. They are tired of people from urban areas trying to dictate to them how they are supposed to think, live, act, etc. They're over it. They just want a damn job that pays the bills, provides for their families and to be left the hell alone. That's really all it is. Those Obamacare rate hikes pissed them off. They wanted to know that Democrats hear their concerns and actually care instead of listen to party elites congratulate themselves on how smart and awesome they are. They want people to LISTEN and CARE.

Now were they foolish in their choice? Hell yeah, they were. Want to get them back? Stop focusing on things that come across as being controlling and focus on the goddamned jobs. They need to survive before they give two shits about anything else.

what controlling things have democrats been telling these people?

new regs on gas cans, wood stoves, pesticides, and vehicle emissions. ('new' being a relative term)

Wetlands regulations are also really unpopular. For some reason removing beaver dams has supposedly become a mess of red tape as well, rightfully or wrongfully blamed on environmentalists/democrats.

Gun control is spectacularly unpopular out here too.

The things that people in urban areas think are good for people usually feels like an infringement upon rural people. An example would be rules about foods in schools. Liberals tend to support healthier school lunches. Rural people HATE regulations that try to force things like that. Most kids just throw those foods away and go home hungry. For poor families sometimes the kids' biggest meal is what they get at school, so if regulations force the school to serve items kids won't eat then kids are hungry...and no, they won't eat something they hate just because they are hungry, they will not eat at all.

Guns in cities are more likely to be used in crime, so people like gun control. Guns in rural areas are used for hunting, sport and as a hobby to collect, so people don't like gun control that is designed for urban areas. Many liberal people are very anti-religion. A lot of rural people are quite devout and it's important to them.

Essentially, rural people are often treated as if they are idiots by liberals. As someone who grew up in a rural town as well as lived in both rural and urban areas I can say this is far too common. There is a two way disconnect and disrespect going on.

Though it might seem cruel to make them go through hunger to reach a point where they'll eat more healthily, it's a lot kinder in the long term than watching millions of kids suffer through the pains and reduced lifespan caused by obesity.

We have work to do to actually show results in rebuilding our country. If you don't have a job and see someone make $250,000 for a 30 minute speech to Wall Street fat cats, it can kind of make you not want to vote them.

I had a person holler at me during a voter registration drive that her kids are $80k in debt from college and Mrs. Clinton is squeezing these schools for a quarter million dollars for a half hour speech... while she may not have all her facts straight, the general perception for many people was that Mrs. Clinton and her brand of politics was part of the problem.

In restrospect, the university speeches were a bad call, given the honorariums. Just bad optics, regardless of whether she was right or wrong.

What he did was a million times more offensive to hard working blue collar workers. Clinton getting paid for giving speeches is a lot better than Trump hiring contractors and then refusing to pay them and essentially destroying their family businesses and ruining them financially.

If the best defence we have is 'the other side did it worse!' then we may as well just pack up and give in now.

And, as I've asked elsewhere, why did Portman kick Strickland's ass in Ohio if trade was such an important issue?

Trump didn't offer substantive positions and I don't think his supporters were sitting around having nuanced discussions about economic issues. Nothing Clinton could have said or done would have won over Trump voters.

She had to get more Hillary voters to go to the polls.

And if Clinton suffered some due to not turning out enough Democrats, I certainly don't think it had a thing to do with bathrooms. Irrational Clinton hate and voter suppression were bigger factors than bathrooms, I think it's fair to say.

But I think that higher turnout in a few key places (Detroit, Milwaukee, Philly) and we wouldn't be even having this conversation.

As I wrote elsewhere:

Of course Democrats need to do a better job of GOTV, fighting voter suppression, combating gerrymandering, and attempting to reach those who don't ever vote. Even small improvements in those areas would pay huge dividends.

In context:

I'm not sure why some object so strongly to the idea that at least 20-25% of eligible voters can't be reached by the Democratic Party without the Democratic Party abandoning its base. That seems like a pretty obvious point. Someone posted an article from the Rude Pundit that makes that point. It's made in a less colorful way in this piece: "On Rural America: Understanding Isn't The Problem."

Trump didn't put forth any substantive policy positions, and I don't think many of his supporters were sitting around having nuanced discussions about trade or any other issue. If trade was such an important issue, Rob Portman wouldn't have kicked Ted Strickland's ass in Ohio (I've yet to see anyone address this point). Also, the median income of Trump supporters is substantially higher than the median income of Clinton supporters. So, it isn't as if Trump was the candidate of choice among a majority of low income working class people.

No Democratic candidate for president has won the white vote since LBJ, and that's not because Republicans are the party of sound economic policy.

Of course Democrats need to do a better job of messaging, of making it clear that progressive politics is key to improving economic conditions.

Of course Democrats need to do a better job of GOTV, fighting voter suppression, combating gerrymandering, and attempting to reach those who don't ever vote. Even small improvements in those areas would pay huge dividends.

But the fact is racism, sexism, misogyny, heterosexism, xenophobia and Christian supremacy take precedence for tens of millions of voters. It's not that 100% of them are unreachable, but the time and effort necessary to undo the brainwashing is time and effort that can be spent in much more productive, efficient ways.

It'd be one thing if most people were working from a set of agreed-upon facts (which is even less the case in this age of 24/7 infotainment with media personalities who say it's not their job to fact check). There'd still be disagreement over causes for and appropriate responses to those facts. But millions of people flat out deny facts while subscribing to patently false beliefs. Presenting them with facts has a tendency to backfire, as studies have made clear. The false beliefs become more ingrained. That's true across the political spectrum, but it's a matter of scale. While most everyone will cling to at least some false beliefs, there are those who simply live in an alternate reality. If you want to dedicate time to pulling people out of that alternate reality, more power to you.

Trump appeared to get about the number of votes that Romney did (overgeneralizing of course)... while Clinton significantly under-performed Obama. I see three possible scenarios:

1 - Republican and Democratic bases' turnout was depressed but Trump earned new voters
2 - A not-insignificant number of previously Democratic voters decided that Trump was their guy
3 - Many previously Democratic voters were unwilling to show up and vote given their candidate options


1 & 2 seem far less likely to me.

Just as 35-40% turnout in midterm elections is pretty typical.

Sad as that is.

But I don't doubt that some who usually vote Dem didn't turn out. Again, I think irrational Clinton hate (developed over decades) and increased voter suppression (too few polling places, removing people from voter rolls, striking down provisions of the Voting Rights Act) were primary factors.

people who refuse to listen to any explanations longer than 3 syllables will not listen to real solutions to problems.

Repubs win the sloganeering battle every cycle. Take that OP linked article and boil every paragraph down into a 3 word slogan, then they will listen. Otherwise, their eyes glaze over and they zone out. Guess what, it can't really be done.

"A Job For Anyone Willing to Work"

Then the Rust Belt won't make a difference.

The jobs are never coming back and the government is powerless to make those jobs come back.

Yes, the government could embark on a new PWA initiative to put many people back to work. However, that will never happen with current Congress or anything resembling it.

As made very clear by this election.

No they don't.

You know, tRump made speeches himself and made gobs of money, plus he stiffed working folks just like those in the rust belt for work done, and I'm pretty sure that he'll really stiff the hell out of them when he doesn't give them any of those "fantastic" jobs back he was promising. All he has to do is tell them "The Dems want to take your guns away," and they'll fall for it AGAIN, even though they still have their guns and Pres. Obama is about to LEAVE office. Talk about gullible

I'm still trying to figure out how tRump was so appealing to them. First he said a Federal minimum wage was too high at $7.25. Then said maybe it should be a bit higher after Bernie/Hillary agreed upon a $15.00 Federal Minimum wage. THEN the con-man said we don't need a Federal Minimum wage at all. I guess those in the rust belt will be happy to work in right to work states working for what, $2.00 or $3.00 per hour? Yeah, that'll help 'em take care of their families AND try to pay for those Medical Savings Accounts or for some, those non-existent health insurance plans they won't have under tRump and Ryan whose premiums will continue to SOAR even with the Kenyan, Marxist Muslim OUT of office and with them controlling all 3 branches of government. Vouchers, how could I forget vouchers. Yeah, Vouchers and Medical Savings Accounts (with lifetime caps included) will be the answer for those needing health care in the rust belt.

But then again, they'll probably go to their fall back position and blame Pres. Obama per their president tRump's words, for what I KNOW will be the screw-job from hell he lays on them because he won't be able to bring those "gazillion" jobs back to the USA like he swore to God he would, because he'll be too busy grifting and stealing to fill HIS tRump brand coffers.

Why do you say the jobs aren't coming back? What sort of defeatism is that? It is one of the reasons that we lost to an orange idiot. Why would anyone vote for a party who has the tagline - "You are screwed, get over it."

Say you want to go capture some Chinese market share, here is what their political "party" government there does to support their people:

1. You will build your factory here (in China)
2. We (a Chinese entity, often state owned), will own 50% of it with you
3. You will transfer technology to this entity
4. You will abide by our regulations (such as access to software code for purposes of censorshp)
Then, you can get into our market until such time as we don't want you there anymore so we can boost our local version. See Facebook, Uber, Google and others on the tech side. The hard goods manufacturers have the same issues.

Forgetting China for the moment. Our government officials, of both parties, have been selling the American working family short for decades. Our government should work to balance trade among our trading partners. Instead, we have taken a hands off approach, mostly thanks to Wall Street lobbying, to seek ever cheaper labor, American workers be damned. Great for business owners, CEOs and campaign contributions, kind of sucks for everyone else.

Yes, if more of our products were built in the USA the price would be higher, but to a person without a job and with no income, to what degree does a low price matter?

We need to force business to repatriate and balance trade, we need to provide universal health care, we need to make education (not just college, but trades as well) affordable. Jobs, health, education.

We do these things, and be inclusive while we are doing it, and we will win many, many elections.

First, you're in denial about those jobs coming back. Nothing will bring back those old factory jobs. Nothing. See my third point for the reason. As such, we should not lie to those voters and tell them we can bring those jobs back. You can call my approach defeatism; but it is an honest one, unlike the dishonest approach you seemingly prefer.

Second, our economic model is nothing like China's. We're almost entirely capitalistic with government staying out of the business creation and management realms. China's economic system involves considerably more government involvement and control which permits that four step plan you outlined. That same approach would never fly or be allowed in this country unless we become an autocracy.

Third, trade is highly overstated when it comes to job losses. Even if we had the most protectionist trade policies imaginable, almost all of the lost jobs would have been lost to automation instead of offshoring. When a new factory is built in the US today, it is almost fully automated with human labor overseeing the automation. Nobody builds a factory nowadays that involves 100% human labor for everything. That ship sailed back in the 19th century. It certainly isn't viable in the 21st century.

I'm not talking about jobs from the 1800's or even the 1980's. I never said "old factory jobs". I very much do mean "new factory jobs".

It may only take 400 people to produce the steel of 4000 from the 1970s, but those 400 can be employed here and not in China.

An iPhone can be made here. Most of the assembly is pick and place robotic, but someone installs those robots, writes the code, repairs the bots, feeds the parts, builds the factory the robots go in, makes the parts that the robot assembles into something. Someone installs and keeps the AC running in the factory, someone feeds the factory power. There are many good jobs in and around a "robotic" factory. Look at Tesla. Heck, look at GM and Ford.

I am amazed at the number of people that buy into the "the jobs aren't coming back" defeatism. Maybe younger people that have never experienced a vibrant economy (not just a financial shenanigans Wall Street BS one) or that can comprehend a time when all the items they used in their daily lives were marked "made in USA"?

The US is hugely involved in our so called "capitalism". Ever hear of the ethanol mandate? Government involved just a bit? How about the tariffs on sugar, you may want to look those up. We have had tariffs over the many years of our founding and started the country as high tariff so as to start and then protect our industry. Since he is popular, go Google Alexander Hamilton and "tariffs". The issue has been going on a long time. (It was Alexander Hamilton on one side of the issue and Thomas Jefferson on the other). How about the government bailout of GM? The government told GM how the business would be run, even who would run it. How about the government involvement in finance. How about the involvement in renewable energy? How about the support of big pharma (Medicare part D and then the non-negotiation of drug prices). How about the creation and support of Space-X. Don't tell me China has a "different" type of government. You think our government isn't involved in the creation and sustaining of MIC industries like Lockheed or Boeing? Look up Ex/Im bank. Our government makes and breaks industries, for a variety of reasons, all the time and has for the past two hundred years.

In many ways our government is just like China's in that it takes care of the wealthy. And our loss of jobs has been all about the wealthy.

It is true that if I am a business owner or a CEO, that I can make more money by off-shoring. All I need is for the government to look the other way on balancing trade and I am home free. See, tariffs were in vogue in the US when it helped the business owners here. It protected us from European competition to help grow the factories here and make business owners more money on higher priced products. When this model changed and it was found that even more money could be made by off-shoring as a multi-national, that's when NAFTA, CAFTA, the TPP and the like started lining up. These bills were to help increase the profits of the business owners. They were never for the American worker. They specifically hollowed out America for the express intent of increasing multi-nation profits.

I am strongly suggesting that the US government use the powers it already uses every day, to support the voter and the American working family. It will cause some increase in priced goods, tariffs do that, but hey, the Fed is wanting to increase inflation anyway. We can at least put millions back to work and increase the tax roles at the same time.

China had about 100 million people directly involved in manufacturing in 2009: http://www.bls.gov/fls/china.htm#charts
Let's take 25 million or so of those and put them back where they came from. If the Democratic party pushed proposals and then turned to concrete actions that employed even five or ten million new people here, image how revolutionary that would be and how helpful for the people of our country.

We can do this. It is not smoke and mirrors.

Manage trade for the benefit of the American family, raise tariffs on imports, build it in the USA, put people to good works!

Why does it take an orange idiot to understand the power in offering solutions to this problem?

P.S. Let's also look at Germany. They have some ideas of a vibrant manufacturing society that we can also use to our benefit.

The answer is hard and cold and honest. We need to tell the truth. Those jobs are gone gone gone, bye bye. Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever, Ever coming back. They want high wages for jobs that are gone with no regulation and tax cuts on the corporation that shipped those jobs out or that killed them. They want coal jobs back at glorious rates of pay for a product that everybody knows is dirty as fuck. They want the 50's back without having to do ANYTHING to make that economic reality come to fruition besides oppress dark folks and women. They want the mad men days of 'grab us by the pussy!' back and for black lives matter to dissappear because blacks hve it much much better than they do in their imagination.

They live in a fantasy world. We have been saving them from something exactly like this for a long time. They wanted this guy. They got him. Time to watch them get exactly what they deserve so that they know for sure that they brought it on themselves. The only thing that will ever bring them to the democratic party is if the republican party gives them exactly what they asked for.

As Trump has said many times, black folks/hispanics, we have NOTHING TO LOSE, he says. I guess he will have to take the white folks money this time to let them know exactly who he is. And when this is all over, and the economy is shit and our world is looking down at us fucking idiotic americans, maybe they will be too damn embarassed next time to wear those red maga hats and vote for the dumbass from the golden tower.

As I said in post #22.

But there is more the Democratic Party can do to create majorities. Increasing their ranks of Blue Dog Dems is not the answer. Kowtowing to racists, sexists and xenophobes is not the answer. What would help? Less kowtowing to Wall Street, making a bigger stink about gerrymandering, combating voter suppression, making it clearer that progressive politics is key to improving economic conditions...and, yes, putting forth a candidate who hasn't been victimized by decades of irrational hate.

We need to run new people who EXCITE our base, and definately not people who have spent 30 plus years in office or in Washington in some capacity. We need candidates who are willing to go low and rhetorically punch these assholes in the guts and smack them with their failures, and never let up.

Since we are basically being given four years of ammunition to work with, I think we better pull and McConnell and make sure they get NO dem support for any policy they push and harass our senators and reps and force them to do as we say. Fuck working with this guy. We need to protest him and keep his approval rate low and make him act the fuck out in public until he hides in his potty room and locks himself in. Keep him from doing any damn lawmaking.

And in the meantime we need to scream and bray about WHERE ARE THE JOBS??????!!!! We need to put horror stories up on the teevee and web nightly to show how fucked we are with Trump. If we do him just like they did Obama he wont be able to handle it and might have a nervous breakdown, because he is thin skinned as fuck.

We lose because we are always so serious about the policy and integrity and all those things we should be about. Republicans aint one bit serious about shit but a slogan. If they get the policy they want they will be crying about how it's Obama's fault.

"making it clearer that progressive politics is key to improving economic conditions"

If all those jobs are gone "bye-bye"

Green industries (millions of jobs could be created), a universal basic income, a cap on earnings plus higher taxes on the wealthy, raise the cap on Social Security tax, equal pay for women, affordable child care, more parental leave, free or more affordable college/trade school education, a massive cut to so-called "defense" spending, etc.

There are many things that could and should be done, many of which Democrats have proposed. The Obama Administration just recently attempted to expand overtime eligibility, for instance, but a federal judge has blocked that attempt.

Democrats must find a way to engage the disengaged and do a better job of combating voter suppression. 40% of eligible voters don't vote in presidential elections and 60% don't vote in mid-term elections.

But attempting to persuade the likes of those who voted for Trump is a fool's errand...with a few exceptions, such as those who simply bought into the Clinton hate and likely would have voted for the Democratic candidate had Clinton not been that candidate. I don't think it's at all outrageous to say that 20-25% of eligible voters in the US simply can't be reached...not without engaging in the sort of racist, sexist, xenophobic rhetoric that appeals to that portion of voters--and doing so would only piss off the Democratic Party base.

The Fox News viewer who thinks Obama is a Muslim from Kenya or that Clinton worships Satan is living in an alternate reality. Fortunately, they can easily be outnumbered at the ballot box, especially with the country becoming increasingly diverse.

Only the hard, cold, honest truth will ever work.

VERY VERY VERY BAD ADVICE!!! You tell them what CAN be done, not what can't. Yours is a recipe to keep LOSING.


We CAN manufacture again. (It is being done is some places.) We CAN increase small farming. (It is being done in many places.) We CAN fix the infrastructure in rural America creating many jobs. We CAN increase wood products businesses. We CAN increase rural tourism. We CAN increase small tech startups and put broadband everywhere. There is a LOT we can do. TELL THEM THAT!!!

But not as many people are needed due to automation.

Clinton, Obama and other Dems promote infrastructure investment, Green industry development, tech entrepreneurship, etc. Meanwhile, Trump makes vague remarks such as "We're looking at jobs--big league jobs." Nothing Clinton could have said or done was going to win over Trump voters.

She lost due to voter suppression (the Shelby County v. Holder decision of 2013 was/is devastating), an irrational hatred of all things Clinton, a white backlash to racial progress, misogyny, xenophobia, FBI interference, etc.

It sure as hell wasn't because Trump was stronger on policy. He didn't offer any substantive policy positions. As Trump remarked, he could shoot someone in public in broad daylight and not lose a supporter. The truest thing he ever said.

Those PARTICULAR JOBS ARE FUCKING GONE WITH THE WIND. Stop telling them they can have them back. It's fucked up to lie to people like that. No. No company is going to pay a human good wages to do a job that can be AUTOMATED. No. The rest of your advice? HILLARY SAID ALL OF THAT A THOUSAND TIMES!!!!! They did not CARE. They want an easy answer of 'I'll make shit perfect again!'

“We know his goal is to make America great again. It’s on his hat. And we see it every time it’s on TV. Everything that he’s doing, there’s no doubt why he’s doing it: it’s to make America great again.”

That's the sort of thing we're dealing with. Along with the following:

1) http://www.alternet.org/story/148826/16_of_the_dumbest_things_americans_believe_--_and_the_right-wing_lies_behind_them

2) http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/you-think-you-knew-crazy-think-again-10-shockers-increasingly-unhinged-right

Along with the white backlash that always follows racial progress. Plus sexism and an irrational hatred for Clinton. Plus voter suppression.

Trump voters weren't going to vote for Clinton no matter what.

They have to feel the pain inflicted on them by Trump before they realize he was lying. Then they might STILL vote for him again. If we try to lure them in and ignore minority concerns to do so, the democrats can count me straight out of the party. I wont vote

They'll blame Democrats or the "liberal media" or multiculturalism or political correctness (i.e., human decency) or whatever they so choose.

Some will experience buyer's remorse and vote Dem in 2020, but those are the exceptions to the rule.

Trump is their revenge for all the pc and for Barack Obama. Not really about jobs at all

hate losing. I'm wondering now how we can get more of our side to vote. We're seriously lacking in that department, as reflected by the ass kickings we're getting at every level and every election.

Under tRump, her and other folks massive student loan debts will be given to private banks who want ALLLLL of that money back and at higher interests rates. They'll show NO mercy.

Gonna be next to impossible for her or anyone owing large student loan debt of to pay their student loan down/off per their incomes which is what Hillary was proposing.

Obama and co. weak stimulus programs and subsequent "shared sacrifice" proposals were simply either not enough or straight up insulting. I'm beginning to think that unless the Dem Party campaigns on a WPA-style jobs program for anyone willing to work, these crumbs like Obamacare are just going to piss off lower/middle-class Americans more.

It seems like a "radical" proposal now, but when the WPA was implemented it was considered not only a moderate stance, but perfectly pragmatic.

Often!

I live in Ohio and the so-called unfilled jobs are often low wage jobs...apprenticeships don't always lead to jobs...you have to have a manufacturing industry ...and any 'answer' that doesn't include that will fail. Also, retraining is a dirty word here because when the jobs were moved overseas either because of corporate greed or an attempt to be competitive in a trade environment that is grossly unfair to the US, re-training was offered and thousands have been retrained for jobs that never existed. While the state and some companies paid towards this effort, often, the unemployed person spent money too...and there is a great deal of bitterness...we still need autos, electronics, and lots of other things...we are not talking buggy whips here. Nor is robotics to blame as some claim...jobs were moved overseas to countries that engage in basically slave labor. If a country such as China, Japan, Mexico, Korea and even Europe (in particular France and Germany) do no allow our products to be sold there without demanding a plant in that country to make the goods...then a Tariff is in order.

Most who get re-trained aren't willing to re-locate, so that's another big problem.

New industries, particularly in alternative energy, need to be built. That's something both Obama and Clinton have spoken about, along with promoting tech entrepreneurship. Meanwhile, Trump speaks in very vague terms ("We're looking at jobs--big league jobs.&quot and hints at bringing jobs back from overseas, which is not going to happen (unless we completely do away with labor standards, the minimum wage, welfare and corporate taxes).

The notion that Trump's economic message is more accurate or more substantive is absurd. And Clinton did much better among those most hurt by the recession.

The reality is most Trump supporters aren't going to vote for a Democratic candidate no matter what. Racism, sexism, xenophobia, heterosexism and Christian supremacy take precedence for millions of people who live in an alternate reality. They cannot be reached. Dems will never achieve 100% support.

have been sent overseas...my son makes the Cruze in Lordstown Ohio...he is about to laid off...third shift going down...and coincidentally they just started shipping cars from Mexico to the US ...previously they only made autos for Mexico. Hubs worked for the autos for years...and my son does now...I have seen trade up close and it sucks. And what is to stop the greedy from shipping green jobs overseas? Hell, Hubs entire accounting department at his job was just shipped overseas. Trump's message resonated because jobs have been leaving for years and years...and we need them back or new ones to replace them. And if you tell people that the jobs won't be back...they will vote for the one who says.. they will. I voted for Hillary...she voted against CAFTA when she was in the Senate.

The "US doesn't make anything anymore" narrative is popular but false. Automation, though, means far fewer people are needed. And wages have been stagnant at best.

Clinton, Obama and other Dems have spoken at length about the need for new industries, tech entrepreneurship, etc. Their economic messaging is far more substantive and accurate than Trump's. Inherent in the "working class whites" narrative is the notion that working class POC don't care about economic issues, which is bogus. And it's the GOP that plays "identity politics." For millions of people, racism, sexism, xenophobia, heterosexism and Christian supremacy takes precedence over everything else.

...we do away with labor standards, the minimum wage, welfare and corporate taxes.

The US manufacturing scene is more complex than some realize. Here's a good article about it: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-output-has-doubled-in-three-decades-2016-03-28

Believe me, it is screwed up. I suggest you read this...and the manufacturing jobs like steel light and auto parts now pay $9.00 and hour. Trade not only takes jobs...it brings salaries down...rush to the bottom.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/29/news/economy/us-manufacturing-jobs/

The Rust Belt populace doesn't know it yet though.

get hurt before this is over

for Hillary, made that choice

Argument with daughter's friend. Mathematically impossible to carry the entire state with ONLY NYC. Found a map of election results. Besides Hillary carrying the suburbs of Nassau, Rockland, and Westchester, she also carried the Upstate Counties with the Big Cities of Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo.

and shit is worse than ever... You'd think the voters would put 2+2 together...

But racism, sexism, xenophobia, heterosexism and Christian supremacy takes precedence for tens of millions of people in the US.

There's a substantial portion of the electorate that the Democratic Party will never reach. That's always been the case, of course.

Clinton was victimized by decades of extreme hate. Not to mention voter suppression (thanks a lot, Shelby County v. Holder decision), a horrific ratings-focused media that promotes false equivalencies and doesn't believe fact-checking is important, and unprecedented FBI interference.

Sure, there are things the Clinton campaign could have done better (as always), but someone else putting forth the same message could have won. In other words, it wasn't the message as much as it was the messenger. But she still should have won. There's no excuse for supporting Trump.

It's not a matter of either/or. I don't think the Democrats should write off fighting for policy that will aid groups like transgender people. This can be formulated in the context of a broader political program aimed at the common good. The tendency to further conceptually disaggregate society into groups/identities may be unhelpful to winning political power. For instance, policies to safeguard the personal integrity of transgender people needn't take anything at all away from anyone else - such needn't be a win/lose proposition.

All these things were talked about ad infinitum by Democrats. Indeed, they are totally Democratic—not Republican—ideas. Did anyone besides me watch all the days of the Democratic convention, or listen to any of the stump speeches? Or listen to Obama over these past 8 years?

This article is bull poopy. If these are the things Democrats needed to say (which, again, by the way, they did), then are these the things that Republicans or Trump said to win the Rust Belt? Did they promise to strengthen unions (no, they want to dismantle them); did they promise to seek higher wages (no, they don't even support raising the minimum wage); did they speak about job training programs for the new economy (not that I ever heard). All Trump did was promise them to "make America great again" and stop shipping jobs off--fat chance with the steel-and-coal-dismantling new Commerce secretary he's chosen: he's the one who bought up and sold off all those industries to China and elsewhere.

I call foul on this essay. Transgender bathrooms were a Republican issue. Totally.

I wish I could tear my hair out. But why should I harm myself?