And, of course, Clinton got more votes than any white man ever got. But don't talk about that, because that reality doesn't fit the story being peddled.
Oh, and there was also an onslaugtht of fake news about her from Eastern Europe, Russian hacking DNC e-mails to help Donald Trump, and James Comey raising issues about her mishandling classified e-mails (based on nothing) about 10 days before Election Day. No wonder her strategy of turning out her base failed even though the same strategy worked for George W. Bush and Barach Obama. And she ran into the headwinds of an aggressive white supremacist or nationalist movement that was particularly aroused because of America electing a black man for president, not once but twice. But things I mentioned plus the electoral college which favors small rural states was enough to result in her losing even though she got almost 3 million more votes than her opponent.
I gave you a "like" for going away.
Hillary Clinton was done in by her own Nixonian paranoia. (She apparently learned nothing but admiration for Nixon while serving on the Democratic legal staff going after Nixon) That and her two-faced act of being "for the people" while soliciting like a high priced political prostitute with the Wall Street bankers sum up why nobody is weepig tears (except for the suckers who paid to bribe money to the Clinton Foundation in order gain influence over the presumptive first woman president. Good riddance to her and her pretend husbad.
It is a flawed assumption that Hillary's gender had anything to do with it. In fact it was her campaign strategy of calling Bernie and his supporters sexist that made many despise her, including many feminists. Hillary was a vacuous candidate with a history of bad decisions.
Hillary Clinton is a policy wonk who was running against somewone who ignored policy and ran a campaign based entirely on emotions, mostly fear and hate. She also defended democracy while running against a fascist. She also ran a campaign with a typical level of truth for a Democratic politician against someone whose campaign was based completely on lies. She also ran a campaign demonstrating detailed knowledge of the important issues facing the US against someone who demonstrated almost complete ignorance on every issue. Also, in a campaign in which the main issue was race she defended multiculturism while her opponent defended the white race. So why did she lose? Because the country chose an ignorant white racist fascist. Makes perfect sense, right?
A reason she lost is that voters saw the DNC's dirty tricks played to sabotage Bernie's campaign. That tended to seriously anger many of us who didn't want any part of such sleaze. We decided we would vote third party or not vote rather than vote for those scumbags. Not surprisingly, they are all still there, clinging to power and sinking the Democrats.
Even more disappointed bring is the apparent demoralization of the party base that continues. Listening to them furiously try to spin loss after loss in subsequent congressional and senate races as making up ground is disgusting. Trying to salve their mortal injury via explanations of closer and still closer losses is offensive. Until or unless someone in their party can express a purpose and reason for existing beyond being fascist-light, they are doomed to irrelevance!
The survival of the planet with clean water, land and air are more tangible, urgent and immediately recognizable purposes for existence that speaks to values besides money, money, money, money, corporate backers can give us more money eh, who needs them. Gutless wonders who could have imposed the simple majority rule when Obama was in power but who didn't have the guts! Honestly, who can get behind such milquetoast?! And recently they talk about shooting themselves in the foot the first chance they'd get by reinstalling he 60% majority. Who wants to be represented by self defeating losers like this?! Not I.
Many people here could see that Clinton was a doomed candidate from the start. 2008 was a message.Bernie Sanders gave her the play book for winning and she still lost????
Any half decent politician could have taken the Russian stuff and destroyed Trump with it.Show a commercial about who Putin is-killing people who oppose him-and ask how can Trump support this guy?????
But here is the real reason Clinton lost----she focused on Donald being a bad guy---everyone knows Donald is a bad guy------they needed to focus on why Trump was bad for workers----this was THE major theme against Romney in 2012-----And like Bernie she needed to offer some clear issues for average people.
And she never went to Wisconsin??????really
But the real issue here is that we have a totally corrupt political system----and the democrats are still very addicted to all this big money. This is Obama's big fail----he could have done something about this in 2009 but chose not to.
Trump could do the same thing but clearly won't----I don't think people understand the anger that will be unleashed when Trump supporters realize they have been played.
I agree with much of your assessment of the Dems but not so much with their motivation. Sure they make excuses for their losses but then that is politics. Why is it that the Dems seem unable or unwilling to form a solid block like the Repubs do to them? Why did Obama spend the first two years of his first term rehabilitating the Repubs in the name of some supposed bipartisanship ( the Repubs weren't actually interested in reciprocating ) so much so that the Repubs went from the pits after GW Bush/Cheney to gaining control yet again by Obama's second term whereby they stymied everything he supposedly tried to do!
How can any intelligent person believe in this stuff or accord them the respect a real opposition party would be due? The Dems seem to be the old guard cronies of the Repubs with the ordinary citizen and working person the losers. The Dems are both the safety valve for the elites and also serve as a stop gap in case the working class attempts to participate in this democracy.
Where we differ is that I believe that the Dems are the set in stone old guard who have arranged themselves so as to get enough campaign donations from the corporate elites sufficient to retain their seats election after election just as long as they do not really interfere with Republican legislation. The Dems say they protect Medicare and Soc Sec but to be honest ...I don't feel safe with them protecting those programs.
Is it really so well orchestrated that democracy is dying in America because the Dems appear to drain away strength rather than encourage it. Look at what they did to Bernie.
We need term limits in Congress is what because it is my belief that the majority of Dems do not really want to beat the Republicans at most things. The Dems just want always lose narrowly allowing the Repubs far more influence than is healthy for our country.
The Dems took Bernie away from us and ended up putting Trump in the WH. That is our Dems!
The reason Hillary lost is because the voters preferred Bernie and she was being forced on us. Nevertheless the game included the gerrymandered electoral college and so... the Dems narrowly lost even as she won the popular vote. That seems to happen to Dems a lot when you think about it. Odd huh?
With all due respect for Harvard's precise calculations of press coverage for Trump and Clinton being mostly negative...
...Harvard seems willing to avoid the elephant in the voting booth by skipping over the press' lack of coverage ( and what little there was was also negative) of Bernie's amazing popularity with the voters. When Harvard suggests that too much negative press coverage lessens respect for the candidates, one can only surmise that little or no coverage as endured by Bernie made that even worse! People aren't stupid just because they aren't among the wealthy elites.
The spirit of democracy was simply abandoned in this election and America is now paying the price. The elites didn't trust that voter choice democracy would select the correct leader and so we watched as our own democracy was subverted from within.
The only thing I'd add is that not since Dukakis (or the failed Oregon Senate candidate Tom Brurgere in 1996) have I seen a campaign more resistent to feedback.
In Clinton's case, readily available feedback that was knocking on their door and knocking them in the head for months on end.
From the sound of this book, it appears that arrogance was only one of several factors at work.
Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinham were really helpful in that regard, weren't they?
Your reply makes my argument that they are irrelevant even stronger. Losing suck! It is anti-American to want to be associated with losers. Thus the democrats have made themselves irrelevant and I, along with many of my fellow citizens have already abandoned this big group of losers! Independents aren't really independent. They are an unaffiliated groups of neo-fascists that don't like the republicans jumping to do their corporate masters' bidding, nor the willingness of the democrats to jump to their knees for a little corporate money. They have whored themselves out and thus are becoming more irrelevant with every election they "almost win!"
In a word: they are pathetic. No, scratch that, they are downright loathesome!
I think Independents are the big hope for this country in the next election. People are sick and tired of these corrupt but well entrenched politicians in both parties who it seems that we can never get out of office. Bernie could run as an independent next time but others may see that the time has come for Independents to be accorded the equivalent of a third party status.
An Independent Party would then become official very quickly allowing individuals to benefit from collective contributions if they are under the Independent Party umbrella.
I do agree with what you are saying
Obama had majorities in 2009---the big story of the day was that he was going to work with republicans-WHY?
The real goal of Obama in 2009 should have been to convince dem to get money out of politics-and even McCain might have supported Obama in this effort---and I mean putting a stop to the corruption of corporate money-not some little fixes-
Then break up the banks
Then go to healthcare for all
Then raise the min wage
If this had happened would democrats be in a minority ----no I think they would be in a large majority and the economy would be booming.
Obama blew a chance to be the FDR of our time.
Democrats know this-----but they choose money over the common people of this country.
Obama allowed the Repubs to regain power! It remains something of a taint rather than a real mystery as to why! Then again Obama appointed so many Bush/Cheney economic officials that it almost seemed that Obama was keeping up his end of the deal that allowed him to gain the office.
Apparently Goldman Sachs is now a permanent part our government btw.
I believe the story being peddled is that Clinton was incompetent for not beating one of the lowest approval rating Republicans in quite a while. What you say is true and completely irrelevant. She got more votes than Trump (48.2% to 46.1% according to Wikipedia), but that spread wasn't distributed enough in her favor to pull it off. Some presidents won with 60+%, others with 43%. And of course one of the few things that Trump says that makes any sense is that the popular vote doesn't matter anyway. But using total numbers instead of % - what is your point? We all know there has been a quite a bit (way too much if you ask me) of population growth in the US over the last 50 years
Thank you for taking your support for war of aggression somewhere else finally.