Team Clinton: LOSERS...

[kalm]

Not surprising but still...wow. The Sanders people warned them, offered boots on the ground in the key battleground states that Bernie had done well in and that cost Clinton the election, and they were totally ignored.

And what kind of "liberal" politician needs a progressive outreach coordinator?

Interesting post-mortem on how to be less electable than a "ham sandwich".

“They fucking ignored us on all these [three] battleground states [while] we were sounding the alarm for months,” Nomiki Konst, a progressive activist and former Sanders surrogate who served on the 2016 Democratic National Committee platform committee, told The Daily Beast. “We kept saying to each other like, ‘What the fuck, why are they just blowing us off? They need these voters more than anybody.’”.............

“We were saying we are offering our help—nobody wanted [President] Donald Trump,” Konst continued, noting that the “Bernie world” side was offering Clinton’s team their plans—strategy memos, lists of hardened state organizers, timelines, data, the works—to win over certain voters in areas she ultimately lost but where Sanders had won during the primary.

“We were painting them a dire picture, and I couldn’t help but think they literally looked like they had no idea what was going on here,” she continued. “I remember their faces, it was like they had never fucking heard this stuff before. It’s what we had been screaming for the past 9 months… It’s like [they] forgot the basics of Politics 101.”.........

As the days and weeks flew by, the Bernie delegation kept underscoring TPP, jobs, union allies, the youth vote, and the environment, and pitched multiple rallies with Sanders in states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan (a state where Sanders unexpectedly beat Clinton in the Democratic primary, and a state that Clinton actively neglected during the general).

“The math that they lost on, is the math we won on,” Konst said. “So we wrote out a plan, and sent it to them, telling them to stop thinking you’re going to get this ‘Obama coalition,’ it’s not going to happen.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... tates.html

[Skjellyfetti]

After all the speculation that Trump was a Clinton plant...

... seems more like Clinton was throwing the match for Trump.

[Ivytalk]

Interesting piece! Nobody who ran Hildabeast's "campaign" should ever have a job in politics again.

And, Hillary, make me a (ham) sammy!

[houndawg]

Interesting piece! Nobody who ran Hildabeast's "campaign" should ever have a job in politics again.

And, Hillary, make me a (ham) sammy!

No shit! Stupid fvcks could have found everything they needed to know right here a coup[le of years ago.

[Ivytalk]

Interesting piece! Nobody who ran Hildabeast's "campaign" should ever have a job in politics again.

And, Hillary, make me a (ham) sammy!

No ****! Stupid fvcks could have found everything they needed to know right here a coup[le of years ago.

Well, Houndy, send the DNC your resume.

[houndawg]

No ****! Stupid fvcks could have found everything they needed to know right here a coup[le of years ago.

Well, Houndy, send the DNC your resume.

.... they don't want to hear the truth.

And I'm having too much fun gloating about the Jackson County Progressives kicking me off their site for telling them that HRC didn't have the independent vote.

how much should I charge when they come slinkyng back and want my advice?

[Ivytalk]

Well, Houndy, send the DNC your resume.

.... they don't want to hear the truth.

And I'm having too much fun gloating about the Jackson County Progressives kicking me off their site for telling them that HRC didn't have the independent vote.

how much should I charge when they come slinkyng back and want my advice?

As much as you can get.

[houndawg]

.... they don't want to hear the truth.

And I'm having too much fun gloating about the Jackson County Progressives kicking me off their site for telling them that HRC didn't have the independent vote.

how much should I charge when they come slinkyng back and want my advice?

As much as you can get.

By the hour or by the pearl of wisdom?

[kalm]

Interesting piece! Nobody who ran Hildabeast's "campaign" should ever have a job in politics again.

And, Hillary, make me a (ham) sammy!

I figured you'd enjoy it. So much for the invincible Clinton machine.

[kalm]

As much as you can get.

By the hour or by the pearl of wisdom?

[89Hen]

As much as you can get.

By the hour or by the pearl of wisdom?

Better take by the hour since you have plenty of those and few of the other.

[Ivytalk]

By the hour or by the pearl of wisdom?

Better take by the hour since you have plenty of those and few of the other.

Zing! 89, you've been on a roll this month!

[CID1990]

Hey Houndy how will you get all the working class whites to switch back to the Dems without burning a church or a cross or two?

[kalm]

Hey Houndy how will you get all the working class whites to switch back to the Dems without burning a church or a cross or two?

$15/hour baristas in Flint...

[JohnStOnge]

I've written about this before but the problem with narratives like this is that the exit polling shows them to be false. Take this statement:

“The math that they lost on, is the math we won on,”

No, that's not true. The math Clinton lost on was stuff like White Evangelical Christians supporting Trump to a greater extent than they supported G.W. Bush, McCain, or Romney. Clinton did better among people who thought the economy was the most important issue when Obama LOST among that group.

I don't know why people are so determined to keep believing this kind of thing when the exit polling shows that it's clearly not true. It wasn't because of trade deals. It wasn't because of the economy. It was probably much more because of "cultural" issues than it was because of economic issues. We can't get directly at that question because the exit polling did not ask questions to allow that. But when you see White Evangelical Christians voting by 80% to 16% for Trump when the best any of the three previous Republican candidates did among that group was 78% to 21% while remembering that the "Religious Right" has suffered a number of setbacks in the culture wars recently that should give you a hint as to what went on.

Again: it was not the economy. If you look at exit polling related to the question of the economy Clinton had the edge.

[Rob Iola]

I've written about this before but the problem with narratives like this is that the exit polling shows them to be false. Take this statement:

“The math that they lost on, is the math we won on,”

No, that's not true. The math Clinton lost on was stuff like White Evangelical Christians supporting Trump to a greater extent than they supported G.W. Bush, McCain, or Romney. Clinton did better among people who thought the economy was the most important issue when Romney LOST among that group.

I don't know why people are so determined to keep believing this kind of thing when the exit polling shows that it's clearly not true. It wasn't because of trade deals. It wasn't because of the economy. It was probably much more because of "cultural" issues than it was because of economic issues. We can't get directly at that question because the exit polling did not ask questions to allow that. But when you see White Evangelical Christians voting by 80% to 16% for Trump when the best any of the three previous Republican candidates did among that group was 78% to 21% while remembering that the "Religious Right" has suffered a number of setbacks in the culture wars recently that should give you a hint as to what went on.

Again: it was not the economy. If you look at exit polling related to the question of the economy Clinton had the edge.

It was the economy.

[kalm]

I've written about this before but the problem with narratives like this is that the exit polling shows them to be false. Take this statement:

“The math that they lost on, is the math we won on,”

No, that's not true. The math Clinton lost on was stuff like White Evangelical Christians supporting Trump to a greater extent than they supported G.W. Bush, McCain, or Romney. Clinton did better among people who thought the economy was the most important issue when Romney LOST among that group.

I don't know why people are so determined to keep believing this kind of thing when the exit polling shows that it's clearly not true. It wasn't because of trade deals. It wasn't because of the economy. It was probably much more because of "cultural" issues than it was because of economic issues. We can't get directly at that question because the exit polling did not ask questions to allow that. But when you see White Evangelical Christians voting by 80% to 16% for Trump when the best any of the three previous Republican candidates did among that group was 78% to 21% while remembering that the "Religious Right" has suffered a number of setbacks in the culture wars recently that should give you a hint as to what went on.

Again: it was not the economy. If you look at exit polling related to the question of the economy Clinton had the edge.

Evangelicals favored a pussy grabber over a center right establishment plutocrat.

Makes sense.

[Rob Iola]

I've written about this before but the problem with narratives like this is that the exit polling shows them to be false. Take this statement:



No, that's not true. The math Clinton lost on was stuff like White Evangelical Christians supporting Trump to a greater extent than they supported G.W. Bush, McCain, or Romney. Clinton did better among people who thought the economy was the most important issue when Romney LOST among that group.

I don't know why people are so determined to keep believing this kind of thing when the exit polling shows that it's clearly not true. It wasn't because of trade deals. It wasn't because of the economy. It was probably much more because of "cultural" issues than it was because of economic issues. We can't get directly at that question because the exit polling did not ask questions to allow that. But when you see White Evangelical Christians voting by 80% to 16% for Trump when the best any of the three previous Republican candidates did among that group was 78% to 21% while remembering that the "Religious Right" has suffered a number of setbacks in the culture wars recently that should give you a hint as to what went on.

Again: it was not the economy. If you look at exit polling related to the question of the economy Clinton had the edge.

Evangelicals favored a pussy grabber over a center right establishment plutocrat.

Makes sense.

80% to 78% doncha know...

[JohnStOnge]

80% to 78% doncha know...

Look at the margin. Clinton lost among White Evangelicals by 80% - 16% = 64 percentage points. Kerry and Romney each lost to their Democratic opponents among that group by 78% - 21% = 57 percentage points.

Trump ended up losing the popular vote to Clinton by 48.2% to 46.1%. If Evangelical Christians would have voted in the same percentages for Democrat and Republican as they did last time it'd have been Clinton winning the popular vote by about 50% to 45%. Is it POSSIBLE that Trump could've won the electoral vote losing the popular vote that badly? Yes. But I think it's VERY unlikely.

And I have to ask you the question I asked in the other thread on this subject: If it was the economy rather than social issues associated with White Evangelical Christians, why is it that Trump lost among people that are NOT White Evangelical Christians by 60% to 34%? Do you think people who are not White Evangelical Christians don't care about the economy?

Even if you just take Whites who are not Evangelical Christians, Trump lost among that group by 49% to 44%. If it was the economy rather than something related to being a White Evangelical Christian, why did that happen?

[Rob Iola]

80% to 78% doncha know...

Look at the margin. Clinton lost among White Evangelicals by 80% - 16% = 64 percentage points. Kerry and Romney each lost to their Democratic opponents among that group by 78% - 21% = 57 percentage points.

Trump ended up losing the popular vote to Clinton by 48.2% to 46.1%. If Evangelical Christians would have voted in the same percentages for Democrat and Republican as they did last time it'd have been Clinton winning the popular vote by about 50% to 45%. Is it POSSIBLE that Trump could've won the electoral vote losing the popular vote that badly? Yes. But I think it's VERY unlikely.

And I have to ask you the question I asked in the other thread on this subject: If it was the economy rather than social issues associated with White Evangelical Christians, why is it that Trump lost among people that are NOT White Evangelical Christians by 60% to 34%? Do you think people who are not White Evangelical Christians don't care about the economy?

Even if you just take Whites who are not Evangelical Christians, Trump lost among that group by 49% to 44%. If it was the economy rather than something related to being a White Evangelical Christian, why did that happen?

Because of the economy.

[houndawg]

Hey Houndy how will you get all the working class whites to switch back to the Dems without burning a church or a cross or two?

I don't want them "back to the Dems", they haven't been there in a long time anyway and I like their potential as third party members since most of them are independent voters that don't trust either main party. After the fvcking they're going to take for the next four years they should be open to economic arguments that in reality what is good for billionaires isn't really that great for the working class.

[Baldy]

Hey Houndy how will you get all the working class whites to switch back to the Dems without burning a church or a cross or two?

I don't want them "back to the Dems", they haven't been there in a long time anyway and I like their potential as third party members since most of them are independent voters that don't trust either main party. After the fvcking they're going to take for the next four years they should be open to economic arguments that in reality what is good for billionaires isn't really that great for the working class.

The next four will seem like Christmas compared to what they've been through the past eight years.

[Ibanez]

Interesting piece! Nobody who ran Hildabeast's "campaign" should ever have a job in politics again.

And, Hillary, make me a (ham) sammy!

Seriously, her team was so inept/arrogant. They didn't lose because of Putin or Comey. They lost because they failed to campaign to all Americans. That's evident when you look at her votes: She lost to Drumpf by millions of votes in states not named New York and California.

[kalm]

Interesting piece! Nobody who ran Hildabeast's "campaign" should ever have a job in politics again.

And, Hillary, make me a (ham) sammy!

Seriously, her team was so inept/arrogant. They didn't lose because of Putin or Comey. They lost because they failed to campaign to all Americans. That's evident when you look at her votes: She lost to Drumpf by millions of votes in states not named New York and California.

I get what you're saying, but Clinton lost Michigan by only 10,000 votes.

[Ibanez]

Seriously, her team was so inept/arrogant. They didn't lose because of Putin or Comey. They lost because they failed to campaign to all Americans. That's evident when you look at her votes: She lost to Drumpf by millions of votes in states not named New York and California.

I get what you're saying, but Clinton lost Michigan by only 10,000 votes.

And she ran up the score in NY and CA. She should've spent more time with avg Americans and Bernie supporters.