What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?

[Cheesy]

You need a dose of reality. Even with all the accusations HRC still won the popular vote. The DNC's job is to support a winnable candidate and they did just that. You cannot expect a party to pave the way for someone who wasn't even a democrat till recently.

Popular vote doesn't matter when the election isn't fully determined by who wins the popular vote.

Although I do think winnable candidates can come from either wing of the party; charisma's ultimately what matters. Bernie would've stood a better chance of beating Trump than Hilary, but then Obama would've also beaten Trump resoundingly. In spite of the fact he's fairly similar to Hilary ideologically, he was a much better speaker than her and that's largely what matters.

 

[Cal?]

I don't think that would have mattered to be honest. She alienated so many voters with her comments and arrogance.

Trump should never have won, feck me he stalked Hillary in the second debate. It was probably the most freaky thing I have ever seen and I've seen some freaky shit. He attacked a Gold Star Family, a Judge, etc........ The truth is Hillary lost the election Trump didn't win. BUT! It shows the USA up for all its serious flaws. They accepted a black President but resent and deny everything good he did, and pan him for everything else, but they were never, ever going to elect a woman. Until these core issues are sorted it doesn't matter who is elected really. Hopefully Trump will enlighten everyone and people will wake up and start trying to sort the internal problems in the country.

Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes. Those were such small margins in what turned out to be the key that she could easily have won them with a better campaign strategy.

There are 2 issues here.
One is what would have happened in a general election of B vs T.
The other is the primary.

The question is if he would have won the general. You have been saying he would not, but I am showing that there is no polling or other evidence for that. It's simple.

About what the party should have done and now should do--- it depends if they care more about fundraising and being comfortable with Silicon Valley/Wall St or if they prefer winning elections. If they want to win, they need a social-democratic message. And they need to take advantage of the fact that the country's most popular active politician wants to work with them.

The questions is he couldn't have got to the position to be in the election, by all accounts she won the primaries by pretty big margins, and unless you believe that the Dems should do away with primaries and just rely on head to head polls to select their candidate, any potential B v T matchup is just purely hypothetical.

Again, he retains his relatively high approval because there was very little mud slinging at him, no one knows how it would have turned out.

She was the wrong candidate to win the rust belt against an 'outsider'. She was too 'wall street' and Trump did a good job of pretending to be for the workers in those states.

As pointed out above, spending a fraction of what her campaign did trying to win a landslide in those 3 states could have turned the tide.

 

[Cal?]

Popular vote doesn't matter when the election isn't fully determined by who wins the popular vote.

Although I do think winnable candidates can come from either wing of the party; charisma's ultimately what matters. Bernie would've stood a better chance of beating Trump than Hilary, but then Obama would've also beaten Trump resoundingly. In spite of the fact he's fairly similar to Hilary ideologically, he was a much better speaker than her and that's largely what matters.

Hillary was a winnable candidate. Trump won 18 states by fewer than 250,000 votes; Hillary, 13.

Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, 0.2%, 0.7% and 0.8% (10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes). Are you sure a better strategy couldn't have made that less than 1% of difference in those 3 states?

 

[entropy]

Popular vote doesn't matter when the election isn't fully determined by who wins the popular vote.

Although I do think winnable candidates can come from either wing of the party; charisma's ultimately what matters. Bernie would've stood a better chance of beating Trump than Hilary, but then Obama would've also beaten Trump resoundingly. In spite of the fact he's fairly similar to Hilary ideologically, he was a much better speaker than her and that's largely what matters.

How did she win the popular vote though? surely, she isn't the right candidate and hated by everyone left, right and centre.

 

[Cheesy]

Hillary was a winnable candidate. Trump won 18 states by fewer than 250,000 votes; Hillary, 13.

Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, 0.2%, 0.7% and 0.8% (10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes). Are you sure a better strategy couldn't have made that less than 1% of difference in those 3 states?

She was a winnable candidate but I'm not sure it matters because she ultimately didn't win. Obama would've certainly won with far more comfort than she did. She was lacking in charisma and even if she was a winnable one was clearly a bit shit.

 

[Cheesy]

How did she win the popular vote though? surely, she isn't the right candidate and hated by everyone left, right and centre.

Obviously she wasn't hated by everyone but she ultimately didn't win in areas where it mattered. Which means, however broken the US system may be, that her winning the popular vote isn't that relevant; a candidate who could've hypothetically finished with a lesser percentage than her on the popular vote while still winning enough swing states to win the election would've clearly been a better one.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

The democrat stance seems to be:

"hillary lost because she was a woman."

"does that mean we can't talk about her warhawking, wall street loyalties and reluctance to make anything more than cosmetic change?"

"We can, of course, as long as you remember that the main reason you react so strongly to those positions is because they are held by a woman."

When has 'warhawking' and 'wall street loyalties' hurt any politician other than Hillary? They haven't and every politician from Trump to Obama to Bush had those same ties.

 

[Buchan]

How did she win the popular vote though?

Because she actively sought to win the popular vote by as large a margin possible, for some inexplicable reason, rather than try lock-down swing states which were still up for grabs. Brazile revealed as much: the Clinton campaign continued to pump millions into states she was winning by double-digits instead of intelligent campaigning for an electoral vote. For somebody who was the 'most qualified candidate ever', it was a monumental oversight.

 

[berbatrick]

You need a dose of reality. Even with all the accusations HRC still won the popular vote. The DNC's job is to support a winnable candidate and they did just that. You cannot expect a party to pave the way for someone who wasn't even a democrat till recently. Also, your use of lingo such as "most popular politician" is just pure cringe. Nobody even knew him till the last elections.

And yet now that they know him, he is the most popular one. I didn't expect the party to pave a way for Bernie in 2016 at all, and the level of unity in spiting him didn't come as a complete surprise either. But now they need to learn their lesson about what worked and didn't, and take advantage of this asset that they have who may not live for much longer.

About that dose of reality: the Democrats have lost a thousand seats at state and Congressional levels since Obama took power. They have never been this powerless since before FDR. Their strategy is not working. And all indications are that they are doubling down.

Their strategy seems to be to concede vast swathes and states to the Republicans (who themselves don't bother to moderate themselves or compromise, but start right and move further right). They concentrate on urban areas and on white-collar workers who economically benefit from the GOP but are perhaps repulsed by the bigotry. Now, their presidential nominee becomes the only hope to stop an overwhelming tide of both bigotry and right-wing laws, and, will, by the destiny of demographics, always win.

Clinton's loss, to the most unpopular candidate in history, has shown how dangerous that thinking is.

 

[Cal?]

She was a winnable candidate but I'm not sure it matters because she ultimately didn't win. Obama would've certainly won with far more comfort than she did. She was lacking in charisma and even if she was a winnable one was clearly a bit shit.

That's all very well, but on Nov 5, 2016, the Dems thought they'd have everything they wanted, their favored candidate in the White House, and most of the world thought it was a foregone conclusion.

It's all very well to claim she was a bit shit with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[entropy]

And yet now that they know him, he is the most popular one. I didn't expect the party to pave a way for Bernie in 2016 at all, and the level of unity in spiting him didn't come as a complete surprise either. But now they need to learn their lesson about what worked and didn't, and take advantage of this asset that they have who may not live for much longer.

About that dose of reality: the Democrats have lost a thousand seats at state and Congressional levels since Obama took power. They have never been this powerless since before FDR. Their strategy is not working. And all indications are that they are doubling down.

Their strategy seems to be to concede vast swathes and states to the Republicans (who themselves don't bother to moderate themselves or compromise, but start right and move further right). They concentrate on urban areas and on white-collar workers who economically benefit from the GOP but are perhaps repulsed by the bigotry. Now, their presidential nominee becomes the only hope to stop an overwhelming tide of both bigotry and right-wing laws, and, will, by the destiny of demographics, always win.

Clinton's loss, to the most unpopular candidate in history, has shown how dangerous that thinking is.

I think everyone is well aware of the mistakes that have been made. The only person out of the loop is Brazile with a cheap attempt to sell her upcoming book. The other issue is Bernie Bros unable to move on from the whole issue. Their insistence on blaming her at every turn and opportunity. Which goes back to the point several posters have already made in this thread, she wouldn't have had to face such backlash and vitriol had she been a male candidate.

 

[Cheesy]

That's all very well, but on Nov 5, 2016, the Dems thought they'd have everything they wanted, their favored candidate in the White House, and most of the world thought it was a foregone conclusion.

It's all very well to claim she was a bit shit with the benefit of hindsight.

It's hardly hindsight though when claims were regularly voiced during the campaign as to the suitability of her candidacy. Claims like suggesting the FBI's investigation into her wasn't exactly helping weren't new. Nor were claims that she couldn't connect with a lot of voters, or that she wasn't a particularly great or engaging speaker.

Obviously she was a winnable candidate, but any candidate should've been winnable against Trump. That's the baseline. The starting point. My general point was that more charismatic candidates, whether on the left or centre, would've beaten Trump. Which means I'm sort of agreeing with both you and berbatrick. The Dems should listen to voices on the left and should be willing to implement some of their workable ideas that can grab voters and present them with something new and interesting, but by the same token a relatively centrist candidate in 2020 should win comfortably if they're charismatic, likable, and don't have a lot of dirt on them.

 

[Cal?]

It's hardly hindsight though when claims were regularly voiced during the campaign as to the suitability of her candidacy. Claims like suggesting the FBI's investigation into her wasn't exactly helping weren't new. Nor were claims that she couldn't connect with a lot of voters, or that she wasn't a particularly great or engaging speaker.

Obviously she was a winnable candidate, but any candidate should've been winnable against Trump. That's the baseline. The starting point. My general point was that more charismatic candidates, whether on the left or centre, would've beaten Trump. Which means I'm sort of agreeing with both you and berbatrick. The Dems should listen to voices on the left and should be willing to implement some of their workable ideas that can grab voters and present them with something new and interesting, but by the same token a relatively centrist candidate in 2020 should win comfortably if they're charismatic, likable, and don't have a lot of dirt on them.

But the fact was that at the beginning of the race for the party nomination, everyone thought she had it in the bag and basically no one challenged her (except Bernie who's not really a Dem).

In fact, the biggest problem with the Dems right now is that they still have no one to take over, they desperately need someone to come out of nowhere like Obama did for 2008; if we end up with Bernie v Hillary again in 2020.

 

[berbatrick]

I think everyone is well aware of the mistakes that have been made. The only person out of the loop is Brazile with her cheap attempt at trying to sell her book.

Before Brazile's article, the latest news from the DNC was that it had removed Bernie supporters from all important sub-committees. Before that, the Obama put up Perez against Ellison explicitly to stop the left getting some minimal power within the party (even though many senators etc were ok with Elison). Party donors and PACs then attacked Ellison as a Nation-of-Islam supporter.
There has been no indication, other than from a few individuals on specific issues, that the party is even thinking about moving left to counter Trump.

 

[langster]

Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes. Those were such small margins in what turned out to be the key that she could easily have won them with a better campaign strategy.

Yes, but instead of looking at that, or how she won the popular vote you should be looking at why she lost, or how she lost. I get your love and admiration for her, but accept that half your party loved someone else and want different things, also accept that she turned many off. She didn't unify the party she did more to divide it. To be fair, as I said, Bernie just showed how un-Liberal the Dems really are. He's more like a European Liberal (Socialist UGH) and Hillary is more your typical US Democrat, but I think it's time to admit that the more the country grows and evolves that the more European style thinking is growing in your society.

 

[Cal?]

Yes, but instead of looking at that, or how she won the popular vote you should be looking at why she lost, or how she lost. I get your love and admiration for her, but accept that half your party loved someone else and want different things, also accept that she turned many off. She didn't unify the party she did more to divide it. To be fair, as I said, Bernie just showed how un-Liberal the Dems really are. He's more like a European Liberal (Socialist UGH) and Hillary is more your typical US Democrat, but I think it's time to admit that the more the country grows and evolves that the more European style thinking is growing in your society.

I'm not American, and I just happen to prefer the US being run by a centralist like Hillary than socialist like Bernie. Obviously both are preferable to a fascist like Trump.

 

[Cal?]

Before Brazile's article, the latest news from the DNC was that it had removed Bernie supporters from all important sub-committees. Before that, the Obama put up Perez against Ellison explicitly to stop the left getting some minimal power within the party (even though many senators etc were ok with Elison). Party donors and PACs then attacked Ellison as a Nation-of-Islam supporter.
There has been no indication, other than from a few individuals on specific issues, that the party is even thinking about moving left to counter Trump.

As the GOP goes further right, there's no need for the Dems to go further left...

The way Trump's approval rating is going, low 30s just 9 months in, possibly lower than Dubya by 2020, Hillary could well be able to win it with the "It's her turn" slogan they considered.

 

[berbatrick]

As the GOP goes further right, there's no need for the Dems to go further left...

The way Trump's approval rating is going, low 30s just 9 months in, possibly lower than Dubya by 2020, Hillary could well be able to win it with the "It's her turn" slogan they considered.

Good luck

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-not-popular-hillary-clinton-even-worse-approval-rating-polls-661070

 

[Cheesy]

But the fact was that at the beginning of the race for the party nomination, everyone thought she had it in the bag and basically no one challenged her (except Bernie who's not really a Dem).

In fact, the biggest problem with the Dems right now is that they still have no one to take over, they desperately need someone to come out of nowhere like Obama did for 2008; if we end up with Bernie v Hillary again in 2020.

Would be shocked if Hilary stood again 2020. I'd actually be kind of angry if she did because she already knows she's not overly well-liked and already having being beaten by Trump is a terrible starting point. Suppose newcomers often can emerge from nowhere.

 

[Cal?]

Good luck

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-not-popular-hillary-clinton-even-worse-approval-rating-polls-661070

In 2011, her approval rating was up in the 60s, 3 years before the election doesn't matter at all...

 

[Cheesy]

I'm not American, and I just happen to prefer the US being run by a centralist like Hillary than socialist like Bernie. Obviously both are preferable to a fascist like Trump.

Bernie's only really a 'socialist' in American terms. In general I'd say he's pretty much centre-left democratic socialism. He advocates a lot of socialist policy but that's a far-cry away from full-on, outright socialism.

 

[Cal?]

Would be shocked if Hilary stood again 2020. I'd actually be kind of angry if she did because she already knows she's not overly well-liked and already having being beaten by Trump is a terrible starting point. Suppose newcomers often can emerge from nowhere.

I doubt she'd do it again, the only way I can see it happening is if there's some definitive proof that she was cheated out of it in 2016.

 

[Cheesy]

I doubt she'd do it again, the only way I can see it happening is if there's some definitive proof that she was cheated out of it in 2016.

Even then I reckon that ship's sailed. She's just not a particularly good candidate.

 

[Cal?]

Bernie's only really a 'socialist' in American terms. In general I'd say he's pretty much centre-left democratic socialism. He advocates a lot of socialist policy but that's a far-cry away from full-on, outright socialism.

Of course, but I actually like her hawkish stance in terms of foreign policies.

Anyway, 2016 was so bad on so many levels for everything, best we just forget about it ever existed.

 

[Cal?]

Even then I reckon that ship's sailed. She's just not a particularly good candidate.

If there was proof that she was cheated out of it, it'd be the return of the heroine to claim her rightful destiny story...

Anyway, probably won't happen...

 

[langster]

I'm not American, and I just happen to prefer the US being run by a centralist like Hillary than socialist like Bernie. Obviously both are preferable to a fascist like Trump.

Ok, fair enough but Bernie isn't a Socialist and I find it infuriating that that is used as a label to beat him with. He just wants equality and fairness, he's really not a socialist.

 

[Ubik]

Ok, fair enough but Bernie isn't a Socialist and I find it infuriating that that is used as a label to beat him with. He just wants equality and fairness, he's really not a socialist.

Well, maybe if he'd stop describing himself as such

 

[Man of Leisure]

Bernie would've stood a better chance of beating Trump than Hilary

Really, really doubt this. Imo Hillary had by far the better chance of winning the general election between the two simply cos she falls more in the middle than Bernie. This is even taking into account that many Americans find her dislikable.

 

[Cal?]

Ok, fair enough but Bernie isn't a Socialist and I find it infuriating that that is used as a label to beat him with. He just wants equality and fairness, he's really not a socialist.

Errr... he calls himself a socialist, who am I do disagree.

 

[langster]

Well, maybe if he'd stop describing himself as such

He's a Communist according to the majority of the USA. He has Socialist policies and leanings but he's not a true Socialist. It wouldn't matter anyway, it's just it's a truly dirty word in the USA. Feck, just look at the way they treat anyone "Liberal" It's insane. I honestly think it's just down to how old and evolved the country is compared to the rest of the world. It's young comparatively really.

 

[Cal?]

He's a Communist according to the majority of the USA. He has Socialist policies and leanings but he's not a true Socialist. It wouldn't matter anyway, it's just it's a truly dirty word in the USA. Feck, just look at the way they treat anyone "Liberal" It's insane. I honestly think it's just down to how old and evolved the country is compared to the rest of the world. It's young comparatively really.

The US is such a strange country...

 

[berbatrick]

Well, maybe if he'd stop describing himself as such

The Bernie of Burlington was a Chomsky devotee and in 2016 he had a small sneaky provision in his platform about cooperatives. I wouldn't be surprised if he is around where Corbyn is in private, but he has mostly buried that side since he became a national figure.

 

[langster]

The US is such a strange country...

Yup, and interesting, and beautiful and amazing, and diverse and also confusing. One thing is for sure, it's not fecking boring, I just wish it had slightly less influence over the rest of the world. But, it's not the devil many make it out to be, I honestly believe its heart is in the right place and that with a bit of encouragement and the right leader it could be the force for good many think and see it to be. I honestly think Obama was a great leader and overall he did more good in the 8 years he had in charge.

 

[Cheesy]

Really, really doubt this. Imo Hillary had by far the better chance of winning the general election between the two simply cos she falls more in the middle than Bernie. This is even taking into account that many Americans find her dislikable.

Bernie was more popular though and would've stood a better chance in the Rust States that swung it for Trump. A lot of polls had him faring far better than Hilary.

 

[Cheesy]

Well, maybe if he'd stop describing himself as such

Aye, admittedly doesn't help in that regard.

 

[Cal?]

Yup, and interesting, and beautiful and amazing, and diverse and also confusing. One thing is for sure, it's not fecking boring, I just wish it had slightly less influence over the rest of the world. But, it's not the devil many make it out to be, I honestly believe its heart is in the right place and that with a bit of encouragement and the right leader it could be the force for good many think and see it to be. I honestly think Obama was a great leader and overall he did more good in the 8 years he had in charge.

Yea, agreed with all of that, this current Trump era is worrying, I made a point not to visit any red state when I was there a few months ago.

 

[Ubik]

The Bernie of Burlington was a Chomsky devotee and in 2016 he had a small sneaky provision in his platform about cooperatives. I wouldn't be surprised if he is around where Corbyn is in private, but he has mostly buried that side since he became a national figure.

I'd agree, you don't insist on being called a democratic socialist unless it's something close to your heart. But as you've long said, his platform was basically social democratic. I'm not sure he cares anything like as much about foreign policy as Corbyn does, but yeah on the domestic front he's probably there.

Bernie was more popular though and would've stood a better chance in the Rust States that swung it for Trump. A lot of polls had him faring far better than Hilary.

Yeah, he'd have done better there, I think. Would basically come down to holding Virginia.

 

[Cheesy]

Yeah, he'd have done better there, I think. Would basically come down to holding Virginia.

Probably. Of course, should be noted a campaign with Bernie involved could've seen different events, different smears etc so it'd have been far from a given, but I reckon he'd have coped better on the whole.

 

[berbatrick]

For people interested in how/why the Dems collapsed, this was written by a Dem party ex-worker:

 

[Wibble]

I strongly disagree with that. Had a friend talking about this the other day. Hilary had massive strategic weaknesses as a candidate that got swept under the rug.

1) Lack of Charisma
This is massively important. The famous study from the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate (radio listeners thought Nixon won, TV viewers overwhelmingly thought Kennedy won) showed how important charisma is in US Presidential elections. The more charismatic candidate has won every US Presidential election since then. You cannot win the US Presidency without being charismatic.
Obama vs. Romney/McCain = Obama more charismatic than both
Bush II vs. Kerry/Gore = Bush more charismatic than both
Bill Clinton vs. Dole = Bill more charismatic
Bill Clinton vs. Bush I and Perot = Bill more charisamtic

2) Hubris
Shown by her lack of campaigning and lack of even understanding the upper Midwest blue collar that went for Trump. Going with this is the Democrats have long relied too heavily on polling and not enough on focus groups despite Frank Luntz proving how much better focus groups are than polls. Also going with this one we can put her corruption of the DNC and overall Machiavellian nature of the Clintons and how her associates demonized young women that were supporting Bernie.

3) Personal Baggage
From a strategic point of view, I can't think of a worse candidate to run against Trump's misogyny because Hilary stood by and defended her husband who was guilty of many of the same things as Trump was accused of. She is literally a man of vigour and esteem. If it was a man in the same position (who stayed with and defended a wife who cheated and made him man of vigour and esteem while potentially using their position of power to take advantage of women) he would have been crucified by Trump and the Troll Right. Like it or not, the criticism of "grab her by the pussy" had zero traction in the election because Trump could easily flip it to, Bill Clinton did the same or worse and Hilary stood by his side and defended him.
Trump could not have flipped that issue on Elizabeth Warren.

4) Her Policies
That and her rhetoric did not invigorate her base as Trumps did. Pro-Iraq war, pro-Wall Street, her and Bill being the biggest supporters of private prisons and mass incarceration. She was simply out of line on most issues from the most passionate liberals.

There were more things but those are the major strategic weaknesses of HC as candidate.

So what? The alternative was Trump. Meat and 2 veg and she would have walked it.