How could this have happened?

    That's easy.   Bernie ran and Hillary lost.Take Pennsylvania for example


                                            PA      Election results in thousands

           l                         Primary                   General Election                                                                      Bernie    Hillary               Trump      Hillary      Stein                Electoral                                                                                                      


          20           732        935                    2912           2844        48 


    Clearly  some number of Bernie's primary voters switched to Trump in the general.And to Stein or other minor candidates.  We've heard them or read about them.


    And some stayed home. In some cases due to their disappointment because of the primary loss itself- If it hadn't been for that they'd have

    voted for Hill.  In particular some college students decided not to bother.

    Just to scope it let's take that the actual  Pennsylvania results and assume those various categories looked something like this

                                                                                         Trump       Hill

                                  Votes in the actual election ...................... 2912      2844

    Change if the Bernie/Hill contest hadn't taken place*

    Stein voters who would have voted for Hill                                  +    5 Trump voters who would have voted for Hill                 (   15 )       +15   Stay at home voters who abstained because of the primary

            o previously  pro Hillary turned against her                              +  20

         o potential new voters who decided not to vote                        +  20

    What might have been                                                     2897      2904  

                                                                                                                                             Trump  Hillary​Changing the electoral college  from                                 306       232

                                                                                   to         286       252

    *Or insert your own numbers

    Now let's talk about Michigan and Wisconsin..........


    Am I saying that Bernie shouldn't have run? No. 

    And absolutely not criticizing his efforts in the  General Election. 

    Just saying that the predictable result of a contested primary is to help the other party. Certainly there are benefits like raising issues etc..And some not so beneficial  results in causing some of the losing side to stay home........... and write brilliantly to  Dagblog. Causing others to stay home. Or vote for Trump.

    We're the ones who failed to do our job of accepting that his loss was

    part of the process and our part was to keep our eye on the prize .

    Maybe  the next time.................................



                  Sunday -updated to fix the typography FL   






    Your numbers are  a bit outdated, in the end a difference of only 44,000 votes. Johnson took 3 x as many as Stein.



    Clinton 2,926,441  47.85%

    Trump  2,970,733  48.58%  

    Johnson 146,715  2.40%  

    Stein         49,941  0.82%

    Other         21,572  0.35%

    Trump is a liar. The voting public knew that he is a liar and still voted for him. He lied about having data on Obama's birth. He is a Russian puppet. His wife stole Michelle Obama's speech. His campaign put out a picture to show a large crowd at the inauguration. The picture was from Obama's 2009 inauguration. Trump's administration put out a picture of him writing his inauguration speech. The speech was written by Bannon.

    Voters willing to ignore the facts. This was a temper tantrum against a black President who actually rescued the economy.The voting public willingly accepted lies.

    The expert businessman with a history of stiffing workers and multiple bankruptcies has completely botched the transition. Huge numbers of positions are unfilled. He said he would really start work on Monday. This was predictable.

    Check the report on his visit to CIA today. In front of the Wall of the Fallen it was all 'me me me me and me in 3rd person, along with lying about the weather and crowd size at the inauguration, saying he is at war with lying media and saying “They say, ‘Is Donald Trump an intellectual?’ Trust me. I’m, like, a smart person.” From link:

    Trump LIED standing in front of that wall of stars which goes to show you he will LIE about anything, anywhere, and anybody. He is a clear and present danger to this country....Any senior analysts present must have been thinking "Holy S**T. This guy is nuts. He's going to get us all killed." 
    And then he goes on to say "We should have kept the oil....maybe we'll have another chance." 

    It was clear that Trump is crazy. Many whites saw this. Most blacks, Latinos, Gays, and Asians saw this as truth. People of good conscience must bond together. If blacks and Latinos voted for Trump out of frustration over lack of progress, you had better believe that those communities would have been criticized. There is an attempt to excuse the behavior of white voters who selected Trump. The excuses range from they were duped by Fox or they were economically distressed. Black and Latino were more devastated by the housing collapse than whites. The reason I keep coming back to race is that the solution to the voting patterns have to take race into consideration. We have to work on increasing black and Latino turnout. We have to figure out why white women went for the pussy grabber. We have to be realistic to prevent a repeat of the election of Donald Trump.

    Trump is obviously suffering from a serious mental condition superimposed on delusions of grandeur and perfection.

    Fortunately Mattis at DOD, the "you get more with a beer and a cigarette than with waterboarding" is already confirmed and hopefully can prevent a Trump initiated military disaster.

    The White House team belongs at Infowars conspiracy desk, marching with Illinois nazis, or in a mental hospital with Trump, where they would claim "we are not crazy, the doctors are".

    Trump has pissed off women, blacks, Latinos, and Muslims. The crowd at the Women's march in D.C. dwarfed the turnout for Trump's inauguration. Trump has no mandate, but he is delusional so he will attempt to be a dictator.

    The Donald Trump era is going to bring a relentless, almost pitiless barrage of corruption, controversy and jaw-dropping surreality. It's going to be a deluge, a 24/7 gangbang of incompetence and scandal that's so massive that it at all times threatens to overwhelm anyone trying to keep track of it. There's an argument to make that that's by design -- because Trump knows that if malfeasance is constant and omnipresent, it'll be impossible for anyone to grab on to any one scandal for any length of time to the point where it will do real damage to the administration. We'll simply become inured to the madness and he'll get away with all of it. 

    Good lunk, good summarization - was what I implied with Fuck Da Noize.

    I agree with all the above, how not. But I continue to harp on one other point. We did this to ourselves. .

    It's possible ,just, to have a contested primary and still win the general election. If the candidates, like Hillary and  Obama in 2008, and Bernie and Hillary in 2016 behave professionally. Even then it's a tough slog for their supporters to get over it and vote sensibly in the fall.But they can, as Hal did .

    What was fatal in our chances this year  was the "Red Queen" nonsense. Those who were Hillary  haters first and Bernie supporters a very distant second.

    Hillary got more votes than Trump. Most voters rejected the "Red Queen" nonsense. Trump voters made excuses for electing a liar, misogynist, and racist. On "Meet the Press" today, Kellyanne Conway was trying to explain the lies Sean Spicer told at the bizarre preset yesterday that implied the media lied about the low crowd turnout for the inauguration by stating that there were "alternative facts". Chuck Todd pointed out that alternative facts were lies.

    Trump voters know that Trump is a liar. They don't care. The blame for Trump's election lies squarely on the shoulders of the people who cast votes for him. People knew there would be an assault on women, blacks, Latinos, LGBT, and Muslims. Trump voters are xenophobes. They will continue to support assaults on others. They are no different than the people who fled the Democratic Party after LBJ signed the Civil Rights bills. There were a lot of young people at the marches yesterday, I think they may be encouraged to stay engaged for the 2018 midterms. 

    Edit to add:

    Link to Spicer presser

    Link to Kellyanne alternative facts

    2nd Edit to add:

    Even the wingnut "Weekly Standard" points out that Sean Spicer lied at the press conference. They also acknowledge that Spicer lied to them before

    3rd Edit to add:

    The WSJ knows Trump and Spicer lied

    4th Edit to Add:

    ABC and even Fox News' Chris Wallace question Trump's honesty

    The march yesterday began with a whites only leadership. The women responded to complaints about the lack of diversity and minorities came into leadership positions. Progressives can adapt. Conservatives cannot break from the herd mentality and survive in the Trump era. Trump calls those who did not vote for him his enemies. Trump does not mince words. We are at war with the Trumpsters, not the Bernie Bros.

    The Democrats will forever by split between its centrist and leftist factions. Hillary largely overcame that, provided a mostly unified front that seemed to congeal by the end of the debates, despite the illegal hacking of Podesta's mail and the steady drip drip drip of material by Wikileaks. What she couldn't overcome feels more the more evil influence of the FBI's explosive charges.

    I'm not tremendously thrilled with the dragging things out after the primaries with significant grousing and being prey for the usual canards, but for the most part Bernie supporters *did* join the effort.

    Some like Sarandon played up the Hillary health scares, the indictment fears (hopes), the "not voting my uterus/any woman but that woman", and the "Trump would be better" meme, but she was overall in the tiny minority and pretty well got herself labeled as much of a nut as Jill Stein due to her efforts. Systematic voter suppression in a dozen states or more probably had much more effect *AND* goes against our system and stated values. Reading crazy pamphlets and listening to unsubstantiated rumors and then voting your gut reaction *IS* acceptable and constitutionally-defended voter behavior, however much we might disagree with their interpretation of things.

    So let's focus on trying to reverse the use of illegal means, as well as coming up more positive, encouraging strategies to keep potential Dem voters enthusiastic about our ideas. I still suspect 1-2 of every 5 Jill Stein or Gary Johnson voters could have been brought into the fold with some clever, focused, encouraging messaging.

    For example, I can explain Hillary's speeches in terms of how many paid and unpaid (with the large majority to more socially aware groups), who she represented, the need to maintain ties to the financial sector *especially* if we want them to pay for new social programs, plus given Finance, Insurance & Real Estate (FIRE) make up a roughly 7% chunk of GDP and while reining them in, we still need to understand core needs as affects them, the economy *AND* consumers.

    But I never heard Hillary put this to rest in any such reasonable and understandable (to me) terms. Much as I support her, she didn't always make the best spokeswoman for herself.

    Then there is the media, whose problems are partly about conservative ownership, part about turning runaways into horse races and presenting things according to best profit rather than truth, part about picking winners and letting industry immaturity hold sway, and then some of Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns and partly-known unknowns.

    Yeah Hillary could have handled some things better. But she was a respectable candidate who ran a good enough race.

    Mostly my object  was to harp on my belief  there's a serious downside to a seriously  contested primary..

    Not the" cattle calls" the Republican's had this year But an extended two person duel like Hillary v Bernie costs votes even when the principals behave correctly. As they did.



    Yes, Bradley cost Gore votes. Jerry Brown cost Bill Clinton votes. Ted Kennedy cost Jimmy Carter votes. Carter and Humphrey and John Connally cost McGovern votes. (though I doubt Hillary cost Obama many votes). What to do?

    Besides the concentration of Democratic voters on the coasts, the biggest problem as I have pointed out was the Democratic standard-bearer.  Had her supporters acknowledged her obvious weaknesses and made the point that, as bad as she is, Trump is worse, they might have had a chance to persuade those who, with good reason, found her wholly unacceptable.  By insisting against all the evidence that Clinton 1) didn't violate federal rules with her email setup, 2) wasn't a neo-con, 3) didn't side with private prison operators against blacks and investment banks against ordinary Americans, 4) wasn't secretive and shifty, they lost all credibility.   When they try to blame the honest pro-worker candidate and his backers, Clinton's die-hards only make it easier for right-wingers to stay in complete control.

    How come he only released 1 year of taxes, Hal? Anything to do with his wife's college's bankruptcy?

    How come his team got caught sifting through the opponent's database and downloading stuff?

    She has 25 years of tax returns sitting out there to sift through. They've combed through her polyps so hard they look like grated cheese, and you wonder why she might be a bit shy to take bait?

    Now your "neocon" bullshit is just once again trying to poke the bear - what exactly is your trip? No. she. is. not.

    Once again you traipse up and demand that people should accept your biased and annoying framing of the world in order to get anywhere.

    Hal, your guy lost. If you'd put half the energy into defeating Trump as you do trying to piss us off around here, you could have carried Pennsylvania all by your lonesome.

    Bernie's failure to release more than 1 year of his tax returns was a major problem and I have said so at this website.  Had he somehow gotten the nomination, he needed to address it by releasing at least 5-10 years of returns before the convention or risk losing the ability to wield a very powerful issue against Trump, namely Trump's failure to release his tax returns.  This is because Democrats have to be better than Republicans to win election and it's certainly plausible to believe that there was something in those returns that might have hurt Sanders just as there were almost certainly many things in Trump's returns and Clinton's G-S speeches that would have hurt them.

    If you believe anything I wrote is false, inaccurate or even misleading, please quote me and then provide the specific evidence that you believe shows that I am wrong.  I promise to do my utmost to consider your arguments seriously and to acknowledge error if indeed I am wrong as I have acknowledged mistakes in the past. 

    You state she's not a neocon without any evidence to back up that assertion.  As you know, I and many others have documented specific areas where she has promoted the idea of American exceptionalism, defended America's involvement in disastrous overseas military adventures, and refused to acknowledge the tremendous harm these have done.  That makes her, in my book, a neocon.  If you want to claim otherwise, explain away her 1) vote for war with Iraq, 2) support for deposing Gaddafi after he no longer posed any threat to East Libya, 3) ignoring Iran's overtures for peace, 4), calling for a "no-fly" zone over Syria, and 5) asking if we have the courage to take our relationship with Israel "to the next level".

    If you want Democrats to start winning elections, back the pro-worker candidate in every election going forward.

    I and others did express our opinions on why we didn't see Hillary as a neocon. We did talk about our views on her vote on the Iraq resolution. We talked about Lybia etc. We linked what we considered as good evidence to support our opinions. We just didn't agree with you so you never saw any of it as valid or more to the point, you never saw any of it at all. We could relitigate all those issues on this thread and next month you'd tell us we didn't do it and expect us to do it again.

    Sanders lost and he lost badly, by a large margin. With all Hillary's flaws and weaknesses she easily defeated Sanders. In fact with all those flaws and weaknesses she fought Obama to a dead heat. Sanders didn't even approach Hillary's virtual tie against Obama. You need to ask yourself what you want/should do in a democratic party that doesn't want someone like Sanders to be the presidential nominee. Remember that Hillary did better than many state progressive candidates, like Finegold.

    Yes you did.  You provided a bunch of unconvincing excuses for her Iraq War vote.  You claimed it wasn't a vote for war but it was.  You claimed W fooled her but you never explained why she didn't support hearings into the run-up to the war if her vote was obtained by his chicanery.  You claimed regarding Libya that she was trying to save the people of Benghazi even though any threat to that city's residents had been eliminated for months before the NATO planes finally caught up with Gaddafi.  You insisted that she didn't violate the Federal Records Act and cited sources that didn't say anything like what you said they said.  Worst of all, even after she lost the general election to a crass crude reckless orangutan, you still lash out at Bernie.

    You're the one who keeps lashing out at Hillary. For me the primary was over months ago. Anyone who can do math knew it was clearly over months before Sanders decided to admit it was over. Even after the general election you're still nursing your hurt butt that by a large majority the democrats didn't want Sanders to be the nominee. Maybe you need to consider that the democratic party is not where you want to be. I stand by every post I made here your distorted interpretation of them not with standing. What you've never been able to understand is that no matter how much you believe your opinions that doesn't make them facts.

    personal side note to ocean-kat: I sure am glad I had to miss all of this, reminds me of painful Obamamania at TPMCafe in 2008.wink agin

    I don't understand this pound of flesh you are so keen upon receiving from Clinton supporters.

    As someone who was not sold on either Clinton or Sanders, I don't see the point in arguing who could have won the General Election if things had been different.

    You putting the result on Clinton "die-hards" is not an advance on the Flavius argument that the division in the Democratic Party led to the Trump ascension. On the contrary, you are confirming his result by playing the same song backwards.

    At this point, I don't think it matters. All those distinctions and might have beens have just been overtaken by a sharp intrusion of the real.

    The most recent election is over but many more are sure to come.  If you want, as I do, leaders who put the poor, working, and middle-class Americans first and who are pro-environment and civil rights, Democrats must stop nominating neo-lib/neo-cons.  Those who pretend that Clinton was a fine candidate who was undermined by progressives are making it far more likely we will continue to nominate bad candidates who may well lose and, if they win, will set back the movement for justice and the Democratic party as Bill Clinton did in a number of important ways.

    With respect to Flavius's claim that Bernie's candidacy hurt Clinton, of course the flip side of that is that Clinton's hurt Bernie.  Thus MOAT's argument leads to the inexorable conclusion that since Bernie was the better general election candidate, Clinton should have withdrawn early on to pave the way for the stronger Democrat.


    Errata: The final sentence should have read: "Thus Flavius's argument . . . "

    Thus MOAT's argument leads to the inexorable conclusion that since Bernie was the better general election candidate, Clinton should have withdrawn early on to pave the way for the stronger Democrat.

    And 1.5 million people attended Trump's inauguration.

    That sort of thing.

    I understand your politics. I see what you would like to see happen in the Democratic Party in the future. I agree with some of your vision (assuming, for the moment, that I understand it)  but not all of it.

    But what possible value can be extracted from getting other people to agree with you that there are people "who pretend that Clinton was a fine candidate" when they "knew" better? The "pretending" part makes it all mushy and subjective and weird.You do not strengthen your point of view by attempting to undercut your interlocutors by pointing to how they do not believe what they are saying. Who has time for that kind of thing in their own lives?

    Why don't we start by stating what we think is true and leave the motivations for such to each of ourselves to decide?

    MOAT - do you really think that most of Clinton's supporters didn't see her flaws?  How could they have missed them?

    Are you proposing that people who supported Clinton knew that she was "flawed" and voted for her anyway?
    Or, saw both good and bad qualities and chose her as the lesser of other deficiencies demonstrated by other candidates?

    Both.  But her supporters never or almost never - as far as I ever saw - acknowledged her "flaws" or her "bad qualities."  This was a problem because Clinton's record suggested strongly she would involve us in more misguided overseas military adventures and would leave the financial sector in control of the economy.  In order to attract progressives, those who supported Clinton needed to reach out with the promise that they recognized her moral blind spots and would stand with progressives against her when she did bad things like promoting job-destroying trade pacts.

    This keeps coming to mind and so I am just putting it here for consideration.  The first part of Trump's speech had much that could have been plagiarized from one of Sander's speeches. During that early part there was much enthusiastic applause after many statements. After that, and as he went into crazy rule-the-world and solve-all-problems-instantly craziness  there were long ish pauses before the crowd realized it was supposed to be a break for cheers and so gave some lackluster applause. It may be a clue as to where enough swing votes to win an election might be found if delivered by a believable Democratic candidate.

    It is tempting to engage with your statement as items to be discussed but my question was about motivation.
    You proposed that people were pretending to support Clinton against their own better understanding. Or did I get that wrong by pointing out that you said that there are people saying they pretended to support her?
    The simpler explanation for what you observe is that a number of people do not agree with your versions of history.
    You want it both ways: Accept my version of history but if you do not: Explain why I think what I do to me.


    I didn't write that Clinton's supporters voted for her against their own better understanding.  I wrote and believe that by refusing to acknowledge her very serious shortcomings, her staunch supporters had little credibility when trying to persuade fence sitters to vote for her rather than to stay home or to vote for a third-party candidate.

    You wrote that her supporters pretended something they could not really believe or support as a matter of fact.
    Those are your words.

    Edit to add:

    Those were your words before the discussion unfolded and you edited your comment.

    Wow. So it is like that.

    Those were not my words and they never were my words.  I did not edit out anything like that.  I did write the following and it is still in this thread:

    "Those who pretend that Clinton was a fine candidate who was undermined by progressives are making it far more likely we will continue to nominate bad candidates who may well lose and, if they win, will set back the movement for justice and the Democratic party as Bill Clinton did in a number of important ways."

    That sentence is written in the present tense as a criticism of those who now, after Clinton lost disastrously, still "pretend" she was a "fine candidate".  By definition, she could not possibly have been a fine candidate since she lost to the most unpopular candidate ever.  Yet people still claim she was.  That's what I was referring to.

    Trump is a Clusterf**k elected by racists and women-haters. We need to encourage non-racists to vote. Many were under the impression that Hillary had the election in the bag and didn't bother to vote. Hillary was the best choice. The racists let their bigotry override their brains. White women and Evangelicals voted for a misogynist and faux-Christian. Women voted against their own self-interests because they succumbed to the pressure of male supremacy. In 2018, we need to insure that minorities and young women vote. Hillary was a fine candidate. Hubert Humphrey was a fine candidate. Racists will screw things up every time. David Duke is very happy with DJ Trump.


    I had a Trump moment there.and lost track of the beginning. No more posting after my bedtime.

    I understand what you mean by "pretend."


    Hai, Donald Trump was the most severely flawed candidate. White voters still elected him because of their racial bias. White voters felt that they were suffering from discrimination. There was resentment against blacks. They were so bigoted that they now accept Putin as a partner in world peace. They ignore Trump's financial conflicts and the ethical concerns about his Cabinet. Racial bias gave Trump the edge

    I agree that racism played a role in Trump's win.  But that doesn't mean it was inevitable that he would win or that racists would only vote for Trump.  Obama won twice the states that put Trump over the top.  Clinton was a weak candidate for a number of reasons and that's why the even more disliked Trump was able to win the electoral vote.

    Trump is the president. He has racists on his side and in his Cabinet. The DOJ has put a lawsuit against voter suppression in Texas on hold. The White House website has removed mention of Climate Change. The women's march documents the concerns women have about Trump. Trump says that those who disagree with his agenda are his enemies. Kellyanne wants to discuss alternative facts. Do we really have to keep spending time on the 2016 election? When LBJ signed the Civil Rights bills, racists fled the Democratic Party for the GOP. Another group of racists shifted to the GOP in 2016. They are gone. Look at the size of the crowds in D.C. and across the nation.That is our base. They are ready to toss any Republican in sight out of office.

    Nothing matters except that Hal knows who is guilty, and it's not him.

    Trump is an authoritarian who can have agencies wipe data or refuse to release data to the public. We are under assault. We don't have the time to spend on what if Trump wasn't elected, Trump is in the White House.

    No, Hal, you and the lefty purity patrol made it easier for the right wing to stay in complete control.

    And you've already started on sinking the Democrats chances in 2018. Surely the right wing appreciates it.

    Outrageous that you would try to blame Hal for any losses in 2018 when all we have to do is admit that they will be Hillary's fault. Just as the loss of the house in 2010 was because of Hillary and the loss of the senate in 2014 was her fault too. One could say that until Hillary dies any democratic loss is her fault but that's just not true. She will be to blame for making democrats lose from the grave.

    "Emails from the Crypt" - yep, I can see it - postmarked from hell.

    To the extent any of my earlier comments in this thread were uncharitable to you Flavius, I apologize.  I wrongly took this blog as an unfair swipe at Bernie.  Close reading demonstrates that you were making a more general observation that Democrats may be engaging in a circular firing squad when fighting too hard in the primaries for for the nomination. 

    I agree that a prolonged contest can hurt the Democratic candidate if she, as in the just-concluded campaign, is unlikable and has other obvious weaknesses since these traits are likely to come to the fore.  In 2008, however, Obama was obviously helped by his primary battle with Clinton.  He emerged battle-tested and with his likability intact and a reputation for honesty and class that served him extremely well in the general election against John McCain who had an easier path to the nomination.  Had Bernie defeated Clinton in the primaries, I believe he would have been in a better position to beat Trump than if he had been a consensus choice - fat chance - from early on.


    Factoid: 29% of Bernie contributors were listed as not working (hadn't heard this before). I don't quite know how to interpret this, but as a coalition of the down-and-out, it makes sense.

    The article doesn't confirm this but I'd suspect that a large % of the unemployed donations came from college students.

    Thanks for that.  It's ... illuminating.

    Latest Comments