Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost

a reply to: jjkenobi

I will leave that answer to history. I don't know. It would not have mattered who the democrat contender was. The GOP had some great contenders and they chose Trump. There was some colluding going on alright, but not the Russians. The Russians were just having fun manipulation "news".

originally posted by: MOMof3

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: MOMof3
God is looking out for democrats and Hillary.

Maybe God is looking out for the Dems but Hillary sold her soul long ago. She should be wearing asbestos pant-suits.

No, she is a decent human being who has suffered false accusations, fake news, she is a Christian who has survived persecution by xtians, a wonderful wife, mother, grandmother, and public servant.

I am hoping the democrats and Hillary sit out the next four years. Let this GOP plan play out and see if that is what the nation want. If the nation as a mojority do, then we will know and so be it, we will be a one party system and with dictator.

Have you been somewhere else for the last few years? Do you not realize that the "decent" human being was selling favors? Bill got a $1,000,000 birthday present from a foreign power, a definite COI. The Clinton foundation got a $12 million donation from Morocco and Morocco then got all the weapons that they wanted while she was SoS. The tax exempt Foundation paid for Chelsea's wedding. She really needed the $3 million wedding, didn't she? Read the Podesta emails and you will discover how corrupt the Clinton's really are. The Dems would have scraped by with Sanders even though the "free tuition" concept would have been canned. Biden-Warren would have taken a nice middle of the road approach that people could vote for and may have been able to beat any GOP contender.
The Dems have abandoned the common man and become the party of the gimmedats, illegals, and fringe elements like #BLM and the ANTIFA dirtballs. They should get rid of all members of the coven running the DNC and start over.

It's the opposite. After Bill Clinton they went RIGHT wing. Real leftists despise the dnc.

They lost, because they insisted upon running Hillary Clinton as their candidate.

Period.

They can make up whatever excuse they like, but that one simple fact is irrefutable.

originally posted by: ketsuko

Many Democrats have a shorthand explanation for Clinton's defeat: Her base didn't turn out, Donald Trump's did and the difference was too much to overcome.

Some of the responses in here seem to have missed this part of the article. It is basically explaining why this is false.

I thought it was making the point NT that most of trumps voters were not either pro-trump or anti democrat/liberal.. they were anti hillary clinton.

Saying that people voted for trump thinking he was a moderate, not because Americans want conservatism.

a reply to: pteridine

She is no worse than anyone else. She is an obsession more than most.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Democrats know who the Deplorables really are. No "enemy" is worse than the when you meet him and he is "us" ... as in "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Clinton lost because people who voted for Obama didn't vote for her.

But new information shows that Clinton had a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later.

Those Obama-Trump voters effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group's analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton's failure to reach Obama's vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters.

There was no surge of "new" voters. There were only voters who voted for Obama and then failed to vote for Clinton. You know, those "racists!"

We've been telling you this for a long time now, and the data now backs us up.

Democrats, you lost your own voters and your base isn't enough.

Each group made its assessment by analyzing voter files –– reports that show who voted in every state, and matching them to existing data about the voters, including demographic information and voting history. The groups determined how people voted — in what amounts to the most comprehensive way to analyze the electorate short of a full census.

The findings are significant for a Democratic Party, at a historic low point, that's trying to figure out how it can win back power. Much of the debate over how to proceed has centered on whether the party should try to win back working-class white voters — who make up most of the Obama-Trump voters — or focus instead on mobilizing its base.

Turning out the base is not good enough, the data suggest.

"This idea that Democrats can somehow ignore this constituency and just turn out more of our voters, the math doesn't work," Canter said. "We have to do both."

Those of you who suggest you can ignore your former blue collar base are wrong. You can't, not yet. Not and expect to win you can't. But appealing to those voters means moderating your stance which means losing your base.

So, what they really mean is, Trump 2020

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: pteridine

She is no worse than anyone else. She is an obsession more than most.

Au contraire. She is a great deal worse than many. She is power and money hungry and seems to have no moral compass. She should retire and bask in the glow of her successes and be glad she is not called to task for her legal transgressions. I think her health will prevent her from making another political run.

Warren will be up next, if she wants to take a shot at POTUS. Say what you will but fauxcohontas is much more intelligent and politically astute than Hillary ever was.

Warren vs Gowdy would be an interesting race but I can't come up with a likely scenario that would allow that to occur.

a reply to: pteridine

Lol.

a reply to: ketsuko
she lost fer several reasons
1 she ran clasified material through her home server to leak to foreign powers for money and got ourted for doing it
2podestia emails came with truly damning stuff she was involved with and all she said was nothing to see here was we were hacked don't look at it . not that these emails were totally fabricated which is what a smart person would do
3she was caught rigging debates.
4 she acted smug she knew no matter what they found she couldn't be touched.
people saw all of this and realized she was a crooked old crone that needed to be put out to pasture the people are tired of lawyers running stuff into 6the ground they want to see what a real businessman might do.

Has the Democratic party ever considered the possibility that their thinking is 40 years behind the times and that they are just basically out of touch with reality?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The main point I wanted to underscore is that the people that elected Trump and didn't vote for Clinton were Barack Obama voters.

They weren't some mythical new group of previously unheard of white racists, and it wasn't a matter of Clinton not turning out the Democrat base ... in fact, as the article points out, she won new voters, but it simply wasn't enough to overcome the loss of defectors -- Obama voters who voted Trump.

Well ... wait ... I take that back a bit. There is one way they *could* have been racist. There has always been the contention that a large group of Obama voters only voted for him to prove they weren't racist. Maybe she lost that group, but it wouldn't make any sense since both candidates were white this time around, and the same people voted for Obama the second time after the historic bloom was off the rose.

a reply to: ketsuko

Talk about an either/or fallacy. It's not like there's ONE reason Democrats lost. A number of variables were at work. One of them being that the Democrats had been in "power" for the last 8 years and the pendulum swung back.