Why Did We Lose And How Can We Win?

[CitizenZero]

I think that it is still a valid topic to discuss why we lost the General Election as a way of developing new strategies for winning elections in 2018 and beyond. We need to learn from our mistakes. That means we have to determine what those mistakes were by looking back at the recent past.

I know there is some controversy about what those mistakes might be, but I hope that we can have a healthy discussion about this. We need a winning strategy for 2018, and that means we need to have an honest assessment of our strengths and weaknesses. We need a strong opposition to Trump right now. That means a reality based strategy that understands why Trump won and how to counter that.

There is an article on Politico that speaks to why Hillary might have lost Michigan. I think that it is a good place to start. We need to speak directly to voters and citizens, and not be remote from them using polls and analytics. "People, Not Polls". I think we relied too much on numbers and assumptions this election, when speaking directly to the voters is a sounder strategy.

This is the Politico Article: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

[Agschmid]

1. Quite a few reasons, not just one.

We didn't spend enough time with the voters in the rust belt, that's for sure. But even the time we did spend we may not have been focused on the "right" issues. The most frustrating part of this is we had a platform, it was one of the most progressive/liberal ones we've had in a while but this election was all about personalities... on both sides. That kind of election based on personality doesn't do anything but disengage the everyday voter.

There are of course plenty of other reasons... Comey, RW Lies, Misrepresentations from the left. And of course our candidate herself, she wasn't perfect lots of us knew it but we took a risk.

FWIW, I don't think Bernie would have won either.

[CitizenZero]

2. I Agree

On paper, things were great. The platform was strong. Hillary had a bullet-proof resume. Why did we lose? No one reason, you are right, but I think a key reason was about connecting with voters. Trump appealed to people's Ids, their feelings, on a gut level. Hillary was more cerebral, rational. We have learned that being nice and smart and experienced doesn't always work as well as pushing people's buttons.

Michael Moore predicted the Trump win because Moore knew Michigan and places like it. Moore said Trump was speaking directly to white working class voters fears and anger. Many of those people there felt they have been excluded and disenfranchised for years and years by globalization and other similar forces. Trump went in and fed them red meat about getting jobs back, reversing globalist trade agendas like NAFTA, etc. Not to mention the more coded racial slants, that white men are losing control of America.

Anyway, Trump went in and repeatedly hammered the same message back to these people in large crowds and gatherings. He appealed to their Id and their guts. Hillary's team largely stayed out of that arena and relied on polls and analytics that said she would win in Michigan, by five points up until the day of the election. Too cerebral? The team made too many assumptions?

These poll numbers did not pan out. Why? Because if you have to choose between numbers and realities on the ground, go with the reality on the ground. Do not take a single thing for granted in this contest. The stakes are too high. And perhaps that is how we have found ourselves here. Where do we go now?

[JI7]

4. but they voted for other republicans that supported free trade over dems like strickland

And feingold didn't.

[Agschmid]

5. It wasn't an appeal based on issues in some ways... at least IMHO.

Once they decided to vote for Trump they decided the issues didn't matter, or they really believed that there was a difference between parties.

If there is any good from a Trump/Republican controlled administration it will paint a clear picture of what that actually means to the average Joe or Joanna.

[JI7]

7. can we just admit it was racism ? they hated blm, refugees , immigrants

And are happy trump is trying ban and deporting black and brown people.

[EL34x4]

11. Except all those racists voted for Obama twice.

At least in those places where the election was decided.

[JI7]

12. no they didn't.

[NCTraveler]

20. This is flat out made up.

It's one of the most disengenious arguments and is transparent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Barack Obama's pollster disagrees.

In terms of thinking about this white working-class obsession that has possessed too many Democrats, how do you reach those voters? Is it just a fool’s errand?

This is the most ridiculous thing ever. There are not millions upon millions of Trump-Obama voters. This is a story that is in search of factual evidence.

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/20/obama-pollster-cornell-belcher-on-the-failures-that-led-to-president-trump-what-happens-to-a-centrist-democrat-who-cant-hold-the-obama-coalition/

[CitizenZero]

28. Very Good Article

Thanks for posting the link. My response is that we can hold the Obama Coalition, and just add a small fraction of the so-called white working class voters. I think the solution is to maintain what held the Obama Coalition together, yet convince enough white working class voters to rejoin the Democratic Party. I think that we can do both.

Once Trump voters realize what a disaster Trump has been/will be for them, we can cut a certain number of these voters away from Trump and into our camp. Combine this with a full mobilization of the Obama Coalition, and we have a winning strategy for taking on the Trumpists and the Republicans.

[CitizenZero]

13. Racism And Xenophobia

I agree that a lot of it was racism and xenophobia. But I think that it wasn't just racism and xenophoba alone. It was also economic fears. The white working class used to be the foundation of the Democratic Party, but many now voted for Trump (this is a recurrence of the old Reagan Democrats).

The question that I have, is how does the Democratic Party get enough of this block of voters back to win elections? If we could have won without them, Trump would not have taken Michigan.

In any case, Michigan was a fairly close election. I think that if Hillary had campaigned there as heavily as Trump did, she could have overcome his xenophobic message with the Truth: the Truth is the Democratic Party is the real defender of the working people.

So, I think that what we learned from the election is that we need to connect more directly to working class voters in the Rust Belt, as well as in other areas of the country. We need people to understand the fiction that Trump sold, which is that he is better for working people than the Democratic Party.

We also need to put forward candidates who will get into the arena and fight fairly dirty against Trump and his kind. Michelle Obama said a lovely thing "when they go low, we go high", but maybe what we need is someone who can counter-punch against Trump and beat him badly at his own game.

As far as countering the racist element: I do not know. How do you stop racism? Hopefully by simply outnumbering them.

[JI7]

14. They have been voting republican sInce civil rights

The difference would have been made in getting out more black and other minority votes . And the end of voting rights did not help in this area.

You will connect more with trump voters by turning on minority groups.

Hillary's support for more refugees and dreamers amd black mothers of children killed was what hurt her with white voters.

[CitizenZero]

17. I See Your Point

I think Obama won Michigan in both 2008 and 2012. I guess Hillary did not mobilize enough of his coalition to win 2016. So, suppressed minority vote combined with Trump bringing out more racist voters yielded a close victory for Trump.

I think the solution to this would have simply been Hillary running a better campaign in Michigan. She and her team did not engage effectively in Michigan and other places because they took these places for granted. So, in the future we need to field candidates who will get in an mobilize votes rather than assuming victory.

There is a certain amount of hope for me, in that we lost this election due to miscalculations rather than due to some underlying structural change in the voting population. The Obama Coalition is still there for other candidates to activate and mobilize.

[JI7]

21. the comey letter played a huge role

[CitizenZero]

25. The Comey Letter Was A Problem

But I think that if we ran a stronger campaign in Wisconsin, Michigan, etc, we could have overcome the Comey Effect. Let's say Comey cost us 5 per cent of the vote. If we were 10 points ahead, we would have prevailed by 5 points. So, the solution to Comey and other October Surprises would just be: run a stronger campaign and get ahead of it. I really think that it was the failure in the Rust Belt that did us in. Comey wounded us, but did not kill us.

[JI7]

26. she was ahead before it

[CitizenZero]

30. OK

Good point. I just wish she had been further ahead to begin with. So, I think there are many factors for the loss, and Comey is significant.

[regnaD kciN]

53. And she wound up ahead by almost as much afterwards...

People neglect that HRC's poll numbers took a dive in the days immediately after Comey's letter, but had recovered by the weekend before the election. It's convenient to blame Comey, but I'm not convinced that his letter was the tipping point.

What is more crucial is that there remained an unusually-large number of undecided voters right up until the end. I was pretty uneasy when I noticed that, because it seemed pretty much the same dynamic as the Brexit election earlier that year. Conventional wisdom says that, by-and-large, the undecided vote will break roughly the same way as those in the same area who have already made up their minds, but I'm not sure that always applies. It seems my totally-unscientific rule of thumb (not just with Brexit, but with several other elections around the world I've followed before) that, when the undecideds get over a certain percentage and remain that way to the end (especially when the choices are so crystal clear), they will tend to go against the conventional wisdom and vote for the side that guarantees to "shake up the status quo" -- particularly if that side also appeals to their fears and prejudices. Sadly, Brexit was a textbook example, and so was our election.

[former9thward]

45. Which Comey letter?

The one in July, 2016 where he gave Clinton a clean bill of health? The one where he was praised by Democrats and DUers for being a great guy? The one where Republicans called him a political stooge?

[JI7]

47. fuck trump

[Agschmid]

24. A whole lot of it was exactly that, unfortunately.

[Motown_Johnny]

60. Obama never would have won if that were true.

We lost PA, MI and WI (and couldn't even compete in OH) because of free trade.

It really is that simple.

[JI7]

62. pro trade republicans did the best and feingold and strickland did worse than clinton

so , it's not it's not about trade .

and Obama was always more free trade than clinton.

[JHan]

15. Trump's trade narrative was tied to his xenophobic rhetoric...

"jobs going to mexico and china" fed into irrational fears of the immigrant and the country the immigrant came from, and he doubled down with rhetoric that china was "taking advantage of us" . He was plain wrong about China manipulating their currency in the way he described, however it had great effect because it was all part of his nationalistic, provincial "whiteness" rhetoric. According to this gallup poll most Americans see trade as an economic opportunity

If there's one thing I wished Hillary did , it would be to strongly and aggressively counter the anti-trade narrative and talk more about automation and the fast pace of technology which have made jobs redundant.

[CitizenZero]

19. I Agree

The Economic Issues were mixed in with Trumps racial/xenophobic stuff.

I also agree that Hillary could maybe have done a more aggressive job providing a counter-narrative on the economy, trade, automation, etc.

[regnaD kciN]

54. "Most Americans see trade as an economic opportunity..."

...but, as with the popular vote/electoral vote, is isn't so much the total percentages as where they occur. Much pro-trade sentiment is among upper-middle-class urban voters in the northeast and west coast, whose own jobs are in the "information society" rather than manufacturing. Those areas went reliably for the Democrats, but that was countered by just enough rust-belt voters (the total margin of which, remember, was just about enough to fit in a football stadium), to swing the results.

Also, I'm not sure exactly what Hillary, or any other realistic candidate, could do to talk about automation, unless they went full-on Luddite. The problem is that any candidate who operates in the real world, if they are being truthful, would have to admit that manufacturing jobs aren't coming back and, indeed, are going to decrease even more, and workers needed to come to terms with that and retrain for other areas or just reconcile themselves to a lower standard of living in the service sector. Sure, the government can offer to help them with that, but that's still going to be a pretty bitter pill to swallow -- particularly when you have the opposing candidate feeding them fantasyland promises on how he's going to bring all those jobs back with a wall and sanctions. Even if you suspect that won't work, are you surprised that many people in those demographics will cling to them rather than accepting a bleak future?

[JHan]

65. I agree it would be a tough sell..

... to explain what you described - No politician can realistically say "those jobs aren't coming back" . When Hillary made a speech about coal, her one comment that coal is dead, which is true, is what everyone ran with rather than the rest of her speech which addressed retraining and making the shift to renewables. Whenever Hillary is* frank and to the point, the jist of her point gets lost in translation and drowned in antagonistic spin.

President Obama also raised the challenges in his farewell address: “The next wave of economic dislocations won’t come from overseas,” Mr. Obama said. “It will come from the relentless pace of automation that makes a lot of good, middle-class jobs obsolete.”

The Democrats will have to lead on this, Republican leadership at present is making a retreat to backward PatBuchanan-type old conservative thinking.

[lapucelle]

3. That's an old story full of finger pointing and dissembling.

There was a lot of scrambling around in Michigan after Clinton's loss there. Democratic career political operatives in Michigan blamed everyone but themselves in an effort to control the damage to their resumes.

I think that most people are aware at this point of what was done to Clinton and the myriad players from many sides who helped Trump get to the White House.

[JHan]

16. good point. +++++++

[triron]

6. lost because of Russians.

[regnaD kciN]

55. How?

I know a lot of us want the Russian connection to sink Trump. So do I, but I think there's a jump between the case that "Trump should be removed from office because he's beholden to a foreign power" and "Trump only won because the Russians helped him."

Because, in truth, what did the Russians do? Deploy an army of hackers to dig up unfavorable information about HRC and disseminate it? That just means they did a great job of "oppo research," which is something most campaigns have people of their own to do.

To me, saying that the Russians were responsible for the election outcome requires proving that the Russian hackers, say, manipulated the voting process to falsify the returns. And, so far, that's something that hasn't been proven.

[NCTraveler]

8. I think it's impossible to know the depths of our loss...

Without some serious federal and state investigations.

Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen under the corrupt Republican regime and Stein helping to create cover for them.

[delisen]

9. In 2010 when Jennifer Granholm, Dem, left office Michigan elected Republican Rick Snyder

In 2014 Michigan re-elected Rick Snyder, Republican

Why did two Democratic candidates for governor lose Michigan over those eight years ?

Snyder defeated Virg Benero in 2010 in a landslide

Snyder defeated Mark Schauer in 2014 in a closer race

Why did Bernero and Schauer lose Michigan?

[JI7]

10. and same with wisconsin

[regnaD kciN]

56. Exactly...and Florida as well.

Why, in what are supposed to be "swing states," can hard-line Republicans take over the governor's mansion, run their state into the ground (as all three of those did), and still win re-election?

Part of the problem is that Democrats seems completely apathetic about mid-term elections. It often seemed that it really didn't matter to the Party if the G.O.P. controlled every legislature and governor's mansion in the country, as long as we had one of our own in the White House. Well, it only takes one fluke election where the loser "wins" to put us out of power completely -- and we've had two such elections out of the last five.

[delisen]

18. Year 2010: Red Tide Swept Great Lakes States. Republicans Gained Control CNN report

Michigan and other Great Lakes states turned Republican 6 years ago. Apparently lots of democrats were turned out by voters. It was also the year of the Tea Party.


<http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/03/election.great.lakes/>

A similar tide rolled over Michigan, where political neophyte Rick Snyder was elected governor in a Republican sweep of statewide offices.
Snyder defeated Democratic Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero by a landslide while Republicans took control of the state House and increased their advantage in the state Senate.
Republicans were elected secretary of state and attorney general, and two Republicans won Supreme Court races, giving the GOP a 4-3 advantage there.
The vast northern congressional district represented by retiring Democrat Bart Stupak went to Tea Party favorite Dan Benishek. Although Democratic stalwart John Dingell withstood a strong challenge, Michigan's congressional delegation swung to a 9-6 Republican majority.

So why were so many Democratic candidate so unappealing so suddenly? And why did we not notice? Because Democratic voters love presidential politics and don't build the structure? It is like building a house and think a great roof is all you need.

[CitizenZero]

23. We Need A Counter Movement To The Tea Party

We need a Populist Economic message and Candidates with fire in the belly about this to run. We have tried cerebral and aloof candidates who relied too much on analytics and poll data. The key thing is for the Democratic Party to strongly position itself as the Defender of the Working Class (black, white, brown, ALL working people). I think this is the key wedge issue. We need to build a Democratic Movement around these principles and ideas. We need to connect with people on a gut level an wn hearts and minds while als appealing to people's basic needs.

The Trump Voters think that Trump and his Republican enablers in Congress will help the working people with jobs and border security, like Trump promised. These promises will probably fail. For example, Trump promised to drain the swamp, and when he got elected, he immediately filled the swamp with more Goldman Sachs alligators in the Cabinet. Trump is a sociopath and his promises mean noting

When the working class whites who voted for Trump see that Trump lied to them an failed them, that will be our opportunity. At that point we can come in with candidates who strongly support working people, expanding the middle class, promoting good schools, good infrastructure, good healthcare, etc.

Trump and his Cronies are at the beginning of gutting our country of all of these things. When the damage is done, it will be up to Progressive People and the Democratic Party to jump in save America from these bloated billionaire shills.

[JI7]

27. went don't you explain why Feingold lost first and what

He should have done to Win.

[CitizenZero]

32. Feingold

I do not know enough about Feingold and his campaign to offer an opinion. I would need some time to study it. Why don't you tell me, if you would? That s a large part of why I am here on DU: to get information and knowledge from other Democrats that I do not yet have. If you have some idea about why Feingold lost in Wisconsin, I would like to hear it.

[Dracaena]

31. This!!

and hammer it over & over about the economy. Don't let up about it & make it plain. Plus remind people what the Repubs did to them.

[CitizenZero]

35. Also

I agree with you about building the Party locally. We need to fight to reclaim state houses, governorships, down to city councils and school boards. Some (not all) Dems focus too heavily on national politics rather than ALL areas, including state and local. A saying in Political Science is "all politics are local", and I agree.

In fact, if you read the article that I linked to in the Original Post, you will see that part of the point of it is that the National Hillary Folks disregarded what the local Michigan People were saying about the ground game in that state.

The Michigan People offered the National People political intelligence about what was happening in their state, and the National People ignored it and basically disregarded those people. This is not a smart strategy. Michigan should not have been lost. The National People should have listened to what was going on in the state. IMO, we lost the election because of this kind of behavior.

[VOX]

39. Critical, as 25 states are now under top-to-bottom Republican control.

This article from the NYT, 2/11/17, lays it out in black-and-white:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/us/state-republican-leaders-move-swiftly.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
State G.O.P. Leaders Move Swiftly as Party Bickers in Congress
<snip>
Republicans have gained power rapidly in the states since the 2008 presidential election, winning 33 governorships and in many instances entrenching themselves in power through legislative redistricting.
Riding to office on a wave of discontent with the Obama administration, headstrong governors in states like Wisconsin and Ohio embarked on a ferocious quest to transform their states, repeatedly battling powerful unions and popular backlash. Sidelining Democratic lawmakers and grinding down liberal interest groups, these Republicans may have helped pave the way for Mr. Trump’s victories in a string of traditionally blue Midwestern states last year.
Acting fastest at the moment, though, are four states where Republicans won total control of the government only in November. In addition to Kentucky, Missouri and New Hampshire became one-party states with the election of Republican governors, and Republicans in Iowa snatched away the State Senate, where Democrats had held their last grip on power.
In all four states, Republicans are racing to strip back the influence of labor unions, a key Democratic constituency.
<snip>

[CitizenZero]

42. Thanks For Posting That

I am lucky enough to be in what I call "Fortress New York". In New York State, we have Republicans, of course, but we are reliably Blue as a State. The Dems currently have control of the Governorship (Andrew Cuomo) and the Assembly (Democratic Majority). The Senate is controlled by the Republicans at this moment. Our cities tend to be Democratic, with rural and suburban districts tending more Republican.

Anyway, I am grateful to be in this State. I can only imagine how tough it must be to be a Democrat in a State that is currently Red. That is where the fight is. People in places like that have my support and my solidarity.I still feel stressed about National Politics at this moment, but it heartens me to know there are people out there fighting the good fight.

So, it is clear a big part of our agenda must be to fight and win elections at the State and Local levels. We need to run for and win city council races, school boards etc, as these are often feeder systems into higher office. We need to build a deep bench to win local and State Offices. We need to take back State Houses and Governorships. That is what the Tea Party has been doing these past many years, and that explains why so many State Offices are currently Republican.

Now it is our turn as Democrats to steal their playbook and mobilize locally and nationally to regain these Offices. Again, thanks for the post.

[VOX]

58. You're welcome. And as New York is to you, California is to me.

The running (semi-) joke here is, "We want a wall all right...but around California."

But about the state governments/offices, yes, a greater number needs to be in the Democratic column. This past election, you can clearly see what happens when Republicans begin to take former Democratic strongholds like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. This is how national elections get reconfigured, by picking off vulnerable states one-by-one, building a partisan monolith, against which our NY-CA votes are ultimately eclipsed. That scenario cannot be allowed to play out much longer, the wheels of liberal democracy are beginning to grind.

And a belated welcome to DU!

[elleng]

29. Thanks. Similar to articles I posted months ago. Have we learned anything?

'SEIU — which had wanted to go to Michigan from the beginning, but been ordered not to — dialed Clinton’s top campaign aides to tell them about the new plan. According to several people familiar with the call, Brooklyn was furious.

Turn that bus around, the Clinton team ordered SEIU. Those volunteers needed to stay in Iowa to fool Donald Trump into competing there, not drive to Michigan, where the Democrat’s models projected a 5-point win through the morning of Election Day.

Michigan organizers were shocked. It was the latest case of Brooklyn ignoring on-the-ground intel and pleas for help in a race that they felt slipping away at the end.'>>>

[Talk Is Cheap]

33. I could list many reasons, but many would not like to hear it...

But, the main reason is election fraud: voter suppression and rigged machines.

And there are many many more reasons...

[phylny]

34. I believe you are right. n/t

[regnaD kciN]

57. I have VERY little sympathy with that rationalization...

...because the fact is, if that's true, then the game is already rigged and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, as the party in power will be able to maintain and increase those suppression techniques until they're guaranteed election wins for as far as the eye can see. In which case, we might as well give up and move to Canada or whatever. Like I said, it's a rationalization that merely relieves one of the responsibility to do anything. If the result will always be predetermined (against us) from the get-go, why bother?

[CitizenZero]

36. Evidence?

Could you provide some evidence about voter fraud, voter suppression, rigged machines? Are there any articles on that from reliable journalists? Where are you getting your information? I ask because I have not heard this yet from the Democratic side. The only people I hear about voter fraud is coming from the Trump side. I would like to see some sort of evidence for this claim.

[Talk Is Cheap]

37. First, I did not write 'voter fraud'...that is a republican meme.

I wrote Election Fraud.

Second, our election system does not support a valid recount system. Check out the 79,000 votes
where the president was not counted.

Voter suppression : interstate crosscheck

Finally, exit polls showed Clinton winning. Exit polls are the gold standard to detect election fraud.



https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/13/greg_palast_by_rejecting_recount_is

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-w435890

[CitizenZero]

38. Election Fraud

Sorry. I wrote "voter fraud" not "election fraud". Are they not the same thing? Thanks for supplying the links. I will look them over.

[Talk Is Cheap]

40. Definitions:

Voter fraud is where a voter votes two or more times in an election. This is
a rare occurrence where statistically the rate of voter fraud is *zero*.

Election Fraud:
1. Voter suppression: hours long lines to vote, thrown off the voter rolls illegally
2. Voting machines: not counting entries, switching votes
3. Voting tabulators: maybe the machines counted correctly, but the tabulators are hacked
4. Corrupt county elections officials.

Just a quick list...

[CitizenZero]

43. Very Good Info

Thanks for the education on terminology, and thanks for the sources that you listed before. I will try to read those articles more thoroughly when I have more Internet time. It is chilling to think that there has been election fraud like that, but of course I remember the Florida recount of Gore versus Bush, so this sort of corruption does happen. Thanks again for the info.

[former9thward]

46. Very poor info.

The poster did not give a particle of evidence to support any of their allegations. Just excuses which multiply like weeds when there is an election loss.

[CitizenZero]

48. Well

I did not say there was definitive evidence. But it is good for people to back up statements with legitimate journalism, which the poster did. There are two articles there from legitimate news sources that needs to be evaluated.

I agree that a lot of people are making excuses up for this loss, but if someone makes a statement and provides real news sources in support, I will reserve judgment and try to evaluate the source material.

I personally feel a lot of people are trying to find some external reasons for Hillary's loss, but I posit that mainly it was an error to take the Mid-West for granted. A tactical/strategic mistake internal to the campaign.

That said, there might be other contributing factors: the Comey Letter, Russian Hacking, etc. Again, I feel that it was strategic error on the part of the Clinton Campaign and an over reliance on Polls instead of going out and connecting with voters and real people wherever one can.

Still, when someone suggests election fraud and provides links to articles from legitimate news and opinion sources, it is worth looking into.

[former9thward]

63. The Comey letter, etc, is stuff that happens in every election.

What about on the Trump side? Out of all the newspapers only one or two endorsed Trump. The pussy tape. In the world I live in Trump faced attacks from media commentators every day. Republicans walked away from him. If he had lost he would have had a million excuses also.

Yes, Clinton ignored the Midwest and relied on polls which were not catching the new Trump vote in those states because of who they were polling. Clinton outspent Trump two to one but spent it in the wrong places (which begs the question -- where did that money get spent?)

[mythology]

49. The unadjusted exit polls that conspiracy theorists use are idiotic

https://www.thenation.com/article/reminder-exit-poll-conspiracy-theories-are-totally-baseless/

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/on-tim-robbins-election-fraud-and-how-nonsense-spreads-around-the-internet/

Anybody spreading around nonsensical theories about the exit polls has a really high hurdle to overcome. It's just as embarrassing as people who say climate change and evolution aren't real.

As for the "rigged" voting machines, please explain why there was no statistically significant difference in Wisconsin counties that were hand recounted versus counties that were machine recounted. The fact is you can't, because you have chosen to believe in a fantasy.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/recount-found-thousands-of-errors-but-no-major-flaws-in/article_4ad0fe2a-40d8-5cce-8d84-f3e33469c8f1.html

So please, stop spreading verifiably false information about voting machines. 538 also did a statistical analysis of 8 states and found no evidence of the way ballots were counted had any impact on the vote totals once demographics were accounted for.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

The nonsense about 79,000 votes not being counted is why Greg Palast should never be taken seriously. He starts from the assumption that the ballots were for Clinton and then works backward to prove it. He summarily dismisses information about people selecting invalid write-in candidates without noting that Iowa had more than double the number of write-in votes than in 2012. Michigan doesn't count write-in ballots unless the write-in candidate filed a declaration of intent. So if people wrote in Bernie Sanders, or Mickey Mouse, those votes would show as being non-votes for President. In 2012, Michigan had about 50,000 ballots that registered no vote for President. Given that Iowa doubled their write-in votes, obviously it's quite possible Michigan could do the same, but if it was for a candidate like Sanders or some protest name, that wouldn't show up on the list of valid votes for President.

These unfounded conspiracy theories that rely on people being ignorant of the actual political science behind it, need to stop. Clinton didn't lose because the machines were hacked. She lost because Trump won white voters by a large enough margin in enough states to win. She lost because Comey put out the second note about Clinton emails on the Wiener laptop.

[CitizenZero]

52. The More Information

...the better. I had not heard there were allegations of election fraud against Democrats until this Thread. I was skeptical, and remain skeptical, but reserved judgment and asked for evidence (not proof; evidence).

Now we have two different posts both providing articles and arguments for pro and con. I have scanned the articles briefly, and will read them in depth when I have more time.

Anyway, I think that it is good that people have a forum where they can provide links and arguments pro and con. Dispelling false rumors is critical. We need to do this in a rational way.

We do not want to be Democrats who deny reality like Trump and his Republican cronies. If we hold onto our own versions of conspiracy theories like Trump's "millions of illegals immigrants vote against me" meme, we are in some ways no better than the truth challenged Republicans and their alternative facts. We need to adhere to the truth in our fight against Trump.

So, providing a space and articles about the possibility of election fraud (or conspiracy theories about that) is one way of clarifying our thinking and making sure that as Democrats our positions are reality based and not false or imagined. This is one of the things that makes us better than the Trump People. We need to adhere to the truth, and rip out any false ideas that do not pass the reality test.

Thanks for posting those links. I will try to post my opinions on them in the near future, after I have read all of them and digested the arguments. My original skepticism is still where I am at right now and my inclination is to disbelieve things that do seem to have the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. I think there is way too much of that around. That is on the one hand.

On the other hand, I lived through the Gore versus Bush Florida recount, and the Republicans clearly engaged in Election Fraud in that case. I doubt that has happened in this election, but I do intend to read all of the articles and make a final judgment about it.

[Talk Is Cheap]

67. Good try...

We do not have fair and accurate elections.

I must question the motives of people who think there is nothing wrong with the election process...

[Initech]

41. We *HAVE* to start at the local level.

The GOP won because they got their people not only to the polls, they got them involved in elections. So many local positions won because they were in deep red districts and ran even in the smallest positions with little to no opposition. If we want to start flipping districts, we need to start getting credible people at the local level, we can win at the national level. It may take some time, but that's what we got to do.

[Wounded Bear]

44. This is where I'm at...

all the other shit is kind of peripheral to me. Yeah, it matters, but mostly we need to get back to local offices and activists, a true GOTV effort that starts now and continues through 2018 and on to 2020.

I still believe that there are millions of Dem voters out there in Trumpistan that only need some organization and impetus to get involved and go vote. The recent demonstrations are a good start, and I hear that Indivisible has thousands of groups nationwide.

http://www.indivisibleguide.com/

[Initech]

50. Yeah we can talk about GOTV'ing all we want.

But there's GOTV'ing and getting people actually involved in local offices. We won't start flipping districts until that happens.

[doc03]

51. Because the Republicans, Faux and others made wild claims about

Clinton and we had people that didn't vote or wasted their vote on someone that had zero chance of winning just for spite.

[Motown_Johnny]

59. We lost because of PA, MI and WI (and OH) ....

... and we lost those industrialized states because our nominee had praised free trade.


Trump attacked free trade consistently. People who are desperate to reverse the damage done to their states from free trade policies voted for the person who they thought would do that.


Yes, there are more reasons than that but if we win those states again we win. We need a credible trade policy and the status quo is not it.

[ucrdem]

61. Because they didn't count all the early votes.

Next question please.

[alarimer]

64. Multiple reasons

Not to mention the fact that there is almost always a switch from one party to the other after 8 years.

But I think addressing voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering are most important. Democrats also need to field more and better candidates for all sorts of offices, even if the chances of winning are slim. We cannot focus solely on the Presidency, or on swing or blue states. And a lot more attention on down ballot races would help.

I like these town halls that Bernie has been doing, as have other members of Congress (well the ones not afraid of their voters, that is). I like that people have been calling Congress more than they have in the past. I like that they are getting out in the streets. I hope it is sustainable and I hope that Democrats develop some level of courage from it. I worry about Heitkamp and Manchin when it comes to SS, Medicare or the ACA. Can Democrats rely on their votes to save those programs if it comes to it? I wonder.

[CTyankee]

66. Sad that we have so many hardcore racists and misogynists in our midst...

We'll win in 2020 if we live through the intervening years...

[Baconator]

68. Enthusiasm....

All other reasons link to that in the end.