Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: It's clear people have not fully considered the con job that has been pulled on them [View all]BeyondGeography
(40,557 posts)11. You got played too if you think Hillary did everything she needed to do to win
Believe it or not, I wanted her to win every bit as much as you did. Everyone my age (57) is looking at a whole lot of hurt because of this. So stop acting like you're the only one who gets it. You're not.
I'm disgusted by a lot of things. Like losing states that have been in our column for decades because someone (that would be our candidate) didn't see the writing on the wall after the primaries. I had a sick feeling when MI and PA were her last stops on the campaign. I get a sick feeling when I read things like this:
It is now becoming clear that Clintons ground game the watchword for defenders of her alleged competence was actually under-resourced and poorly executed. Like so much else in this election, her field strategy was hostage to the colossal arrogance and consequent incompetence of the liberal establishment.
At the heart of the failure was the notion of the new emerging majority. According to this argument pushed by, among others, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira women, Latinos, blacks, and skilled professionals who support the Democrats were becoming the demographic majority. Thus the traditional white working-class base of the Democratic Party could be sidelined.
Back in July Chuck Schumer summed it up: For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.
From this theory and strategy flowed a deeply flawed set of tactics, and a badly fumbled get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort.
A labor organizer in Ohio, who wished to remain anonymous, reports that Clintons early GOTV effort there focused on Republicans in the mistaken belief a significant number of them could be peeled away. This play largely failed. And it also involved serious opportunity costs: traditional Democratic constituencies like African Americans and the white working class were neglected, and Clinton ended up badly under-performing Obama among both groups, especially in the Rust Belt.
Only in the last two weeks, according to this labor source, did the Democratic Party outreach effort really switch back to traditional Democratic voters. By then, it was too late. Due to lack of preparation, the voter lists guiding the effort had not been updated. Because poorer voters tend to relocate more frequently than home-owning suburbanites, many addresses were wrong. And for lack of more frequent contact the campaign was often unsure about the voters current political attitudes.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/clinton-campaign-gotv-unions-voters-rust-belt/
At the heart of the failure was the notion of the new emerging majority. According to this argument pushed by, among others, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira women, Latinos, blacks, and skilled professionals who support the Democrats were becoming the demographic majority. Thus the traditional white working-class base of the Democratic Party could be sidelined.
Back in July Chuck Schumer summed it up: For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.
From this theory and strategy flowed a deeply flawed set of tactics, and a badly fumbled get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort.
A labor organizer in Ohio, who wished to remain anonymous, reports that Clintons early GOTV effort there focused on Republicans in the mistaken belief a significant number of them could be peeled away. This play largely failed. And it also involved serious opportunity costs: traditional Democratic constituencies like African Americans and the white working class were neglected, and Clinton ended up badly under-performing Obama among both groups, especially in the Rust Belt.
Only in the last two weeks, according to this labor source, did the Democratic Party outreach effort really switch back to traditional Democratic voters. By then, it was too late. Due to lack of preparation, the voter lists guiding the effort had not been updated. Because poorer voters tend to relocate more frequently than home-owning suburbanites, many addresses were wrong. And for lack of more frequent contact the campaign was often unsure about the voters current political attitudes.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/clinton-campaign-gotv-unions-voters-rust-belt/
I never called Hillary a corporatist, I honor her lifetime of public service. She has touched many lives for the better, and I will take her in a debate against any Republican in creation. But, godammit, her campaign FUCKING SUCKED! She blew it. She was working with Obama's turnout model and she is not Obama. In 2008, it was clear she had strengths that he didn't have and, yes, they were with the white working class voters. She blew him out in OH and PA and eight years later all those votes go poof? Why...because she didn't work hard enough for them, that's why. Now excuse me while I ponder a future without Medicare as we know it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
40 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

It's clear people have not fully considered the con job that has been pulled on them [View all]
BainsBane
Nov 2016
OP
I suppose next time we should pick the candidate that lost the primary? And disenfranchise millions?
bravenak
Dec 2016
#2
Well I care what happens to America - thats why I supported another candidate in the primary
el_bryanto
Dec 2016
#10
I voted for Hillary in the general election. So who exactly are you calling an idiot? nt
el_bryanto
Dec 2016
#13
Right, her voting record. The one that puts here squarely on the liberal side of Congress.
TwilightZone
Dec 2016
#7
Yep that's the one - She is a liberal; just not as liberal I would prefer, on a number of issues.
el_bryanto
Dec 2016
#14
Well it seemed that people weren't interested in Russ Feingold's record or Cypher, Teachout, or
still_one
Dec 2016
#26
Trump is the *ultimate* elitist and the *ultimate* corporatist. He's a fricking BRAND, for heaven's
TwilightZone
Dec 2016
#5
You got played too if you think Hillary did everything she needed to do to win
BeyondGeography
Dec 2016
#11
Sam Stein wrote a pretty definitive autopsy, if that one doesn't work for you
BeyondGeography
Dec 2016
#23
You might not have called her a corporatist. But a whole lot of people did. Constantly.
kcr
Dec 2016
#33