Hillary didnt lose cause of sexism she lost cause of laziness. Sexism was a mitigating factor but not the root cause of her problems.
sexism was (is) an excuse. she was prolly the only human who could have lost to tD.
She lost because of 20 years of RW bashing seeping into the mainstream and being a mediocre campaigner.
Let's be specific.
1. Learn what?
2. And what actions are possible given that knowledge?
3. And how does that affect strategy going forward?
I'd say a few things going forward:
1) Everybody to the left the current GOP needs to realize once and for all that the Republican party is a treasonous money laundering cult. Yes, once in awhile a Collins or a McCain will do the right thing, but then they get pulled back in. Electing any GOP representative on the national level is to further the influence of the treasonous money laundering cult and its loathsome leaders.
2) With #1 in mind, the place for Dems to sort out their differences is in the primaries. For example, say Miranda (I'd been calling her Samantha previously) from Sex and the City doesn't think Cuomo is liberal enough. Great, then do exactly what she's doing and make him face the Dem voters. If she wins, cool. If she loses...
then Dem primary voters need to go all out for the nominee, in 99.9% of races, because the alternative is another cult member. That's the lesson learned from 2016, I hope. Something similar happened in IL this year where a conservdem got primaried but won. Keep challenging the guy if you don't like his votes, but don't sit out elections if he's the nominee.
3) Lastly on issues, Dems need a baseline of policy stances that at the very least they all agree on. Expanded Medicare (whether that's Medicare for all or a buy in from 50 plus is something that can be sorted out after assuming power). Free public school college tuition. Increased clean energy. Rich paying their fair share. Keep it simple, define the principles and leave it at that for the campaign. Everyone on the Dem spectrum from Manchin to Sanders ought to be comfortable getting behind this.
Dems in red districts need the freedom to lean conservative on issues like guns, while criticizing fiscal policies that are killing blue collar voters. What Connor Lamb did in PA is the model for how to run as a Dem in a red district.
Dems in red districts need the freedom to lean conservative on issues like guns, while criticizing fiscal policies that are killing blue collar voters. What Connor Lamb did in PA is the model for how to run as a Dem in a red district.
And then he'll be told to go party line or else he won't have Soros's backing again. There's no room for picking and choosing issues on either side anymore. It's exactly why Michael Savage chose not to run. Believe me, I'd love to see representatives having ideas instead of think tanks. That's one of the reasons third party is so intriguing.
Agreed. The Dem problem is that when they see this reality they run a centrist national campaign. That's pointless (it attracts no conservatives as they have been thoroughly brainwashed by Fox) and damaging (it creates the ratchet effect where the GOP makes gains and then we merely hold the line). The GOP is out there running nutbar national campaigns and then they let moderates prevaricate locally. We need to do the same. Get full throated liberals out there screaming for class warfare (you want a message that will retake PA, OH and WI? There it is right there.) and then let centrists in fondler districts shoot off guns in their ads hurr hurr.
Michael Savage chose not to run because he can vacuum saps' wallets from where he is without risking being completely embarrassed with single digit polling.
Believe me, I'd love to see representatives having ideas instead of think tanks.
You've been screaming the class warfare message for the last 10 years, and you lost this time around. People want positivity, not to constantly be against something else.
One thing we can agree on, though: Pandering to the middle is what loses elections in this day and age. It is important to motivate your base. This is why Obama won in 2008 and 2012, and why Bush won in 2004. No one wants a leader who puts compromise first, because that means you have no idea where the person is going. Alex Jones has been giving a metaphor on some of his promos lately: "The time to choose sides is now." I'd say Trump motivated his base in 2016, and Sanders really motivated the base as well. That would be why we're more polarized than ever, and a number of the fringe left have become quite violent.
She lost because of 20 years of RW bashing seeping into the mainstream and being a mediocre campaigner.
She wasn't mediocre on the campaign trail. She was horrible on the campaign trail. I watched a news clip of her giving a verbal smack down to a democratic grassroots organizer in Minneapolis. How could she ever expect her base to go to the polls for her when that's how she's treating her political allies? The woman was an absolute idiot on the campaign trail.
Trump added votes by smacking down the "RINO's" like Jeb Bush or little Marco or whatever. I don't have the context of the Clinton clip SC is talking about but I imagine this is quite different from that.Trump added votes every time he did that. Just saying. Frankly, I'm exhausted over the double standard. She lost. There's a million reasons why she lost. And every single one of them contributed to the loss. Of the things she did wrong the above is probably 657,891st on the list.
Trump added votes by smacking down the "RINO's" like Jeb Bush or little Marco or whatever. I don't have the context of the Clinton clip SC is talking about but I imagine this is quite different from that.