Every day new threads like this.

When will the loathing on both sides abate?

We are better as a team moving forward.

Threads like this do no good.

not a "Democratic" figure, as I understand it.

Stretching...

Take a look.

It just points out a contradiction.

They state explicitly that he is, BY Name.

I was on the jury, and had no idea it was you -- I just got the sarcasm.

Contradiction. I don't understand the alert.

and wilting flowers who need to have their water changed.

What's next, alerting on a rehashing of who was responsible for Pearl Harbor?

The contradiction shouldn't be deniable by parties on either side of the argument. It's there in plain sight.

That their favored candidate in the primary isn't infallible amounts to bashing.

judged on a different standard than her opponents, and the media.

They characterized her as "shrill, angry, never smiles, defensive, etc". None of those types of comparisons were hurled at her male counterparts.

On the issues, she was held at an extremely high standard. Trump was held to no standard. Just look at the Matt Lauer interview how Hillary was approached verses trump. The problem isn't that she was held to a high standard, the problem is he was held to NO STANDARD.

voted third party, unless something drastic alters reality, the fate of this country has been sealed for decades to come after 2020.

The fact that every swing state Democrat running for Senate lost against the establishment republican incumbent has insured that.

This election was a generational event. It will take a generation or more to undo the damage that most likely will happen, just based on who trump has selected as part of his "team"

All the battles from Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Environmental Rights, etc. will have to be re fought.

That the executive branch was lost to a madman is very bad, but that these self-identified progressives who didn't bother to vote, thus allowing the Senate to go into republican control, is a disaster, because there is no checks and balances on him

a good result. The strong don't let others decide their future. The weak rely on others to decide.

The strong vote. If they don't vote, they get what they get. How's that going to work out for the next four years, do you think?

Maybe the next four years should be spend thinking about why they didn't vote.

Teachout wasn't a third way. Every swing state Democrat running for Senate against the establishment republican incumbent, lost, and they were not "third way"

Perhaps you aren't aware but the Democrats lost all three branches of government because those self-identified progressives said no middle ground anymore.

Well guess what, they made their f**king bed, and they will be sleeping in it for a long time, unfortunately, so will everyone else who did do the right thing will be their also, because the change you are talking about doesn't happen in four years, it takes decades, and has to start at the local and state levels.

What are you talking about "third way stuff?" Be specific, please.

All of the issues you say she didn't address she did address, fully.

How did she pander to Republican white women? Again, please be specific.

We had the numbers to win (or as you say, "pull it off&quot this time, but the people we didn't cater to voted third party or stayed home in key areas. They would have been heroes had they done the right thing. Now they're simply unwitting agents of the Republican game plan.

Voting is a duty that we owe to the people who came before us who went to prison, spilled their blood, and fought for the good fight for decades to secure that right, as well as to those whose franchise is impeded by legal voter suppression methods.

Anyone who needs to be inspired to vote is an entitled narcissist who does not deserve the privilege.

said it was working.
On " election" day she was up 4 to 6 points. With at least 270 plus in the bank..
Looks like they LIED to pollsters because their guy is such a pig they couldn't admit they were voting for it.
No wonder they could support a pathological liar

but some people are convinced by feelings not logic. I used to think that was just a characteristic of republicans, but sadly it isn't.

And to be fair, I think we all operate at least partially on feelings. But for some it plays a bigger role than others.

I supported Sanders in the Primary and supported Clinton in the General. What I believe...

1. Hillary Hate. The number one contributing factor to Clinton's loss in the General was the HUGE reservoir of Hillary Hate that has been brewing, fomenting and accumulating for approximately 25 years, at least. It is almost impossible to over-state the sheer amount of malice in Red Amerika towards Hillary Clinton that has been seething and coalescing into it's own extremely profitable INDUSTRY for years. Hillary Hate has become almost a quasi-religion in Red Amerika, and a powerful one at that. Although most of the supposed issues justifying the Hillary Hate are bogus and blown completely out of portion, again, it is impossible to overstate the sheer magnitude of the hateful deep-felt and uber-negative emotions that Clinton induces. I have been absolutely amazed and appalled at persons that I thought were thoughtful, intelligent and logical people that could rapidly devolve into rabid, froth-at-the-mouth Hillary Haters at the drop of a comment or innuendo. Unless you see this personally, you really have no idea. And this is NOT just surface, rhetorical hatred. Oh no, this is visceral and down-right bone chilling. And you can't really say the Hillary Hate is primarily sexist and gender based. It is not. IMHO, this Hillary Hate is the over-reaching and overall underlying factor that colors every component of the Clinton effort to become the 45th POTUS. This is the "trump card" that allows all other Clinton negative factors to function at their most efficient.

2. US Internal Factors. In five words: James Comey and the FBI. There is no doubt in my mind that the momentum was with Clinton and the vast pool of middle-of-the-road, undecided voters were heavily leaning towards Clinton. And, strange as it sounds, I think the SECOND Comey missive actually did the most damage going into the election. Even though it should have been interpreted as a positive for Clinton, it only fed the negative. I believe these were deliberate actions by Comey to violate the Hatch Act and unduly influence the election. Add to that: a true right-wing conspiracy centered primarily within the NY office of the FBI that sought to use any method to inhibit Clinton, even violating FBI policy and the Hatch Act.

3. Internal Factors: Voter Suppression. The Republicans know they are fighting -AND LOSING- a long-term battle for the hearts and minds of the electorate. The Republicans are losing women, minorities and younger voters in spades. The only thing they can do to make sure their candidates win, is to work to limit those groups voting that would probably vote against their candidates, which they have down to LITERALLY A SCIENCE. Voter Suppression, thy name is Republican. This cannot be overstated. It is appalling that the same tried-and-true, illegal techniques to stop lawful and legal voters from casting their ballots, are still blatantly applied TO ANY ELECTION that threatens Republican hegemony. I suspect that tens-upon-tens of thousands of Clinton voters were stopped from voting this last election cycle, especially in the overly valid states of Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

4. External Factors: Russia and Wikileaks. There is no doubt with any of the US Intelligence Agencies that Russia sought to influence this US election through a variety of methods, primarily the use of cyber espionage and manipulation AND PROBABLY DID SO. From the identified and verified pro-tRump dis-information farms in Eastern Europe to the Kremlin's own private army of cyber rat-fuckers, it is doubtful the American public will ever know the true depth of Russian influence, as most of this may well be classified. Add to that, the *partnership* between Wikileaks and Russia, aimed solely at contaminating the Clinton campaign efforts. And further, add to that chilling evidence that members of the tRump inner circle may have actually colluded with Russia to further influence the election. T-R-E-A-S-O-N.

5. The Clinton Campaign itself. If the election results are to be taken a full-face value, we cannot overlook how the internal polling for the "Blue Wall" states was so wrong by significant percentage points as to swing the election towards tRump. And further, if the election results are to be taken at full-face value, we must recognize that the Campaign apparently "missed" reaching a critical block of Democratic voters, and even had no idea that their loyalty AND VOTES was in question, in an area that was interpreted as solidly Democratic. Democratic yes, but NOT, evidently, solidly Clinton. There were warnings from outside the campaign hierarchy, including Bill Clinton, that the campaign was not reaching these voters. If correct, this is a textbook case of electoral underestimation, hubris and ultimately self-defeating.

6. Sexism and Racism. Yes they played a part, but IMHO, not to the degree some think. Very few of the Hillary Hate crowd that I spoke with mentioned her gender as the preeminent reason they were anti-Clinton. Sexism may have factored in, but was further down the list. And yes, Racism may have played a role for tRump, but outside of a specific group of racist haters --the alt-Reich-- Racism was more of a "side dish" and not the main course.

Embrace. Only the most virulent sexists and racists actually admit it. Many have biases they are unaware of.
I saw so many people who think they are feminists judge her by completely different standards than they used for any other candidate. That's deeply ingrained sexism at work.

...and I will do the same for you.

And yes, ingrained, underlying sexism colors things we wouldn't normally suspect. I get that. But to blame Clinton's supposed loss primarily on sexism seems to be disregarding other primary factors at work. And I say supposed, because I believe if it had been a completely fair and level playing field, Hillary Clinton would have beaten the tar out of Donald Trump, and quite frankly, probably did.

I stand on my premise: Ultimately the Hillary Hate religion preached 24 hours on day on Faux, piped in 24 hours a day to American military and pounded home 24 hours a day on talk radio tipped the scales towards tRump even before one ballot was ever cast.

And the over-arching reason the dark side worked so viciously to defeat Clinton, was not necessarily because of sexism. No, the primal motivator was to try and stop the electoral tide turning against republicans and insure that their dying ideology was propped up in the Supreme Court for a generation to come.

And pretending the irrational Hillary hate 24/7 only came from Fox News and the GOP- is complete bullshit.
We had the same HRC hate here for months, pushed by assholes who decamped for JPR and eventually ended up supporting Trump. Yet many here were swayed by their hateful innuendo and lies. They were just as bamboozled as many republicans were.

...those are just two prime sources.

And just because someone does not/did not support Hillary Clinton, DOES NOT earn them the sexist label. People get to make choices, that is their right.

Who had the same or less progressive policies, sexism is at work. When she is judges on her voice her smile and constantly tone policed while others can shout and wave their hands all day long- that's sexism at work.
When her supporters are accused of voting for or with a vagina? That shows how many had a hard time looking beyond her sex- that's sexist crap pretending to be "gender blind". It was endless.

...but DON'T write off Clinton's loss to sexism as the primal, driving factor. THERE WERE OTHER FACTORS AT PLAY, and to continue to deny otherwise gets us nowhere.

Any of a dozen things could have turned this election.
It's unfortunate the way this primal blind hatred held sway over too many voters from both parties.

...takes a good, long, hard look at this election, and especially the Hillary Hatred, which really is its own bizarre phenomenon that deserves scrutiny. Like I said, I saw persons of both sexes, literally go from rational human being to frothing-at-the-mouth haters in one fell swoop. It absolutely astounded me, and still does.

And going forward, we have to honestly catalog and examine each and every thing that *may have* caused Clinton's defeat. And again, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CLINTON LOST. I really don't. I believe we are experiencing a coup, an American-flavored coup, but a coup non-the-less.

Which I think would have taken another form but would have surely been employed against any candidate we ran.

Part of the Hillary hatred that was really sad is that it started out strong in the primary against her and the Dem party.

I do think there was a great deal of very vocal and super nasty voices working against the entire party and they were never with Dems. I was pretty patient and in retrospect, too quiet initially as I thought we overlapped on 90% of the issues. Now I think it was more about emotions and tribalism.

I do think many were planted here and all over the internet to forment discontent and suppress any groundswell of young voters. Some were their useful idiots. Many woke up when they saw people they aligned with spewing RW memes, but a really thoughtless hateful mood had taken over. I know that did it for me, and started calling my friends out after tolerating a lot of the divisive RW crap. I saw a few people so infused with hatred they lost my trust, as they were no more honest than many Trump supporters. The truth is that many Hillary supporters were intimated and beaten down already before the primary was over. many of us discussed how we were already exhausted from criticism
of people "on our side" that overlapped and indeed was leveraged by the GOP piling on.
It left us in a bad position for the general. I think we have some soul searching to do, and part of it is to resist infiltration by those disrupting with RW propaganda.
When I think of friend salivating over Wikileaks and Guccifer when it was obvious how biased they were from the get go, I just shake my head.

Both positions cannot be true

it's survival depends on it

2016 was a very serious warning. Something very wrong with this party's radar, when 6 months ago, many were thinking the Republican party might never elect another president, and be doomed to be just a regional party, when they actually were on the verge of the biggest across the board win in 90 years. I think a new populist party drawing 1/4 of Democrats, 1/4 of Republicans and 1/4 of independents, could change the stature of this party forever.

Trump's wildly unconventional campaign shows that new technology and populism can upset the massive money warchests of both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton

voters to cast protest votes. The same thing happened in 2000 with Al Gore, so it's a pattern. Reality is that this election came down to about 75,000 people spread over several states and the margin voting for 3rd party Sanders clearly explains what happened.

let's outlaw any opinion that disagrees with party doctrine

or, as an alternative, be less tone deaf about *legitimate* grievences

protest votes against Clinton to show how much they disliked her. The same strategy was used against Gore. That gave us Bush and now Trump. Nothing wrong with expanding or adapting a platform, but Sanders' was hostile to the extreme to her and the Democratic party as a way to distinguish himself. It was nothing *but* grievances. After it was clear that he lost the primary early on, he should not have been allowed to badmouth the nominee like that. She could not level that playing field with him because she didn't want to alienate his supporters. Everything was to Sanders' advantage.

Perot was the only non-Democrat I've ever voted for President - so the Republics didnt lose a vote from me, but they lost if from others - I think Perot got something like 19 percent. Were Clinton fans crying over the injustice from Perot?

It's all a moot point anyway - you can't outlaw 3rd parties - you can say they 'shouldn't be', but they will

drew equally from both parties. There were numerous articles written that showed Perot drew equally from both sides. Only die-hard Clinton haters insist that Bill won because of Perot. Hmmm.

And at this point, any 3rd party voter who is okay with Bush and now okay with Trump as long as they got to express their hostility towards the Democratic nominee is admitting they are fine with Republicans. So they really aren't as "third party" as they express. No one can say that Bush was an okay President if they are anti-war and are big occupy Wall Street complainers. And now we have a true 1% billionaire nominating other billionaires! Go figure...

or at least stop people from voting from voting for them - now, please elaborate on how we do it

(also, I find it amazing, that with Perot getting 19 percent of the vote in 1992, that he drew exactly even from both sides - that's truly amazing)

Do tell? You never responded to my question. I never disputed the emails exist. What is ludicrous is that they determined the results of the primary, particularly since they date well past the point that Bernie couldn't win.

Another fact is that Clinton won the primary by 3.75 million votes. No obsession with DNC emails from April and May change that fact. Instead they show the complete disregard those who invoke that argument have for the majority of voters.

The irony of your response here is that you make it in regard to evidence I provided refuting your original claim that no one said Clinton was to blame for the loss. Your inartful pivot and subsequent projection do not cover up for the absence of logic or analysis; rather, they highlight them.

that people believe it was a single factor that determined the loss.

...the electoral college, which was designed to prevent mobs from putting an obviously unqualified candidate in the White House, would vote for the woman who got the most votes in this election, this by a huge margin.

So phony!

Is that your position?

The pundits spent a lot of time discussing what Hillary should say in her victory speech. The consensus: She needs to be gracious and humble and reach out to Republicans and Trump supporters in order to start the healing process.

The next day, when it was clear that she had lost, the same pundits who had been completely wrong, unshamefacedly discussed what Hillary should say in her concession speech. The consensus: she needs to be gracious and humble and reach out to Republicans and Trump supporters in order to start the healing process.

'Milwaukee — I love telling people I’m from Wisconsin. Maybe it’s my defense mechanism for when people accuse me of being a coastal elite, out of touch with Real America. I like fulfilling all the Wisconsin stereotypes. I love cheese and cheese curds, of course. I love our sports teams out of a vague sense of homerism. And my accent (all hard A’s) comes out in full force after ah coupl’ah beers.

Mostly I love my grandma, who has called Wisconsin home for 88 years. Her parents immigrated to Wisconsin from Germany, and she started public school without knowing a word of English. She forgot most of the German her parents taught her years ago, but taught me the words to the “Liechtensteiner Polka” that we would sometimes hear when my family would go to a Friday night fish fry.

Up until Nov. 8, I still believed my state’s moral baseline bent toward empathy. The Wisconsin I thought I knew, where I lived for 21 years, was filled with complex but fundamentally decent people who recognized that everyone is deserving of respect and could disagree without being disagreeable. The state did elect Scott Walker as governor in 2010, and the Republican-led legislature gutted public-sector unions, setting off huge protests in the Capitol. But I didn’t think that state would vote for Donald J. Trump, turning its 10 electoral votes to a Republican for the first time since 1984. (I mean, come on, we even voted for Dukakis.)

As much as Mr. Trump won the election in Wisconsin, Hillary Clinton lost it. Her campaign, which prided itself on employing all the data wizards and ground game gurus money can buy, did not do nearly enough to lock down the upper Midwest, particularly Wisconsin and Michigan, and instead treated those states as a given. . .

Paul Soglin is the mayor of Madison, Wisconsin’s capital city, in cerulean Dane County. He supported Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, and said he talked at least once a week with a field organizer from the Sanders campaign during the primary. But once Mrs. Clinton locked up the nomination, it was radio silence from the Clinton campaign.

“Since I first held elected office in the early ’70s, virtually every presidential election, I’ve been contacted, either by the candidate or by a staffer,” he told me. “I’m not saying this to say I’m important. But the point is, not only wasn’t she in the state, but I never got a call, a contact, anything after the primary.”'>>>

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/opinion/campaign-stops/not-your-grandmothers-wisconsin.html?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016171309

"Maybe she didn't come to Wisconsin out of respect for the empathy and values you insist your state possesses.

She didn't come to my area either. She trusted us and we came out for her by 70 plus points.

Do you really need to be pandered to ? You have the internet. You have televisions. You can tell what policies make sense and what a mature adult sounds like.

I'm tired of people complaining that the mature adult didn't fly in to tell people what they should have known already.

The golf club lounging NY financier isn't going to spend a minute in the sticks once he's elected. He'll be on the 18th green with his hedge fund and foreign national pals, working on new ways to ship your jobs overseas and blame Obama for it. "

Further, DUer NBachers did a great job of compiling a list of HRC's appearances in WI, PA, and MI:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2639615

...
WISCONSIN

February 11, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Democratic Debate (PBS

February 12, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Fundraiser

March 24, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Get Out the Vote

March 24, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin Get Out the Vote

March 24, 2016 Waukesha, Wisconsin Get Out the Vote

March 28, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Organizing Event

March 29, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Community Forum on Gun Violence

March 29, 2016 LaCrosse, Wisconsin Organizing Event

March 29, 2016 Green Bay, Wisconsin Organizing Event

April 1, 2016 Appleton, Wisconsin Organizing Event

April 2, 2016 Eau Claire, Wisconsin Get Out the Vote

April 2, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin Organizing Event

April 2, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Democratic Party of Wisconsin’s 2016 Founders Day Gala

April 4, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Organizing Event

August 5, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Organizing Event

September 29, 2016 Kenosha, Wisconsin Early Voting Event

September 30, 2016 Green Bay, Wisconsin Early Voting Event

October 5, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin Rally

October 7, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin Early Voting Event

October 7, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Early Voting Event

October 8, 2016 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Early Voting Event

October 25, 2016 Stevens Point, Wisconsin Early Vote Rally

October 25, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin Early Vote Rally

October 27, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin Fundraiser."

“Since I first held elected office in the early ’70s, virtually every presidential election, I’ve been contacted, either by the candidate or by a staffer,” he told me. “I’m not saying this to say I’m important. But the point is, not only wasn’t she in the state, but I never got a call, a contact, anything after the primary.”

and now the mainstream media and the reliable astroturf roots of US politics are dancing around the issue. Even the recount effort and discussion only barely glances on the subject, and then only if you dig deep

see for starters: https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-nation-radio-greg-palast-on-stripping-7-million-voters-from-rolls-swinging-election

everybody is so busy getting with the program that this issue has been and is being swept under the rug

the privilegedness of hate in our society is shown in how Donald Trump simply claims baselessly that the election would be stolen and then baselessly claims that millions of illegitimate (presumably Democratic) votes were cast when in fact millions of legitimate votes were systematically disqualified and are not -- as they properly must be; but no one points out in a massive & public way how this inverts the actual truth. The only way to have honest elections under conditions of multiple programs like "CrossCheck" (exposed along w/other simultaneous operations by Palast back in August) is for EACH AND EVERY disqualified vote to be accountably reviewed, carefully to determine whether an estimate 7 million votes nationally and hundreds of thousands in the three key states (areas where the disqualification process was intense, given that they were swing states where the GOP exercised state power) were in fact even mostly disqualified properly

if the past is any record, only a tiny fraction of such GOP-disqualified votes are really illegitimate, but the issue as usual gets swept under the rug (as it was in 2000 and 2004). it's just "one of those things" and hardly talked about other than as some tin-foil hat concern if at all

the problem is that the only functioning aspect of the system is the one that maintains strict repression of effective progressive politics and the laundering/justification of such repression (justifying the lying)

There were also many serious errors (or "errors&quot by the HRC campaign, like spending time and money in AZ, UT, GA etc that should have OBVIOUSLY AT THE TIME been better spent in the key states needed to win. Along these lines, Rep Clyburn and others were in a chorus urging a much greater GOTV effort in these states (there were key senate races in both WI and PA, as well as NC, among the swing states) rather than wasting millions on TV and other frills. Also, these mass disqualification efforts, as in 2000, should have at least been introductorily brought into court before the election, to at least demand a truly accountable review of each and every such vote -- as in 2000.

Meanwhile there are huge issues in the campaign about the MSM, not to forget Comey and other gross twists of proper process (how a real pluralist democracy would function, even an 'imperfect' one). But the point is that the problems continue RIGHT NOW, and will continue into the future, as both the processes and mainstream cravenness in the face of them are likely to intensify.

Meanwhile, the climate careens to and into runaway global warming and the inevitable hand-wringing and the "we didn't know" BS that will just as inevitably follow

after his loss. Not a single one. It was all about the DNC and "fraud" and everyone but Bernie. Nobody Hillary-bashers thought, hey, maybe Bernie needed to adjust his message, or reach out to a broader group, or anything. It was all about how great Bernie was and how everyone except for Bernie was to blame for not voting for him.

That's not what happened this year.

Trump got a pass on almost everything....

Gimme a break...

That is what got me out of trouble all through elementary school. Fuck up and find someone else to blame. Flawed is never an option

Most of us would point to strategic mistakes made by her campaign's strategists, to the damage done by the administration's refusal to accept "No TPP" language in the platform, AND to the effects of the Comey trick, as well as acknowledging that racism and sexism did play some role.

Are you really saying that you can't accept ANY interpretation other than bigotry, that we MUST regard the campaign and the candidate as flawless?

If we do accept that bigotry is the only explanation, what hope can we possibly have for the future? We can't gain any votes at all by default, and there is little if any support in the party for the idea of abandoning our opposition to bigotry OR for throwing anyone in the base under the bus.