and to lesser degrees 2012 and 2016

down a key provision in the voters rights act.

Or that after that decision, 14 states added new voting restrictions just in time for the 2016 election:

www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016

North Carolina would have been included in that list, but last minute court rulings were able to get voters who had been removed from the voter registration list reinstated:

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-carolina-naacp-voter-suppression_us_5817634fe4b064e1b4b385df

In spite of that, in North Carolina many of those voters did not realize they could vote in time.

I am relieved that those voting restrictions which started in 2013, and were not in place for the 2008 and 2012 election, and were primarily aimed at supressing the African American vote had nothing to do with it.

While we are at it, let's also ignore the FBI/Comey interference, the media's bias, and the Russian hacking.

and by the way, this election wasn't just about the presidency.

Russ Feingold, Zypher Teachout, and every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states, lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican

For those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, and thought they were teaching us a lesson, I think Noam Chomsky said it best:

“I think they [made] a bad mistake,” said Chomsky, who reiterated that it’s important to keep a “greater evil” from obtaining power, even if you’re not thrilled with the alternative. “I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”

Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“[Zizek makes a] terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

http://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016

Voter suppression existed long before Shelby County invalidated Section 5 of the VRA. Of the states who enacted new laws after 2013 (as per your link), only Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Arizona were covered by Section 5 and therefore were the only states affected by the decision.
Clinton took Virginia and New Hampshire. Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina weren't even close. The only state that was close, Wisconsin, had only the 2011 voter ID laws in effect for 2016 due to a July 2016 court order and the same order actually made it easier for voters to get ID's in 2016 than it was in 2012,

Clearly GOPers are f'ing with black voters and clearly they have suppressed black vote. Anyone who argues with that is, well, incorrect. However, the argument that "new" laws had a big impact seems to suggest that Clinton had it harder than Obama due to the increased suppression of black votes after Section 5 was struck down and that isn't true.

Also, Zephyr was running in a pretty deep pink district and was shredded with late money accusing her of being a carpetbagger etc., as opposed to being "too liberal." As for Feingold, he got essentially the same number of votes as the candidate at the top of the ticket. I don't think you can take too much from the fact that he didn't pull Trump voters other than more evidence that the "Hillary lost because liberals voted for Trump" meme is incorrect.

As for this:



Exactly! I cannot agree with you more!!!!!!!!!

While the tamping down of Clinton's post-convention momentum began with the Comey letter, it was brought home by:

(1) a complicit media (acting like Comey said anything meaningful in that letter, publishing the DNC emails, and giving Trump about the same level of scrutiny as a WWE fan (yes, that IS an attack on the new head of the SBA) gives the "result" of the latest "raslin' match;" AND,
(2) by the Russian/Trumpster/White Supremacist web site fake new reports (AGAIN not corrected by the complicit MSM) on election day about how there were huge turnouts in Democratic areas and how Clinton had it in the bag which essentially gave Democrats an excuse not to vote.

I posted in an earlier OP that we probably set ourselves up for it,

BUT

regardless, the fact remains that this election was stolen with lies and deceit AND, if it hadn't been, we would have seen results similar (okay, obviously not as dramatic) to what we saw in California!

instituted restrictive voting requirements. Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina were among those states. The NAACP managed to get the NC ruling reversed, but it was late in the game, and a good number of those that were removed and reinstated back on the eligible voting list did not vote because of it.

The SC decision opened the door to Jim Crow in those red states, but it also embolden others to push for voter suppression laws aimed primarily at the African American community

When you expand to those states that felt "empowered" by Shelby County.

Of course, how much encouragement does the party of "Chock full o'racists" need to move forward with keeping black folks out of the voting booth?

Good point.

my friend.

They will have to drag us all to hell together.

I agree that stuff like scrubbing the rolls is dirty and the other things that the rethugs have done to suppress the voters did hinder Hillary's win but I disagree with the idea that African Americans are singled out by voter ID laws.

I am one of the only White guys in my apartment complex. I am really good friends with a lot of the African Americans who live next to me, and below me. I have actually asked them about this very thing, and they all looked at me like I was crazy. My downstairs neighbor was actually upset because he thought it was basically an attempt to say that African Americans don't have ID's.
They all said that ID's have no bearing on if they will vote or not.

On election day, I asked all of them at different times if they needed a ride to vote or anything, and all declined.. After the most stinging defeat since 2000, I asked them if they voted. Every single one said no, and when we started talking about it, they basically said that since Obama was not running, that they felt no need to vote. I was shocked by this and continued talking to them. Only one said they actually liked Hillary and the rest said she was not appealing to them, and since they hated Trump they decided to just stay home.

I think a lot of the reason the turn out was so low, was because there was no real charismatic aspect to Hillary like there was to Obama. I tried to get them to see the light all year, but when it came down to it, they had work to get to and other things to do besides vote.

Not trying to start a fight or anything, but I think we have to have an open dialogue on why we lost, so we can win next time.

Why not organize to stand up to those types of efforts? You know...anywhere this stuff is taking place and voters are being removed...help get them re-registered while using the GOP crap against them and get some of their voters removed. This should be an ongoing effort that isn't just looked at during election times. A quiet effort in EVERY county of EVERY state...find the Democratic voters and get them registered. Every.last.one. Complaining and blaming does NOT fix the issue...action DOES.

as 2016, and I gave an example. Then in your infinite wisdom, you decide that all I am doing is complaining, and somehow you have extrapolated that I just sit on my ass and complain and don't do anything active.

You don't know me from zip.

I have been active since my first election for George McGovern.

I support the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and other groups that have been fighting for peoples rights for years.

I actively have been involved in the election process for a long time, whether through call banking, canvassing, or donations, not only with money, but food for volunteers, and this election was no different.

I also write my Senators, Representative, in my state, and other states as well

We share a first election!

"Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“ terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”"

But then again you are arguing with self-destructive idiots, at least, that's what they are right now. The One Percenters may have voted for Trump, but they did not get him elected. There are 60 million or so out there who may discover they've been duped.

generational event, and it is going to take a long time to recover from this, and I am afraid a lot of people are going to feel a lot pain before this is over

20 years of Fox News and 30 years of right-wing-hate radio. If those we shut down now, we could recover in 50 years or so.

Should have that many more electoral votes

The EC got all screwed up when they decided to mess with the number of congress critters. The number of representatives in the House started to grow to unmanageable proportions. So they decided to limit the number of them and just distribute them as a function of population. The problem is that some states are guaranteed a representative regardless of how small of a population they have. So the disparity grows as the population distribution continues to skew towards certain regions/states. Coupled with the guarantee that each state gets two senators, it just makes the disparity even greater.

The simplest and most straight forward way to "correct" this would be to disconnect the number of EC electors from their number of congress critters. Modify the system so that the smallest state gets 1 (or 3 or whatever). Then, each state gets a number of electoral votes based upon the proportion of the population relative to that state. So the end result might be that there are 2500 EC votes spread among the 50 states. But it would be a "proportional" spread. Yes, it wouldn't be a perfect spread, but it'd be a whole lot closer to consistent. But it would also maintain the concept that the president should have broad national support, not just in certain areas or demographics.

We'd still have the problem that the Congress has a similarly large disparity because of the House and Senate being heavily biased towards minority states. That, coupled with Gerrymandering would have to be a fight for another day.

using criminal law to strip citizens of their right to vote, etc.

never mind suspicions about the actual counting.

a key provision in the voters rights act.

14 states, including a few of those critical swing states, passed restrictive voting requirement. North Carolina was one of them, and the NAACP did manage to get a court ruling to reinstate those that had been illegally removed from the voting lists, but it happened too late, and many of those who had been removed did not realize they were eligible to vote in time.

Not Bernie, not Russian hacking, not Comey, not Wiki leaks, not voter suppression, not the media giving Trump hundreds of minutes of free air time, etc.

Could not in 2016?

Hillary had it easy compared to Obama. She ran against a complete moron who is so unfit to be president that it's embarrassing.

WH for 8 years.

in fact models created prior to the election showed the democrat losing both popular vote and EC. HRC won the popular vote by quite a large margin despite russian interference, comey, and the problem that comes with your party holding WH for 8 years.

Should tell people that much. The refusal to engage with basic information is astounding. They want to make it all about Hillary, and if that really all there is to it, we would have nothing to worry about in the future. Of course it isn't, but it shows how invested some are into the propaganda about her they've been fed by the GOP.

Blows up your theory.

And it isn't a theory. It's a basic historical fact. Truman was the last Democrat elected in such circumstances.

That rare situations arise a couple of times a century doesn't justify ignoring context.

And really, if the entirety of the problem was Hillary, there is no reason to worry about solutions since she won't run again. If you truly believed what you claim, you wouldn't even bother with this discussion.

Sorry, but the facts just do not fit your narrative.

It's not just Hillary. We have a problem across the board. We lost the Senate, House, the Executive and countless state governments due to the incompetence of the political faction of the Clinton wing of the party.

Hillary is just the latest to show us the weaknesses within the party.

And ALL the soft on crime shit they do to scare white people.

and a large amount of dems thought it was in the bag. In fact, this site was overrun with the hubris of the HRC campaign. The "worry trolls" were vilified for actually voicing the opinion that the Orange Cheeto would win....

Acting like it was just hubris ignores the data we all read.

And I get you derive some pleasure in saying I told you so, but the way to deal with worrying is not to create some sort of consensus on a website that you are right but to volunteer to turn out voters. Did you do that?

I suppose you know that I get pleasure from being right? No, no I don't... I worked my ass off during this election to GOTV. The elitism I sense in your response reminds me of the person I so hoped to defeat and the reason so many Dems were fooled into believing "it was in the bag." Get over yourself...

WTF?

rust belt?

People from MI and WI were clamoring for more resources because they saw the numbers. The hubris of the Clinton campaign was that their national team believed they knew better than the state insiders.

At the beginning of 2016 I was expecting and dreading a Bush/Clinton face-off in November. Expecting because they were both being pushed as their respective party's "inevitable" nominee, dreading because I don't like the idea of political dynasties (2 Bushes were more than enough). Bush had out-raised the rest of the initial GOP field: then primary/caucus voters told the Republican party in no uncertain terms that they didn't want their establishment candidate. I think the Democratic early voters were trying to say the same thing, but Sanders didn't have the steamroller effect that Trump did.

As the campaign drew to its end and polls were showing Clinton with a seemingly unbeatable lead, it seemed to me that she was talking more about electing the first woman president than she was about continuing Obama's legacy or even being a better qualified person for the job. It seemed as if she focused more on her own ambition (and anyone who seriously runs for president has to be truly ambitious) and was asking voters to support her vision, rather than her supporting theirs. Disclaimers: I live on the West Coast where we don't get much in the way of political ads or even campaign visits, and I voted for Clinton in both the primary and general because I thought she was the best choice on the ballot. However, there always seemed to be an underlying "It's my turn" vibe which is what I think fueled the Sanders insurgency.

I think you summed it up well. A lot of people were not impressed by the identity politics, and simply wanted change.

It's absolutely pathetic. But Hillary had decades of baggage to manipulate. Plus I thought that she wasn't going to win anyway. The progress of President Obama inevitably lead to backlash.

whereas Clinton ran following an eight year Democratic presidency.

What's embarrassing is that people don't understand that there is a difference in those situations.
The widespread absence of any understanding of historical and political context and the obsession with individual personalities is frankly frightening. It's amazing that anyone would even have to ask that question, but we see it time and time again.

Not her plan, but her 3 to 5 word message to sell it?

and you apparently didn't read my response. I conceded her campaign was not persuasive to the low information voter. What she had is substantive policy proposals designed to address inequality and economic growth. The media never covered them, and even many Democrats didn't care enough to learn about her proposals.

Clnton's forte has never been sloganeering, and she offered nothing to voters desperate to be pandered to. Instead, she respected the intelligence of the voters and provided thoughtful solutions. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

America, as it turns out, is not a country that wants thoughtful and substantive solutions. We have a population used to being marketed to, that demands 3-5 word slogans. And so they got it with Donald Trump's Make America great again.

to dig in and research. They are working two jobs. They are exhausted. They have pressing life priorities. Messaging needs to be made accessible (not "go to my website&quot and easily digestible in between their other commitments. Intelligence, I'm sure you know, consists also of being able to craft your position into an accessible, digestible format. Distill the essential components. Particularly when you realize people's time is short. And if your response smacks of "well then they got what they deserve because voting requires more effort" ... well, let's see.

characters as possible.

That's where she failed.

the Democratic voters and them not showing at the polls.

I think that was the most important factor. Dems who weren't completely on board with voting for Hillary used the hacked emails, esp the one about the primary being "rigged" for her, and either decided to stay home, voted 3rd party or didn't vote the presidential ballot line. Rs who might have been willing to vote for her, imho, went with the "both sides are awful/2 terrible candidates" meme were lost as well.

There was so much coverage of the emails, it literally drowned out any discussion of actual policy issues.

I also think Obama himself was part of the reason voters didn't turn out as strongly. He so rarely showed any fight or willingness to stand up to the Rs and others who had no other goal than to destroy him. Everything was about compromise and bi-partisanship. If he'd done nothing more than give a press conf everyday on the shameful hold up of Garland's nomination and what the seat meant for various issues like voting rights, women's rights, minority rights, campaign finance reform, employee protections, justice system reform, govt as a force for good etc, Dems would have been a lot more fired up to vote because it would've shown he was fighting for the values he said he believed.

I thought he was just another "corporatist" establishment Dem?


Ironic that the OP himself never "shows up" to respond to any questions or criticisms about his posts.

So far, he really hasn't admitted that despite leaving the country "better off" than it was 8 years ago (it'd be hard to be worse off), he left the party in shambles.

He's a corporatist Establishment Dem who knows how to win a nationwide election.

Yes there was Russian hacking, voter suppression, etc. But low turnout was also there. We can approach this problem with multiple solutions.

When election data is broken down by precinct, often losses are decided by fewer than 5 votes per precinct. Think about 5 people in your neighborhood who aren't registered (but eligible) or haven't voted. Then turn them out (or register them first). If someone in every precinct does this (or even every other precinct) then we come out ahead.

Also when reaching typically GOP voters (evangelicals, white men, etc) you don't need to win them all. But instead of losing 75-25 you lose 70-30 and you turn out those additional 5 votes a precinct, you win.

Clinton's popular vote count is nearly the same as President Obama's from 2012.

nt

It was down in some, about the same in others and more in others still.

She lost votes in Wisconsin and Michigan.
She got about the same in Pennsylvania.
She gained in Florida.

I'll be sure to take that into consideration if you decide to write a book on Election 2016.

to discuss his posts, or just keep dropping one hit and run OP after another?

turds in a punchbowl, eh?

Sid

and others were too lazy to vote...and they are screwed too

is closed, too far away, only open 2 days a week because Republican Governors and State Legislatures have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters in Red States?

We need to be there between election years as well. That town hall with Trump supporters with Chris Hayes is precisely what we need to be doing. Maybe have town halls on Facebook Live. Beyond a 50 state strategy, let's have a strategy for every county.

I'm so concerned we'll NEVER see another Democrat elected.

Obama agrees. We don't need to change anything except out reach to our people.

You also didn't take the party into the progressive populist direction it needed to go, and you never fought fire with fire against the TeaCrazy party. You didn't lead the way you campaigned and were always trying to "work with" the R's. I like you a LOT, and you did some very good things. I give you great credit for a lot. But Tim Kaine and Wasserman-Schultz were not full time DNC chairs and the DNC SUCKED for the whole time you were in office. You won in 2012 mainly because of what your campaign team did, not the SHITTY DNC.

So we all have to admit to our mistakes, including you Sir.