are neither helpful nor are they truly Democrats, IMO.

But we have DU in common, and speaking out - which are good things.

Because they want to burn it all down rather than compromise a thing. I used to think I was far left but apparently I am too pragmatic to abide their nonsense.

A political campaign is mainly marketing: If you don't market your "product" effectively, people won't "buy." Without question there were malign outside influences - Comey, Putin, gerrymandering, voter suppression - but it's impossible to conclude that the Clinton campaign made no mistakes at all because every campaign makes mistakes. The question is whether and to what extent those mistakes, combined with the external forces, affected the outcome. Some have said that it was a mistake not to have paid more (or different) attention to Wisconsin and Michigan. I don't know whether that's true, but wouldn't it be better to examine every single aspect of the campaign, both internal and external, to determine how it all fit together, and to admit at least the possibility that mistakes were made so as to avoid repeating them? There should be no sacred cows. Everything has to be looked at.

No one is concluding "that the Clinton campaign made no mistakes at all". No one said that at all. And as to the analogy not being good - My flashbacks are very similar to how I feel every time I hear someone say that the Democrats need to review what they did wrong - I think of my poor Mom. Sure I don't disagree that self evaluation is good for the Democratic party - but bottom line is the election was STOLEN by Putin/Trump. They are the wrong doers and we need full transparency.

and tactics? The election should not have been close enough to steal; maybe if some things had been done differently the tampering by Putin et al. would not have worked. I am absolutely in favor of full transparency. I absolutely agree that we need to get to the bottom of it. We need to look at all of it.

Trump was the worst, most odious, nastiest, most unqualified candidate ever to win the nomination of a major party. He defeated one of the most qualified candidates. Why? I don't think it's enough to just sit back and say it was all the result of Putin's hacking. What I am saying is that all possible influences have to be looked at.

as minor details.

They were major and stole the election for trump.

And as for campaign mistakes, what campaign hasn't made mistakes?

Bernie's neglect of southern primaries ranks right up there as being huge, his Rome trip was a debacle at a critical time, his failure to gracefully bow out after he had no chance was another (and it hurt Hillary, btw).

the election wouldn't have been close enough for Putin to steal. I don't know. But HRC should have won that election in a landslide; it shouldn't have even been close. I'd like to know why it was. All of the reasons.

And you just couldn't resist another dig at Bernie, could you?

Um, yeah. That's how it works.

Eventually, there's going to be another election. We might want to win it.

Was that our fault? No one is saying that we shouldn't review the campaign. You just happen to be able to cut and paste and misuse my words.

yes it is the Democrats fault , this should have been an easy win.

Domestic violence and elections have nothing in common. Elections are things we freely participate in to determine how our country will be governed. Domestic violence is abuse nobody freely participates in.

As a kid who grew up being abused by my dad, this post disgusts me.

Democrats didn't 'get beat'. They lost. They made strategic decisions that caused them to lose the election.

There were many outside influences. There are always outside influences. Nobody controls anything 100%. But there was plenty within their control that they absolutely screwed up, which caused them to lose the electoral college which whether we like it or not is currently how we choose the president of the country.

be able to reply so I'm self deleting.