watching the news last night I saw that voter fraud was an issue in Michigan ? voting poll volunteer's actually resubmitting voting sheets 2 to 3 times for HRC votes ?
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Wait, what? You think that wealthy people contribute to campaigns with the expectations that certainly policy goals that they support are fulfilled? No way. Say it isn't so. This Democratic party is so corrupt. They should only support candidates because they are partial to the letter D, not because there is alignment of causes.
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Wait, what? You think that wealthy people contribute to campaigns with the expectations that certainly policy goals that they support are fulfilled? No way. Say it isn't so. This Democratic party is so corrupt. They should only support candidates because they are partial to the letter D, not because there is alignment of causes.
jajajajajajajajjajaj ! some members of the labor union only vote for candidates with the letter "D" by their name, I will agree the democratic party has been corrupted for many years as is the republican party and where I come from nothing is free.
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Wait, what? You think that wealthy people contribute to campaigns with the expectations that certainly policy goals that they support are fulfilled? No way. Say it isn't so. This Democratic party is so corrupt. They should only support candidates because they are partial to the letter D, not because there is alignment of causes.
jajajajajajajajjajaj ! some members of the labor union only vote for candidates with the letter "D" by their name, I will agree the democratic party has been corrupted for many years as is the republican party and where I come from nothing is free.
I'm not sure that makes a party corrupt. Corrupt would be someone akin to Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. We don't have that here. Bundling donors that support a particular cause or set of causes, and that politician supporting those causes is legal politics in America. Lots of people think unlimited donations should be illegal. I'm one of them. But until they are, I can't call someone corrupt. To me, that's a legal statement, not a moral one.
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Clinton, sued? For "fraudulent campaign donations"? I think these big money campaign donors understand how an election works somewhat better than you do, if you think they believed a win was guaranteed.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Wait, what? You think that wealthy people contribute to campaigns with the expectations that certainly policy goals that they support are fulfilled? No way. Say it isn't so. This Democratic party is so corrupt. They should only support candidates because they are partial to the letter D, not because there is alignment of causes.
jajajajajajajajjajaj ! some members of the labor union only vote for candidates with the letter "D" by their name, I will agree the democratic party has been corrupted for many years as is the republican party and where I come from nothing is free.
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Clinton, sued? For "fraudulent campaign donations"? I think these big money campaign donors understand how an election works somewhat better than you do, if you think they believed a win was guaranteed.
Clinton and Wasserman Shultz repealed Obama's rule that big donor money donations were not allowed in pres elections. Personally thank them for not winning the presidency. They thought their big money was going to do it.
The Dems do need to look at themselves and make some changes, but they also face the prospect of overcompensating.
The nominating process needs to be opened up and legitimized. The big donors in that room last night can't decide beforehand who the nominee will be. Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate who was wrong for this election. That's made worse by these donors looking like they put their fingers on the scale for her.
I have no real evidence to back this next statement up but I believe it to be true. A Hillary Clinton who emerged from a Democratic primary featuring not only Sanders but a Warren and a Biden would have been better positioned to unify the party by November 8th. Legitimate options with legitimate differences given to the voters to decide. If she won that race rather than the race we saw I believe it would have helped pull in the grudging support she never was truly able to. There would have been no perception that the primary was not on the level. That would have mattered.
It should be said but not harped on: Tim Kaine was a baffling bust. He helped bring her Virginia, no doubt, but Virginia ended up not mattering much and he added little else. Was the VP slot ever offered to Sanders? Did he turn it down? If it wasn't, it should have been. And if it wasn't, part of any postmortem needs to examine why.
All of that said...almost 3 million more Americans voted for the Democratic ticket than voted for Donald Trump. Conservatives are enjoying a victory lap and that's fine. The reality is this wasn't the complete rejection of Democratic policies and ideas we thought it was on election night. This loss was about candidate, campaign, and strategy. These problems are not fixed by completely blowing things up. They are fixed by listening to the voters, assessing the country, and not allowing anyone to decide in 2016 who the nominee will be in 2020.
All of that said...almost 3 million more Americans voted for the Democratic ticket than voted for Donald Trump.
This is why the democrats lost. They just repeat garbage over and over again believing it to be true. Do the Republicans go on and on about how they won the election w/ 3million less votes than Hillary?
The Dems do need to look at themselves and make some changes, but they also face the prospect of overcompensating.
The nominating process needs to be opened up and legitimized. The big donors in that room last night can't decide beforehand who the nominee will be. Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate who was wrong for this election. That's made worse by these donors looking like they put their fingers on the scale for her.
I have no real evidence to back this next statement up but I believe it to be true. A Hillary Clinton who emerged from a Democratic primary featuring not only Sanders but a Warren and a Biden would have been better positioned to unify the party by November 8th. Legitimate options with legitimate differences given to the voters to decide. If she won that race rather than the race we saw I believe it would have helped pull in the grudging support she never was truly able to. There would have been no perception that the primary was not on the level. That would have mattered.
It should be said but not harped on: Tim Kaine was a baffling bust. He helped bring her Virginia, no doubt, but Virginia ended up not mattering much and he added little else. Was the VP slot ever offered to Sanders? Did he turn it down? If it wasn't, it should have been. And if it wasn't, part of any postmortem needs to examine why.
All of that said...almost 3 million more Americans voted for the Democratic ticket than voted for Donald Trump. Conservatives are enjoying a victory lap and that's fine. The reality is this wasn't the complete rejection of Democratic policies and ideas we thought it was on election night. This loss was about candidate, campaign, and strategy. These problems are not fixed by completely blowing things up. They are fixed by listening to the voters, assessing the country, and not allowing anyone to decide in 2016 who the nominee will be in 2020.
All of that said...almost 3 million more Americans voted for the Democratic ticket than voted for Donald Trump.
This is why the democrats lost. They just repeat garbage over and over again believing it to be true. Do the Republicans go on and on about how they won the election w/ 3million less votes than Hillary?
This thread.
That's what you got out of my post? Go troll somewhere else.
All of that said...almost 3 million more Americans voted for the Democratic ticket than voted for Donald Trump.
This is why the democrats lost. They just repeat garbage over and over again believing it to be true. Do the Republicans go on and on about how they won the election w/ 3million less votes than Hillary?
This thread.
I picture you sitting in a basement of your mother's house smoking a joint and making up these nonsense statements just to make yourself laugh.
^^^ Your entire post offers no policy on how to rebuild. All it says is that the dems lost and need to rebuild.
They are fixed by listening to the voters, assessing the country, and not allowing anyone to decide in 2016 who the nominee will be in 2020
How does this help the dems going forward? How do you do this?
Now you are interested in rationale discussion?
The donor class of the party decided in 2008 who their nominee was going to be in 2016. Those same people are now demanding an accounting of what went wrong which is the only reason why one will be done. But those very donors are a big part of the problem. If allowed they'll settle on their next champion soon and the Democrats will go through another sham of a primary. That's what needs to be prevented.
All of that said...almost 3 million more Americans voted for the Democratic ticket than voted for Donald Trump.
This is why the democrats lost. They just repeat garbage over and over again believing it to be true. Do the Republicans go on and on about how they won the election w/ 3million less votes than Hillary?
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Wait, what? You think that wealthy people contribute to campaigns with the expectations that certainly policy goals that they support are fulfilled? No way. Say it isn't so. This Democratic party is so corrupt. They should only support candidates because they are partial to the letter D, not because there is alignment of causes.
jajajajajajajajjajaj ! some members of the labor union only vote for candidates with the letter "D" by their name, I will agree the democratic party has been corrupted for many years as is the republican party and where I come from nothing is free.
Time to Get rid of the two-party system!
The two party system is no mandate, but the Constitution makes it difficult to have three viable parties. You would need an Amendment to remove the EC to ever have a hope of adding a third party that could compete nationally for the president.
The Dems do need to look at themselves and make some changes, but they also face the prospect of overcompensating.
The nominating process needs to be opened up and legitimized. The big donors in that room last night can't decide beforehand who the nominee will be. Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate who was wrong for this election. That's made worse by these donors looking like they put their fingers on the scale for her.
I have no real evidence to back this next statement up but I believe it to be true. A Hillary Clinton who emerged from a Democratic primary featuring not only Sanders but a Warren and a Biden would have been better positioned to unify the party by November 8th. Legitimate options with legitimate differences given to the voters to decide. If she won that race rather than the race we saw I believe it would have helped pull in the grudging support she never was truly able to. There would have been no perception that the primary was not on the level. That would have mattered.
It should be said but not harped on: Tim Kaine was a baffling bust. He helped bring her Virginia, no doubt, but Virginia ended up not mattering much and he added little else. Was the VP slot ever offered to Sanders? Did he turn it down? If it wasn't, it should have been. And if it wasn't, part of any postmortem needs to examine why.
All of that said...almost 3 million more Americans voted for the Democratic ticket than voted for Donald Trump. Conservatives are enjoying a victory lap and that's fine. The reality is this wasn't the complete rejection of Democratic policies and ideas we thought it was on election night. This loss was about candidate, campaign, and strategy. These problems are not fixed by completely blowing things up. They are fixed by listening to the voters, assessing the country, and not allowing anyone to decide in 2016 who the nominee will be in 2020.
Thoughtful post, but let me challenge or drive discussion on a few points: 1. Would Sanders have made a difference? Initial assessments that I saw (and admittedly haven't looked into very much) in the midwest states was that minority participation was down significantly. Would having Sanders on the ticket helped that cause? I don't think so. His message was not tailored to minorities at all and he struggled mightily with them. You could argue that he may have kept more middle aged, non-college educated whites away from Trump, but I'm not sure that would have been enough or not. I haven't seen how the youth vote played out in those states, so I'm open to that argument. But at the end of the day, it's all speculation.
2. Kaine was not a baffling bust. That is too strong of a statement. Most presidential historians will tell you that the VP rarely has consequences beyond their home state. Thomas Eagleton in 72 might be the exception. He was forced to drop out when it was revealed he had shock therapy. But McGovern was going to get killed either way. Kaine held VA and that was his mission. And having someone earmarked as a potential or high probability candidate a year in advance is not really nefarious. That's planning.
3. At the end of the day, the Dems have a policy problem and one that the Republicans have as well, just the inverse. The Democrats are increasingly educated, white collar, liberal socially and therefore more coastal than their counterparts. There may be a great realignment happening right now that has little to do with Clinton and everything to do with Obama. What do the Dems have to offer mid American non college educated whites? Going protectionist economically runs counter to liberal economic thought. Affirmative action is repulsive in these areas. There is a huge separation on the social issues once you leave the cities. There's just a big disconnect and I think many of these voters have sat home for years, but Trump brought them out. I'd love to see how many first time voters or recent voters (Reagan Democrats, if you will) came to the polls in the swing states for the first time in years.
All of that said...almost 3 million more Americans voted for the Democratic ticket than voted for Donald Trump.
This is why the democrats lost. They just repeat garbage over and over again believing it to be true. Do the Republicans go on and on about how they won the election w/ 3million less votes than Hillary?
This thread.
you have called Donald Trump your Jesus Christ at least twice that I have seen. you have also admitted that he is a sexual predator and mocked the american voters for voting such a person into office. you didn't know until about a week ago that you can win the election and lose the popular vote. you take one statement out of Jimmy's entire intelligent and well-thought-out post and mock it.
you have zero idea what you are talking about, and are doing nothing but trolling.
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Clinton, sued? For "fraudulent campaign donations"? I think these big money campaign donors understand how an election works somewhat better than you do, if you think they believed a win was guaranteed.
yes, but did not Clinton spend millions on a victory celebration that did not happen ? I feel it was possible that bets on a sure win were made although like you say, they had to know it was a risky investment.
Comments
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier
immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting
to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners
and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
The nominating process needs to be opened up and legitimized. The big donors in that room last night can't decide beforehand who the nominee will be. Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate who was wrong for this election. That's made worse by these donors looking like they put their fingers on the scale for her.
I have no real evidence to back this next statement up but I believe it to be true. A Hillary Clinton who emerged from a Democratic primary featuring not only Sanders but a Warren and a Biden would have been better positioned to unify the party by November 8th. Legitimate options with legitimate differences given to the voters to decide. If she won that race rather than the race we saw I believe it would have helped pull in the grudging support she never was truly able to. There would have been no perception that the primary was not on the level. That would have mattered.
It should be said but not harped on: Tim Kaine was a baffling bust. He helped bring her Virginia, no doubt, but Virginia ended up not mattering much and he added little else. Was the VP slot ever offered to Sanders? Did he turn it down? If it wasn't, it should have been. And if it wasn't, part of any postmortem needs to examine why.
All of that said...almost 3 million more Americans voted for the Democratic ticket than voted for Donald Trump. Conservatives are enjoying a victory lap and that's fine. The reality is this wasn't the complete rejection of Democratic policies and ideas we thought it was on election night. This loss was about candidate, campaign, and strategy. These problems are not fixed by completely blowing things up. They are fixed by listening to the voters, assessing the country, and not allowing anyone to decide in 2016 who the nominee will be in 2020.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
They just repeat garbage over and over again believing it to be true.
Do the Republicans go on and on about how they won the election w/ 3million less votes than Hillary?
This thread.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Your entire post offers no policy on how to rebuild.
All it says is that the dems lost and need to rebuild.
They are fixed by listening to the voters, assessing the country, and not allowing anyone to decide in 2016 who the nominee will be in 2020
How does this help the dems going forward?
How do you do this?
She had it in the bag (or so we thought) and there is no way she is giving it to the guy who wouldn't drop out until the very end.
The donor class of the party decided in 2008 who their nominee was going to be in 2016. Those same people are now demanding an accounting of what went wrong which is the only reason why one will be done. But those very donors are a big part of the problem. If allowed they'll settle on their next champion soon and the Democrats will go through another sham of a primary. That's what needs to be prevented.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
1. Would Sanders have made a difference? Initial assessments that I saw (and admittedly haven't looked into very much) in the midwest states was that minority participation was down significantly. Would having Sanders on the ticket helped that cause? I don't think so. His message was not tailored to minorities at all and he struggled mightily with them. You could argue that he may have kept more middle aged, non-college educated whites away from Trump, but I'm not sure that would have been enough or not. I haven't seen how the youth vote played out in those states, so I'm open to that argument. But at the end of the day, it's all speculation.
2. Kaine was not a baffling bust. That is too strong of a statement. Most presidential historians will tell you that the VP rarely has consequences beyond their home state. Thomas Eagleton in 72 might be the exception. He was forced to drop out when it was revealed he had shock therapy. But McGovern was going to get killed either way. Kaine held VA and that was his mission. And having someone earmarked as a potential or high probability candidate a year in advance is not really nefarious. That's planning.
3. At the end of the day, the Dems have a policy problem and one that the Republicans have as well, just the inverse. The Democrats are increasingly educated, white collar, liberal socially and therefore more coastal than their counterparts. There may be a great realignment happening right now that has little to do with Clinton and everything to do with Obama. What do the Dems have to offer mid American non college educated whites? Going protectionist economically runs counter to liberal economic thought. Affirmative action is repulsive in these areas. There is a huge separation on the social issues once you leave the cities. There's just a big disconnect and I think many of these voters have sat home for years, but Trump brought them out. I'd love to see how many first time voters or recent voters (Reagan Democrats, if you will) came to the polls in the swing states for the first time in years.
you have also admitted that he is a sexual predator and mocked the american voters for voting such a person into office.
you didn't know until about a week ago that you can win the election and lose the popular vote.
you take one statement out of Jimmy's entire intelligent and well-thought-out post and mock it.
you have zero idea what you are talking about, and are doing nothing but trolling.
www.headstonesband.com
although like you say, they had to know it was a risky investment.