Hillary won more votes for President

what dreams

JimmyV said:

what dreams said:

What's more important? The losing Dems to blame and wallow in their guilt or get the party functioning again?

In five weeks, I have seen the congressional caucus appoint Sanders as head of outreach. I have heard him endorse, with the backing of major activist and lobbying groups, the hiring of Keith Ellison as head of the DNC. No other candidate has emerged other than Howard Dean. I see these actions as moving in the direction of change. We will see that process unfold over the next month.

Many of the old guard Democrats have retired from Congress. Younger members will have to emerge just by default, starting in January. Nancy Pelosi is a figurehead at this point. I don't begrudge her role as fundraiser. It's a shitty job but somebody's gotta do it. There is another Tim Ryan, a Democrat from Ohio, who has been speaking publicly about the need for change in the House, and I think he will be someone to watch this next cycle.

The local parties are active in keeping members involved for 2020. I can't speak for anybody but me, but I can say I will be attending two events in January -- one an organizing brunch and another a fundraiser ($25.00 for a bowl of soup, hardly a corporate buy out). I think if everyone were to stay as involved, things will change.

I guess I see these things because I look for them. I don't have time to demand that Hillary say whatever I think she should say. That won't change a thing, even if it makes me feel better (which it won't). Here's to moving on . . .

Tom Perez has announced his candidacy and will pose a formidable challenge to Ellison.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/15/labor-secretary-tom-perez-officially-launches-dnc-bid/?utm_term=.5d70178932d7

Tim Ryan was easily defeated by Nancy Pelosi in the speaker's race.

Where were the Democrats in this month's Louisiana senate runoff? Mike Pence and Donald Trump both visited the state in the closing days of the race. Prominent national figures in the Democratic party were largely absent and silent. The GOP chalked up another victory.

Moving on is fine, provided the party learns from this experience. I'm unconvinced it has. Yesterday was Russia day. Today appears to be Comey day. Moving on isn't synonymous with granting a blanket pardon.

Perez is an interesting candidate. He has an impressive record in the Civil Rights division of the Attorney General's office. I can't speak for his role as Secretary of Labor, but he has the endorsement of the AFL-CIO. He could also serve full-time as DNC chair, which Ellison could not do as a member of Congress. It's a competitive choice, which is healthy.

I'm not sure which national party figure was supposed to go to Louisiana. Why didn't Sanders go? He's the head of outreach, after all. What's his responsibility in that? He was in Detroit endorsing Ellison. Why didn't he make it to Louisiana? Maybe it's because the party is busy and was going to lose that seat anyway. Priorities.

Yes, it's unfortunate Tim Ryan was defeated by Nancy Pelosi, but that wasn't a surprise. I don't think it spells the end of his career, though. She's next to retire. His running against her was good practice. I like him.

As you can see, at this stage, I am willing to see what happens before I declare the party hasn't learned anything. I refuse to be distracted by the noise in the media.

JimmyV

Even if the Louisiana senate race was a long shot, conceding it because the party is "busy" is not indicative of an organization that has its priorities in order. Call me crazy but the races matter. They should take precedence over the backroom dealing.

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.

I can't get over it....she lost by 77,000 votes (combined) in the three states that tilted the election yet she won the overall majority vote by 3,000,000....fucking insane

It sucks but that's the EC. I don't bitch about losing when you know the rules going in.

what dreams

JimmyV said:

Even if the Louisiana senate race was a long shot, conceding it because the party is "busy" is not indicative of an organization that has its priorities in order. Call me crazy but the races matter. They should take precedence over the backroom dealing.

What backroom dealing are you referring to? Do you have evidence of backroom dealing happening right now? If you can show me that exists, I will look at it.

And of course the races matter. But you have to have a unified party to win races. Again, who would you have sent to Louisiana at this moment in time?

Free

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.

I can't get over it....she lost by 77,000 votes (combined) in the three states that tilted the election yet she won the overall majority vote by 3,000,000....fucking insane

She lost. Admit it, move on.

Free

Pelosi is embarrassing. She needs to go.

JimmyV

what dreams said:

JimmyV said:

Even if the Louisiana senate race was a long shot, conceding it because the party is "busy" is not indicative of an organization that has its priorities in order. Call me crazy but the races matter. They should take precedence over the backroom dealing.

What backroom dealing are you referring to? Do you have evidence of backroom dealing happening right now? If you can show me that exists, I will look at it.

You tell me. What else are they busy doing if an active senate race doesn't qualify as a priority? Aren't the speaker's race and the DNC race just a series of backroom deals to decide who can consolidate the most power? Bernie, Shumer, Warren, Pelosi, Booker...all of them were too busy to go to Louisiana? If that's true then I would question exactly what the party was busy doing.

Gern Blansten

Free said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.

I can't get over it....she lost by 77,000 votes (combined) in the three states that tilted the election yet she won the overall majority vote by 3,000,000....fucking insane

She lost. Admit it, move on.

Thanks Captain Obvious

ledvedderman

I think Gavin Newsom is a guy to watch out in California. And, had he won, Jason Kander or Missouri could have shot to national attention quickly.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda though don't mean shit.

JimmyV

ledvedderman said:

I think Gavin Newsom is a guy to watch out in California. And, had he won, Jason Kander or Missouri could have shot to national attention quickly.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda though don't mean shit.

Kander gave a great interview on the Keeping It 1600 podcast a few weeks ago. I was impressed.

Gern Blansten

ledvedderman said:

I think Gavin Newsom is a guy to watch out in California. And, had he won, Jason Kander or Missouri could have shot to national attention quickly.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda though don't mean shit.

Yeah Newsom is great but he will likely be CA Gov in 2018

what dreams

JimmyV said:

what dreams said:

JimmyV said:

Even if the Louisiana senate race was a long shot, conceding it because the party is "busy" is not indicative of an organization that has its priorities in order. Call me crazy but the races matter. They should take precedence over the backroom dealing.

What backroom dealing are you referring to? Do you have evidence of backroom dealing happening right now? If you can show me that exists, I will look at it.

You tell me. What else are they busy doing if an active senate race doesn't qualify as a priority? Aren't the speaker's race and the DNC race just a series of backroom deals to decide who can consolidate the most power? Bernie, Shumer, Warren, Pelosi, Booker...all of them were too busy to go to Louisiana? If that's true then I would question exactly what the party was busy doing.

All of those people were in DC finishing up the congressional session before break, with a budget resolution being the last order of business. Could all or one of them have taken a campaign trip to Louisiana? Sure, why not. But they didn't. Let me look up each of their schedules to see exactly what they were doing instead before i judge. As far as I know now, they were finishing up the legislative session, getting ready for Christmas, and yes, figuring out strategy for what's coming next.

The fact is, the way things work . . . the seat was lost, not because of this one missed opportunity to trip down south. The party is run by a committee that is currently chairless, and between now and the inauguration, that will change. Once the inauguration is over, the country will deal with the issues the Republican Congress throws at us. Like it or not, we have to work with what we have.

My hope is that *people* will focus on what's important. In the weeks before the election, I heard Obama say that now is not the time to be distracted, and I'm not. I totally understand why people want to despair or to point fingers, but I am not one of them.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.

Fly in your ointment is the popular vote margin in 3 counties in Cali and NY.
Edit post accordingly

Gern Blansten

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.

Fly in your ointment is the popular vote margin in 3 counties in Cali and NY.
Edit post accordingly

Edit yours....that same margin existed in the other elections as well

JC29856

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.

Fly in your ointment is the popular vote margin in 3 counties in Cali and NY.
Edit post accordingly

Edit yours....that same margin existed in the other elections as well

1. Not directed at your post
2. We talkin bout this election, man, this election, we talkin about this election, this election, man, we takin bout this election

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.

Fly in your ointment is the popular vote margin in 3 counties in Cali and NY.
Edit post accordingly

What's your point? Do those people count for less because of their county?

ledvedderman

Gern Blansten said:

ledvedderman said:

I think Gavin Newsom is a guy to watch out in California. And, had he won, Jason Kander or Missouri could have shot to national attention quickly.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda though don't mean shit.

Yeah Newsom is great but he will likely be CA Gov in 2018

Politically, that's good for him that the gov is elected in off years as President. That way he could run for President and not have to give up his job as governor.
But, who knows. Politics changes so quickly.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.

Fly in your ointment is the popular vote margin in 3 counties in Cali and NY.
Edit post accordingly

What's your point? Do those people count for less because of their county?

You're takin about popular vote, popular vote man, which is meaningless as I've stated many times why you were on sabbatical. Marathon runners don't train for sprints and vice vs.
I can spew the number of counties won the square footage and etc or I can quote your posts about the science of winning elections. I don't recall those talking about popular vote, man, talkin about popular vote.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.

Fly in your ointment is the popular vote margin in 3 counties in Cali and NY.
Edit post accordingly

What's your point? Do those people count for less because of their county?

You're takin about popular vote, popular vote man, which is meaningless as I've stated many times why you were on sabbatical. Marathon runners don't train for sprints and vice vs.
I can spew the number of counties won the square footage and etc or I can quote your posts about the science of winning elections. I don't recall those talking about popular vote, man, talkin about popular vote.

I'm not arguing that the election was unfair. I've said precisely the opposite. But don't act like it was a complete retribution of the D message or that it was a landslide. It wasn't. I said several times that the D's have a region issue now and have to figure out how to appeal to a Midwest that is increasingly white and older.

Go Beavers

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.

Fly in your ointment is the popular vote margin in 3 counties in Cali and NY.
Edit post accordingly

What's your point? Do those people count for less because of their county?

You're takin about popular vote, popular vote man, which is meaningless as I've stated many times why you were on sabbatical. Marathon runners don't train for sprints and vice vs.
I can spew the number of counties won the square footage and etc or I can quote your posts about the science of winning elections. I don't recall those talking about popular vote, man, talkin about popular vote.

I'm not arguing that the election was unfair. I've said precisely the opposite. But don't act like it was a complete retribution of the D message or that it was a landslide. It wasn't. I said several times that the D's have a region issue now and have to figure out how to appeal to a Midwest that is increasingly white and older.

More specifically, a message that appeals to fearful whites in the Midwest. Trump used racism to work that angle. Dems will have to do better than that.