Hillary won more votes for President

Free

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

Free said:

what dreams said:

There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.

Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.

I belong to every Democratic Party list there is. None of the information I receive says anything about the Clintons. The people who are talking about the Clintons are themselves and the people who don't like them. The rest of us are moving on, which is a good thing. Everyone agrees that's a good thing. We don't agree that we have moved away from our progressive values. Unfortunately that's a meme from the left that is just not true. Sanders won the platform, and we fought for the platform. The people who stayed home didn't.

Here here!

I'll repeat what I said earlier... making BLM and Dakota pipeline as the centerpiece of your populist reform would be dumB. Shaun King lives in the very bubble he is trying to deride. Someone, for the love of God, give me a real populist Democratic reform that would also be supported by the socially liberal, economically moderate coastal Democrats who are the very backbone of the party today. That's the gap that needs to be filled.

You forgot about the lower middle class and the poverty level people. You know, the people that Hillary Clinton never talked about other than calling them deplorables.

Jason P

CM189191 said:

Jason P said:

CM189191 said:

Go Beavers said:

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.

What should we do to cater our message to the Rust Belt? Lie to them and tell them their jobs are coming back? Use more dog-whistle? Maybe find a new minority to demonize? That coal is suffering due to regulations, not competition from natural gas? That providing basic necessities like education, health care, housing and food are not a burden to society; but the purpose of society.
These people need to be socially isolated. Maybe then they'll understand that supporting all the horrible sh*t that Trump stands for has real life consequences. Let them live in an echo chamber because they deserve it.

Trump lied but Hillary's campaign painted mid-westerners as deplorables and racists and privileged and dumb rednecks ... maybe that wasn't the best strategy.

Ah yes, I remember when Hillary stopped by MSP airport and demonized the local Somali refugee population.

And for the record, a fair amount of Midwesterners are deplorable racist dumb privileged rednecks.

Why would a muslim vote for someone who stereotypes them?

Why would a mid-westerner vote for someone who stereotypes them?

Which of the above group contributes a greater influence on the electoral college?

These are questions I would consider if I ran a campaign.

Free

Gern Blansten said:

what dreams said:

Free said:

what dreams said:

There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.

Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.

I belong to every Democratic Party list there is. None of the information I receive says anything about the Clintons. The people who are talking about the Clintons are themselves and the people who don't like them. The rest of us are moving on, which is a good thing. Everyone agrees that's a good thing. We don't agree that we have moved away from our progressive values. Unfortunately that's a meme from the left that is just not true. Sanders won the platform, and we fought for the platform. The people who stayed home didn't.

Exactly....it's right wing bullshit.

You need to read the link that I posted. Especially the part that the Democrats continue to look outwords for blame for their loss. Rather than looking at themselves and what they did wrong here. It's called denial and until you figure it out you will always merely blame everyone else. That's a person who never learns from their mistakes.

Gern Blansten

Free said:

Gern Blansten said:

what dreams said:

Free said:

what dreams said:

There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.

Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.

I belong to every Democratic Party list there is. None of the information I receive says anything about the Clintons. The people who are talking about the Clintons are themselves and the people who don't like them. The rest of us are moving on, which is a good thing. Everyone agrees that's a good thing. We don't agree that we have moved away from our progressive values. Unfortunately that's a meme from the left that is just not true. Sanders won the platform, and we fought for the platform. The people who stayed home didn't.

Exactly....it's right wing bullshit.

You need to read the link that I posted. Especially the part that the Democrats continue to look outwords for blame for their loss. Rather than looking at themselves and what they did wrong here. It's called denial and until you figure it out you will always merely blame everyone else. That's a person who never learns from their mistakes.

I did....it was an opinion piece. I agree with some of it and respect his "opinion" on the rest.

Hindsight is 20/20. No one expected Trump to rally the racists and moron segments the way he was able to do.

Clinton had too much baggage. Most of it was manufactured bullshit but the GOP did a good job of trashing her to create enough doubt that enough people would vote for a racist moron to be president.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

Gern Blansten said:

what dreams said:

Free said:

what dreams said:

There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.

Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.

I belong to every Democratic Party list there is. None of the information I receive says anything about the Clintons. The people who are talking about the Clintons are themselves and the people who don't like them. The rest of us are moving on, which is a good thing. Everyone agrees that's a good thing. We don't agree that we have moved away from our progressive values. Unfortunately that's a meme from the left that is just not true. Sanders won the platform, and we fought for the platform. The people who stayed home didn't.

Exactly....it's right wing bullshit.

You need to read the link that I posted. Especially the part that the Democrats continue to look outwords for blame for their loss. Rather than looking at themselves and what they did wrong here. It's called denial and until you figure it out you will always merely blame everyone else. That's a person who never learns from their mistakes.

I did....it was an opinion piece. I agree with some of it and respect his "opinion" on the rest.

Hindsight is 20/20. No one expected Trump to rally the racists and moron segments the way he was able to do.

Clinton had too much baggage. Most of it was manufactured bullshit but the GOP did a good job of trashing her to create enough doubt that enough people would vote for a racist moron to be president.

I don't think it was just clinton baggage. I think it was also the way Trump was able to convince people that he was anti-establishment and pro-little guy.

And we now see how that went.

JimmyV

The "basket of deplorables" line will live forever in our political lexicon. Right alongside Watergate, swiftboating, October Surprise and the 47 percent. Who talks that way about the electorate when they are trying to win votes? Clinton held white, male, Midwestern voters in contempt, just the same as Mitt Romney did the 47 percent. Both believed they were going to win the election. Neither one did.

The platform can certainly be tweaked, but the platform was not the problem. The candidate was the problem. I harp on this not because Hillary Clinton is some villain who deserves it. She isn't. I do it because the Democratic party decided on her long before a single primary vote was cast...and then she lost to Donald Trump! This didn't need to happen. We can't let it happen again.

benjs

Free said:

JC29856 said:

Electors are voting Sanders instead of Hilliary

Fantastic!

what dreams said:

JimmyV said:

what dreams said:

It is true that there is a radical contingent of leftists who are criticizing the Democratic party. They want to move the party further left, and I actually predict that will happen based on my observations and understanding. We will be left without a center after all this is over. Whether or not that is good for the country will be seen.

I feel like this is a contradiction. Do most Democrats understand the problem or is it just a radical contingent of leftists criticizing the party?

Both. It's not an either/or proposition. The folks in the center realize they are outnumbered, kind of like folks in center of the Republican party. If there's ever a need for a third party, it's for the center.

So you're saying that Hillary is a closet Republican. Because that's basically what She is: more right than center.

Well, to be honest, both the Democratic and Republican parties are right of center.

Free said:

what dreams said:

There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.

Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.

First - when I use the term "progressive" below, I'm speaking about the kinds of mandates and people that Free would define as progressive.

The DNC might have started out as a more progressive alternative to the RNC, but based on the decisions made by the DNC and the fact that the vast majority of its members are what you would probably call "non-progressive", it seems that the DNC has transformed into something else. If the majority of the mandates and the members are non-progressive, then the organization as a whole is. I personally find it unlikely that "progressives" can assuage that vast majority (of non-progressives) with a mandate to reform the organization, as it would ostracize the majority who embody characteristics diametrically opposed to what you (and I) want the DNC to be, and it would not be in alignment with the greed of its members.

JC29856

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

Free said:

what dreams said:

There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.

Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.

I belong to every Democratic Party list there is. None of the information I receive says anything about the Clintons. The people who are talking about the Clintons are themselves and the people who don't like them. The rest of us are moving on, which is a good thing. Everyone agrees that's a good thing. We don't agree that we have moved away from our progressive values. Unfortunately that's a meme from the left that is just not true. Sanders won the platform, and we fought for the platform. The people who stayed home didn't.

Here here!

I'll repeat what I said earlier... making BLM and Dakota pipeline as the centerpiece of your populist reform would be dumB. Shaun King lives in the very bubble he is trying to deride. Someone, for the love of God, give me a real populist Democratic reform that would also be supported by the socially liberal, economically moderate coastal Democrats who are the very backbone of the party today. That's the gap that needs to be filled.

You forgot about the lower middle class and the poverty level people. You know, the people that Hillary Clinton never talked about other than calling them deplorables.

You're right, never once talked about us

Gern Blansten

JimmyV said:

The "basket of deplorables" line will live forever in our political lexicon. Right alongside Watergate, swiftboating, October Surprise and the 47 percent. Who talks that way about the electorate when they are trying to win votes? Clinton held white, male, Midwestern voters in contempt, just the same as Mitt Romney did the 47 percent. Both believed they were going to win the election. Neither one did.

The platform can certainly be tweaked, but the platform was not the problem. The candidate was the problem. I harp on this not because Hillary Clinton is some villain who deserves it. She isn't. I do it because the Democratic party decided on her long before a single primary vote was cast...and then she lost to Donald Trump! This didn't need to happen. We can't let it happen again.

to be clear....she was referring to racists and the like

The morons who labeled themselves "deplorables" for being Trump supporters were clearly following the right wing bullshit news.

JC29856

Gerner is passionate and motivated today!
Luv it.

Free

benjs said:

Free said:

JC29856 said:

Electors are voting Sanders instead of Hilliary

Fantastic!

what dreams said:

JimmyV said:

what dreams said:

It is true that there is a radical contingent of leftists who are criticizing the Democratic party. They want to move the party further left, and I actually predict that will happen based on my observations and understanding. We will be left without a center after all this is over. Whether or not that is good for the country will be seen.

I feel like this is a contradiction. Do most Democrats understand the problem or is it just a radical contingent of leftists criticizing the party?

Both. It's not an either/or proposition. The folks in the center realize they are outnumbered, kind of like folks in center of the Republican party. If there's ever a need for a third party, it's for the center.

So you're saying that Hillary is a closet Republican. Because that's basically what She is: more right than center.

Well, to be honest, both the Democratic and Republican parties are right of center.

Free said:

what dreams said:

There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.

Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.

First - when I use the term "progressive" below, I'm speaking about the kinds of mandates and people that Free would define as progressive.

The DNC might have started out as a more progressive alternative to the RNC, but based on the decisions made by the DNC and the fact that the vast majority of its members are what you would probably call "non-progressive", it seems that the DNC has transformed into something else. If the majority of the mandates and the members are non-progressive, then the organization as a whole is. I personally find it unlikely that "progressives" can assuage that vast majority (of non-progressives) with a mandate to reform the organization, as it would ostracize the majority who embody characteristics diametrically opposed to what you (and I) want the DNC to be, and it would not be in alignment with the greed of its members.

I get this. But the current way of doing things for the DNC: Pro establishment ( in other words status quo)? backing corporations and big banks instead of people? Not speaking to those lower than upper middle class? Speaking down to younger voters and younger women voters? Refusing to take any risks whatsoever?

This is not working.

Next!

Free

Same old same old Democratic Party doesn't work anymore!

mrussel1

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

Free said:

what dreams said:

There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.

Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.

I belong to every Democratic Party list there is. None of the information I receive says anything about the Clintons. The people who are talking about the Clintons are themselves and the people who don't like them. The rest of us are moving on, which is a good thing. Everyone agrees that's a good thing. We don't agree that we have moved away from our progressive values. Unfortunately that's a meme from the left that is just not true. Sanders won the platform, and we fought for the platform. The people who stayed home didn't.

Here here!

I'll repeat what I said earlier... making BLM and Dakota pipeline as the centerpiece of your populist reform would be dumB. Shaun King lives in the very bubble he is trying to deride. Someone, for the love of God, give me a real populist Democratic reform that would also be supported by the socially liberal, economically moderate coastal Democrats who are the very backbone of the party today. That's the gap that needs to be filled.

You forgot about the lower middle class and the poverty level people. You know, the people that Hillary Clinton never talked about other than calling them deplorables.

The Democrats have continued to support programs for the poor: SCHIP, Obamacare, SS stabilization, etc. The 10/20/30 program is another great example. The Midwest was lost based on middle to lower middle class voters, not the poor.
And she didn't call them deplorable and you know it.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

The "basket of deplorables" line will live forever in our political lexicon. Right alongside Watergate, swiftboating, October Surprise and the 47 percent. Who talks that way about the electorate when they are trying to win votes? Clinton held white, male, Midwestern voters in contempt, just the same as Mitt Romney did the 47 percent. Both believed they were going to win the election. Neither one did.

The platform can certainly be tweaked, but the platform was not the problem. The candidate was the problem. I harp on this not because Hillary Clinton is some villain who deserves it. She isn't. I do it because the Democratic party decided on her long before a single primary vote was cast...and then she lost to Donald Trump! This didn't need to happen. We can't let it happen again.

to be clear....she was referring to racists and the like

The morons who labeled themselves "deplorables" for being Trump supporters were clearly following the right wing bullshit news.

well, she did say "half of his supporters are deplorables" or something of the like. half is a lot.

JC29856

Free said:

Same old same old Democratic Party doesn't work anymore!

Crazy that they got away with it for that long. Considering the base, maybe not.

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

The "basket of deplorables" line will live forever in our political lexicon. Right alongside Watergate, swiftboating, October Surprise and the 47 percent. Who talks that way about the electorate when they are trying to win votes? Clinton held white, male, Midwestern voters in contempt, just the same as Mitt Romney did the 47 percent. Both believed they were going to win the election. Neither one did.

The platform can certainly be tweaked, but the platform was not the problem. The candidate was the problem. I harp on this not because Hillary Clinton is some villain who deserves it. She isn't. I do it because the Democratic party decided on her long before a single primary vote was cast...and then she lost to Donald Trump! This didn't need to happen. We can't let it happen again.

to be clear....she was referring to racists and the like

The morons who labeled themselves "deplorables" for being Trump supporters were clearly following the right wing bullshit news.

well, she did say "half of his supporters are deplorables" or something of the like. half is a lot.

yes and then she apologized and said she shouldn't have said "half"

Gern Blansten

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/i-am-appalled-attorney-who-sued-to-release-fbis-clinton-warrant-says-it-shows-no-probable-cause/

California defense attorney E. Randal Schoenberg, who successfully sued to have a search warrant for Hillary Clinton’s emails released, said on Tuesday that the order did not meet the standard of probable cause.

The warrant which was unsealed on Tuesday suggests that federal magistrate Kevin Fox in Manhattan granted the Oct. 30 warrant to search Anthony Weiner’s laptop “based exclusively on the FBI’s contention” that it may have contained classified emails exchanged between Clinton and Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, according to Politico.

Schoenberg wrote on Facebook that he was “appalled” after seeing the warrant because the FBI had presented “nothing at all” that amounted to probable cause.

“You will have to ask Judge Fox, or the agent in charge (whose name has been redacted), or Director Comey, why they thought they might find evidence of a crime, why they felt it necessary to inform Congress, and why they even sought this search warrant,” Schoenberg said.

JC29856

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/i-am-appalled-attorney-who-sued-to-release-fbis-clinton-warrant-says-it-shows-no-probable-cause/

California defense attorney E. Randal Schoenberg, who successfully sued to have a search warrant for Hillary Clinton’s emails released, said on Tuesday that the order did not meet the standard of probable cause.

The warrant which was unsealed on Tuesday suggests that federal magistrate Kevin Fox in Manhattan granted the Oct. 30 warrant to search Anthony Weiner’s laptop “based exclusively on the FBI’s contention” that it may have contained classified emails exchanged between Clinton and Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, according to Politico.

Schoenberg wrote on Facebook that he was “appalled” after seeing the warrant because the FBI had presented “nothing at all” that amounted to probable cause.

“You will have to ask Judge Fox, or the agent in charge (whose name has been redacted), or Director Comey, why they thought they might find evidence of a crime, why they felt it necessary to inform Congress, and why they even sought this search warrant,” Schoenberg said.

It's lunchtime somewhere, walnut sauce pizza sounds delious!

JimmyV

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

The "basket of deplorables" line will live forever in our political lexicon. Right alongside Watergate, swiftboating, October Surprise and the 47 percent. Who talks that way about the electorate when they are trying to win votes? Clinton held white, male, Midwestern voters in contempt, just the same as Mitt Romney did the 47 percent. Both believed they were going to win the election. Neither one did.

The platform can certainly be tweaked, but the platform was not the problem. The candidate was the problem. I harp on this not because Hillary Clinton is some villain who deserves it. She isn't. I do it because the Democratic party decided on her long before a single primary vote was cast...and then she lost to Donald Trump! This didn't need to happen. We can't let it happen again.

to be clear....she was referring to racists and the like

The morons who labeled themselves "deplorables" for being Trump supporters were clearly following the right wing bullshit news.

well, she did say "half of his supporters are deplorables" or something of the like. half is a lot.

yes and then she apologized and said she shouldn't have said "half"

After she got caught on tape saying it at a high priced fundraiser, yes she did apologize. The damage was already done. It reaffirmed the belief that she (like Romney) was an out of touch elitist and (also like Romney) gave her opponent a rallying cry. You can't really blame right-wing news when the candidate steps in it like that.

Free

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

The "basket of deplorables" line will live forever in our political lexicon. Right alongside Watergate, swiftboating, October Surprise and the 47 percent. Who talks that way about the electorate when they are trying to win votes? Clinton held white, male, Midwestern voters in contempt, just the same as Mitt Romney did the 47 percent. Both believed they were going to win the election. Neither one did.

The platform can certainly be tweaked, but the platform was not the problem. The candidate was the problem. I harp on this not because Hillary Clinton is some villain who deserves it. She isn't. I do it because the Democratic party decided on her long before a single primary vote was cast...and then she lost to Donald Trump! This didn't need to happen. We can't let it happen again.

to be clear....she was referring to racists and the like

The morons who labeled themselves "deplorables" for being Trump supporters were clearly following the right wing bullshit news.

well, she did say "half of his supporters are deplorables" or something of the like. half is a lot.

And half of his supporters are a lot of voters that she could've gotten. Sheesh, it's a very simple selling technique not to put down the very people you want something from. And she did it not only to them, but she did to younger women and millennial's overall.