Allow me to help you -- AGAIN.

Post #415,375 by mmoffitt 11/10/16 12:19:09 PM 11/10/16 12:19:09 PM Reply	Allow me to help you -- AGAIN. If you can't win the argument within the party, what on earth makes you think you can win it without? This is a specious argument. The DNC is a RW organization who did everything they could (see WikiLeaks) to stifle Bernie's campaign. On the surface, it may appear that he could not have won because he was defeated by the Republican Lite Party, hence he would be unable to defeat the full-on batshit crazy Republican Party. But this argument misses the mark wildly. How? this campaign was different. The 15 usual suspects from the Republican Party were slain by an outsider with a Populist message. Certainly as they will soon discover, that was a con. But with Bernie it wasn't. The same message that appealed to the "basket of deplorables" (read: non-monied classes) would have been very well received by would-be Trump voters who would have chosen Bernie over Trump (there's anecdotal evidence of this fact everywhere if you care to look). Then, too, the millennials who sat out Tuesday (or wrote him in or voted third party) would have turned out and voted for Bernie. No question about it. The DNC and what Jerry Brown had called "The Democratic Party Elite" back in 1992 did not like Bernie's anti-bankster tone at all (the Bankster Class is where they get their dough, so can't have criticism of them [see Clinton's speeches to Goldman]). The DNC made damned sure a Corporatist Democrat was elected and there were enough useful idiots who believed "Hillary can get elected, so I'm voting for her" in the primaries that sealed this deal. Blaming anyone but the DNC for this train wreck is like blaming the person who yells "STOP!" and is ignored for the wreck. It's ironic that one of the criticisms from the Hillary camp about Bernie was that Bernie appealed only to White voters (it wasn't true, but then again, almost nothing the Clinton campaign said about Bernie or his supporters was true) since it was the White vote that was a big part of her losing the election. She even lost the White Female vote for Christ's sake. That wasn't the only reason she lost, but it was a big one. The main reason she lost was the Democrats didn't show up in the numbers that they have previously. Why show up to vote for yet another Corporate Clown? bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,379 by pwhysall 11/10/16 1:55:51 PM 11/10/16 1:55:51 PM Reply	blah, blah, blah. That basically "it's not Bernie's fault he was only convincing to a minority of Democrats, it's everyone else's". You backed the losing side of the losing side, but you're still convinced you're correct.
Post #415,380 by mmoffitt 11/10/16 3:02:28 PM 11/10/16 3:02:28 PM Reply	I apologize. I should defer to you. You've lived in the Midwest for 30 years. Er, wait a second... bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,388 by pwhysall 11/10/16 3:49:24 PM 11/10/16 3:49:24 PM Reply	What's that got to do with anything? Have you heard of the Internet?
Post #415,394 by mmoffitt 11/10/16 4:16:00 PM 11/10/16 4:16:00 PM Reply	Oh sure. Because you really get to know people on the Internet. How old are you? 23? :0) bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,395 by pwhysall 11/10/16 4:17:29 PM 11/10/16 4:17:29 PM Reply	What's that got to do with anything?
Post #415,383 by rcareaga 11/10/16 3:17:05 PM 11/10/16 3:17:05 PM Reply	"Why show up to vote for yet another Corporate Clown?" Ummm...because the alternative is a home-grown fascist?
Post #415,386 by mmoffitt 11/10/16 3:33:47 PM 11/10/16 3:33:47 PM Reply	I might have been overly optimistic about the upside to a Trump presidency. If the below is any indication of the "lesson the DNC learned," it may well be that the Democratic Party is composed of complete and utter ineducables. But taking a closer look at the outcomes, it’s hard not to notice the importance of third-party voters and the impact they had on the outcome. In Florida, Hillary Clinton lost by about 1.4% of the vote – but if Jill Stein’s supporters and half of Gary Johnson’s backers had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state. Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Clinton lost by about 1.1% of the vote – but if Jill Stein’s supporters and half of Gary Johnson’s backers had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state. In Wisconsin, Clinton lost by about 1% of the vote – but if Stein’s supporters had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state. In Michigan, Clinton appears to be on track to lose by about 0.3% of the vote – but if half of Stein’s supporters had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state. To be sure, this doesn’t apply everywhere. In North Carolina, for example, where Clinton was favored to win, Jill Stein wasn’t even on the ballot, and Gary Johnson’s vote totals were smaller than Trump’s margin of victory. Similarly, third-party voters couldn’t have swung Ohio or Iowa, two other states that President Obama carried twice ahead of Trump’s victory. But it’s nevertheless true that in Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, third-party voters had an enormous, Nader-like impact – had those states gone the other way, Clinton would be president-elect today, not Trump. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/third-party-voters-played-key-role-election-results With any luck, this kind of nonsense will have a short shelf life. We'll see. bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,396 by rcareaga 11/10/16 4:17:38 PM 11/10/16 4:17:38 PM Reply	"overly optimistic" "I might have been overly optimistic about the upside to a Trump presidency." Ya think? For the rest, the case may plausibly be made that Stein cost Clinton Michigan's electoral votes, which along with four dollars would have gone a long way toward a "triple-grande no-foam latte" at an Ann Arbor Starbucks. I do not see Johnson's supporters as yielding, in his absence, a significant harvest of Democratic voters. It seems unlikely that had the two minor candidates eloped to American Samoa in September and scuppered their campaigns, this would have materially affected Tuesday's results. Benen is usually smarter than this. Nader in Florida sixteen years ago is another matter entirely, and there aren't enough lepers' sores in the world for him to bathe in expiation of that folly. cordially,
Post #415,398 by Another Scott 11/10/16 4:27:00 PM 11/10/16 4:27:00 PM Reply	Yeah, Stein and Johnson aren't to blame. Any more than "Bill the Cat" is. There are reports out of Wisconsin (on Balloon-Juice) that 300,000 voters didn't have the proper IDs while the margin was something like 10% of that (the final numbers may have changed). Bernie damaged Hillary and Trump ran with Bernie's rhetoric (and expanded on it). But given that the polling in the important states was off by 4-5% or so, it's hard to see that any Democrat (or even Bernie, since he's not a Democrat) would have not also been very unpleasantly surprised. Investments are based on the poll numbers.... Polling is broken. Voter ID laws depressed the vote in too many important areas. Relentless "OMG!!1 e-mails!!11" stories and screaming about "Hillary's Corruption™" couldn't help but depress her turnout and swing the late deciding "undecided" people. It would be good to know more about the exit polls that show Donnie winning the white women's vote - how on Earth did that happen?!?!? FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #415,402 by mmoffitt 11/10/16 4:45:59 PM 11/10/16 4:45:59 PM Reply	Still smokin' the DNC rope and refusing to learn, I see. These mostly are middle- and low-income folks, people making less than $50,000 a year. While they make up some 80 percent of the U.S. population, exit polls on Nov. 7 found that for the first time they’ve fallen to less than half of the voting population. As the Clinton-Gore-Lieberman Democrats have jerked the party out from under this core populist constituency, pursuing the money and adopting the policies of the corporate and investor elite, the core constituency of the party has — big surprise — steadily dropped away. In 1992, the under-$50,000 crowd made up 63 percent of voters. In 1996, after Clinton and Gore had relentlessly and very publicly pushed NAFTA, the WTO and other Wall Street policies for four years, the under-$50,000 crowd dropped to 52 percent of voters. After four more years of income stagnation and decline for these families under the regime of the Clinton-Gore “New Democrats,” the under-$50,000 crowd dropped this year to only 47 percent of voters. At the same time, those who are prospering under the Wall Street boom, cheered on by the policies of both the Republican and Democratic leadership, have become ever more enthusiastic voters. In 1996, voters with incomes above $100,000 (about 3 percent of the population), made up 9 percent of the turnout; this year, they were 15 percent of the turnout. This rising income skew among voters causes both parties to push more policies that favor the affluent minority, which causes an even greater turn-off for the majority, which causes … well, you can see the downward spiral we’re in. This is especially damaging to Democrats, since the non-voters are their natural constituency. This constituency feels discarded, not only by the Democrats, but by the whole process. ... Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader. http://www.salon.com/2000/11/28/hightower/ If we don't stop blaming third parties for the Clintonian Democratic candidates shortcomings and the misguided DNC policies, we will lose every election henceforth. bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,403 by Another Scott 11/10/16 5:14:15 PM 11/10/16 5:14:15 PM Reply	Gore ran from Clinton. Gore was in the House 3 years before Bill was Governor. If Gore had embraced Clinton rather than running from him (and picking Lieberman), it seems clear (to me) that he would have won his home state and would have won the election. Your counter-factuals don't change the fact that lots of people in Florida intended to vote for Gore but ended up voting for Buchanan due to the weird ballot. If those votes had been cast as they intended, and counted properly, Gore would have won. There were lots of reasons why Gore lost (Lieberman, the butterfly ballot, being unable to crush the "inventing the internet" criticism, people being taken in by "Compassionate Conservatism" and "Reformer with Results" and "Humble Foreign Policy" and "No Nation Building" and all the rest. His somehow being a creature of the DNC (or the DLC, even) wasn't one of them. Oh, and he did win the popular vote, of course. Somehow Democrats winning the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections is a sign of failure... FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #415,407 by mmoffitt 11/11/16 8:08:41 AM 11/11/16 8:08:41 AM Reply	Aside sigh. I WISH my ballot looked like that. Not the punches, but all the parties. bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,433 by boxley 11/11/16 7:11:05 PM 11/11/16 7:11:05 PM Reply	y'all want to wait for all of the ballots to be counted before declaring a win on the popular vote? always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #415,452 by Another Scott 11/12/16 3:49:35 PM 11/12/16 3:49:35 PM Reply	AP Numbers. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/2016-election-results/ She's up around 600k as of ~ 1 PM today. Supposedly if the trends hold, she'll win by 1.5-2M. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #415,397 by Another Scott 11/10/16 4:19:53 PM 11/10/16 4:19:53 PM Reply	[blinking rotating text] Ya think?!?! [/blinking rotating text] (sheesh)

Welcome to IWETHEY!