December 14, 2016 at 9:49 am #25580
Rollins doesn’t need a recount to understand why Clinton lost the state.
“When you don’t reach out to community folk and reach out to precinct campaigns and district organizations that know where the votes are, then you’re going to have problems,” she said.
In OH and PA, this kind of thing was rampant. All over both States, the ground game was hobbled and largely ineffective across large swaths of both States. I had near daily contact with campaign level people.
There were plenty of people doing the work, reporting, asking for resources, solutions, various “air cover” and “ground cover” activities to be funded.
Two months in advance of the election, word came back:
“Clinton doesn’t need Ohio.”
That’s fact man. I know the people there, was helping in various ways, writing, phones, etc…
People quit that day. They all moved to local issues, races, trying to make progress in that direction.
You guys want to blame? Yeah, everybody does. Me included.
Put that blame where it really exists. We all will be better for it.
I’ve seen the logs, spreadsheets, reports, numbers. I’ve talked with passionate people who really didn’t want this disaster. People getting hate rocks thrown through their windows. People losing friends.
Through all that, they asked, got dismissed.
Two months in advance. Didn’t need Ohio. Do you all remember seeing that on the TV? I do. I also remember the discussions with ground people there about it. Remember Nate Silver talking that up? No worries, she’s got this without Ohio? I do. Bet your ass those people on the ground in Ohio do.
Didn’t want Trump. Meant it. Did the work guys. Lots of us did.
Clinton did not do the work, as I’ve stated here a pile of times. Fact, that may come out slowly as people process through this and some reporting gets done.
Looks like Ellison might make it. That’s a big signal.
Nina Turner looks to be building a run for Ohio. Another big signal.
I’m on the team that gave a shit. Not the one that turned people away. Turned a lot of people away.
It’s party reform time. Out with the team that brought us here. In with a lot of fresh blood willing to get after it and who are well aligned with the ordinary people.December 14, 2016 at 11:04 am #25582
You’re on the team that helped Trump get elected.December 14, 2016 at 12:42 pm #25583
Right now, in one of those important States, meetings are going on all over the place to evaluate this election.
I have the summary of the first round of party analysis that from pretty high up. Let’s say high enough I can’t cite them directly here. This isn’t pundit bull shit. It’s real, from the folks that fought the battle.
A few highlights for you:
*Clinton’s national staff did not perform. Outside data driven to a fault, ignored many important counties.
*Refusal to work with and consult local party people who can and have delivered consistently in the past, people with the connections, the voters, activists, etc…
*Refusal to provide requested resources. By contrast, the Obama campaign provided almost too much. Big ground game losses here. No dedicated staff, no systemic reporting, action, analysis, etc…
*Ignored clear warnings given months in advance, even prior to the convention. –>This right here is the kind of shit that reeks of hubris.
*There are very serious questions about data reports vs real activity. (I’m aware of those directly. Know the people, spoke on the phone. Saw the disconnect. People were typing numbers in that didn’t have any basis in reality on the ground, with voters.)
I could go on, but that’s enough. Don’t want to get people into any trouble. I’ve left out metrics, but I have them.
What you don’t get, and I don’t blame you for it at all, is people were snubbed. They were dictated to, told things, told this was in the bag, shut up, get on board, or else!
These are people who have gone to the mat over and over for better politics. People who got told they were not needed, didn’t know stuff, and that they need to get out of the way and let the “adults” handle this.
In this election, somehow, the relationship between voter and politician got inverted.
We presented people with two very disliked candidates. That, in itself, wasn’t the primary problem, but it did speak very highly to doing the work to garner votes needed to win.
Expecting that to just happen, “because Trump” also wasn’t the primary problem, though it’s a very serious mistake and it handicapped Dems all over the nation, and very seriously in these key States.
In fact, when the numbers all roll up, where Dems have performed reasonably, it all mostly worked. Where economics are reasonable, it all mostly worked.
Where that was not true, and it’s not true at all in those States, it didn’t work.
Worse, the right people knew. Knew well in advance. Knew from their own damn people too. Ignored.
And I’ve written it a bunch of times, in many places, along with others, and will do it again and again, until it starts to sink in:
Party performance for labor and the middle class was not good enough. People don’t want to hear why. It just is not good enough.
The way they see it, if their income isn’t good enough, the people they pay rent to, or a mortgage, whatever, don’t want to hear it either. Not good enough.
What people needed to hear was the clear priority being put on that, plans to improve, and all that is needed to place a vote in confidence that a better policy future is associated with that vote.
And that just didn’t happen. Root cause right there.
It’s not Russians. It’s not because of Sanders, who actually holds a party outreach position right now, because it’s Sanders style of politics that holds the most potential for party growth, involvement and recovery.
People were not made a priority. The work was not done, and that’s why Clinton and the Democrats lost big.
And that has been building for some time now.
More than half the nation isn’t in recovery. And those numbers are growing, not shrinking.
What you also don’t get, is a ton of us put real time, real money into this one. All the way through, not just for Sanders. For Democrats.
Our efforts were not matched by our nominee and staff, who took an active role in suppression! That’s unheard of, and a very serious problem.
Know what else got said?
“Would rather lose to Trump than win with Sanders.”
And when Clinton secured the nomination, that got amplified. What happened after that was a shut out.
“We don’t need those people, and can win with moderate Republicans.”
Democrats talk about a big tent, coalation politics, identity politics, common man, labor, ordinary people politics.
But our nominee wanted absolutely nothing to do with that at all.
Wouldn’t do the work. Didn’t appear to understand representative government. Didn’t appear to recognize the clear trends toward more populist, in the left sense, socialist sense, policy preferences.
Didn’t even appear to recognize the pretty damn massive human need out there.
That’s what lost this. Hubris.
Say what you want man. It’s a hot load. I got the contacts, people, numbers, reports, and am still plugged into all of that.
Lots of us do. Those in safe states, like this one, put our work into States that were KNOWN risks. Communicated, known risks.
And got told, “you aren’t needed.”
Remember that. You won’t see it reported on CNN. We may see it in Rolling Stone after a time. Politico has a few people on the story too. There are a few of those stories I contributed to, by the way. Got those names, contacts as well. Got the queries in my inbox, “what the fuck?” basically.
Hopefully more coming.
Oh, and as far as the Russians go? Here’s what I think:
We do that shit all the time. Do you want audio of Hilary Clinton talking about pushing for public elections being a mistake? How about when she talks about doing that only when we can make sure who wins?
Hubris. That’s what lost it. Didn’t do the work. Didn’t think they had to.December 14, 2016 at 1:14 pm #25584
“In OH and PA, this kind of thing was rampant. All over both States, the ground game was hobbled and largely ineffective across large swaths of both States. I had near daily contact with campaign level people.”
As I said in at least one other thread: Clinton lost PA because turnout in rural counties surged – for him, by about 300,000 votes more than Romney got in 2012. How is that a problem with the Clinton “ground game?” Clinton won about the same number of votes in 2016 as Obama won in 2012.
And about 130,000 more voters voted for Johnson and Stein in PA than voted for them in 2012. How is that a problem with the Clinton “ground game?December 14, 2016 at 1:21 pm #25585
Also regarding PA (where I have been for the last week), there seem to have been unusually long lines at the polling places this time. Several people told me they waited in line for 1.5 hours or more – people who are not used to waiting in line to vote. PA does not have early voting (AT ALL), and if you want to vote absentee, you have to have an “excuse” – you can’t just tell the state (e.g. California) you want to vote by mail permanently.
So how many people simply didn’t vote in PA because they didn’t have time to wait 1-2 hours in line, when they are losing pay by taking a long lunch just to vote or something? How is that the fault of the “Clinton ground game?”
Sorry, Doug, but everything you say about the election looks like a line out of the Bernie Bro playbook: Clinton is corrupt, Bernie was perfect and would have won the election easily (even though he didn’t even win PA in the primary here), blah blah blah. A big reason Clinton lost was that people like you kept repeating the Fox “News” talking points about Clinton being corrupt. Try taking some responsibility for that instead of blaming everyone else.December 14, 2016 at 1:54 pm #25586
I also heard that there something like 1.7 million ballots returned without a vote for President.
Good thing they held to their convictions though!December 14, 2016 at 2:41 pm #25587
Rural votes did surge! Huge, in fact. We could have had our share.
Right now, corruption is legal. The often cited “Clinton is corrupt” line is somewhat Orwellian. Truth is, it’s money and how it rolls up into a basic priority problem.
The real people, who aren’t just saying shit, are talking about that.
True for me.
In a more general sense though, this election was winnable.
Until I see something material to suggest otherwise, I’m there.
A big part of “that work”, by the way, was working through the intra-party divide. It’s significant, but was not something impossible to deal with.
I’m super pissed that it wasn’t. A couple of shifts, signals from the right people earlier in the process would have given the various parties both the “outs” and “successes” they needed to work far better together than they actually did.
The biggest problem I do have with all of this is how things got handled.
Truth is, both factions, as they existed then and continue today, aren’t necessarily wrong in what drives them. And most of those conflicts were entirely manageable and or resolvable in some cases too.
Rather than do that, it got made personal, and has been made a turf war too.
For example, recognition of the lack of performance for labor and the middle class was seen as “dissing Obama” when the truth is, we had considerable obstruction to deal with.
This one issue really drove a lot of other ones, BTW.
So, one party could have recognize obstruction to a greater degree than it did, while the other party could recognize a shift in priorities being more than warranted given where the people –who in the end actually matter in this whole thing, are at.
Even now, in the wake of the loss, “saving face” is trumping (ahem, I’m gonna have to shift away from that one) the clear need to not only oppose, but oppose in an effective, positive way.
There is and will be a ton of voter regret. Things got personal, and here we are.
I very strongly object to blaming voters, and or blaming people who brought a positive economic vision rooted in real human need to the table. The voters are where they are, need what they need, and the job of people applying for the job need to sell ’em on that making sense.
The party is definitely not there yet, and wasn’t during this election to anywhere near the degree needed to be successful. That’s firmly on Clinton and staff. They had agency in that, didn’t do the work.
This blame on people is problematic too.
When it all comes out, we are gonna see as much as a 20 fucking percent cross over, “fuck everybody then” type vote. And a whole lot of that is going to come out to be driven by dictating, and the whole “fear and shame”, also “because Trump” campaigning done too.
Blaming the people is going to turn them away on both establishment and party specific politics, which makes a comeback all the more difficult. Given the numbers, and the gains needed, this is very unwise.
Blaming them also doesn’t validate the simple need, and the majority not doing well, simply not recovering. Sure, the reports look good, and on a macro level, it’s all fine and dandy, but that’s not the majority American experience.
Either we recognize and validate that, or it’s not going to go well for Dems, and economic progressives, pro middle class and labor people overall.
Quite simply, it needs to go well. The alternatives are pretty damn grim, so why fuck around?
Now you and many others are characterizing that as “bernie bro” bullshit.
Here’s the truth: Call it whatever you want to call it. In this election, way too many Americans were not OK with the standard deal, which is basically what Clinton put on the table.
Maybe it wasn’t winnable at all. Don’t know, don’t care now.
Recognition of that is going to come with recognition of the overall lackluster party performance too, from a party perspective that is.
I blanket oppose the excuses for that reason.
Our current, what I’ll call bedrock economic policy strategy isn’t effective. People can cite opposition, but look at the seat counts and losses. They are huge!
One could go back and argue addressing that disconnect, changing economic policy strategy, say in Obama’s early years, may well have set the stage for much better, rendering a lot of opposition far less potent.
Guess we will see all of that play out.
From here though, no way am I on board with what got us here. And the trends all point toward growing support for that view, one that I am absolutely not alone on by far.
Sanders had the better aligned policy vision flat out. Still does.
The noise I’m hearing from the incumbent team isn’t good. There really isn’t any ownership nor recognition of meaningful change on the table.
Not OK. Wasn’t OK in the election either.
Even modest recognition of those things would have very significantly changed this election. I believe Clinton could have won it.
And now what do we have?
Finally some investigation on election issues, after how many shitty elections since about 2000? LOL, funny shit right there. How many times did I get called out for all that shit? Too fucking many times. And what I said then, is the same damn thing I say now:
“Fine. There are a lot of problems with elections, and we should fix them to improve confidence in our elections. Fixing them because we don’t like the result isn’t any better today than it was the last dozen times it got brought up.”
And we should fix those problems. I spent years learning about them, attempting to communicate them, and have my work citied in a number of policy recommendation documents all buried and covered in dust now. Maybe the clowns in charge can dust ’em off and get to work. Very little has changed.
What did change is this time it hurt! Badly. Guess W didn’t hurt quite that badly?
“who is in charge of the truth?” witch hunts. Some contributors here should be coming back to say, “told you so” and they would be right on that front. Sadly. In that, I will totally own my bull shit.
All of that is a very grave step in a very wrong direction. Hello McCarthy times? We sure are flirting with it. How many years of ugly, hate, harsh, opinions have been tolerated, but NOW it’s not OK?
The hard truth of it is money in politics does breed corruption. And it’s legal corruption too, the primary product of which is a basic priority problem which has left a majority of Americans out, simply not a priority.
And that’s a ton of what drove this result. Had we spoken to it, we wouldn’t have this result.
If we start speaking to it, we can rapidly improve on this result too.
But all of that has to start with some ownership of how we arrived here at this result and blaming people, Russians, etc… just doesn’t cut it.
Finally, what I just expressed here in rough terms is a rough split among Democrats, and a majority view among independents, with the growth trending young.December 14, 2016 at 4:30 pm #25588
Those 1.1 million represent the work not done.December 14, 2016 at 5:14 pm #25590
“Here’s the truth: Call it whatever you want to call it. In this election, way too many Americans were not OK with the standard deal, which is basically what Clinton put on the table.”
And instead of the standard deal, look at what the Bernie Bros are getting instead.
Honestly, normally it’s the GOP who votes against their best interests. But this year it was the Bernie Bros who voted against their own best interest.
And I’ll be here to call them out on their bullshit when needed, and to remind them they don’t really have a right to bitch. They indirectly helped elect Trump.December 14, 2016 at 8:13 pm #25595
Indirectly is progress! One step at a time. I’ll take it.
😀December 14, 2016 at 8:24 pm #25596
Vitalogy, it’s not good. I am offering no defense.
It is important to understand. The pop news pundit narrative isn’t the whole story here. Enough people aren’t well served enough to do a “fuck everybody” type vote. Stakes were high enough to put doing it off the table, yet it happened anyway.
I fear major league, additional losses with a move right, and or failure to recognize where way too many people are. The misalignment is severe enough to be an issue. Losing issue.
Getting well positioned behind the best aligned message will limit the damage and we may recover nicely.
I’m very highly motivated by this fail. Epic fail. This mess is bad. The worst actually.December 14, 2016 at 8:44 pm #25597December 16, 2016 at 3:23 pm #25621
If you want to make the Democrats a permanent minority party, go ahead and elect Ellison.December 16, 2016 at 4:54 pm #25624edselehrParticipant
Explain that thinking, Vit.December 16, 2016 at 5:25 pm #25625
I almost think it’s best to put Ellison at the DNC now and get it over with. 2018 is likely going to be another awful year for Democrats anyway, no matter who runs the DNC. Then maybe in 2019 Dems can elect someone not of the Bernie mold and try to get Democrats to start winning elections again.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.