Support NeoGAF

[Savitar]

Going from what a lot of things has been said since the election I can't help but feel that she lost due to the simply fact that her campaign got caught up in it's own bubble and lost touch with the average person. They thought they knew best, that they were right, that everything else was wrong. It couldn't work any other way, try to say otherwise and you got shouted down and basically it was a toll the line or else mentality, you even saw that here on GAF at the time. People were so sure, those who tried to say there might be various issues at times were pretty much ignored or told were wrong. Those who were not part of the agenda were left to their own devices even when they wanted to help or needed help is an outright disgrace.

Worse, we already had a report that basically said the party learned nothing. This should be a huge wake up call for the party, instead they appear to be ready to blame anything but themselves and make the changes that need to be done. That's not going to help them at all in the future. The party is in denial and it's going to take some more hard hits before they bitterly and likely still kicking and screaming are forced to adapt during which the common American will pay the price and suffer under whatever the GoP enacts.

 

[JackDT]

I put the blame right where the counts. America voted for Trump. Trump made it crystal clear what he believes, what he stands for, and what he plans to do. Those voters have the responsibility for all of that. The people picked him. It's on them now.

 

[Aselith]

I put the blame right where the counts. America voted for Trump. Trump made it crystal clear what he believes, what he stands for, and what he plans to do. Those voters have the responsibility for all of that.

The narrative being put forth here is not that people didn't know about Trump but that Clinton wasn't good about putting forth her vision as well as Trump did. It's not enough to just be anti-something, you have to be for something to get people out to vote. Even her slogan at the end of the company was Anti-Trump not Pro-Hillary

It's not enough to get people to not vote for someone as there's always people in lie beind. You also have to get people to line up for YOU.

This election showed that extremely well when you look at turn out. There were tons of people that wouldn't vote for Trump but there weren't enough that wanted to vote for Hillary

 

[Calamari41]

Yeah, the Dems have been weak structurally for a long time. Obama's strong wins in 2008 and 2012--as well as his popularity--hid the deep problems the Democratic party has. With Obama leaving office, there's no one to prop up the party anymore, and its weakness on a state and national level is now clear for all to see.

Obama is deeply popular on a personal level, but if the high "wrong track" numbers are any indication, his policies are not. The Democrat Party made the mistake of thinking that Obama's popularity belonged to them.

 

[JackDT]

Clinton talked more about what she stood for and what she would do than Trump ever did, by an order of magnitude at least. Have you talked to real Trump voters?

I recently spent a couple of hours at a local church brunch. You simply can not get through the wall of Sean Hannity. Nothing you say will ever convince them that crime isn't at a 45 year high right now. Nothing you can say will convince them that we are not in the worst depression since 1920. These are people driving 2015 SUVs who maintain a second home in Florida for occasional winter retreats. Trump says he never said Japan and North Korea have nukes? It's the New York Times who is lying! Never mind he said it in two different video interviews during the campaign, we all know the New York Times is just lies.

 

[Dude Abides]

Alot of election reporting seemed to be establishment journalists talking amongst themselves either on twitter or through their articles.
Thats why one outrageous statement or action from Trump after another was met with media proclamations that his candidacy was over. Elite media has a serious problem with self selecting their own narratives and inhabiting their own echo chambers.

But of course that all ends the day after the election which is why we should all take articles in the famously reflective, nuanced and thoughtful and not at all access driven Politico as Gospel truth.

 

[digdug2k]

And she helped him achieve that through incompetence and pushing him to the general election. She gave those racist shitheads a figurehead to empower them and legitimize their bigotry.

Trump would have been the nominee just fine without anyone else doing anything. He was riding a populist wave against a bunch of establishment figures. It exists in the Democratic party too (but its not as large there). Its the same wave that helped him win the general (and hurt Clinton in the general).

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Obama is deeply popular on a personal level, but if the high "wrong track" numbers are any indication, his policies are not. The Democrat Party made the mistake of thinking that Obama's popularity belonged to them.

Wrong track is sort of a hard thing to analyze. So like, I'm a leftist and I think the US needs a single-payer healthcare system and think Republicans are sabotaging American health care so that they can blame Democrats for it, then I'd say that's a wrong track. But that doesn't mean I don't support the ACA as a flawed measure to try and improve health care here.

But if I'm a Republican who hates dirty socialism like the ACA then I think it's also the wrong track. But that position shows up identically in that sort of polling because it doesn't ask if the problem is the country going left or right.

 

[Herne]

Bill and Obama both asked why the campaign wasn't going to small towns.

This should have been a warning to her campaign staff. On some talk show just prior to the day the voting started, she was asked about Bill and the first thing she said was that he is a brilliant campaigner, or that he absolutely knew what he was talking about in that area. And her staff ignored him when he pointed these things out.

Someone really fucked up.

 

[Timeless]

If GAF ran a campaign.txt

Trump just shot himself in the foot. I don't know how much the rest of you know about American politics (I'm an expert), but polling and memes are huge parts of it.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Wrong track is sort of a hard thing to analyze. So like, I'm a leftist and I think the US needs a single-payer healthcare system and think Republicans are sabotaging American health care so that they can blame Democrats for it, then I'd say that's a wrong track. But that doesn't mean I don't support the ACA as a flawed measure to try and improve health care here.

But if I'm a Republican who hates dirty socialism like the ACA then I think it's also the wrong track. But that position shows up identically in that sort of polling because it doesn't ask if the problem is the country going left or right.

A lot of folks hate the ACA or alternatively think it doesn't go far enough. The thing that makes me laugh most about the situation was how proponents of the law claimed pragmatism for what they were doing. There was no reasonable basis for a Democrat to parrot GOP talking points and ideas about building upon the "free market" in health care. Another self-inflicted wound by the New Democrats.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

But of course that all ends the day after the election which is why we should all take articles in the famously reflective, nuanced and thoughtful and not at all access driven Politico as Gospel truth.

Continuing to shit on sites like Politico which have been reporting a lot of post-mortem material from the failed Clinton campaign will guarantee more Democratic losses in the future, leading to an eternity of Republican control of the US.

Your move.

 

[jfkgoblue]

On a side note but relevant, irregularities found in Detroit's ballot boxes.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/

So you're saying Trump may have won Michigan by an even larger margin than what he got?

If the recount had been allowed to go through and showed this to be the case, you just inadvertently gave voter ID laws a legitimate premise.


Also on topic. People need to stop blaming this all on Hillary, that's how Trumo not only wins all the same states as this year in 2020, but also adds Minnesota and Maine, although Minnesota will turn red soonish anyways, it's been trending that way for some time.

Honestly if voters find Trump to be even ok, 2020 could be a landslide no matter what Democrats do, it's quite hard to defeat an incumbent with even decent approval ratings, and Trump was able to win with horrible numbers.

2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election will be the true test as improving the Senate in 2018 is a pipe dream due to the shear math of it, only hope is to prevent a Republican supermajority.

 

[Oemenia]

This joke of a candidate let Donald Dump win.

Just let that sink in.

 

[whyamihere]

Exactly. Should've picked Bernie.

Hillary was dumb for ceding rural whites and exurbs whites to Trump without effectively cutting into those margins.

Bernie was dumb for ceding Southern voters, older voters, and minority voters to Clinton without effectively cutting into those margins.

Both are losers who will never be president.

This joke of a candidate let Donald Dump win.

Just let that sink in.

Her and 15 governors, Senators, and a former speaker of the House.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

She overall lost the election by 80,000 votes. Out of 137 million votes.

When that is the margin there can be hundreds of plausible explanations on why Hillary lost.

 

[jfkgoblue]

She overall lost the election by 80,000 votes. Out of 137 million votes.

When that is the margin there can be hundreds of plausible explanations on why Hillary lost.

She lost by 80,000 votes in 3 states that were behind her supposed firewall. Those states weren't even supposed to be close! It is extremely disegenous to simply write it off as 80,000 votes, it masks the greater trend of these states leaving the Democrats behind, I can almost guarantee that Trump will win all 3 by a much larger margin cons 2020, because the trend is unlikely to stop without a Democratic nominee that is willing to talk with the WWC.

 

[whyamihere]

She lost by 80,000 votes in 3 states that were behind her supposed firewall. Those states weren't even supposed to be close! It is extremely disegenous to simply write it off as 80,000 votes, it masks the greater trend of these states leaving the Democrats behind, I can almost guarantee that Trump will win all 3 by a much larger margin cons 2020, because the trend is unlikely to stop without a Democratic nominee that is willing to talk with the WWC.

You can't almost guarantee anything in politics, especially in 4 years. Certainly, demographic shifts and a supposed electoral college buffer were not destiny in 2016.

 

[jfkgoblue]

You can't almost guarantee anything in politics, especially in 4 years. Certainly, demographic shifts and a supposed electoral college buffer were not destiny in 2016.

2016 actually followed demographic shifts almost exactly. We all just had our heads to far up our own asses to realize it. Hillary's vote increased in areas with higher Latino concentrations, and Trump's vote increased in the Rust Belt with high amounts of whites without a degree, just as the trend has been.

I encourage you to read this great fivethirtyeight article about this.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...n-the-midwest-was-getting-redder-before-2016/

Trump just accelerated a shift that has been slowly happening.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

She lost by 80,000 votes in 3 states that were behind her supposed firewall. Those states weren't even supposed to be close! It is extremely disegenous to simply write it off as 80,000 votes, it masks the greater trend of these states leaving the Democrats behind, I can almost guarantee that Trump will win all 3 by a much larger margin cons 2020, because the trend is unlikely to stop without a Democratic nominee that is willing to talk with the WWC.

No, it is not disingenuous.

There is almost universal acknowledgement of the fact that if Comey's letter hadn't happened Clinton would have won the election.

There is the Clinton would have talked more about economy explanation. Even though Clinton won voters who were concerned more about the economy.

What I am saying there are many explanations possible. No one explanation is more true than another.

Only thing we know for sure is that Clinton lost the 4 states - PA, MI, WI and FL in the last week with voters breaking heavily against her.

We know that Clinton faced a lot more negative news stories in the last two weeks than Trump.

 

[whyamihere]

2016 actually followed demographic shifts almost exactly. We all just had our heads to far up our own asses to realize it. Hillary's vote increased in areas with higher Latino concentrations, and Trump's vote increased in the Rust Belt with high amounts of whites without a degree, just as the trend has been.

I encourage you to read this great fivethirtyeight article about this.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...n-the-midwest-was-getting-redder-before-2016/

Trump just accelerated a shift that has been slowly happening.

You cannot guarantee anything in politics, even with your qualifier than Democrats need someone who could speak to the WWC. Democrats could win FL/NC/AZ in 2020 and make PA/WI/MI moot, for example. Or they win a hodgepodge of states. Or lose. Who knows.

tbd on if she did better with Latino voters than Obama.

Demographic trends were supposed to help Hillary, not Trump. They did not. That's what I mean when I speak to "demographic destiny."

Yes, I understand the trends of certain states and have read that article before.

 

[jfkgoblue]

No, it is not disingenuous.

There is almost universal acknowledgement of the fact that if Comey's letter hadn't happened Clinton would have won the election.

There is the Clinton would have talked more about economy explanation. Even though Clinton won voters who were concerned more about the economy.

What I am saying there are many explanations possible. No one explanation is more true than another.

Only thing we know for sure is that Clinton lost the 4 states - PA, MI, WI and FL in the last week with voters breaking heavily against her.

We know that Clinton faced a lot more negative news stories in the last two weeks than Trump.

It is disengenuous. I repeat, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were not supposed to be even close. If we were talking about Trumo squeaking by to 270 with wins in NH, Nevada and Colorado in addition to Florida and the rest of the swing states, then you may have a point. But we are fucking talking about Democratic strongholds of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. These are states that a late story like this shouldn't matter in! Hand waving away this as a Clinton problem will ensure that Democrats do nothing about the red shift that they are experiencing and lose the Rust Belt for at least a generation.

You cannot guarantee anything in politics, even with your qualifier than Democrats need someone who could speak to the WWC. Democrats could win FL/NC/AZ in 2020 and make PA/WI/MI moot, for example. Or they win a hodgepodge of states. Or lose. Who knows.

tbd on if she did better with Latino voters than Obama.

Demographic trends were supposed to help Hillary, not Trump. They did not. That's what I mean when I speak to "demographic destiny."

Yes, I understand the trends of certain states and have read that article before.

But Arizona and Georgia weren't all that close and it will be a while before they truly shift blue. Maine and Minnesota were closer for fucks sake.

Minnesota and Illinois were the only 2 remaining Rust Belt states left for Democrats this year, Illinois should be safe thanks to Chicago, but Minnesota is gonna continue its shift red. So let's say they somehow manage to win swing states of Florida, NC, and Arizona, by continuing to ignore the Rust Belt. So Trump manages to pick up Minnesota, Maine and NH. Also Virginia would probably go red. Dems still lose.

Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have already shifted.

NC wasn't particularly close either.

But yeah trading a solid state coalition for some swing states sounds like a sound strategy especially for one as volatile and unpredictable as Florida.

 

[SneakersSO]

Jesus Christ, I can't believe people in this very thread still don't believe Hillary and the DNC didn't fuck up this election. The DNC groomed her for years and years and still couldn't figure out how to get her to win an election against an orange, putty-faced, inhuman monster. Hubris still abounds all around.

With the continued lack of self-reflection among Hillary supporters, I'm honestly starting to think Trump will end up being a two-term president's. Mark this post.

I have been on GAF saying this since the election. All Trump has to do is make good on even some of his basic campaign ideas and the rust belt will eat it up and then some. Seeing the moves they are making now, unless the DNC finds another Obama, they are going to lose 2020, much less 2018.

Personally, I was a life long Democrat who left the party during this election because of all the shit I saw them doing in favor of HRC. I hope they continue to catch L's until they finally figure out they need to can the people currently driving the DNC and get back on track.

 

[jfkgoblue]

I have been on GAF saying this since the election. All Trump has to do is make good on even some of his basic campaign ideas and the rust belt will eat it up and then some. Seeing the moves they are making now, unless the DNC finds another Obama, they are going to lose 2020, much less 2018.

Personally, I was a life long Democrat who left the party during this election because of all the shit I saw them doing in favor of HRC. I hope they continue to catch L's until they finally figure out they need to can the people currently driving the DNC and get back on track.

If people on this forum are anything to go by, the Rust Belt is gone for the Democratic Party and they are now gonna be facing a major uphill electoral battle this upcoming election.

 

[KingBroly]

If she had won 2 of those 3 states (PA, MI and WI), she still would've lost.

PA+WI = 30, puts Trump at 276
PA+MI = 36, puts Trump at 270
MI+WI = 26, puts Trump at 286

IMO, the state that won Trump the Presidency was Wisconsin. No one saw it going to Trump, it did, and it was systematic of everything else going on. Hell, with MI, PA and WI, Trump could've lost Florida and still won. Even on the best Trump maps, you didn't have Wisconsin, but instead had Colorado and/or Nevada. Also, Trump almost won Minnesota. The only state that voted for Mondale in 84.

EDIT: As someone who lives in NC, whoever thought Trump was losing it to Clinton was out of their mind.

 

[jfkgoblue]

If she had won 2 of those 3 states (PA, MI and WI), she still would've lost.

PA+WI = 30, puts Trump at 276
PA+MI = 36, puts Trump at 270
MI+WI = 26, puts Trump at 286

IMO, the state that won Trump the Presidency was Wisconsin. No one saw it going to Trump, it did, and it was systematic of everything else going on. Hell, with MI, PA and WI, Trump could've lost Florida and still won. Even on the best Trump maps, you didn't have Wisconsin, but instead had Colorado and/or Nevada. Also, Trump almost won Minnesota. The only state that voted for Mondale in 84.

EDIT: As someone who lives in NC, whoever thought Trump was losing it to Clinton was out of their mind.

Minnesota is going red in 2020 IMO. It's the most liberal Rust Belt state outside of Illinois, so it's been behind the other 4, but it is still moving red like the rest.

 

[Atom Heart Mother]

Still think Tim Kaine was a bad VP choice. Should've been Bernie.

 

[ISOM]

I put the blame right where the counts. America voted for Trump. Trump made it crystal clear what he believes, what he stands for, and what he plans to do. Those voters have the responsibility for all of that. The people picked him. It's on them now.

.

 

[jfkgoblue]

Still think Tim Kaine was a bad VP choice. Should've been Bernie.

Kaine did deliver Virginia though.

 

[Vince_Russo]

Who remembers when PoliGaf was trying their hardest to make it seem like she was so "fab" and "glam" with that Yasss Queen shit ? They were trying to turn her into some kind of ironic cool person like console wars fanboys do with executives from Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft. It wasn't working anywhere else beyond this forum.

I'm seeing a lot of push back from some long-time Hil-gaffers here afraid of a Democratic politician that may bring in more white people into their party. Sorry bros, if no white people, then you can kiss Wisconsin, Michigan and Penn. goodbye forever. And without those states, then I don't even know what's to become of the future of my party...

 

[Atom Heart Mother]

Kaine did deliver Virginia though.

Yeah, and lost 4 other states in the process. Felt like Kaine was just boring and didn't appeal to anyone except VA. Bernie would've roped in the rust belt and the progressive side of the Dems. Kaine was just another same old Democrat.

 

[KRod-57]

Lets be honest here, Hillary Clinton was not a good nominee. She lost to the most unliked nominee in history, and she lost to him because she was a bad candidate. The best thing we can do is move forward, and nominate someone better the next time around.

 

[Rentahamster]

What I am saying there are many explanations possible.

Isn't that usually a sign of uncertainty and likely inaccuracy?

 

[br0ken_shad0w]

I'm seeing a lot of push back from some long-time Hil-gaffers here afraid of a Democratic politician that may bring in more white people into their party. Sorry bros, if no white people, then you can kiss Wisconsin, Michigan and Penn. goodbye forever. And without those states, then I don't even know what's to become of the future of my party...

How do you convey that message without straight up lying or blaming minorities. Because that's what those white people want to hear.

 

[KingBroly]

Lets be honest here, Hillary Clinton was not a good nominee. She lost to the most unliked nominee in history, and she lost to him because she was a bad candidate. The best thing we can do is move forward, and nominate someone better the next time around.

One problem with that is whoever it is won't have NEARLY the amount of support Clinton did this time from an institutional level (wall street, banks, etc.) and I think that will definitely hurt whoever that nominee is against Trump. All of those institutions and people tried as hard as they could to push her across the line and it just didn't happen.

 

[Dude Abides]

Continuing to shit on sites like Politico which have been reporting a lot of post-mortem material from the failed Clinton campaign will guarantee more Democratic losses in the future, leading to an eternity of Republican control of the US.

Your move.

I realize it's hard To go a day without posting the latest hot take from the political equivalent of US Magazine, but it's trash and will remain so.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Who remembers when PoliGaf was trying their hardest to make it seem like she was so "fab" and "glam" with that Yasss Queen shit ? They were trying to turn her into some kind of ironic cool person like console wars fanboys do with executives from Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft. It wasn't working anywhere else beyond this forum.

I'm seeing a lot of push back from some long-time Hil-gaffers here afraid of a Democratic politician that may bring in more white people into their party. Sorry bros, if no white people, then you can kiss Wisconsin, Michigan and Penn. goodbye forever. And without those states, then I don't even know what's to become of the future of my party...

Some people just refuse to admit they were wrong. They instead want to blame an outside force beyond their control like an unfair electoral system and of course, Russia, that oh so present and convenient Boogeyman. Let's be clear, I'm NOT trying to dismiss their blatant meddling, but to place ALL blame on them as some on GAF keep trying to do reeks of scapegoating and burying you head in the hand to the (with hindsight) GLARING flaws with Hillary's campaign.

How do you convey that message without straight up lying or blaming minorities. Because that's what those white people want to hear.

Did Bill Clinton blame minorities for shit? Seriously asking here, I'm too young to remember.

 

[theguy]

Hillary Clinton didn't blow the election; the American people blew the election.

 

[KRod-57]

One problem with that is whoever it is won't have NEARLY the amount of support Clinton did this time from an institutional level (wall street, banks, etc.) and I think that will definitely hurt whoever that nominee is against Trump. All of those institutions and people tried as hard as they could to push her across the line and it just didn't happen.

Support from those institutions don't guarantee you a win, if they did Hillary would have won easily. Her campaign raised more than double the amount that Trump did, and she still lost. If we're being honest, those institutions are exactly what we need to move away from. No one in their right mind sees their affiliation as a good thing, nominating another candidate with close ties to Wall Street will just be seen as baggage by the general voters.

 

[turtle553]

Yeah 20 year low voter turnout was ONLY racism. Lmao

Turnout was not actually lower once you got the final numbers. Same percentage as 2012, but higher population, so actually more voters. Just this time, third parties got 4 million more votes than 2012.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

Oh look, another "Why Hillary lost the election" article, this must be so much more insightful than the last 67,294 that have been published every single day.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

Some people just refuse to admit they were wrong. They instead want to blame an outside force beyond their control like an unfair electoral system and of course, Russia, that oh so present and convenient Boogeyman. Let's be clear, I'm NOT trying to dismiss their blatant meddling, but to place ALL blame on them as some on GAF keep trying to do reeks of scapegoating and burying you head in the hand to the (with hindsight) GLARING flaws with Hillary's campaign.



Did Bill Clinton blame minorities for shit? Seriously asking here, I'm too young to remember.

Yes, he did. The term "Sister Souljah Moment" as coined as a result. The Clintons have never been paragons of racial justice.

 

[guek]

Did Bill Clinton blame minorities for shit? Seriously asking here, I'm too young to remember.

The people who like to paint the Clintons as progressive saints who are angels on the side of minorities like to conveniently forget shit like "super predators" and the 94' crime bill. Granted, the Clintons apologized for both but that doesn't change history.

That's not to say that this is a *groan* purity test and that the Clintons haven't also been an ally. But ya know, the Clinton campaign likes to throw a lot of stones this election.

 

[jfkgoblue]

Yes, he did. The term "Sister Souljah Moment" as coined as a result. The Clintons have never been paragons of racial justice.

You mean that politicians don't actually care about the voters, only their votes? I'm shocked.

 

[Regulus Tera]

You'd have a case if certain other points weren't downplayed every time we have this discussion.

Maybe we should start realising that Trump's election was a perfect storm of sorts and not adhere to the idea that there's one defining reason for his rise. His margin of victory was small after all.

 

[gamechanger87]

So you're saying Trump may have won Michigan by an even larger margin than what he got?

If the recount had been allowed to go through and showed this to be the case, you just inadvertently gave voter ID laws a legitimate premise.

Likely. I mean Detroit was her largest margin and vote total.

 

[Neoweee]

I realize it's hard To go a day without posting the latest hot take from the political equivalent of US Magazine, but it's trash and will remain so.

There is some good stuff from Politico, though, and I wouldn't completely discredit their Hillary articles.

- They depend too much on access, which often means reporting their anonymous sources un-critically.
- They are the go-to place for political operatives that feel scorned or ignored.
- Their postmortem feeding frenzies are always a ton of finger pointing.
- Their email coverage was actually the best out of any site this cycle.

They aren't US.

Maybe we should start realising that Trump's election was a perfect storm of sorts and not adhere to the idea that there's one defining reason for his rise. His margin of victory was small after all.

I agree with this, mostly. It was a marginal win in an election that favored the Republican candidate, on paper. We live in polarized times, and I think Trump's racist, sexist, angry message inherently players better to rural whites than a typical GOP candidate. The media also completely and utterly shat the bed, but that's kind of a vague, unproductive thing to address.

If she had won 2 of those 3 states (PA, MI and WI), she still would've lost.

PA+WI = 30, puts Trump at 276
PA+MI = 36, puts Trump at 270
MI+WI = 26, puts Trump at 286

IMO, the state that won Trump the Presidency was Wisconsin. No one saw it going to Trump, it did, and it was systematic of everything else going on. Hell, with MI, PA and WI, Trump could've lost Florida and still won. Even on the best Trump maps, you didn't have Wisconsin, but instead had Colorado and/or Nevada. Also, Trump almost won Minnesota. The only state that voted for Mondale in 84.

EDIT: As someone who lives in NC, whoever thought Trump was losing it to Clinton was out of their mind.

You could very easily frame it as PA was the state, though. The margins for Trump were PA>MI>WI. Generally, that was the predicted order, as well. There wasn't really a scenario where MI would go Trump without PA going Trump.

 

[theignoramus]

But of course that all ends the day after the election which is why we should all take articles in the famously reflective, nuanced and thoughtful and not at all access driven Politico as Gospel truth.

This article was a port-mortem report based on recorded facts, not an opinion piece based on faulty predictions and biases.

 

[theignoramus]

It is disengenuous. I repeat, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were not supposed to be even close. If we were talking about Trumo squeaking by to 270 with wins in NH, Nevada and Colorado in addition to Florida and the rest of the swing states, then you may have a point. But we are fucking talking about Democratic strongholds of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. These are states that a late story like this shouldn't matter in! Hand waving away this as a Clinton problem will ensure that Democrats do nothing about the red shift that they are experiencing and lose the Rust Belt for at least a generation.

But Arizona and Georgia weren't all that close and it will be a while before they truly shift blue. Maine and Minnesota were closer for fucks sake.

Minnesota and Illinois were the only 2 remaining Rust Belt states left for Democrats this year, Illinois should be safe thanks to Chicago, but Minnesota is gonna continue its shift red. So let's say they somehow manage to win swing states of Florida, NC, and Arizona, by continuing to ignore the Rust Belt. So Trump manages to pick up Minnesota, Maine and NH. Also Virginia would probably go red. Dems still lose.

Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have already shifted.

NC wasn't particularly close either.

But yeah trading a solid state coalition for some swing states sounds like a sound strategy especially for one as volatile and unpredictable as Florida.

The pre-election narrative was that Clinton had a very real chance at flipping red states blue. She was supposed to hand Trump and the Republicans devastating losses all the way down the ballot.

 

[Bolivar687]

The pre-election narrative was that Clinton had a very real chance at flipping red states blue. She was supposed to hand Trump and the Republicans devastating losses all the way down the ballot.

People on this forum were talking about Texas going blue.

Madness...