I agree with this, and thank you for stating that. If we are going to make any
real social difference we need to break out of our current leftist cult
mentality and work within the ranks of mainstream America, notabandon the
middle at a drop of a hat wheneve we get rubbed the wrong way. That only pushes
all major political partiesfurther to the right to make up for the loss of the
left. About a year ago I said that the incorrect actions of the left are going
to put a far right president in the oval office in 2016 and by 20/20 we will
need so much relief that we will be desperate for a candidate that will be
further to the right of Obama and Clinton and they will look attractive
compared to who was elected in 2016. I still tand by that prediction.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 2:27 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It
In fact, it was WE, the Left Wing, that allowed Trump to win. We allowed the
Democratic Party to drag our middle off to the Right. We allowed folks like
Hillary Clinton to schmooze Wall Street , which led to our being sold out.
Blaming Hillary will only prevent us from assessing the situation, and
beginning the process of reestablishing our Progressive Platform.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/13/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org) Home > Trump Didn't
Win the Election, Hillary Lost It
________________________________________
Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It By Guy T. Saperstein
[1] / AlterNet [2] November 12, 2016 Hillary was always going to be a
weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see
it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the
obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016.
Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these
pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to
be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is
still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up
with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising,
college graduates can't find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking,
infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable
for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding - and neither
party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a
result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way
Clinton can run as a "change" candidate - indeed, having been in power
in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S.
Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the
Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular
in 2016.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitabi
lity-h illary-you-probably-havent-thought-about [3] This, of course,
is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief
political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:
This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me,
this is the single most important number in the exit poll in
understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump.
Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most
to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39
percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate
who "has the right experience" was the second most important character
trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote
to just 14 percent for Clinton.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3 [4] On top ;
of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her
making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating
back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007,
while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in
head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against
Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively
unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up
against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in
2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate.
We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was
challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even
a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in
national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes
in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+
enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small
gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an
event.
What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this
election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of
this
campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in
2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now
and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win
this election.
Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012!
We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by
Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate
their party pushed on them.
Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was
another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:
On nearly every important issue, except women's issues, Clinton stands
to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe
that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for
their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to
give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that,
"We all got into this mess together and we're all going to have to
work together to get out of it." In her world - a world full of
friends and donors from Wall Street - the financial industry does not
bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08.
The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is
preaching lack of accountability.
She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall
Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing
transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which
exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was
rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not
serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part
of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65%
"untrustworthy" soon followed.
She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of
Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had
called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of
trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's
manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to
lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries
to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the
industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their
economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran
ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate,
including Trump, in match-up polls.
This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo
and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many
thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the
weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her
many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to
deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who
had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to
try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.
Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation;
previously, he was one of the National Law Journal's "100 Most
Influential Lawyers in America."
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [5]
[6]
Stay Ahead of the Rest
Sign Up for AlterNet's Daily Newsletter
EMAIL:
+ sign up for additional lists
[x]
Select additional lists by selecting the checkboxes below before
clicking
Subscribe:
Rights & Liberties
Education
Drugs
Economy
Environment
Labor
Food
World
Politics
Investigation
Personal Health
Water
Media
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-didnt-win-election-hillary
-lost-
it
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/guy-t-saperstein
[2] http://alternet.org
[3]
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitabi
lity-h illary-you-probably-havent-thought-about
[4] http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3
[5] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Trump Didn't ;
Win the Election, Hillary Lost It [6] http://www.alternet.org/ [7] ;
http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org) Home > Trump Didn't
Win the Election, Hillary Lost It
Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It By Guy T. Saperstein
[1] / AlterNet [2] November 12, 2016 AddThis Sharing Buttons Share to
FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Google+Share to More4Share to Email
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was
there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard
many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly
the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half
years ago---I wrote on these
pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to
be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is
still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up
with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising,
college graduates can't find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking,
infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable
for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding - and neither
party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a
result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way
Clinton can run as a "change" candidate - indeed, having been in power
in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S.
Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the
Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular
in 2016.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitabi
lity-h illary-you-probably-havent-thought-about [3] This, of course,
is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief
political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:
This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me,
this is the single most important number in the exit poll in
understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump.
Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most
to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39
percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate
who "has the right experience" was the second most important character
trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote
to just 14 percent for Clinton.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3 [4] On top ;
of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her
making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating
back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007,
while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in
head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against
Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively
unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up
against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in
2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate.
We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was
challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even
a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in
national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes
in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+
enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small
gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an
event.
What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this
election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of
this
campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in
2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now
and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win
this election.
Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012!
We
are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats
who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their
party pushed on them.
Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was
another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:
On nearly every important issue, except women's issues, Clinton stands
to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe
that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for
their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to
give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that,
"We all got into this mess together and we're all going to have to
work together to get out of it." In her world - a world full of
friends and donors from Wall Street - the financial industry does not
bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08.
The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is
preaching lack of accountability.
She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall
Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing
transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which
exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was
rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not
serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part
of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65%
"untrustworthy" soon followed.
She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of
Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had
called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of
trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's
manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to
lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries
to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the
industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their
economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran
ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate,
including Trump, in match-up polls.
This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo
and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought
Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest
candidate imaginable.
In
the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that
her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working
class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged
system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just
bust up the system.
Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation;
previously, he was one of the National Law Journal's "100 Most
Influential Lawyers in America."
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [5] Error!
Hyperlink reference not valid.[6]
Stay Ahead of the Rest
Sign Up for AlterNet's Daily Newsletter
EMAIL:
+ sign up for additional lists
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-didnt-win-election-hillary
-lost-
it
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/guy-t-saperstein
[2] http://alternet.org
[3]
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitabi
lity-h illary-you-probably-havent-thought-about
[4] http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3
[5] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Trump Didn't ;
Win the Election, Hillary Lost It [6] http://www.alternet.org/ [7] ;
http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
