11-13-2016, 12:50 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-13-2016, 12:54 AM by Eric the Green.)
I more or less agree, but let's unpack this a little from my point of view.
Calling playwrite "establishment" is not fair; he was just pragmatic. There's a difference. Many really believed that Bernie was too liberal to have a chance in conservative America.
The article seems correct that it was Bernie who had the better chance, because he was a better candidate more in touch with what the people were experiencing.
We lost bigly, but not because we lost by a big margin. All the defeats were close.
It's not fair to say Hillary was weak on all of those issues. Some of them, yes.
In 2008, when it appeared that Barack Obama was going to win the majority of delegates decided by elections and caucuses, the superdelegates switched their allegiance from Hillary to him. Don't you think that would have happened this time?
There was no evidence that any "rigging" would have made any difference in the outcome of the primaries; not by a long shot. Those who failed to vote for Hillary because of that accusation, helped to give us Trump.
Bernie would have been a stronger candidate. That was indicated by the polls, and by my horoscope system as well.
But the reason Bernie was not chosen, was not because someone ignored the polls. The voters chose Hillary because they knew her and her record and respected her.
The LA Times poll was a consistent outlier for Trump and did not come close to the national vote. It was not "on to something" at all. Ironically, the Rasmussen poll, which usually favors Republicans, came the closest. There are many reasons polls fail. Lichtman summed it up by saying polls measure the current state of opinion; they don't make predictions. They also are very poor at deciding who is actually a likely voter.
Yes the Democratic Party somehow didn't connect with certain groups that used to support it. Partly this is because Hillary was not an inspiring candidate and didn't connect. The message was not clear enough that the Democratic Party represents the needs of the average person for economic fairness. But some of Trump's voters may have misled themselves by not paying enough attention to what really mattered, whether this was because they were cultural conservatives, or didn't unpack Trump's promises enough to see the trickle-down pro-billionaire message at its core, or let themselves be deluded into thinking that Hillary was "corrupt" and "crooked" when that was not the case. Or a combination of all three.
Yes, the main responsibility of putting us all in danger now, rests with the voters themselves. Very much so.
Calling playwrite "establishment" is not fair; he was just pragmatic. There's a difference. Many really believed that Bernie was too liberal to have a chance in conservative America.
The article seems correct that it was Bernie who had the better chance, because he was a better candidate more in touch with what the people were experiencing.
We lost bigly, but not because we lost by a big margin. All the defeats were close.
It's not fair to say Hillary was weak on all of those issues. Some of them, yes.
In 2008, when it appeared that Barack Obama was going to win the majority of delegates decided by elections and caucuses, the superdelegates switched their allegiance from Hillary to him. Don't you think that would have happened this time?
There was no evidence that any "rigging" would have made any difference in the outcome of the primaries; not by a long shot. Those who failed to vote for Hillary because of that accusation, helped to give us Trump.
Bernie would have been a stronger candidate. That was indicated by the polls, and by my horoscope system as well.
But the reason Bernie was not chosen, was not because someone ignored the polls. The voters chose Hillary because they knew her and her record and respected her.
The LA Times poll was a consistent outlier for Trump and did not come close to the national vote. It was not "on to something" at all. Ironically, the Rasmussen poll, which usually favors Republicans, came the closest. There are many reasons polls fail. Lichtman summed it up by saying polls measure the current state of opinion; they don't make predictions. They also are very poor at deciding who is actually a likely voter.
Yes the Democratic Party somehow didn't connect with certain groups that used to support it. Partly this is because Hillary was not an inspiring candidate and didn't connect. The message was not clear enough that the Democratic Party represents the needs of the average person for economic fairness. But some of Trump's voters may have misled themselves by not paying enough attention to what really mattered, whether this was because they were cultural conservatives, or didn't unpack Trump's promises enough to see the trickle-down pro-billionaire message at its core, or let themselves be deluded into thinking that Hillary was "corrupt" and "crooked" when that was not the case. Or a combination of all three.
Yes, the main responsibility of putting us all in danger now, rests with the voters themselves. Very much so.