The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[LordMortis]

I don't know what to say, except I hope you choose with wisdom in 2012.

[Kraken]

Donald Trump's sons behind nonprofit selling access to president-elect

A new Texas nonprofit led by Donald Trump’s grown sons is offering access to the freshly-minted president during inauguration weekend — all in exchange for million-dollar donations to unnamed “conservation” charities, according to interviews and documents reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity.

Are these people going to even make it to the Inauguration before being indicted? Can Trump be impeached before Jan. 20th?

Congress has to do that. Congress is Republican. Congress will give Trump his graft and corruption in exchange for signing on to their agenda.

I've been blaming Clinton too. You can't stop the deplorables, Russia or conspiracy theories. You CAN control your ground game and messaging -- the Clinton campaign dropped the ball.

I blame Clinton too but it is more inate. She was a terrible candidate for President for personality reasons. She just doesn't have it. Doesn't take away from her abilities or accomplishments but it matters. Anyone as qualified with half an ounce of charisma probably would have beaten him.

Even more fundamentally, she was the wrong candidate for the times. Both primaries gave clear indications that everybody except partisan Democrats was looking for change. Even if she'd done everything right and had come off as at least minimally likeable, she was still the establishment. With a personality transplant she still might have won because her opponent was so reprehensible, but people were as cool toward her politics as they were toward her personality. The Democrats backed the wrong horse, and they still can't see that.

[malchior]

She won the popular vote by over 2%. Her tactical targeting was very poor, but she was not a terrible candidate.

Right but her unfavorable numbers were awful. And yes so were Trumps. In a system where the popular vote isn't what crowns the winner, it comes down to every factor and their effect in the states that do matter. One of the worst was she has absolutely *no charisma* to speak of. It was a huge liability. Plus, her organization had no plan to deal with the media. That is on her. Poor 'tactical weighting'? That is on her. I agree Comey/Russian/years of slander didn't help but to an extent those were risks that were understood at the time; they were to an extent known quantities (email/Bengazi/etc. were all known risks) that also made her a less than ideal candidate on their own. Add that all up and you see that the Democratic party was guilty of awful risk management and that lead them to put forward an awful candidate.

To boil it down a little, the membership chose someone who would go on to lose against the least qualified and one of the most scandal ridden candidates in American Presidential history. He weekly said things that should have disqualified him. So winning the popular vote doesn't mitigate that she *lost*. Especially since it was by an extremely thin margin. That is more damning IMO because a more suitable choice was all the more likely to win.

Edit: Not saying that Russian involvement was known. Just that it there were inherent risks that were ignored that they were able to exploit.

[tgb]

Cenk Uygur nails it.

[malchior]

Cenk Uygur nails it.

I disagree - his brick throwers were important but they aren't as numerous as he claims. The country still overwhelmingly voted for Hillary. It wasn't in the places that mattered by thin margins. I think that someone establishment who was able to empathize with them could conceivably have thrown the election the other way by actually engaging them. I don't buy that Clinton was ever going to sway them if only she showed up and spoke to them.

[tgb]

Cenk Uygur nails it.

I disagree - his brick throwers were important but they aren't as numerous as he claims. The country still overwhelmingly voted for Hillary. It wasn't in the places that mattered by thin margins.

Because that's where the brick throwers are - Michigan and Pennsylvania.

[malchior]

I get that but he is saying all future elections are in danger unless we fight populist fire with fire. And the contracase is that it was an incredibly thin margin. There was no 'populist' mandate really. He is making it a single factor thing which isn't supported by the data available. People didn't turn out because they simply didn't like her. There is tons of data showing people did not like *her* as a *person*. Sure part of that is the establishment angle but based on the polling around her speeches...frankly - she ain't got it.

[Isgrimnur]

Drone

Donald Trump launched his Twitter campaign against China’s seizure of a U.S. Navy research submersible last week to great fanfare ― and, as it turns out, hours after the crisis had already been defused.

It’s unclear whether the president-elect or his aides knew that fact ― it would have been included in the intelligence briefing available to him each morning ― before he sent out his misspelled missive of outrage at 7:30 a.m. Saturday.
...
But even his first version came four hours after U.S. Ambassador to China Max Baucus was informed that the Chinese navy had agreed to return the “underwater unmanned vehicle.”

That information would have been known to Trump had he taken the “Presidential Daily Brief” prior to posting his first tweet. Whether he did that Saturday, or whether he or his staff even bothered to check with the State Department or the Pentagon about the status of the matter before weighing in, is unknown. Officials in Trump’s transition office did not respond to queries from The Huffington Post.
...
In any case, Trump transition team spokesman Jason Miller was quick to take credit for his boss when news broke that China had agreed to return the device. At 11:54 a.m., he tweeted: “@realdonaldtrump gets it done,” and attached a link to an article in The Hill about the resolution of the incident. At 6:52 p.m., Miller tweeted a link to another story in The Hill, this one about his earlier tweet taking credit for Trump’s initial tweet.
...
The encounter’s resolution, though, resulted not from Trump’s 140-character snippets of anger, but days of traditional diplomacy. The Chinese vessel had taken the submersible on Thursday just as the USNS Bowditch was preparing to retrieve it about 60 miles northwest of the Philippines’ Subic Bay in the South China Sea.

Baucus, a former Democratic senator from Montana, lodged his first protest that day, as did U.S. military representatives to their Chinese counterparts. Late Saturday afternoon Beijing time ― pre-dawn 3:30 a.m. in Washington ― Baucus relayed word that China had agreed to return the device, according to the State Department. That handover took place Tuesday, near the same location as the original incident.

[geezer]

I get that but he is saying all future elections are in danger unless we fight populist fire with fire. And the contracase is that it was an incredibly thin margin. There was no 'populist' mandate really. He is making it a single factor thing which isn't supported by the data available. People didn't turn out because they simply didn't like her. There is tons of data showing people did not like *her* as a *person*. Sure part of that is the establishment angle but based on the polling around her speeches...frankly - she ain't got it.

Which is still idiotic behavior. "I don't like her, so I'm going vote for the other guy who has every one of her weaknesses, PLUS he's a compulsive liar, a self-identified misogynist, and believes he already knows more than professionals in pretty much every critical area of concern. What could possibly go wrong???"

Seriously - people need to be slapped.

[Holman]

Democrats were promising to fix things and make gradual improvements for everyone. Trump promised to burn it all down, and he swore the ashes would be gold dust.

Even Republicans who opposed Trump bear full responsibility for this. Their ideology since Reagan has been that government can do no good and that things only get better when the rich get everything they want.

[Rip]

I get that but he is saying all future elections are in danger unless we fight populist fire with fire. And the contracase is that it was an incredibly thin margin. There was no 'populist' mandate really. He is making it a single factor thing which isn't supported by the data available. People didn't turn out because they simply didn't like her. There is tons of data showing people did not like *her* as a *person*. Sure part of that is the establishment angle but based on the polling around her speeches...frankly - she ain't got it.

Which is still idiotic behavior. "I don't like her, so I'm going vote for the other guy who has every one of her weaknesses, PLUS he's a compulsive liar, a self-identified misogynist, and believes he already knows more than professionals in pretty much every critical area of concern. What could possibly go wrong???"

Seriously - people need to be slapped.

Idiotic perhaps, predictable certainly. The biggest problem was that the left has been preaching that money buys elections for so long they actually started to believe it. They expected they could get by with a borderline candidate by wrapping them in dollar bills. What could possibly go wrong, indeed.

[Defiant]

Yes, I'll agree that Clinton absolutely lacks Charisma (or at least, the kind of charisma politicians typically have that works well with crowds), and Trump has more "charisma" than pretty much anyone (I don't understand it, because it doesn't appeal to me, but it's made him a teflon candidate that no other candidate in election history has been like, AFAICT).

So yes, Clinton deserves blame for terrible targeting and lack of Charisma. And Comey deserves blame for his letter (IIRC, Nate showed that it had a measurable impact that would have been enough to cost PA, MI and WI). And Russian trolls for their fake news. And Sanders and his behavior towards the end of the primary. And Stein suggesting that Trump was a much better outcome than Clinton. And so on, and so forth. There's plenty of blame to go around, and given how slim the margins in those states were, you could point to any of them as legitimate reasons for the loss.

But the fact remains that of the elections with a popular vote, by winning with 2.1%, Clinton both did better in the popular votes than almost all of the other candidates that lost (the exception being Tilden) and more than a fifth of the candidates that won the Presidency.

[malchior]

But the fact remains that of the elections with a popular vote, by winning with 2.1%, Clinton both did better in the popular votes than almost all of the other candidates that lost (the exception being Tilden) and more than a fifth of the candidates that won the Presidency.

Yet she got less votes than Obama did. And Trump got less votes in some of these states than Bush. He was an abomination and she still *lost* because she sucked. The difference in the popular vote speaks to how undemocratic our elections are - I don't see them as some proxy for how good a candidate she was. She was playing in this current system and *lost* to Trump. History isn't going to equivocate about how lousy she was.

To look at it another way, the Republicans peppered the Clintons with arrows for 2 decades. And the Democrats had plenty of warning that their candidate was compromised, unpopular, un-charismatic, and *was walking into a trap* and they still went for it. It was sheer stupidity to take that risk. It could have worked out but that it didn't shouldn't be some great shock. They took on far too much risk. To be fair to the Dems - the Clintons infested and undermined the Democratic party. They were whole party to the building of the corrupting money machine that is probably at the root of the death of our democracy. But it certainly doesn't absolve her of a great part of the blame. She built the car with an exploding gas tank, was told it was probably going to explode, that it might kill everyone around it, and still decided to go for the drive. Her ambition was too great for her abilities as a candidate and it cost us all dearly.

[Rip]

Yes, I'll agree that Clinton absolutely lacks Charisma (or at least, the kind of charisma politicians typically have that works well with crowds), and Trump has more "charisma" than pretty much anyone (I don't understand it, because it doesn't appeal to me, but it's made him a teflon candidate that no other candidate in election history has been like, AFAICT).

So yes, Clinton deserves blame for terrible targeting and lack of Charisma. And Comey deserves blame for his letter (IIRC, Nate showed that it had a measurable impact that would have been enough to cost PA, MI and WI). And Russian trolls for their fake news. And Sanders and his behavior towards the end of the primary. And Stein suggesting that Trump was a much better outcome than Clinton. And so on, and so forth. There's plenty of blame to go around, and given how slim the margins in those states were, you could point to any of them as legitimate reasons for the loss.

But the fact remains that of the elections with a popular vote, by winning with 2.1%, Clinton both did better in the popular votes than almost all of the other candidates that lost (the exception being Tilden) and more than a fifth of the candidates that won the Presidency.

Again, popular vote is a number without meaning. Winning the popular vote doesn't win ANYTHING!

[Rip]

But the fact remains that of the elections with a popular vote, by winning with 2.1%, Clinton both did better in the popular votes than almost all of the other candidates that lost (the exception being Tilden) and more than a fifth of the candidates that won the Presidency.

Yet she got less votes than Obama did. And Trump got less votes in some of these states than Bush. He was an abomination and she still *lost* because she sucked. The difference in the popular vote speaks to how undemocratic our elections are - I don't see them as some proxy for how good a candidate she was. She was playing in this current system and *lost* to Trump. History isn't going to equivocate about how lousy she was.

To look at it another way, the Republicans peppered the Clintons with arrows for 2 decades. And the Democrats had plenty of warning that their candidate was compromised, unpopular, un-charismatic, and *was walking into a trap* and they still went for it. It was sheer stupidity to take that risk. It could have worked out but that it didn't shouldn't be some great shock. They took on far too much risk. To be fair to the Dems - the Clintons infested and undermined the Democratic party. They were whole party to the building of the corrupting money machine that is probably at the root of the death of our democracy. But it certainly doesn't absolve her of a great part of the blame. She built the car with an exploding gas tank, was told it was probably going to explode, that it might kill everyone around it, and still decided to go for the drive. Her ambition was too great for her abilities as a candidate and it cost us all dearly.

Popular vote has no meaning when it isn't the objective. Had the election been determined by popular vote the totals from both sides would be very different and there is no way of knowing who would have won popular vote if that had been the objective. I know at least a dozen people personally who don't vote because they live in places where their vote doesn't matter and they therefore don't bother.

[Defiant]

Also, to point out, The Midwest Was Getting Redder Before 2016. Clinton did worse than Obama did in 2012 in states where Obama's approval rating has dropped the most.

[malchior]

Popular vote has no meaning when it isn't the objective. Had the election been determined by popular vote the totals from both sides would be very different and there is no way of knowing who would have won popular vote if that had been the objective. I know at least a dozen people personally who don't vote because they live in places where their vote doesn't matter and they therefore don't bother.

If it was close I'd agree - this was a slaughter. It wasn't even close. He won by a slim sliver of votes in 3 states by 80000 votes. That is probably as close as we'll ever see and come out with a victory in the electoral college. Also he got less votes than Romney. But I'd concede that both were very unpopular and less voters turned out in general. But to the heart of the argument - that the result would be vastly different if they were going for the popular vote? That argument cuts both ways.

Also it isn't meaningless that she crushed him in the popular vote. It demonstrates this system is inherently undemocratic and will drive further polarization. 3 *million* people chose her yet none of her policies are on the table. That is a disaster for democracy. Recently in most years the Democrats also had more votes for Congress and yet were gerrymandered out of the House. That isn't even defensible any more. It isn't even the outcome of us being a 'Republic' - that is pure results based winner take all polarization and it is killing this country.

[Rip]

Popular vote has no meaning when it isn't the objective. Had the election been determined by popular vote the totals from both sides would be very different and there is no way of knowing who would have won popular vote if that had been the objective. I know at least a dozen people personally who don't vote because they live in places where their vote doesn't matter and they therefore don't bother.

If it was close I'd agree - this was a slaughter. It wasn't even close. He won by a slim sliver of votes in 3 states by 80000 votes. That is probably as close as we'll ever see and come out with a victory in the electoral college. Also he got less votes than Romney. But I'd concede that both were very unpopular and less voters turned out in general. But to the heart of the argument - that the result would be vastly different if they were going for the popular vote? That argument cuts both ways.

Also it isn't meaningless that she crushed him in the popular vote. It demonstrates this system is inherently undemocratic and will drive further polarization. 3 *million* people chose her yet none of her policies are on the table. That is a disaster for democracy. Recently in most years the Democrats also had more votes for Congress and yet were gerrymandered out of the House. That isn't even defensible any more. It isn't even the outcome of us being a 'Republic' - that is pure results based winner take all polarization and it is killing this country.

and 10s of millions don't bother voting because their votes don't matter. No way to know how they would vote if it did. Popular votes only matter in elections decided by popular votes. People aren't stupid they know if there vote can make a difference or not. There were 130M votes cast. If it were a pure popularity vote that number could have been 170M or higher.

[Alefroth]

Again, popular vote is a number without meaning. Winning the popular vote doesn't win ANYTHING!

It doesn't win anything, but it does illustrate something, and if you weren't compelled to be contrary, you could admit what that is.

[Alefroth]

and 10s of millions don't bother voting because their votes don't matter. No way to know how they would vote if it did. Popular votes only matter in elections decided by popular votes. People aren't stupid they know if there vote can make a difference or not. There were 130M votes cast. If it were a pure popularity vote that number could have been 170M or higher.

The number of people that might have voted doesn't mean anything.

[Rip]

and 10s of millions don't bother voting because their votes don't matter. No way to know how they would vote if it did. Popular votes only matter in elections decided by popular votes. People aren't stupid they know if there vote can make a difference or not. There were 130M votes cast. If it were a pure popularity vote that number could have been 170M or higher.

The number of people that might have voted doesn't mean anything.

The popular vote of who did win doesn't mean anything. Only the electoral votes mean anything. The entire discussion is about stuff that doesn't mean anything.

[Blackhawk]

No, much of the discussion is about the very fact that it doesn't mean anything.

[Unagi]

to rip:
doesn't mean anything?

or has no weight in who is the next president?

two distinctly different things, right?

[Rip]

to rip:
doesn't mean anything?

or has no weight in who is the next president?

two distinctly different things, right?

Same thing.

[Zarathud]

The popular vote of who did win doesn't mean anything. Only the electoral votes mean anything. The entire discussion is about stuff that doesn't mean anything.

It sure as hell means that Trump has no mandate. Remember when you thought that meant something?

[tgb]

to rip:
doesn't mean anything?

or has no weight in who is the next president?

two distinctly different things, right?

Same thing.

Unless the numbers had been, you know, reversed. Then 'lil Rip would be screaming his head off about how unfair it all is.

[El Guapo]

She won the popular vote by over 2%. Her tactical targeting was very poor, but she was not a terrible candidate.

Right but her unfavorable numbers were awful. And yes so were Trumps. In a system where the popular vote isn't what crowns the winner, it comes down to every factor and their effect in the states that do matter. One of the worst was she has absolutely *no charisma* to speak of. It was a huge liability. Plus, her organization had no plan to deal with the media. That is on her. Poor 'tactical weighting'? That is on her. I agree Comey/Russian/years of slander didn't help but to an extent those were risks that were understood at the time; they were to an extent known quantities (email/Bengazi/etc. were all known risks) that also made her a less than ideal candidate on their own. Add that all up and you see that the Democratic party was guilty of awful risk management and that lead them to put forward an awful candidate.

To boil it down a little, the membership chose someone who would go on to lose against the least qualified and one of the most scandal ridden candidates in American Presidential history. He weekly said things that should have disqualified him. So winning the popular vote doesn't mitigate that she *lost*. Especially since it was by an extremely thin margin. That is more damning IMO because a more suitable choice was all the more likely to win.

Edit: Not saying that Russian involvement was known. Just that it there were inherent risks that were ignored that they were able to exploit.

Her favorability numbers were great going into the campaign - the campaign drove them down. And that was going to happen to any other candidate, either when they hit the general election and/or when they became the frontrunner in the primary.

I'm also not sure that it's entirely fair to say that she has no charisma. I mean, sort of - she's not the natural orator that Obama is, for example. But on the other hand every chance that she had to directly speak to the public - e.g., the democratic convention, and the debates - her numbers went way up and Trump's went way down. Part of the problem is that Trump is such a magnet for media attention (they'll cover his events in total, even if its an empty podium for a long time) but basically never covered Clinton's public events), but that was going to be a problem for virtually anyone going against Trump.

Clinton definitely had her weaknesses, but she also had her strengths (a built in reputation for toughness and competence). Similarly other candidates would have had a mix of strength and weaknesses too - Sanders would've been a "change" candidate, which has its advantages, but also would've been easy to caricature as a crazy crank socialist, which could have easily offset one of Trump's weaknesses - that he's crazy.

[Defiant]

It's funny, cause I thought the popular vote has something to do with... I dunno... popularity of the candidate (including their platform)? Which does have something to do with a candidates strength. It's not an exact 1 to 1 correlation - because of the electoral college - but it's very close.

[El Guapo]

Losing campaign post mortem debates among supporters are always amusing, incidentally, because pretty much everyone's analysis ultimately boils down to, "we would have won if only the campaign had listened to me more."

[Defiant]

I'm also not sure that it's entirely fair to say that she has no charisma. I mean, sort of - she's not the natural orator that Obama is, for example. But on the other hand every chance that she had to directly speak to the public - e.g., the democratic convention, and the debates - her numbers went way up and Trump's went way down.

Clinton has a charisma, but, IMO, it's the kind of thing that works one on one (or maybe one on few), that she's open to listening to the other side, etc., reaching out and building relationships and such, and it is an important strength. But she is lacking in the kind of crowd pleasing charisma that most successful politicians have, and I would argue that her doing well in the above speeches was *despite* her (lack of) charisma, not because of it. It was because she had the facts, a command of the issues and a persuasive argument that she did well, not because of charisma.

Part of the problem is that Trump is such a magnet for media attention (they'll cover his events in total, even if its an empty podium for a long time) but basically never covered Clinton's public events), but that was going to be a problem for virtually anyone going against Trump.

Very true.

[malchior]

She won the popular vote by over 2%. Her tactical targeting was very poor, but she was not a terrible candidate.

Right but her unfavorable numbers were awful. And yes so were Trumps. In a system where the popular vote isn't what crowns the winner, it comes down to every factor and their effect in the states that do matter. One of the worst was she has absolutely *no charisma* to speak of. It was a huge liability. Plus, her organization had no plan to deal with the media. That is on her. Poor 'tactical weighting'? That is on her. I agree Comey/Russian/years of slander didn't help but to an extent those were risks that were understood at the time; they were to an extent known quantities (email/Bengazi/etc. were all known risks) that also made her a less than ideal candidate on their own. Add that all up and you see that the Democratic party was guilty of awful risk management and that lead them to put forward an awful candidate.

To boil it down a little, the membership chose someone who would go on to lose against the least qualified and one of the most scandal ridden candidates in American Presidential history. He weekly said things that should have disqualified him. So winning the popular vote doesn't mitigate that she *lost*. Especially since it was by an extremely thin margin. That is more damning IMO because a more suitable choice was all the more likely to win.

Edit: Not saying that Russian involvement was known. Just that it there were inherent risks that were ignored that they were able to exploit.

Her favorability numbers were great going into the campaign - the campaign drove them down. And that was going to happen to any other candidate, either when they hit the general election and/or when they became the frontrunner in the primary.

This is not true. She began her campaign in the unfavorable hole. The campaign definitely made it far worse. By the time Bernie was really surging her unfavorable numbers were spiking upward. If there was a case for the superdelegates to put there thumbs on the scales - it was then. They ignored it at all our peril.

I'm also not sure that it's entirely fair to say that she has no charisma. I mean, sort of - she's not the natural orator that Obama is, for example. But on the other hand every chance that she had to directly speak to the public - e.g., the democratic convention, and the debates - her numbers went way up and Trump's went way down. Part of the problem is that Trump is such a magnet for media attention (they'll cover his events in total, even if its an empty podium for a long time) but basically never covered Clinton's public events), but that was going to be a problem for virtually anyone going against Trump.

Convention bumps are convention bumps plus that was the height of Trump tripping over his own tongue. The proof was in the pudding. Less people turned out for her despite the alternative being Trump - especially where it counted. That result says everything. Plus their job is to figure out a way to deal with the media issue. They totally let Trump play the media - though to be fair that was a reasonable choice - he did hurt himself more than he helped himself. His unfavorable ratings were worse at times by a significant margin. And he still won.

Clinton definitely had her weaknesses, but she also had her strengths (a built in reputation for toughness and competence).

That probably was neutral in the face of populist fury. As Cenk pointed out - 17% or so of 60-some-odd million people didn't care he wasn't qualified at all.

Similarly other candidates would have had a mix of strength and weaknesses too - Sanders would've been a "change" candidate, which has its advantages, but also would've been easy to caricature as a crazy crank socialist, which could have easily offset one of Trump's weaknesses - that he's crazy.

Except his favor ability numbers were positive and poll numbers were +12 head to head with Trump. Would he have certainly won - no - but considering the margin and who delivered that margin - it isn't crazy to think he might have won. I still don't see a case for Clinton being anything but a terrible candidate. She was qualified and competent but it didn't matter - she lost to Trump. I'm sorry but that can't be brushed aside.

[Rip]

It's funny, cause I thought the popular vote has something to do with... I dunno... popularity of the candidate (including their platform)? Which does have something to do with a candidates strength. It's not an exact 1 to 1 correlation - because of the electoral college - but it's very close.

It would only be indicative of her popularity if everyone voted. As long as a big chunk of eligible voters don't vote it indicates nothing. Her margin above Trump in popular vote can be accounted for in a single state. A state Trump didn't even waste any time in because he knew he didn't need and wouldn't win it.

[LordMortis]

despite the alternative being Trump

So much this. I assumed Clinton would win and we would have a resentful country for being forced to take that medicine. I was wrong. We had such a resentful country they refused the medicine.

When we talk about popularity, it seems odd to me. From where I sit, she was popular in no small part because her opposition was Trump. Her popularity was in the fact her opponent belittled crippled people, attacked minorities, and is publicly a misogynist. This was the ideal circumstance for her. Someone she could handily rally the people against.

[malchior]

It's funny, cause I thought the popular vote has something to do with... I dunno... popularity of the candidate (including their platform)? Which does have something to do with a candidates strength. It's not an exact 1 to 1 correlation - because of the electoral college - but it's very close.

It would only be indicative of her popularity if everyone voted. As long as a big chunk of eligible voters don't vote it indicates nothing. Her margin above Trump in popular vote can be accounted for in a single state. A state Trump didn't even waste any time in because he knew he didn't need and wouldn't win it.

Again 3 Million voted for her. 10 Million in total voted against Trump in total yet only his policies are on the table. Call it what it is - tyranny of the minority. This isn't protecting the rights of the minority - it is imposing their will on the majority in a ridiculously lopsided fashion. That it happens to be a win for you is clearly all you care about. But it is an awful result for the country. The Republicans have a permanent +4% advantage in the House from Gerrymandering (3 straight elections have held that advantage). Polarization and discontent will surely rise. It is bad for the country. Can't you see that? This system is breaking us year after year.

[El Guapo]

She won the popular vote by over 2%. Her tactical targeting was very poor, but she was not a terrible candidate.

Right but her unfavorable numbers were awful. And yes so were Trumps. In a system where the popular vote isn't what crowns the winner, it comes down to every factor and their effect in the states that do matter. One of the worst was she has absolutely *no charisma* to speak of. It was a huge liability. Plus, her organization had no plan to deal with the media. That is on her. Poor 'tactical weighting'? That is on her. I agree Comey/Russian/years of slander didn't help but to an extent those were risks that were understood at the time; they were to an extent known quantities (email/Bengazi/etc. were all known risks) that also made her a less than ideal candidate on their own. Add that all up and you see that the Democratic party was guilty of awful risk management and that lead them to put forward an awful candidate.

To boil it down a little, the membership chose someone who would go on to lose against the least qualified and one of the most scandal ridden candidates in American Presidential history. He weekly said things that should have disqualified him. So winning the popular vote doesn't mitigate that she *lost*. Especially since it was by an extremely thin margin. That is more damning IMO because a more suitable choice was all the more likely to win.

Edit: Not saying that Russian involvement was known. Just that it there were inherent risks that were ignored that they were able to exploit.

Her favorability numbers were great going into the campaign - the campaign drove them down. And that was going to happen to any other candidate, either when they hit the general election and/or when they became the frontrunner in the primary.

This is not true. She began her campaign in the unfavorable hole. The campaign definitely made it far worse. By the time Bernie was really surging her unfavorable numbers were spiking upward. If there was a case for the superdelegates to put there thumbs on the scales - it was then. They ignored it at all our peril.

I'm also not sure that it's entirely fair to say that she has no charisma. I mean, sort of - she's not the natural orator that Obama is, for example. But on the other hand every chance that she had to directly speak to the public - e.g., the democratic convention, and the debates - her numbers went way up and Trump's went way down. Part of the problem is that Trump is such a magnet for media attention (they'll cover his events in total, even if its an empty podium for a long time) but basically never covered Clinton's public events), but that was going to be a problem for virtually anyone going against Trump.

Convention bumps are convention bumps plus that was the height of Trump tripping over his own tongue. The proof was in the pudding. Less people turned out for her despite the alternative being Trump - especially where it counted. That result says everything. Plus their job is to figure out a way to deal with the media issue. They totally let Trump play the media - though to be fair that was a reasonable choice - he did hurt himself more than he helped himself. His unfavorable ratings were worse at times by a significant margin. And he still won.

Clinton definitely had her weaknesses, but she also had her strengths (a built in reputation for toughness and competence).

That probably was neutral in the face of populist fury. As Cenk pointed out - 17% or so of 60-some-odd million people didn't care he wasn't qualified at all.

Similarly other candidates would have had a mix of strength and weaknesses too - Sanders would've been a "change" candidate, which has its advantages, but also would've been easy to caricature as a crazy crank socialist, which could have easily offset one of Trump's weaknesses - that he's crazy.

Except his favor ability numbers were positive and poll numbers were +12 head to head with Trump. Would he have certainly won - no - but considering the margin and who delivered that margin - it isn't crazy to think he might have won. I still don't see a case for Clinton being anything but a terrible candidate. She was qualified and competent but it didn't matter - she lost to Trump. I'm sorry but that can't be brushed aside.

eh, it seems like 90% of your "Clinton was a terrible candidate" argument is that she lost to Trump in the electoral college. Which is significant, but doesn't tell us all that much without knowing how the other plausible candidates would have fared against Trump. And on that, Sanders +12 poll numbers head-to-head against Trump are close to meaningless, because Trump never went after Sanders (because he was never the frontrunner in the primaries) and Clinton went after Sanders in a limited way, because she knew that she was going to need his supporters in the general election. And Trump would have gone after Sanders brutally. There is a 0% chance that Sanders would have finished up +12 on Trump in the general. Sure, he could have won, but he also could easily have lost as well.

[malchior]

eh, it seems like 90% of your "Clinton was a terrible candidate" argument is that she lost to Trump in the electoral college.

I think that is highly reductive. My case would be:

High Unfavorability
Her favorability numbers were down from the peak when she was Sec. of State and were declining drastically after Benghazi; they ultimately cratered as soon as she announced for President. Then they managed to get worse over the course of the campaign! At one point she was on parity with Trump! She was an unfavorable as Trump at the end of August! How was that possible?!? Mostly the results of a mix of Republicans laying traps, general Clinton fatigue, and her total lack of charisma. All known quantities that were ignored.

Bad Electoral Assumptions
She assumed she would hold the Obama coalition and didn't engage important areas sufficiently. Though winning those people over was a tough sell since she was the living embodiment of the establishment.

Couldn't turnout the vote
They had experienced campaign staff and despite a well-funded ground game they turned out far fewer of that coalition despite Trump being the alternative. Did we ever sufficiently hear the Clinton campaign talk about the Supreme Court? Talk about years of obstruction? Lost opportunity? No it was ... overwhelmingly negative against Trump. It was remarkable how they operated their messaging in the face of all the possibilities they faced.

Personal Issues/Bad risk management
She was under an investigation that could have resulted in a criminal indictment - which wasn't resolved until around the *convention*. It might have been bullshit but it was a massive risk. Yet they pressed on and it came back to bite them (probably fatally) legitimate or not. They took that risk despite it likely being Trump on the other side.

And on that, Sanders +12 poll numbers head-to-head against Trump are close to meaningless, because Trump never went after Sanders (because he was never the frontrunner in the primaries) and Clinton went after Sanders in a limited way, because she knew that she was going to need his supporters in the general election.

Fair point. He wasn't tested but he didn't have lifelong suspicions he was corrupt, had a high favorability rating to start with versus a negative one, and would have addressed the populists. The Republicans had built elaborate political traps and telegraphed it for years. They would have to recalibrate to go after Sanders. The but socialism argument might have have lost parts of the Dem coalition probably but hard to predict. I'm not even saying Sanders was the best choice. He was certainly likely a better alternative in the face of Clinton's many defects though. That is honestly part of the problem - the leadership bench in this country is dangerously shallow at this point. The Republicans were a clown car and the Democrats built all their hopes around her. Again awful risk management all around.

And Trump would have gone after Sanders brutally. There is a 0% chance that Sanders would have finished up +12 on Trump in the general. Sure, he could have won, but he also could easily have lost as well.

He went after Clinton brutally and those blows *mostly landed*. I don't know if Bernie would have won but he likely could have won over union folks in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania who largely flipped on Clinton. The populists mattered and were ignored by the arrogant Clinton campaign.

[geezer]

The populists mattered and were ignored by the arrogant Clinton campaign.

Here's the problem though - the populists may matter in terms of votes, but in terms of policy what they want is bass-ackwards. The solution you seem to be advocating for is the Trumpy one - say what they want to hear even though there's not a snowball's chance in hell that you can do what you say. Just because that comes from a Bernie Sanders instead of a Trump doesn't make it any more realistic or true. Certainly I'd take the Sanders lie over the Trump lie, if only because it doesn't come with a side of Steve Bannon and some Putin on top for dessert, but ultimately shouldn't policy and competence be the driving factors for steering this nation?

[malchior]

The populists mattered and were ignored by the arrogant Clinton campaign.

Here's the problem though - the populists may matter in terms of votes, but in terms of policy what they want is bass-ackwards. The solution you seem to be advocating for is the Trumpy one - say what they want to hear even though there's not a snowball's chance in hell that you can do what you say. Just because that comes from a Bernie Sanders instead of a Trump doesn't make it any more realistic or true. Certainly I'd take the Sanders lie over the Trump lie, if only because it doesn't come with a side of Steve Bannon and some Putin on top for dessert, but ultimately shouldn't policy and competence be the driving factors for steering this nation?

I wish - unfortunately you actually have to win elections and the electorate is demonstrably idiotic. The 17% that Cenk was talking about didn't care he wasn't qualified, and just wanted change, nevermind that any change was likely to be change for the worse.

[El Guapo]

I do think the biggest weaknesses for Clinton (the best arguments that she shouldn't have run) were the FBI investigation and that she came effectively pre-smeared by Republicans. Especially the FBI investigation - I understand that there was ultimately little to nothing there, so I understand the logic of proceeding, but it was still something of a live grenade.

Oh well.

[LordMortis]

I do think the biggest weaknesses... she came effectively pre-smeared by Republicans.

We have the same think on something!