as soon as Hillary sobers up someone should tell her...

I guess we needed to do a better job at talking down, ridiculing and mocking not just Trump but anyone who thought of supporting him.

The lesson learned here is to do a better job at alienating the opposition's voters instead of trying to listen to them and make an effort to find common ground such as Dan Savage did during this election cycle.

@2 yes, because as was readily apparent Trump voters really went that extra mile to reach accross the divide.

Did you hear that Jews? You really should've reached out and listen to the Nazis!

The left demanded a political reality where only identity politics mattered, and it looks like white America took it to heart.

Of course she did. And though she seems to have missed some opportunities in her campaign, the problem is that the Republicans have an effective voter suppression system in place in many states. In Indiana the VP candidate's state police raided a voter registration agency. In North Carolina the GOP boasted this week about its success in limiting black votes, and yesterday computer problems created long lines in NC's most liberal county. In Georgia had 4 hour waits for early voting weeks ago. There have been voter ID laws combined with loss of access to agencies that issue IDs , like DMVs. And on and on. I think that's why a lot of the supposed toss-up states went for Republican senators, too.

@5: Federal judges have found that those claims have no basis in fact:

http://abc11.com/politics/federal-judge-…

Hillary lost because she assumed she had certain states in the bag, and she pulled campaign funds and canceled appearances in them. She lost because her polling told her that all the votes Obama was able to secure were hers by default. Democrats lost because they assumed changing demographics would make it so they could demean and insult poor rural voters and not even bother with their votes.

But I know...Clinton is flawless and so it must be a right wing conspiracy if she lost.

@5 Voter turnout was up 5%. I agree that voter suppression is a problem, but that isn't what lost this election. A large group of people who voted for Obama voted for Trump this time around. She lost Wisconsin, Michigan and PA because of TPP.

@8 She was never up 15 points, If we learned anything last night it is the polls were wrong.

democrats lost BECAUSE they ran hillary clinton. the race WAS rigged, but it was rigged from the start. if she hadn't run unopposed in the primary (a mean real opposition, sorry bernie), they'd of had a real candidate. even if all the stories about hillary are false, it's still stupid to run someone with that much baggage. she's literally the only person who COULD lose to trump.

They neglected to light that bag of shit on fire

@8: I know reality is not your strong suit, but did you miss the part when basically all the polls were wrong? Was she up 15 points? Or did more bullshit polls simply state that?

Hillary pulled out of Michigan and other states because she thought it was in the bag. No one is disputing this, it happened. Clinton's polling was clearly way off. No one is disputing this, it happened. Rural voters came out in droves to reject the democrats. No one is disputing this, it happened.

But if it makes you happy to call everyone who has different ideas than you a racist, go nuts. I voted for Bernie in the primaries and Clinton in the general, if you must know. Not that it will affect the imaginary worlds you choose to live in, where all your beliefs are validated with the magic of imagination.

@12 Trump had plenty of non-poor, non-rural white support. You seem to be harping on about poor rural voters because that demographic is especially relevant to you? It's not all about you. Poor rural (uneducated) white voters were a major part of Trump's coalition, but he couldn't have won without the less-poor, non-rural white votes he also received.

@13: Ah, so they were right, until they were wrong. Geez man, listen to yourself.

Also, if you are calling me a racist for racist things I have said and done, please show me one example. My comment history is wide open. I'll wait.

@14: Not poor and not rural, although I did grow up that way, so I feel it does give me a bit more perspective than those who have not been there.

But your argument is akin to saying that the game winning field goal did not matter, because the team scored a touchdown in the third quarter to make it a 2 point game. You said yourself that they were a major part of his coalition, which is all I have said.

I am harping on the poor rural voters, because they came out for Trump en masse, and pushed him over the edge in a huge way. They did not show up for Clinton, and had her campaign made any attempt to appeal to them, the outcome may have been very different. This was an insanely close race. Every vote mattered.

@15, but talking down to people who are different than urban liberals is what the new left is all about. Have you read what Charles has written about rural white folks on this very blog? Have you heard the condescension this rag shows when discussing anyone who isn't part of the "in group"? For all the horrid things Trump said in this election (and God knows they are horrific) the left wasn't any better: they just chose a different target to spit on.

@17 what? They voted for Trump because Charles was mean to them? I read this paper and I don't read anything by Charles, that's absurd.

@9. Voter turnout was not up 5%. The absolute number of voters was over 6% less than it was in 2012.

idiots like savage have only themselves to blame. Propping up hillary when polls were clear that she was unlikable and wouldnt beat trump.

The AP story I read was wrong about the popular vote being up 5% unless google election results are missing some votes which is possible. Right now if the numbers are correct it would be down about 1 million votes or .8% from 2012. It shows California at under 9 million votes with 99% reported. In 2012 they had over 13 million votes for President so the numbers seem off. In 2012 3rd parties had 2,518,731 million votes. So far in 2016 3rd parties have 6,051,044 with 98% of the vote counted. The conservative 3rd party got over 4 million of those votes.

Being bitankual really worked out, didn't it?

I'm bathing in the tears of butt hurt SJW's this morning.

@18 It is probably down 6% if you only factor in votes for the 2 major parties, but it isn't down that much when you factor in 3rd party votes.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-registe…

@22 sorry your parents didn't love you.

You know, the media only just got serious about vetting Trump about two weeks ago. They're still in the process of fully documenting his 50 years of grifting. Is he even going to make it to January 20 without getting arrested? He has defrauded so many people, cheated on his taxes so much.

You could say a Republican Congress will never impeach him. But most of them are already his enemies. He literally can't get along with anybody. Trump can't get along with anybody but sycophants, and even they are soon tossed aside. Look at the Clintons, or the Obamas. They have friendships and alliances stretching back decades, married 41 and 24 years respectively. Who is Trump's oldest friend? He's burned every bridge. One of the reasons he's surrounded by young people is that he's driven away everyone else. Trump can't do business in New York any more, and he can't go back to Atlantic City. He can't go back to Florida. He keeps skipping town after he's cheated everyone he could do business with.

The House of Representatives will be in full revolt by December. And the Senate? Those guys demand to be treated with actual respect. Even the Republicans. These relationships will never work. He will insult and humiliate every one of them, and then they'll be asked to vote on whether or not to impeach Donald Trump for any one of dozens of high crimes and misdemeanors. This guy couldn't even get along with the RNC long enough to manage an election campaign. Congressional Republicans are not easier to get along with than the RNC.

And if he actually somehow gets into office, it only gets worse from there. You pass legislation by making deals with individual congresspeople. Trump *will* stab each one of them in the back five minutes after each handshake. He can't not do that. It's who he is. Let's not even talk about the number of military people who will resign in the face of his illegal orders. It's going to be a new constitutional crisis every day.

You mean the majority of people voted for her? So where's the democracy here.
It really happened. And continuing the bickering is not going to achieve anything. Those who voted for Hillary know they tried. Would Bernie have beaten trump.
All we know is your country is filled with many people who care nothing for the safety of women and minorities. Those whose hearts still work, you just got to shine brighter.

@25 He has the House, Senate and FBI in his pocket. He did what no establishment Republican could do the last decade. He turned states red that hadn't been red since Reagan. Those establishment Republicans aren't going to turn on him. He is their meal ticket. He will get to office and he will get to at least 2018 no matter what. He will get the legislation he wants because he will destroy those republicans if they don't agree with him. Best case scenario is he lied about how conservative he is which is possible because he lies about everything. 2018 Dems take control of at least the senate and he only gets to choose 1 SC Justice. He gets voted out in 2020 and Dems take control of everything. That seems unlikely but so did a Trump Presidency and here we are here the fuck we are.

Democracy is broken in America. You guys have got to fight to restore it, if you want it.
Get moving on midterms.
Trump is going to have to deal with world Leaders. And all those lies he fed his followers, they will start to notice pretty quickly how shallow his word is.
Every obstacle is an opportunity for something.
Personally I think the strong women will start to push back. Female agency and safety had been eroded enough, before this.

@28 More than half of the white women voted for Trump.

But, you know, female agency only counts if they support your candidate.

I mean agency over one's body.
Yes. Many women did vote for trump. Their husbands are probably not much different to trump, so they didn't notice. There are plenty of women who have noticed.
They don't want some random jerk grabbing them by the pussy.
I've seen women en mass in action, in the sixties and seventies. American women under group steam, are awesome. We over here paled next to their power and creativity.

Didn't think you'd show your face around here, TheM @29.

Well Dan, you got what you wanted.

The Millennials and Bernie Bros didn't vote for Jill Stein, she got <1% of the vote.

Actually, it looks like a lot of millennials didn't vote at all.
I guess screaming at them and calling them foul names didn't energize them to vote for Hillary.
What a surprise.

Guess what else. It looks like Trump got less of the white vote than Romney.
I guess that means Hillary lost because people didn't show up to vote for her.
I wonder why they didn't.
Didn't they notice you order them to vote for Clinton?
Didn't you 'pound sense' into them?
Didn't they hear you call them selfish idiots for not being thrilled with the chance to vote for HRC?

As someone who voted Clinton, I'd like to be the first to say:
Fuck you Dan, and fuck off.
Stay out of politics, you are completely clueless and you did far more harm than good.

I'm sure you will take my 'advice', because berating and brow beating people is the best way to win them over.

Thanks Dan.

The Constitution does not mandate that the electors of the Electoral College vote for the candidate to which they are assigned. States have penalties, usually a fine, if they don't. There is the faintest of possibilities that the electors will do what their claimed purpose is: to prevent the populace from electing a bad actor.

(The real reason we have the Electoral College is it gave slave states greater power.)

@31 +1

@30: Pretty insulting that you assume that millions of women are brainwashed puppets because they did something you do not approve of. Agency is doing what one wants, not what some rando on the internet demands you do.

Maybe liberals lost this round because instead of trying to change people's minds, or listen to them, they insulted them for not agreeing, and simply demanded their vote like entitled brats.

@32: Um, the electoral college system was started in 1787 when basically every state was a "slave state."

28

From here in the cheap seats it looks like Democracy in America is working just fine, thanks….

@35 you think? Corruption from arse to tit in your country's governments. FBI just interfered with a Presidential election in the last week. Suppression of votes. And waiting for hours to vote? What is that. It's like come voting time, you're a third world country.
Have more and more voting centres. It's really bloody simple. But no. Make exercising your democratic vote as difficult as fucking possible.

@31 Spot on. I wish Rhizome was here to explain how politics work. He could tell us how stupid we were for thinking Bernie had a chance. He created voter enthusiasm, but he only got millennials, white working class and college educated whites. Hillary had minority support so her coalition was wider and she had a better chance of winning right? Oh wait white college educated and working class swung the election for Trump, minority strongholds had lower turnout and 6+ million chose 3rd party. Shocking people wanted someone who was antiestablishment and they had one to chose from. Despite being a complete cancer of a human being, they went with him because they didn't want another flip flopping corrupt politician. Shocking that the Rust Belt (Hillary's Firewall) that lost tons of manufacturing jobs didn't want someone that called TPP the gold standard. Instead of easing everyone's distrust that she had changed her position on TPP to get the nom by picking a progressive VP she goes with Kaine another TPP flip flopper who is just as establishment as she is. That really invigorated the base and got people to turn out didn't it? The moderate Republicans she was targeting really came out in droves for her. Right after that terrible decision let's hire DWS immediately after emails came out showing she and the DNC rigged the primary. Really going hard after your party's base to drive turnout with that decision, not alienating anyone. Hillary apologists telling Bernie supporters to grow up and quit being babies. How does that taste today when Trump supporters are saying that? Does that make you want to go out and support Trump? All while Trump keeps playing to his base stoking their fears. We couldn't even hit him on one of his worst traits constant lying because they could just say Hillary is worse. Even though she is not worse, but clearly a lot of people said well they are both dishonest. You couldn't say that about Bernie. You could play a fucking tape from 30 years ago talking about the same populist policies that are popular this election. People in the Rust Belt did not give a fuck about Trumps warts they want their manufacturing jobs. They don't want to work at fucking Wal-Mart. So they heard no TPP, Tariffs and bringing manufacturing back and they said for better or for worse we are with this asshole. We had a populist candidate without the character flaws of Trump. We chose the status quo candidate in a time when people wanted change. I think those people will have buyers remorse on Trump, but so should democrats today. I thought Trump would lose because of all his flaws, but I should have trusted my gut on what a terrible candidate Hillary was and the massive mistakes her campaign made.

@27

None of the people he tried to "destroy" in this election lost their seats. Trump doesn't have any follow through, and he doesn't have any friends. I don't doubt that his Congress will try to work with him, but then they tried to work with hi during the election and they couldn't even pull that off. They literally didn't have to do anything but smile for the camera for a few months and not throw poop in each other's faces.

It's not like these Tea Party Republicans were all swimming in the same direction to begin with. Now they have one of the most incompetent leaders ever seen. It's going to be a trainwreck before it even gets started.

Who is loyal to Trump? Frenemies like Christie, who just joined his staff in mutually throwing each other under the bus. Expect to see more of that.

@34 Um...not so much: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_an…

@25 - "The House of Representatives will be in full revolt by December. And the Senate? Those guys demand to be treated with actual respect."

Gosh, I wonder how, as President, the owner of a large chain of hotel-casinos that many of those senators have stayed in with people who were not their wives will be able to get them to support him? Difficult one, that.

This might not make anybody feel better but they won't change the gay marriage ruling. Trump will be replacing Scalia and he was already on the dissent. I would assume Roe V Wade is similar. We better keep our fingers crossed that RBG and Breyer can hold out 4 years though or we get the senate in 2018 and block for a couple years. But it will be a really tough for Democrats to get the Senate in 2018. Since it is a supreme court ruling the only way to change it is a constitutional amendment and that takes 60 votes so it isn't happening.

@34. Missed your charming self before. As I said to Mr M, it's about a woman having agency over her own body. You got that concept?
Agency to determine who touches her and where. Agency to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Or to end any relationship at any time without being fearful she might be hurt or killed. Agency to walk the streets of our cities, unraped.
That's the sort of agency I was referring to.

Please Dan, don't stop writing political posts.
If the kids couldn't see the danger ahead when it was pointed out to them, in a million different ways, I doubt your scolding tone made any difference. The arrogance of youth.

@43 He acted like an arrogant jackass and to you it is the youth who are arrogant. Ironic. Did they vote for Trump? I'm pretty sure if it was just the youth voting Trump would have gotten destroyed, but we should blame them anyways because it is easy. Since we are going down that path why don't we blame the baby boomers? They have had the majority in the federal govt since 1992. They created trade agreements that gutted the working class creating the vacuum that Trump stepped into. They added trillions to the deficit, added to the chaos into the Middle East, took away financial regulations that lead to the Great Recession and they put a nice cherry on top of this shit sundae by electing Trump.

@44. Well how do you talk to people who are determined to not hear? Who carry this pure white Bernie light and nobody is going to have it except Bernie. Or Jill. Or the other one, with such great knowledge.
This idiot trump had to be stopped. But oh no, the purists continued with their nonsense. No matter how many people tried to spell out the terrifying danger that is now upon us. If Dan got narky with them, it was probably out of frustration, because they wouldn't hear. Now they will hear. It's just too late.
I'm not blaming anyone. Just responding to your post above.

36

Think? No, we know.

True, there was corruption from arse to tit in the current administration, but the peasants rose up and sent the corrupt politicians packing.

Those corrupt politicians spent years thwarting FBI investigation into their corruption but the rank and file agents revolted and it all seems to haver worked out nicely.

Suppression of votes?
That's funny.
We have voted in American elections (and never missed one) for twenty cycles and it is easier now than ever. (Have you ever voted in an American election?)
Hillary got 10 million fewer votes than Obama did in 2008 because she was a corrupt shitty candidate, not because of some mythical difficulty in voting.

Let's recap:

in one corner a corrupt establishment candidate with three decades of connections who has extorted millions thru her government connections, who vastly out spent her opponent, who had a huge political ground game apparatus at her disposal, who had the full power of entrenched corrupt government at her disposal, has the total slavish support of the nation's Media and Hollywood elites, the Queen of American Political Royalty.

in the other corner a guy who has never held elected office, who was abandoned by the establishment and scorned by the office holders of the party whose nominee he was, who had no organization, who single handedly (with only the help of his kids) barnstormed the nation spreading a message of change.

All Trump had in his favor was the support of the despised uncounted ignored masses of common people in rural Americans.

But that was all he needed to pull off the greatest upset in political history.

THAT is what DEMOCRACY looks like, you sniveling cow…

and btw,

Hillary winning the popular vote makes this All. The. Sweeter.

I have no problem with the weighing of votes the way we do so that it's not a simple matter of wining over a small handful of dense interests. So every once in a while, it's going to happen that the candidate slightly wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote, and I think this is fair so long as the electoral vote accurate reflects the voting in their states. Though I think we should have a discussion of whether or not the winner-take-all system is better than a proportionate system like Maine. But on the list of reasons why our electoral process is absurd, flawed and corrupt, the electoral college is very far down. I'm not going to get into that right now; several of you have raised other concerns.

I want to go slightly more meta here and talk about what people on the left should do. I'm tired of this pattern.

What we have are very mainstream liberals like Dan living in very blue cities like Seattle. And they aren't listening to complaints that other people elsewhere in the country have- and I mean legitimate complains, not wacky conspiracy theory crap. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned with Clinton and the DNC establishment- I've been ranting about them here for months and there is no reason to revisit them since I'm trying to write about how to have a conversation, not the specifics of it. But it has not been helpful for them to gloat and cable news rants and celebrate her ensured win- they are the ones who are shocked now.

Then you have the more left-leaning liberals who are complaining about the DNC and Clinton and mainstream neoliberal politics, and whlie their complaints are accurate (I share them, and I am also frustrated by the establishment dismissal) they really fucked up by not turning out to vote. Republicans voted almost exactly as they always do. It's the liberal protest vote that caused this upset. Look at the numbers.

Now, I'm very firmly in the left-leaning camp. I voted for Bernie in the primary. But I'm not naive enough to think the work of activism can be done better under Trump than under Clinton, so I voted for Clinton in this election. I'm upset about the outcome, though not terribly surprised. I'm upset also about the bigotry, but I'm not blaming them. The bigotry has always been there, and this election was no great shakes for Trump in the end. Republicans simply went and voted Republican- the exact same number and similar demographics within that number as the last three elections. It's the liberals that made the difference- the ten million or so of them who protested by not voting.

Regardless of how you feel about that or what you predicted, the fact remains that both groups want long-term progressive change, so we need to figure out how to have a conversation about it. I've been desperately talking to Bernie supporters all this time. It seems that most of them are unaware that there is a left of their stance, best I can tell, or else they confuse long term and short term goals. They have really shot themselves in the foot here, and I'm not sure how to have a conversation about action vs goals- the one is a strategy to reach the other. They are not the same thing. Long term results don't happen instantly unless you are talking about revolution and destruction - neither of which are predictable and never give the results the initiators wanted.

But also, and now that the election is over I don't mind really attacking here, I'm sick to death of mainstream neoliberals in urban areas supporting establishment candidates being so smug and not listening. You are in an increasingly small echo chamber. It alienates people. I think what has happened is that because of Republican obstruction and bigotry AND because of the outlandish claims against HRC, liberals have fallen into the habit of being defensive rather than listening. So when they hear criticism, even from progressives, they fall into the habit of defending their position because it's what they had to do for years. And it doesn't help matters when many of those progressives irrationally and absurdly claim that it won't matter if Trump or Hilary wins since they are both establishment candidates.

OK so I'm not going to get in the weeds about it, but how in the world do we get these two groups to start talking to each other again? Since the mainstream liberals are typically the ones in more powerful positions (they are the media leaders and party officials) I think they should start by asking questions and listening.

In more concise terms, the split we see right now in the Democratic voting base is neoliberal identity politics vs left-liberal class politics. You can address issues of injustice through both, but I think the latter does so more efficiently and without alienating rural whites.

@45 You empathize with them and talk to them like adults. You don't immediately act like a arrogant prick especially when they are bitter about the defeat. Let it settle for a little bit then come back and say hey in 2000 a lot of people felt like you and Bush happened. Talk to them about the Supreme Court. Ask them if they want the battle over the SC pick to be about how liberal the judge is or about whether or not the judge is pro life, anti LGBTQ or anti regulation enough to satisfy Trump supports. Talk to them about liberals in the 60's who were more right of Clinton but still started a civil rights political revolution. Get them to think, so they get past their anger and make a logical decision. Don't act like you are better and smarter than they are and tell them they are being idiotic babies. It is only going to harden their resolve. You are right some of them were arrogant in thinking Hillary wasn't pure enough. But the reason Hillary lost was because she was arrogant. She assumed people were going to vote for her without doing anything. Changing the platform isn't binding, yet she still wouldn't put TPP in it. Picking a VP that would rally the progressive youth turned out to be important. The DWS hiring was arrogant. Young people are always idealistic and if you can't see how those actions are going to enrage them after it comes out the DNC was rigging the primary you are either arrogant or stupid. She isn't stupid.

@45 Sorry if I come off like an asshole. I'm really upset that we had a chance at a liberal Supreme Court for the first time since the 1960's and blew it. Because of this election it may be conservative for another 40 years. That makes me sick to my stomach and I am venting. Probably sounding like an arrogant asshole myself, but I feel like Dan needs a dose of fucking reality. Young people listen to him and like his columns and I thought the tactics he took to try to get them to vote HRC hurt much more than they helped. I should probably take my own advice let it settle, empathize and try to get him to think about why it was counterproductive to act the way he did after a victory.

@48 I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree about the protest vote and Republican turnout. Trump drove turnout and he got a much higher conservative turnout than Romney. Yes he got about the same amount of votes as him, but more conservatives voted 3rd party than liberals. Stein got 1.2 mil, Johnson 4+ mil votes. Most republican senators outperformed Trump in their states. That indicates Trump got higher conservative turnout just to equal Romney's numbers.

Democratic turnout was low and it wasn't just the youth. Milwaukee County, WI was 60,000 votes short of 2012 and she got 40,000 votes less than Obama there. She lost WI by that margin. I can't wait to see the final numbers but I suspect Hispanic vote was high, but African American and Youth vote was low. I doubt think Hispanics broke as hard to her as they were expecting either. Anti abortion is a key issue for a large portion of that community.

Young people make up their own minds, drew. Maybe Dan got a trillion tweets and he just lost it.
You can't be handing over responsibility for people's choices to Dan. These people are voting. They are adults. I don't think it would have mattered how anyone spoke to them,
like Susan" I don't vote with my vagina" Saradon, many of them were just lost in some non reality.

Fucking hell. I am so upset. I spent all of last night sending all my American friends messages of condolance.

@ Drew I'm not following your Rep argument. He got roughly the same number (absolute) of votes as the last two Rep candidates as well as same percentage as Romney and slightly higher than McCain. (all at 60mil and 45-47%) Considering that the population has also grown, I don't see how that turnout could be considered higher.

Do you mean that more conservatives voted (considering downticket candidates) but then voted for Johnson or abstained on POTUS which is possible and likely but I don't see how that changes my argument. A Dem candidate with numbers similar to the last two elections would have easily won with a wide margin, but people didn't vote on the left. Even if we gave her all the five million third party votes, she'd still be missing about 5 million voters- and you can't find them in the votes for Trump since those are the same as before. Even if we more accurately assume that the 4 million voters were more likely to be conservative and the 1 Stein were more likely to lean lib, then we are missing 9 million voters. In any case, voting for third, leaving POTUS blank or staying home are all protest actions towards Clinton and Trump. And judging by the numbers, far more protested Clinton.

Also I'm not sure what the "it wasn't just the youth" part has to do with anything. I didn't say anything about young people- I said progressives, and it's always been a myth that the Bernie or Busters were mostly young. They are just louder online.

Someone elsewhere posted stats by demographic, and they were remarkably similar to the last two election cycles. Plenty of minorities voted for Trump, similar to past demographics including the Hispanic vote. I agree about abortion- I think that is part of why class politics vs identity politics is important. Abortion rights are very important to me and I would not vote for a party that gave them up. But I'm also aware that many minority groups are more conservative than most liberals realize, and the only reason they consistently vote Dem is because the Republicans are often hostile towards them. I think this is one of the dangers in making the flagship of your movement being about diversity and individual rights - it cuts both ways. In any case, Obama is also prochoice as was Bill Clinton, so I don't think this COST her any minority vote. A bunch of them voted Rep because of this issue just like they have always done. The surprise is that Trump's bigotry didn't push them to the other side, but that just shows you the power of religion.

@34
Theodore and everyone else, you really should read this TIME article: http://time.com/4558510/electoral-colleg…

But in case you won't, here are some quotes:

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
(...)
One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.
This objection rang true in the 1780s, when life was far more local. But the early emergence of national presidential parties rendered the objection obsolete by linking presidential candidates to slates of local candidates and national platforms, which explained to voters who stood for what.
(...)
Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.
(...)
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

Remember: the reason Southern states gained so much from this system was because they counted each slave as 3/5 of a man - and they got more Electors than if they only counted those elegible for voting. So yeah, do you really want to keep this institution, when it originated from such a despicable practise?

@52 If they make up their minds and refuse to change, why even try? Don't campaign at all. The truth is a very large percentage did change their minds. A small percentage were harder to crack, but it shouldn't have been impossible. You need to cater to those people. Get them on your side. Trump catered to his base that is why he got turnout and won. I think establishment Dems are lost in a non reality where every youth/progressive is going to vote for them even if they screw over their favorite candidate. All the things I listed in previous posts were big deals. Hillary really didn't address those things. Her way of addressing some was to give a big FU to the Bernie people and she didn't get turnout because of that. You can say those people wouldn't change their minds anyways and keep losing elections when you elect uninspiring candidates or you can address the reason why they wouldn't come to your side and try to prevent this from happening in the future.

We just repeated the 2000 election maybe we could learn from that and make changes because in 2028 or 2032 the youth is going to be just as idealistic as they are today. If we get 8 years from a President and pick another establishment candidate they probably shouldn't pick a Lieberman/Kaine type of VP. Better yet realize it is really hard to win 3 elections in a row and go with someone that represents change at the top of the ticket. Someone likeable who inspires the youth and/or minorities to come out and vote. Don't just rely on dislike of the Republican candidate it does not drive turnout.

Drew, Dan didn't support Clinton during the primaries, he sat on the fence.
It was only after the vote and Clinton was the nominee, then Dan got behind her. And well he should. Look what the fuck has happened.
It wasn't time to cater to anybody. The cold hard truths were presented. Over and over again.

@54 I don't think final demographic numbers are in for any state so the reports could be based off of faulty exit polls. What I was saying about Republican turnout is that overall more of them turned out than in the past. That is why they beat us in the Senate, something that rarely happens in Presidential years. A lot of their party gave a protest 3rd party vote much more than libs went 3rd party. So while Trump's numbers are the same as Romney, 4 million more conservatives came out. I look at it like 4 million people who voted for Romney said I can't vote for Trump and went Johnson and voted Senate Repubs. Trump then got 4 million people who don't usually vote out to vote for him and they voted Senate Repubs as well. I doubt the full 4 million Johnson supporters came from Trump, but most of them had to or else Democrats would have won the Senate.

I was agreeing that Democratic turnout was low compared to the past, but I don't think it was only young people. Milwaukee County, WI and Wayne County, MI (Detroit) are proof of that. She had massive drop offs in those heavily African American Communities. That cost her both states. It is interesting because she did not campaign in either very much. In Philadelphia she slightly outperformed Obama, but she campaigned heavily there at the end. She started running ads at the end in the other two state and sent ground people to Michigan, but it was too late. Wouldn't have mattered anyways Pennsylvania was a must win and she campaigned hard there and still lost it. I think some of the 4 million I was previously talking about weren't new voters they were 2012 Obama voters in suburbs and rural areas.

Hillary has been much aligned, by everyone. She is still a decent woman at heart and didn't preach hate.
Bernie offered the working classes and Blacks the way forward.. why didn't they support him in the primaries? Democrats or Reoublicans.
Because they don't know squat about policy. Not really. They do know a lot about hate and pain. And trump fed into that. Find someone to hate and all will be great again.
That's his message. And a lot of people in America chose that way because they are poorly educated and watch crap reality shows. Trump has been grooming them for years.
Hillary, I salute you.

@57 Well here is the cold hard truth those people weren't catered to and this is what fucking happened. If she picks Bernie or Warren as her running mate those people probably show up and vote for her. Since Hillary and her team didn't want to do that the turnout was low and We got fucked on every level of government. Trump catered to his base and his turnout was not low. Maybe just fucking maybe we can learn something from this difficult lesson, but hey fuck it let's stick our head in the sand and do the exact same thing next time. Not catering to them at all and just giving them a dose of cold hard truth really made them feel apart of HRC's cause. It really made them turnout at the polls. When I say we should cater to them I mean the candidate mostly. It would be hard for Dan or anyone else to talk someone into it if the candidate just shits on that group of people like Hillary did. But I do know one thing being an asshole isn't going to change their minds. It actually does the complete opposite.

@57 "Dan didn't support Clinton during the primaries, he sat on the fence. "

He claimed to be on the fence but in truth he promptly regurgitated every morsel of anti-Sanders DNC propaganda he was fed.

It's an American style. You guys are sharp with each other. You and anon, doing the same to Dan.
True enough about Bernie or Elizabeth being offered the VC. They were still part of the team. Both loudly talking Hillary's praises. If these two are to be trusted, then isn't their word worth something? I saw Hillary reaching out, and I saw her changing and being as strong as. She is who she is. Not perfect, to be sure.
Not a racist bigoted sexist pig like the other guy. It was ever only going to be one or the other.

Click on my profile, go to the 1st post I have is on July 26th after Dan had a series of Bernie posts and my fear became reality. That key week sunk her campaign. It made me sick then. I talked myself into believing she would win, but she never recovered from that week.

@62 Their word is worth something to almost all of their supporters but a very small percentage felt betrayed by them for supporting Hillary after the DNC news came out. The only way she could have mended that for that small group is putting one on the ticket. That whole health scare would have only made this people more enthusiastic. I think these people are wrong and stupid for not voting for her but it was obvious to me back then that her actions were hurting her. I don't campaign. I am not a politicians. If I see these things her campaign should have too.

Yes I am being hard on Dan. I fucking love his work and have for more than 15 years now, but I felt like he was completely wrong on this. I should be more upset with Hillary, but she won't be running in 4 years. Dan will hopefully still be writing this column at that time. He also isn't the sensitive snow flake these people were. He can handle the cold hard truth. I can handle the cold hard truth, but obviously some of those people could not. They needed to be catered to. We need those people so catering to them is necessary whether we like it or not.

Why should you blame Hillary. And yes that mongrel Assange leaked the rot in Democratic Party, Clinton still got the votes. It was corrupt, yes. Got that. It's American politics.
You can't cater to people who are playing some fairy tale version of the world of the politics of their country.
By the end, surely they could have seen what a brave woman Hillary is. How trump et all threw every dirty piece of shit at her, and she stayed poised and calm. The FBI, at the last minute, that was pure evil corruption.
So these people who needed catering to, are they blind as well as uneducated.
Like in 2000, same bullshit.

No I believe Trump won educated white people as well or hit much higher than polls suggested. It was a jobs issue(TPP) and Hillary was the perfect candidate to rationalize Trumps terrible qualities. Sexual predator-So was Bill, Liar- So is Hillary, Not experienced- Better than being a Corrupt Insider, Shouldn't be trusted with nukes - she put national security at risk with emails. I don't believe any of these things but people who yearn for change can buy into them. Is it stupid and shortsighted? Yes but people in general are stupid and shortsighted. That pertains to educated people as well.

Why blame Hillary? Because she was arrogant and ignored 43% of her party. Don't negotiate the platform just give them what they want. It isn't binding. Your actions mean everything and none of her actions brought those people in. Most came because they didn't want Trump not because of something she did. It is her job to inspire people to vote she failed and we now have Trump. The next person in her position needs to be able to see this. Just because the economy is good overall and the President's approval rating is good doesn't mean you are just going to get votes. She was more concerned with Repubs than her own party. Trump played to the fairytale bullshit of his party. They won't have a Muslim ban, wall or a lot of the off the wall bull shit he promised. He said those things to get the crazy republicans to vote for him knowing the "sane" Republicans were always going to swallow any reservations and vote for him because they are Republicans and he is the Republican candidate. Those crazies trolled Facebook putting out fake story after fake story as truth poisoning everyone in their feed. By election time they thought Hillary was just as bad.

This is key, Hillary never understood she needs the crazies from her party. That small percentage is what swings elections. Lie to them promise them bullshit just fucking say it so they come to you. VP means very little so throw them a bone there. Trumps weakness was LGBT, religion and experience he filled that with Pence. She picked a carbon copy of herself as a running mate. Obama understood this. He picked a white experienced politician as VP to ease moderate white left leaners(his version of Pence). It allowed him to appeal to the crazies. He talked about labeling GMOs, being transparent, ending the patriot act, closing gitmo, single payer, ending the drone war. He did none of those things, but he did get elected. He was forced to pass a cop out labeling act written by corporations because of Vermont. He hired Monsanto people for Ag and FDA positions almost immediately. He stepped up the drone war. He became less transparent than Bush. Punished whistleblowers. Didn't close gitmo. It did not matter because he got elected twice and furthered the liberal cause without pissing off the majority of America. Hillary still had that majority vote for her she just needed a very small percentage of the crazies to vote for her and get her over in swing states. She was the moderate she needed a VP the crazies could relate to.

@57

Dan is a public figure with a personal life that is sometimes public by his choice- his memoirs etc have made him famous and that included sharing a lot about his own family. And while he was publicly on the fence and saying he'd support either candidate, privately his husband actively campaigned for Clinton- he was even some sort of electoral representative for her (sorry I don't know much about the process in WA so I can't say exactly what his position was) for their voting district.

I have no problem with any of this btw. I also do not think Dan is lying when he says he would support either candidate and would've voted for Bernie if Bernie won. I think that Dan would've voted for any Dem candidate over Trump, but he certainly had a personal preference for Hilary. As a public figure, he said he was down with both and that is responsible and I have no issue with it - nor should anyone else. Also, spouses sometimes disagree. But his husband very clearly disliked Bernie during at least some of the primary- posted negative things about him on Twitter etc. Dan may or may not share those opinions, but regardless, he has always been a very CENTRIST Democrat. Let's not forget that he supported the Iraq war as well. Dan is a wonderful advocate for civil rights and reproductive rights, but he's certainly well within the moderate/centrist/establishment part of the Democratic Party. This is not a criticism btw, but I don't think he was ever really on-the-fence.

Regardless, I think Drew's point was that Dan was dismissive of many of the issues that Bernie brought up and that resonated with his supporters. While I also believe the buster movement was extremely foolish, it was a bad tactic for mainstream and centrist Democrats to dismiss their very valid concerns. There's a difference between voting for Hilary (which I did) and being a Hilary supporter (which means you actively prefer her), and I have yet to hear Hilary supporters honestly address the main issues of concern. In my own case, I want them to answer for her foreign policy disasters, support of the Iraq war and the mass deportations under Obama (which they oppose under Trump) plus the drone strikes and increased surveillance and increase presidential power (including the patriot act and the right given to the POTUS to kill citizens abroad). These are all very concerning issues, and I've found that mainstream liberals either do not care or do not know- they don't address them. Two days before Trump's bragging about sexual assault video broke, the US actively started bombing Yemen. Liberals have been silent on it. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance at play here- a lot of things that Democrats fought against when Bush did them and will fight when Trump does them but have not even acknowledged Obama/Clinton as doing. Dan was a part of that, and I've wondered sometimes if he doesn't know about foreign policy or if he supports these policies. It doesn't matter because his public role of course is to be a civil / reproductive / lgbt rights advocate and he's great at that, but I do agree with Drew's larger criticism.

Drew, Obama's promises to do those things and then doing the opposite is exactly why 2012 turnout was lower than 2008, and also why Democrats were so pissed off this year.

I agree with what you are saying strategically, and it maybe would've gotten Clinton in the WH. But I doubt it. I think the biggest problem is that the Democrats completely underestimated how much so many people in this country HATE her. I'm in a red state in a rural area. People here literally believe she is a murdering corrupt scandal-ridden illuminati type figure. Seriously. It's nuts. They hate her. And they aren't even the crazies. The really crazy people actually believe that she is a part of a vast global ring of pedophile satanists that control the world. It's astounding, but there are tens of thousands of Americans who believe that crap. She was just a bad choice, all around.

As for catering to the crazies in your party, I don't think that most of what Bernie asked for was crazy. Some of it was, but not most. His flaw was that he did not bother to come up with a plan for any of the things he was asking for, which is absurd because plenty of progressives have been writing coherently about those issues for decades with clear policy suggestions. Bernie is deeply flawed himself (as are most politicians) and after I read a bunch of his articles from his early 30s, I concluded that he's actually just not all that bright. And I think he did not get serious about campaigning and organizing until it was too late. Also, if he had been elected, he would not have been able to do even a fraction of the things he claimed he wanted to do. The president really doesn't have all that much power individually. It's the platform and wing of a party that is voted in that makes a difference, and I think it would've been a positive step to have someone talking about the issues that Bernie talked about. I don't see what's crazy about most of the efforts that you talk about that Obama dismissed after winning.

EmmaLiz I don't believe Bernie's ideas or the ideas I talked about with Obama are crazy. I think it is crazy to believe they will happen overnight. Some will take decades the Crazies are the irrational people who think they can just immediately do all of those things upon being elected. Obama didn't have an excuse 1st term for not getting all of those things done because he had majorities and I think the Senate was at 60 so filibusterer proof. He did not have support for single payer and if he did much more than healthcare he wouldn't have gotten a 2nd term. I am a realist I understand that. Those crazy people do not. Hillary could have said whatever and had the excuse of not having the House for not getting those promises done.

I agree that they underestimated how bad of a candidate she was perceived as. That is why she absolutely needed those farthest left Bernie supporters. I think she thought she could appeal to moderate republicans. That was a huge mistake. They could have ran Hitler himself and most Republicans would have voted for him because he wasn't a Clinton Crime Syndicate member. I have a whole wing of my extended family from WI that I thought were rational people and I really respected them, they believe most of the conspiracies. It makes me sad to think about it. None of that mattered though. If she just turned out a little more vote in PA, WI, and MI she wins. She should have went with the fringe left for that not the moderate right. Her insistence on a no fly zone in Syria was really odd as well. Why even get that specific but after the General's say that isn't a good idea to provoke Russia like that you might want to back off instead of doubling down. Your antiwar wing of the party did not like that at all. She needed to tell the fridge left what they wanted to hear or have VP Sanders do it for her so they believed. She could have named him and said I want him writing the platform. All of those people would have forgiven the DNC. She needed to guarantee one term and the senate to get the Supreme Court. Deal with the consequences of failed promises down the road.

As far as Bernie and not having a plan, take a look at Trump. Plans mean nothing. Bernie had actual plans they were just unrealistic and wouldn't have gotten any support. He could have gotten great compromises in legislation though. Like the Dark Act he just vetoes end of story. There was no need to compromise on that. The only reason Dems did was because of the Lobbyists. Things like that are why they didn't get turnout this election.

Yes drew, in many ways Hillary was arrogant.
And the democrats who didn't vote for her were also arrogant. They refused to put her faults aside and block Trump.

Yeah they set their cause back decades because of their arrogance and stupidity. They should have just voted for Hillary. President's change often the Supreme court doesn't. Nixon appointed 4 justices before being impeached. That was the last liberal court he got rid of it. We had a chance to get that back. I am upset with the people who didn't vote for her but they are too irrational to realize their own fuck up. Hillary and her supporters are suppose to be the rational ones who think, but they didn't and we all blew this election together. It is a bitter pill to swallow. Trump is an ass and if he had been President and didn't get to pick the SC I would be frustrated, but it wouldn't be that bad. 4 years and you can just flush him to the next, but that justice(s) will be around for decades. 2020 is very important since it is a census year. Hopefully the Dems have a banner year and can redraw some the gerrymandered districts so they can have a better shot at the House of Representatives.