Dems probably win if axelrod runs that campaign. They had money coming out there ears but couldn't be bothered to poll Michigan and Wisconsin? Lazy

This is depressing man.

Your last paragraph I mean. Like, one of the worst things about this election is the verification that facts just don't ****ing matter, which is abhorrent to me. We don't need to further that, we need to get back to a place where facts do ****ing matter... because they are facts. Because they do matter. What's the point of doing anything at all if the results ultimately don't matter?

I don't think he was saying the Clinton team invested heavily in those places. The question from Axelrod was basically like "take me into the state level strategy up to election night; when the results came in, was there any place that caught you off guard?" and he basically said they saw it tightening at the end but had it as a 2%-4% race nationally, but what threw him on Election Night was how close they were in GA/TX/AZ and conversely how they lost WI/MI/PA. I think it was a mix of regret on both sides of the equation (e.g., surprised where they lost, plus the idea that they had winnable states they didn't spend much time/money in).

The quip about polling 10 battleground states was what he said, and it was my ham-handed way of taking a shot at them for probably not polling WI. Again, if I had to guess -- given the 0 visits and light Clinton campaign presence -- they probably didn't think they were behind there at all and it was safe. It's an off-handed comment in a little forum, it's entirely possible the reality was different than described but just listening Benenson et al had it narrowed down to 10 battlegrounds when the map was wider than they thought.

Like I get it's tragic that fake news and one liners supercede facts but I gotta quote flys avatar for that

"You want it be one way.... but it ain't..... it's the other way"

Man if Texas can somehow be a battleground for 2020 that'd be awesome. **** the Midwest, it becomes completely irrelevant.

TX/GA/AZ were all closer than ****ing OH and IA anyway.

I think the point is that, look, often at the end of the day the electorate isn't super well equipped to understand the facts as they're presented. Too many details, many of which aren't understood. And fact-checking is a cottage industry self-selected for liberals and elites who are into pedantry and wonkish details and nailing gotchas onto politicians.

I wouldn't want anyone to conclude that facts don't matter but Democrats probably need to recognize campaigns are more like the national story-time. Gather round children, we have stories to tell. And Donald Trump brought Where the Wild Things Are and Democrats brought an encyclopedia.

Actually, I think that's too glib and Democrats brought an encyclopedia and The Secret Keepers: Tell Me Where Donald Trump Touched You, A Children's Treasury of Stories About Serial Pig Donald Trump. That's better than just the encyclopedia but still lacking.

Encyclopedias are critical for a certain time and place and they matter, and everyone loves a good scare story but they probably also needed a good fun affirmative story that the audience wants to hear rather than just yelling at voters that Donald Trump was lying about that island and there are no malicious beasts and Donald Trump's playful romp is transgressive and he doesn't deserve a hot supper.

I wish it were different, of course. I think the story-time nature of our campaigns is almost unavoidable. But I agree our ideal should probably aspire to better literature. The problem is Democrats seem to want to insist encyclopedias can be fun and important too and it's pretty clear national taste just isn't there.

LOL at all the carrot hacking going on in this thread. You guys act like any election is indicative of anything long term. People are fickle and vote in waves. The party in power gets voted out when people tire of them.

Republicans and Democrats will take turns holding power. Cycles will happen as they always have and nothing will change.

No one ever dies.

End thread.

True dat.

also Grant Tinker.

I think Clinton knew that as President, she was probably going to be playing goalkeeper at best with a Republican house and struggling to even get Supreme Court nominations confirmed. She didn't want to pitch a huge story of returning to prosperity through infrastructure, healthcare, and education spending because she didn't feel like any of that would be able to happen majorly in her Presidency. This might have been a fatal flaw in her campaign, in hindsight. Trump was willing to spin completely unrealistic fantasies of his time in office, and his voters even admitted as such often, but it didn't change their desire to vote for him. Hell, I remember saying similar things about Obama back in 08 when I was defending my liberal vote for him: "He may not be able to get these things done, but damn he has some great and inspiring things to say. Let's see what he can do."

On a related note, I heard people say quite frequently they were voting for Trump because they felt like he could "bust through the partisan gridlock" better than Clinton. In a way they were right, though I don't think the vast majority of them understood the underlying reasons for the current partisan gridlock. They knew it was locked up though, and on that count they were right. For reasons they also didn't hit, they happened to be right that Trump was the one who could bust through that gridlock.

Also Clinton's story of "things aren't so bad, we're going to keep them being not so bad!" is not very musical and not very appealing when the other side is promising huge, sweeping changes to the global economy that will result in a return to Great American Manufacturing days of the 1960s. That's a song that's catchy as hell, even to people who may know deep down that it's bull****. She was reading Common Sense as a book on tape while he was wailing out with some bull**** classic rock tunes that have been way overplayed but almost everybody kind of recognizes and has a certain nostalgia and affection for.

Man the Democrats can't help but return to form. First Hillary tries to pretend she isn't behind this recount BS and then she shows up at a grocery store just like a regular person. Both ploys are so transparent and so lame. The woman just can't be real.

Now Chucke Schemer goes back to the same old democratic playbook and declares the republicans are starting a war on the elderly. Talk about a one trick pony. He said "republicans haven't learned their lesson". Well, it's clear one party hasn't.

And now Pelosi is back in. Please, please, please elect Keith Ellison chair of the DNC. Please.

Nah she was caught and had to choose to campaign on continuing the current administration or changing the course of America. She could not do both, one is praising O and the other is pointing out that O has been leading us in the wrong direction. Besides she is not that inspiring and pretty well needed Michele and O to carry her message. They have to pretty much give the message we are headed in the right direction.

pony up peeps

I'm not familiar with this misspelling trope, what's up with the Es?

Well, the "e" in Schumer was an auto correct I didn't catch. The "e" on the end of Chucke is a fun little play on his middle initial. Charles E. Schumer becomes Chucke Schumer. Thanks for noticing. The point remains the Dems apparently still don't know what has happened to them and really have no where to go politically.

Haha, why would you lie about something so pointless.

If they wanted some ironic messaging they should say Republicans are turning Medicare into Obamacare.

LOL type in uncapitalized. That's what happened. Sheesh.

Hank has made a couple of posts about this and I still don't know whether he thinks the GOP isn't trying to go after Medicare "reform" or whether you think they are and voucherization is a good thing.

He's definitely mad at Chuck Schumer, but I think it's just the general aghast white dude schtick because Schumer said mean stuff(and Hank just skimmed the headline and got upset). Hank do you know who just got nominated to run HHS?

Thought this was a really good article in Slate.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ocrats_in.html

Talks about how Jesse Jackson's Presidential Campaigns of the 1980s can offer Democrats a road map for how they win again. Jesse was so good at tying the futures of struggling farmers, women struggling for equal pay, minorities in urban areas that were economically struggling, and American manufacturing workers together.

conservative here <--

Can someone explain to me keeping Pelosi? I was hoping: please please please get a new (to me) democratic face in the house. Seemed to me that a new face with a fresh start could even be a hopeful thing for the future

I know she raises a ton of money -- but you folks who supported Hillary or Bernie -- what are your thoughts on keeping Pelosi in power?

Whoever replaces her will be the worsest liberalist elite washington insider evar within like 3 weeks so does it really matter?

I don't know if Ryan was better or not but I'm not happy with it. Yeah, the right will hate anyone, but Pelosi has overseen a Democratic house caucus that sabotaged Obamacare, that didn't even try on cap and trade or card check, and that keeps getting smaller.