2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhen you bury your head in the sand you leave your ass exposed to get kicked
Yes, there were dirty tricks, undermining, gerrymandering, manipulation, lies, cheating, etc. during this election. That exists every election but just is less visible most of the time. Every Democratic President has faced this same nonsense from the other side.
When you are on the correct side of things and you nominate the right candidate and run a thorough campaign then you win.
1. Democrats were on the correct side of things.
2. They didn't nominate the right candidate (not for the reason most people believe).
3. They didn't run a thorough campaign.
Trump won because of numbers 2 and 3.
Democrats need to understand that when they run a charismatic and inspiring speaker they usually win. On paper and in practice, Clinton would have been an incredible president. Sadly, she lacks charisma and is not an inspiring speaker. Now, if Michelle Obama were to run...she would win because she is a gifted speaker with charisma. In 2020 Democrats need to nominate someone with charisma who MOVES people when they speak. They also need to adopt Howard Dean's 50 state strategy.
And NO, not Bernie. The only past candidate that MIGHT be right would be Howard Dean.
Democrats need to pull their heads out of the sand and work on changing the things they CAN change and have control over...and fix those things. Until they do that they will keep getting kicked in the ass over and over again.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ismnotwasm
(42,443 posts)
revmclaren
(2,613 posts)will be burned in our minds forever.
For-warned is power.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)white people are evil racists who are obligated to vote for Democrats and never question why the party doesn't give a flying fuck about jobs and their economic concerns because Democrats can't handle working on economic justice at the same time it works on social justice.
/snark off
Phoenix61
(17,573 posts)I think one of the reasons Obama was so popular had to do with his age. He wasn't so old that the 18-28 year olds saw him as ancient and he wasn't so young that older people saw him as a snot nosed kid. Right or wrong, ageism is alive and well. I definitely agree with the importance of being a very effective public speaker. It doesn't matter how good your message is if you don't inspire and motivate people to act.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)Let's look at the candidates from recent history:
Trump vs. Clinton...Trump was the more charismatic speaker
Obama vs. Romney...Obama was the more charismatic speaker
Obama vs. McCain...Obama was the more charismatic speaker
Bush vs. Kerry...Bush was the more charismatic speaker
Bush vs. Gore...Bush was the more charismatic speaker
Clinton vs. Dole...Clinton was the more charismatic speaker
Clinton vs. Bush...Clinton was the more charismatic speaker
Bush vs. Dukakis...Bush was the more charismatic speaker
Reagan vs. Mondale...Reagan was the more charismatic speaker
Reagan vs. Carter...Reagan was the more charismatic speaker
Carter vs. Ford...Carter was the more charismatic speaker
The key to winning is nominating the most charismatic speaker because you can't deliver a great message unless the person delivering the message is able to capture the attention of the people.
Phoenix61
(17,573 posts)
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)Even if you don't like a speaker he can be charismatic. One of the most charismatic speakers in history was Hitler. Look how disgusting and diabolical he was. It was his charismatic speaking ability that made people listen to him. That's how Trump pulled so many people in and fooled them. Democrats need to keep this in mind in the future.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Obama, Kennedy and yes, I'll give them Reagan.
Trump, GWB are "relatable" to some, I suppose, but charsmatic? That would be a disservice to the concept of Charisma.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)One of the most charismatic speakers in history was Hitler. Charisma isn't about being good or bad...it's about your ability to inspire and influence others and gain loyalty.
Trump is definitely a charismatic speaker. GWB is just MORE charismatic than either of his opponents.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Of the main three talked about Clinton and O'Malley were the strongest. The media determined their best shot was to elevate Sanders, who speaking can be equated with yelling at walls, and ignore O'Malley.
I also disagree with you about GW as a speaker. Folksy? Sure. Charismatic? 
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)But his positions are too far left so against Trump he would not have won either. If you have two charismatic speakers then the policies matter a lot more.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)Whoever is the more charismatic speaker of two candidates is going to appeal more to the voters that don't follow politics as closely and vote based on who they "like" best. This is why it matters so much. Speakers who relate and connect and can get people to stop and listen are the ONLY candidates who Democrats should nominate.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The rest I find to be funny. Sanders and GW charismatic. You're pulling our legs.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)But it can be negative too...like cult leaders and terror leaders. It's less about what you stand for than it is about your ability to garner support and loyal followers.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"But it can be negative too...like cult leaders and terror leaders. It's less about what you stand for than it is about your ability to garner support and loyal followers."
I still disagree. No need to make erroneous assumptions as you just did.
"you're just probably assuming charisma can only be positive"
Your assumption. Interesting wording. Just another attempt at division. It's all some know.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)It's why Trump supporters are so loyal no matter how disgusting he is.
https://hbr.org/2012/11/the-dark-side-of-charisma
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)In two years, we could have an excellent chance to take the House once Americans understand the clustertrump that has been handed the keys. Let's start there and then worry about President.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)So that's what I'm doing.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"Every Democratic President has faced this same nonsense from the other side."
You just gave reality the middle finger. Glad this forum is crashing. I have a feeling the dividers are going to crash with it. HA Goodman worthy.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)I've been around for 13 of them and I don't recall a single one that I was old enough to see covered where there weren't reports of dirty tricks and nonsense. If you think Russia hasn't been messing around trying to influence US politics before this year then you haven't been paying attention. No candidate has been a big enough idiot to actually approve of it before.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)My divide comment was clearly spot on.
"How many presidential elections have you been around for?"
That is confirmation. That is as empty as could be. It was a nice get off my lawn moment. Those always make me smile. Please differ to this individual when it comes to elections.
http://people.com/celebrity/americas-oldest-living-person-115-year-old-detroit-woman-jeralean-talley/
I'm no spring chicken and the thought you just promoted is irrelevant and simply meant to increase division. Just like the op.
When did I say Russia has never interfered before. You literally just made that up.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)And I'm not trying to increase division. I'm trying to get people to focus on what they CAN do to fix the issues and prepare for the future. That won't happen as long as people look at every possible thing other than the part the Democrats played in their losses.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)This election was the same has been one of my evenings highlights. I know you are pulling our legs.
I have ops and comments on areas where the Democrats and Clinton could have done better. Only one of us is ignoring serious issues. Just more attempts at division.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)You suck at it. You could not be more wrong about my intentions.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)My comments are directly from your words. No psychic needed. I have no plans of quitting my day job. I enjoy it too much. Somewhat stressful and frustrating at times but it's all worth it. I imagine I would suck as a psychic. I mean really bad. Might even say I don't posses the charisma for the job.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)The Russians hi-jacked the narrative. That they used disgruntled Sanders voters to do their work for them is something I've seen very little talk about. I know it must feel like shit to be used like that, but a little self reflection is in order. Instead they're pushing this Russia is no big deal bullshit. No sale.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)What IS the issue is that Trump, his campaign and yes, Comey and probably others were involved and complicit. That MUST be dealt with and the GOP are idiots for ignoring it. That is an entirely different issue.
I also agree that the Bernie or Busters were used and manipulated. I wasn't a Bernie supporter. I supported Clinton and was one of the first in line in my red county of a swing state on the first day of early voting to cast my vote for her. I verbally ripped everyone I know who voted for Trump a new one too.
None of that changes the fact that Democrats also need to take an HONEST look at the part they played in the losses. The campaign run was far from perfect. Many mistakes were made. It's time to actually own those and learn from them because unless that is done more losses will follow.
JI7
(90,422 posts)Trump did. so anyone who claims she didn't talk about issues is either lying or didn't actually care enough to actually look at what people were saying and just repeating talking points.