Registered Democrats (mostly young and/or racialised) who didn't vote cost Hillary the election


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/01/07/registered-democrats-mostly-y.html


#2

The poll data suggests that the Sanders critique of Hillary as distasteful to the party base was correct

It might also suggest that the complaints that there was a record amount of voter suppression efforts aimed at nonwhite voters was correct, often statistics can suggest many things - especially depending on who is using them.


#3

not a surprise. And now they get to see how bad things can be when you don’t vote.


#4

There are many variables to look at with hrc’s loss but generally speaking, across many presidential elections, I didn’t find any greater efforts of voter suppression than any other presidential election. I think 538 got this one right. The purity millennial attitude is a part of this and the media overly harping on Hrc’s perceived flaws. The results of a Trump presidency will sober up the purists.


#5

you mean like the results of george w bush’s second term sobered the purists who weren’t happy with kerry?


#6

Oh but she had celebrity endorsements…

For so many people, if you a member of a minority, the two party system breaks down to a single party system. If for you, one party is not an option by default, then the only choice you are left with is either a) go along with whichever candidate (and policy) sole remaining party decides upon or b) ignore the whole thing and stay home. Effectively you are alienated by one party and blackmailed by the other.

Vote for me or else bigger monster will win is not a message of hope or love. It’s a message of fear.

On top of that she (and her PR folks) presented her election as all but inevitable. So if you dislike her why would you bother to help her if she is anyway going to win?


#7

I’ve been saying this since the day after the election. Trump got fewer votes than any republican presidential nominee in history. He won because Democrats stayed home.


#8

This is very interesting.

After the election, there was a lot of hate posts directed at older people on BB – in fact, I’d say that the majority position on BB was that old people fucked things up in this election.

This point demonstrates why it’s actually important to take a close look at the data, and reign in the gut.


#9

When Sanders lost the primary, I was supposed to be reassured that some of his planks would be adopted by the victor, and the next president would at least be making some of the same campaign promises as Sanders.

But just at the same time, Clinton began courting anti-Trump Republicans for money. It was impossible to take Sanders’ contribution seriously when we knew she would want to look good for her new friends in the Bush camp. That’s when I saw just how deeply flawed a candidate she really was.


#10

While most of the discussion on BB and liberal-ish places has been on how the Dems really screwed up (and they did), I actually hope that both parties learned a lot from this election cycle. They both fucked up, and if they both learn from their mistakes we’ll have a stronger democracy.


#11

I blame old people… and poor people… and minorities… /s


#12

Not only “Hillary”, but everyone obviously “costs the vote” of every single person they didn’t vote for. And does not guarantee the election of whom they did vote for. That’s all pretty obvious.

It gets tedious when so many BBS topics are created or derailed into ruminating about how the election results would have turned out differently if people had voted differently. NS,S! Too bad (/s) none of us are entitled to decide how other people should have voted.

IMO partisanship is a disease, and it is never cured by application of more partisanship.


#13

I’ve been hearing a lot about this purity thing, especially in regard to Millennials, but not from Millennials themselves, and not from anyone actually claiming to believe in this concept of purity. Wanting a good candidate, and one who actually cares about the issues and reaches out, is not the same as wanting purity. There are probably a half dozen Democrats I’d easily vote for with no hesitation whatsoever, but not Clinton and not Obama. I eventually voted for Clinton because the stick (Trump) far outweighed any carrot.


#14
Navarro, I see what you did there. Bush was still drawing political breath off 911 during that 2004 election. There was no purity debate going on then. If you were progressive, still considered antiamerican at the time to hate on Bush, you would vote for a toaster just to get GW out. Unfortunately the push back on him didn't start until after the election. This election was all about the narrative that HRC was the worst candidate in history of ever and ever, despite the fact that if you looked objectively at her record, she's really no worse than most politicians. The right wing demonized her to a ridiculous degree. Corrupt? Sure but c'mon in this country there's an acceptable level of bullsh-t that we all agree on and she falls well in that amount.

#15

Ahahaha they won’t. The Republicans will continue to run for 6th grade class president, and the Democrats will continue to marginalize the true progressives.


#16

This election was hers to lose, and she lost it… to the actual worst candidate in history.


#17

Roger That!


#18

You’re right of course, but a person can hope, can’t they?


#19

From the looks of things, it’s not the Democratic party that’s in a learning lessons kind of mood. This DNC is doubling down, refusing to admit it did anything wrong, and even Sanders’ pick for the chair Keith Ellison looks like a sellout now.


#20

Yep. The Sanders thing was just a mid-election pivot (read: lying to the morons), and she was actually going after the Never Trump people. These Never Trump people are worse than Trump, because they don’t oppose his ideas, they just want someone with the same ideas but less of a wild card.