Hitler was a very nice fellow until SJWs started calling him a Nazi.: Today in Tweets

Condolences, Axe.

The problem with Hillary Clinton is she has some kind of weird anti-charisma that turns off a lot of potential voters.

It’s called “Misogyny.”

@Surplus
The DNC “stacked the deck” against Sanders by centering the votes of people of color

As far as naming conventions, of course people didn’t name their afab babies Hillary. She was sold as an evil, feminazi b**** who didn’t bake cookies from day #1 of Bubba’s presidency. Michelle Obama, for all they tried, was never efectively stripped of her femininity like HRC was. It’s not charisma, it’s how she expressed herself in ways that didn’t supplicate to gender norms. Afabs are given pretty, feminine names, and Hillary no longer fit that

As far as her charisma:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190343/trump-clinton-supporters-lead-enthusiasm.aspx
Clinton voters were more enthusiastic than Sanders’. Neither were as much as Trump. Make of that data as you will

@Errybody
I’m good, I swear. Now, quit it before you embarrass me

…

*hugs back* <3

Ugh. Apparently my “The BernieBros are making me feel punchy, fuck this shit” break wasn’t long enough, because they’re still fucking here. -_-#

@Laughter At Bigots – Yeah, it’s easier than admitting that Bernie was a lousy candidate.

@weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Seriously. What do the people who keep doing this hope to accomplish?

This. I highly doubt anyone’s going to convince anyone else that their position is the correct one or make the other apologize for some slight.

@Axe

The DNC “stacked the deck” against Sanders by centering the votes of people of color

That’s certainly not the full explanation. I seem to recall very few debates scheduled, all on days seemingly chosen to minimize viewership, for one thing.

The near-complete lack of non-debate media coverage of Sanders, while not the DNC’s fault per se, was also a factor that sabotaged him. At the same time, most of the Republican candidates and not just the two frontrunners Trump and Cruz got substantial attention — though Trump got the lion’s share of it. Some have argued that the media decided both primaries and the general election when they didn’t cover Sanders and positively lavished attention on Trump.

And the perception of Sanders as bad on black issues seems at odds with this:

https://thinkprogress.org/bernie-sanders-new-racial-justice-platform-wins-praise-from-black-lives-matter-activists-dca15103af0f/

He may have paid insufficient attention to such matters at first, but he responded constructively when that led to significant criticism from BLM. I’m frankly baffled that there’s still the perception that Clinton, a former Goldwater Republican(!) who used dogwhistles and supported “tough on crime” policies much more recently than that, was the better candidate on BLM’s issues. Maybe there’s something I’m not seeing here in the way of good evidence that Clinton had evolved on those issues and that Sanders’s evolution on the same issues was insincere, though. If so, please enlighten me.

I will also state for the record that I bear no ill will toward Clinton for being female, or for being an “insufficiently feminine” female — a female President will have to be willing to crack heads. I’d probably vote for Kathryn Janeway if she ran for public office. I won’t argue that that may have hurt her significantly with voters, though — in which case electing a female President is going to be an uphill battle. But surely so was electing a black President, and that was accomplished, and against a somewhat-less-horrible Republican opponent at that.

I continue to think there was a problem with Clinton specifically, separate from misogyny, that added to the effects of misogyny, and added to the effects of the media’s hate-fawning over Trump and inadvertently(?) giving him a colossal advantage — and even with all of that weighing against her, she still won the popular vote, and by the largest margin in history of any electoral college loser. 80,000 votes flipped in the right places would have stopped the nightmare before it started. Fact is that means the slightest tweak to Clinton’s image that was an improvement would have done the job, or a bit less media attention given to Trump, or even perhaps sunspots.

This could be Monday morning quarterbacked for eternity but it’s probably pointless because most likely the different theories for how the Dems could have avoided blowing 2016 are all correct. The squeaker outcome combined with all the factors that have been named any one of which could flip 80,000 votes means that what happened was some sort of a perfect storm.

tl;dr: Hillary is nowhere near as bad as her popular image, and simultaneously not quite as excellent a candidate as some seem invested in making her out to be. The media and the DNC’s scheduling of debates both hampered her primary opponent unfairly, and the former also are one of the factors without which Trump would almost certainly have lost. Misogyny was undoubtedly also one of the more significant factors unfairly harming Hillary’s image in the general election; I have no doubt of that. But it’s necessary to recognize her actual flaws, which were also factors, mainly by dulling the enthusiasm of independent voters, particularly those who turned out for the primaries but stayed home on election day. Perhaps POC in swing states would have stayed home if Sanders had been the Dem nominee, in which case the Dems were dealt a losing hand from the outset, but we’ll probably never know.

I think I’ve said everything I want to say on this topic now.

@Surplus
Wooow… Had I subjected myself to read all that I’d probably be pissed. Too tired to do either, frankly

I think I’ve said everything I want to say on this topic now

Good

Sheesh, sorry about that.

My point wasn’t “let’s rehash the previous election”. I’m sorry it turned into that.

My point was that some fairly strong Independent/Republican people will probably be voting for Democrats next time, as Trump has finally shown even slightly clueless people (my parents and others who think those Confed Statues should stay up because “History”) what he really is.

@Surplus
Please don’t do that again. I am aware. Thank you for your consideration.

It wasn’t you, JS.

@JS
Yayifications! This plus multiple confederate statues getting torn down right now makes for a lovely Monday gift to all.

Surplus, haven’t you already said everything you wanted to say?

@Valentine
That is some good news, it’s great that your boss knows the circumstances and is open about it.