And all the trump votes have been in line

IE the dems are finding another ridiculous time to 'vote their conscious' & make a pointless moral stand that misses the big picture

While the gop electors know their guy is a pig but are gonna pull that lever anyway, to maintain power

So looks like we've learned nothing this past month

.
.
.



Order Here:
https://www.createspace.com/5827547 OR http://tinyurl.com/Amazon-Prayvolution

www.jeromejcase.com


My New Book PRAYVOLUTION is Available to order on Aamzon.com

but i think that's their role in our current system. They're the Washington generals, and this shit is all staged.

I know plenty of liberal/progressive people actually fighting in their communities to effect positive change.

EC votes? Does it really matter at this point?

than Trump.
______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/Gj5Wy56.jpg

all our votes ended up being protest votes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAhF8tPqafQ


much better than the actual b list celeb one put out to sway electors

Let alone getting UPSET over, shows just how little they have learned.

You are right, but for the wrong reasons.

The Dems never learn, but not the way you are suggesting.


Unfortunately the party and lecturer in chief have made her loss about: 1. Russia, 2. The Media, 3. Bernie, 4. Stein, etc etc.


You know, everything BUT her, her campaign, and the party's failure to run an actual primary.


The fact that even in defeat, electors are voting against her should be a HUGE wake up call.

I mean, they are just now digging into voting data. Not to learn a lesson or fix mistakes nest time, but to make themselves and each other feel better.


Dems everywhere should be rallying against Trump, rallying to protect the social safety net, organizing for the Gov elections in 2017 and the 2018 elections.

Etc, etc.

Instead, they are patting themselves on the back for winning California and now it will be complaining about these Bernie Electors.

SMH

And Pres Obama had his chance to lay "the Trump is unqualified and scary" hammer down for the electoral college, instead he went out like he came in-

Meek and worried about what Republicans would say about him. Mr. run to the middle as always.

So now his entire legacy will be undone within a year.


The Dems are just absolutely horrible at this. Just horrific. And seemingly getting worse.

They still think there are gold stars and sportsmanship awards for politics.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Yeah, Hilary sucked. But did Trump suck less? Nah.

Bernie had a groundswell that the Dems chopped in half but what was the alternative? Have em honorably debate it out , get to the convention, have a real honest debate, and vote the best person for the job? Maybe your flyover state types would look at the rational reasonable candidate, the one who wanted to help them out directly, and vote for him? LOLZ. This is America.

Shoot Bernie in the head at the pedo-pizzaria, or better yet shoot hilldawg and throw in Biden or Bernie, 120% party unity straight through. While it's nice to think that doing the right thing would work out, Trump threw that out of the window didn't he? Even the most staunch religious right/conservative went full hypocrite when Trump looked like he was going to win, while the left decided to play the high road (vote for Stein! Bernie 4 eva!) and look where we are now.

but the democrats really have no one to blame but themselves. they were arrogant, and they neglected areas they shouldn't have. there also issues that she should have talked about that she pretty much ignored. it seems like they had this attitude of "how can we lose to trump?" well, they did, had they picked a better candidate I don't think there is any way they would have lost, she just not well liked. and even with her as candidate they still should have won, it's pretty pathetic that they lost to Donald Trump, they have to accept blame for that.

is her campaign

but the chasing of excuses and goofy ass theories by dems is dumb

Is your prescription to give the nomination to the guy who won significantly fewer votes? Would that have been more democratic?


>Unfortunately the party and lecturer in chief have made her
>loss about: 1. Russia, 2. The Media, 3. Bernie, 4. Stein, etc
>etc.

All of those things contributed to the loss. As did other things (you forgot Jim Comey's bungling, by the way). Are we supposed to pretend that they didn't contribute? What would that teach us?

Races are complicated. There are many elements in play. When we say that one thing contributed to the loss, or even when we say that one thing pushed it over the edge, that isn't to say that no other factors were involved, or that there weren't any number of other factors that could have made the difference as well.

But it only matters if we enumerate those factors specifically. If you're just saying 'we all know she ran a terrible campaign', then you're not learning anything. You're just comforting yourself with groupthink.

>You know, everything BUT her,

What about her was wrong?

>her campaign,

What about her campaign was wrong?

In retrospect, they should have spent more time in Wisconsin and Michigan. But all the data they had up until days before the election showed that any such money or effort would have been wasted.

>and the party's
>failure to run an actual primary.

LOL, then what was that that we all voted in? Don't be stupid. We had a primary. Your guy lost. Why is it that Hillary is "terrible" because she lost a race, but Bernie doesn't get to be terrible because he lost a race?

I never understood that excuse

You're not supposed to spend money in the safe states, and as far as anybody knew (really knew, as opposed to bullshit gut feelings), all those states were safe until the Comey letters came out.

in the primary.

Maybe I'm naive but I can't see how her people didn't have a pulse on the people on the ground.

I listen to right wing radio to hear the enemy's plans during elections and all them dudes were saying their people say Trump signs all over PA and Florida and Wisconsin and no Hillary signs.

not trying to act like I knew for certain but I damn sure had fears due to white america. How in the world could a woman who lost to Obama and was pushed by Bernie think she had it in the bag?

ionno man, during all our debates most of y'all laughed off the warnings and scoffed at Trumps chances. I think she had too many yes men/women around her instead of the other way around. People talking about she might win Texas and AZ.

erybody had/has/have too much faith in people and no clue what's goin on in the other bubbles


which is why the lol 'experts' are scrambling around seeking excuses and reasons and not holding up a mirror

hit up the counties surrounding urban areas.

4 more years of Obama without Obama? nah.. that was terrible. 4 more years of Obama without Obama sounds like some bullshit.

her message was terrible. No elevator pitch. "I'm with her" nahh....

the secrecy. terrible. Why wait to tell us she was under the weather. People get sick, WTF. Why lie?

fighting the emails instead of apologizing early and moving on. terrible.

but it was doomed from the start IMO. FBI investigation, Wall St speeches.. just blatant shit that screamed establishment.

>hit up the counties surrounding urban areas.

Wow. I'm amazed they never thought about that.

>4 more years of Obama without Obama? nah.. that was terrible.
>4 more years of Obama without Obama sounds like some
>bullshit.

That's not what the data said. He's still the most popular person in our party. He's still the best way to excite Democrats and to turn undecideds. If he could have run for a third term, then yes, HE would have been a stronger candidate than Hillary. Unfortunately, he couldn't, so they had to put him forward as best they could.

>her message was terrible. No elevator pitch. "I'm with her"
>nahh....

Elevator pitch. Jesus Christ. "I'm with her" was an (unofficial) campaign slogan, not a pitch of any kind. You want an elevator pitch: "4 more years of Obama" was the best such argument that any Democrat could have made.

>the secrecy. terrible. Why wait to tell us she was under the
>weather. People get sick, WTF. Why lie?

Really? You don't see how that all went, and why they had to be careful about it?

>fighting the emails instead of apologizing early and moving
>on. terrible.

They DID apologize early and move on. You think the campaign was trying to keep the emails in the news?

>but it was doomed from the start IMO. FBI investigation, Wall
>St speeches.. just blatant shit that screamed establishment.

That, and being the incumbent party. It's impossible to avoid being seen as the "establishment" option when your party has run the White House for eight years. Better to use it to your advantage as much as possible.

Instead, we had certain Democrats complaining about a few paid speeches, and now we're a few weeks away from a time when just the president's cabinet has more combined wealth than a third of the American population combined.

That's the establishment now.

>>hit up the counties surrounding urban areas.
>
>Wow. I'm amazed they never thought about that.

did they follow through on it though?

>
>>4 more years of Obama without Obama? nah.. that was
>terrible.
>>4 more years of Obama without Obama sounds like some
>>bullshit.
>
>That's not what the data said. He's still the most popular
>person in our party. He's still the best way to excite
>Democrats and to turn undecideds. If he could have run for a
>third term, then yes, HE would have been a stronger candidate
>than Hillary. Unfortunately, he couldn't, so they had to put
>him forward as best they could.

yes, HE is popular. but he wasn't running. It was a terrible strategy.


>
>>her message was terrible. No elevator pitch. "I'm with her"
>>nahh....
>
>Elevator pitch. Jesus Christ. "I'm with her" was an
>(unofficial) campaign slogan, not a pitch of any kind. You
>want an elevator pitch: "4 more years of Obama" was the best
>such argument that any Democrat could have made.

no... definitely not. If it was the best argument she would have won.

>
>>the secrecy. terrible. Why wait to tell us she was under the
>>weather. People get sick, WTF. Why lie?
>
>Really? You don't see how that all went, and why they had to
>be careful about it?

yes, she fainted on 9/11 and then told us she was sick. That was when she officially lost the race. If we knew before hand it would appear she was gutting it out. Instead, Trump looked like a gotdamn fortune teller.
>
>>fighting the emails instead of apologizing early and moving
>>on. terrible.
>
>They DID apologize early and move on. You think the campaign
>was trying to keep the emails in the news?

wrong. wikileaks showed us her own people were frustrated with Hilldawg for not conceding and moving on when it first dropped.
>
>>but it was doomed from the start IMO. FBI investigation,
>Wall
>>St speeches.. just blatant shit that screamed establishment.
>
>
>That, and being the incumbent party. It's impossible to avoid
>being seen as the "establishment" option when your party has
>run the White House for eight years. Better to use it to your
>advantage as much as possible.

true, I definitely felt like after 8 years it wasn't a wrap to get another 4. Which is why it never made sense to chill like they had it wrapped up.
>
>Instead, we had certain Democrats complaining about a few paid
>speeches, and now we're a few weeks away from a time when just
>the president's cabinet has more combined wealth than a third
>of the American population combined.
>
>That's the establishment now.
>

YUP. Which is why running Hillary was a bad idea.

...as well as Arkansas. Instead, she came off as an elite wearing futuristic Star Trek dresses with an air of superiority.

She also didn't bring out Bill Clinton enough... you know, the popular former president.

Where was her pivot toward the middle after the Dem. primaries, to better align herself with the rest of the country?

Finally, I knew she was in trouble when she started spending most of her air time telling us how bad Trump was, instead of focusing on what *she* brings to the table.


>but here are some things they should have done

same way gore foolishly ran away from clinton


jobs from the auto bailout (and money made on the deal)
stock market ~tripled
bin laden
20mil now with healthcare
yrs of job growth

they ignored all that to push trump fear

ppl had to grassroots their own 'the sky is not falling' memes to counteract the 'we dont win anymore' propaganda


but he already had his fear machine rolling since the primaries

>same way gore foolishly ran away from clinton

Nah. It's what dems did in the 2014 primaries when Obama's approval numbers were low, and all the ones who did lost. I was worried she'd go that route, but Hillary repeatedly gave props to Obama. But the same way she focused too much on Trump fear, she could only piggyback off Obama so much. She needed to sell herself, but she had a hard time doing that.

for Black votes.

Obama also seemed a little late to jump on board. I wonder why? It really felt like Hilldawg thought she had it in the bag and once the numbers looked a little crooked she started using Obama's name.

Her biggest gaffe was pulling the reverse Romney. She didn't try to expand her base and doubled down in urban areas instead of going into rural areas. Folks on OKP kept saying fuck those people but IMO you have to fuck with those people even if you feel it's a lose lose situation.

Bernie got one vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/19/us/elections/electoral-college-results.html
______________________________________________________________________________

cscpov.blogspot.com

"There's a fine line between persistence and foolishness..."
-unknown

"To Each His Reach"

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

all democrats i think

if 100 people changed their vote to Bernie would it change something?

>if 100 people changed their vote to Bernie would it change
>something?
If Hillary or Trump didn't get 270 votes then the House of Representatives would vote for the president and the Senate would vote for Vice President.

1. As James Carville has encouraged: "expose and educate."
2. To not be shamed by Republicans or Bernie Bros to be Democrats.
3. To stay true to their base which is comprised of minorities and includes a significant voting block of Latinos and African Americans. Mobilize the base! Bring in new voters! IGNORE folks who act like mobilizing a political party's base (and building coalitions) is inherently racist and divisive, simply because the base isn't some magical pre-decided percentage of White.
4. To not forsake their base in word or deed by wooing, defending, or crafting platform and policy that takes strategy advice from a segment of (primarily) White voters who conflate THEIR disagreement and disenchantment with the Democratic party as being the fault and downfall of it. Because NO.
5. To keep their eyes on the prize: defeat the Republicans. Act. Fight. Understand who the opponent is! Stop suggesting other Dems are the opponent! Goodness.
6. To not do a post mortem on a party that's not dead.
7. To remember the Southern Strategy and govern themselves accordingly. ***And any professed leaders of the party who work on a national level need to understand the history of it and the various forms and spectres it still actively casts, today.
8. To listen and make adjustments but not accomodate tone deaf criticism.
9. To inform people that CIVIL RIGHTS are real not petty identity politics. To inquire what the Republican party has done to UPHOLD and ensure CIVIL RIGHTS.
10. To craft a message that speaks to the reality of America: it's increasingly multicultural and will continue to be. Democrats shouldn't take seriously the criticism that the party has failed for not empathizing with or winning over bigots, sexists, racists, etc.