Do Dems have a losing platform or was Hillary just a bad Candidate?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

People are really overestimating the importance of a platform.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

She won the popular vote

OK, we can use this argument all over again to ignore all other factors that led to Trump's victory, and feel better about ourselves. The fact remains she blew a winnable race, just like Gore had in 2000.

This is literally the worst thing Democrats could do: cling to one reassuring talking point and be just as blind as before the election (except before it was overconfidence).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Clinton had been toxic to many people for decades. That was the biggest problem. The skeletons are numerous and were talked to death. Denying Clinton was a crook through the election (primaries and general) was bad on the Democrats and Democratic voters parts. Democrats (and not just the politicians) should have made sure she was never the candidate.

I guess it's fair to say that due to a toxic perception Hillary's campaign was indeed on the defensive for substantial part of the time.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

People are really overestimating the importance of a platform.

This. Charisma and personality matters more. This election showed that nobody cares about the issues. next time? Nominate someone with charisma.

...or a nominee who will actually campaign in swing states that she needs to win instead of f**king Arizona, or who isn't under FBI investigation, or who doesn't have a personal and political history fraught with horrifying associations, or who will run a campaign focused on something other than shaming voters away from the other candidate.

This is true. I honestly thought that Hillary learned from her 2008 fiasco and won't take things for granted. Sure, Democrats made it closer in traditionally Republican states such as AZ and TX, but lost states that mattered, electorally-wise. They just assumed it'll remain in the column. Heh, at least the "blue firewall" idiocy is now dead.

The same with minority turnout. Hillary and her "superior" campaign just assumed there will he a huge turnout, just because "she's not Trump". Obviously didn't work out.

Hillary strikes me as somebody who can be really blind about crucial factors. First, she never seemed concerned with her popular perception (big mistake) nor that it won't be a cakewalk (as evident with Bernie's results).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sexism is surely a factor for some voters, just as was racism, and those votes helped Trump win. No one can dispute this. A lot of sexists assholes would be just as triggered with another woman candidate. The difference is, someone like Elizabeth Warren doesn't have Hillary's additional heavy baggage.

What really worries me is that Hillary blowing her race is only going to make more people believe there's no chance for a woman President I know it may sound nasty, but she was just a bad pick for someone trying to break the glass celling.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

4. Seen as a huge liar. For whatever reason Trump seemed to get a pass (or more of a pass) on this despite lying far more than her, and far more shamelessly. But, you know, it is what it is.

While an argument can me made about a sexist perception (a "woman liar" being perceived more harshly than a "male liar"), I think it's not just that.

What many of us, myself including, don't like about Trump might have been his biggest asset on this particular question. His "I don't give a f**k" attitude may cause outrage, but seems genuine. Clinton long struggled to be perceived as... I don't know how to put this? Authentic?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Once again, the people are vastly overestimate "the platform."

Let's not kid ourselves. Most of the people who voted, whather Republican or Democrat, did not pay a close attention to it. It's hard to understand for us, political junkies, but it's true.