Thom Hartmann's take why she lost

[ErikJ]

Her emailers and tv ads were all Trump bashing and NOT about her POLICIES that will help all Americans. She gave PLENTY of reasons not to vote for Trump, but none to get off our butts and vote for Hillary. I voted for Hillary but millions stayed home.

THom always said he got lots of Trump bashing email ads from her campaign for donations but not a single one telling tthem what her policies were. He even wrote back saying if he got one email about her policies for change or preservation to INSPIRE him to vote for her he'd send a donation. I doubt if he ever sent a donation.

[Else You Are Mad]

1. Bingo.

Hillary gave Americans something to vote against, Trump -- right or wrong -- gave Americans something to vote for.

[apcalc]

2. This would be a better explanation if Trump had once talked about policy.

Also , the entire primary was about policy. So were alot of her speeches. And her website was loaded with her plans and policies.

[ErikJ]

4. Supposedly her massive TV ad campaign was all Trump bashing.

I hardly saw any being in a deep blue state but thats what Thom said and what others say.

She should have become a constant Twitter warrior also like Trump. Some say that was a huge part of his victory. He has millions of folllowers on Twitter. He's more in touch with the future and millennials than she is in that regard.

[LeftInTX]

7. Saw a few of her ads here in TX, mostly Trump bashing

Not much info on policy.

Hillary may be a policy wonk, but things like "get rid of NAFTA", "impose tariffs" are easier sound bites.

[physioex]

3. Not a big fan of the Russian propaganda channel....

No thanks!

[ErikJ]

5. Then listen to his radio show.

http://xray.fm/ 12-3 pm EST. I rarely catch his TV show. But his radio show is like going back to college almost with opinions thrown in. 3 hrs of incredible civics, science and history lessons. Love it.

[Raine1967]

6. f This noise.

When did Trump EVER talk about policy?

I am sick and tired of Clinton blaming. She not only ran against a monster, she ranH against Russia and the Head of the FBI and a media that pounded her pretty much 24/7 over a ridiculous email story.

And quite honestly, Hartmann really has little place to talk, he boosted Trump as the Bernie of the right during the primaries. He did not bother to make it clear what a danger to our country Trump was -- he, like many others, treated the monster as a normal candidate.

and that last part is the one that pisses me off beyond anything else. I cannot make this clear enough:


TRUMP AND EVERYTHING HE DID AND WILL DO IS NOT NORMAL.

[LibraLiz1973]

38. Why she lost:

She was held to a different standard. She talked policy, Trump talked crazy.
His crazy was louder than her experience.
Anytime she TRIED to turn the conversation to the important things, the press went harder about those fucking emails and Benghazi.

Someone within her team felt the best way forward was to point out all the crazy shit Donny-boy was doing in the hopes of pivoting the presses attention from her. It didn't work. I would love to see some statistics about the words and phrases used this year in regards to Hillary by the press. "trust issues" "hubris" "likability problem". We heard NON STOP negative shit about her. Is it really so surprising that after the Comey letter came out, she lost any ground she'd gained after three phenomenal debate performances and pussy gate? The so called reporters WOULD NOT STOP talking about her "problems." And all the while they used words like "dynamic" and "billionaire businessman" to describe Dump. It was a form of subliminal manipulation, even if they never realized they were doing it.

His craziness was a dog whistle and it appealed to people who are dumber than dog shit. People who get their news from Fox and propaganda bullshit sites. People who pound on the bible and froth at the mouth over everything.

Running against her was made easier for him because the press was complicit. She had to climb over a 50 foot wall every morning - blah blah blah,breaking overnight, email!- while Trump just had to wave his tiny hands and say things like "tremendous" and "bigly."

I believe running against Bernie would've been just as easy for him. Instead of Lock Her Up, Trumpster fire would've gotten his people to chant shit about socialism.

Trumps base- I give no fucks about people who deny this- are racists. Homophobes. Woman Haters. All Trump had to do was change the argument to scary socialist jewish man and boom- his people would've come out just as hard against Bernie. He tapped into their hate and their fear.

And that's how he won.

What we need to look at now is how to counteract the damage he's done. We should've at least made inroads with the house and senate. The Republicans wiped up the floor with us on election day and THAT is a HUGE problem. We rely on fact and action. But that isn't the case for 1/2 the country. They follow slogans, emotional manipulation and the loudest voice in the room.

Sigh. This fucking election has taken us back MORE than 50 years. It's been more than a week and I'm still so goddamn sick over it I could scream.

[Raine1967]

39. Exactly.

All of this is why I am deep disagreement with Hartmann.

[greatauntoftriplets]

41. Please considering making this an OP.

[seaglass]

46. This is a good post LibraLiz, thanks. Also Thom Hartmann is not that bright. n/t

[bettyellen]

48. So true- Hartman helped normalize Trump and that is inexcusable.

This should be an OP.

[emulatorloo]

52. Good summary.

Media didn't cover the many times she talked policy.

They wanted ratings so they covered anything 'juicy.'

[LisaM]

51. This

Thom Hartmann is pretty much a paid Bernie supporter. He gave him a platform for years, but never pointed out that he gave the same answer to every question - every question!

[stopbush]

8. Simply untrue. She ran policy ads, as well as positive ads.

I saw them on national TV.

[ErikJ]

9. Can u remeber one example.

All I saw was how bad Trump was, which was more than obvious anyway.

[stopbush]

10. Yes, I can.

[NCTraveler]

15. Many, actually. Nt

[ErikJ]

17. lol. Either of u 2 care to elaborate?

[NCTraveler]

19. There is no point.

You know we are correct. The thought she ran none is simply false on face value. Not playing the LIV game.

[stevenleser]

28. LOL, here are several. Simple Youtube search "Hillary Campaign Commercial"

- higher wages, debt relief, against hate, for the environment

- fair wages, etc.

[athena]

11. Misogyny is the reason why she lost.

Without misogyny, she would have won in a landslide.

Too many people in this country, male and female, are extremely uncomfortable with the idea of the most powerful country in the world being lead by a woman. We are not as advanced and open-minded as we think we are. We still see powerful women as witches. We still think something must be wrong with a woman who is ambitious. We still hate women. We still want to live in a world where women go out of their way to reassure all of us that they accept their second-class status; we all love women who make it clear that they are not interested in challenging the status quo.

Election day was a heart-breaking day for women everywhere. It has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that everyone, male or female, sees women as second-class citizens.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. Not entirely- reactionaries loved Margaret Thatcher and still love Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle...

...all of whom rightfully got pounded on here at DU.

Misogyny was *some* of the reason she lost, by no means all of it.

[athena]

16. Margaret Thatcher was not an American president.

Please don't pretend that the United States is not a more macho country than the U.K.

As for Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle, neither of them ever got close to winning the presidency. Hillary was very popular when she was a Senator and when she was Secretary of State. It's when she campaigned for a new office that she became unpopular.

http://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion/

How can we reconcile the “unlikable” Democratic presidential candidate of today with the adored politician of recent history? It’s simple: Public opinion of Clinton has followed a fixed pattern throughout her career. Her public approval plummets whenever she applies for a new position. Then it soars when she gets the job. The wild difference between the way we talk about Clinton when she campaigns and the way we talk about her when she’s in office can’t be explained as ordinary political mud-slinging. Rather, the predictable swings of public opinion reveal Americans’ continued prejudice against women caught in the act of asking for power.

We beg Clinton to run, and then accuse her of feeling “entitled” to win. Several feminist writers have analyzed the Clinton yo-yo. Melissa McEwan sees a deliberate pattern of humiliation, which involves “building [Clinton] up and pressuring her to take on increasingly prominent public challenges, only to immediately turn on her and unleash breathtaking misogyny against her when she steps up to the plate.”

If you find this hypothesis unlikely, there’s Ann Friedman’s explanation: Clinton makes people uncomfortable by succeeding too visibly. Clinton is trapped in “the catch-22 of female ambition,” Friedman writes: “To succeed, she needs to be liked, but to be liked, she needs to temper her success.”

It’s not her success that seems to arouse ire, but the act of campaigning itself. Yet it seems odd that even when Clinton ascends to ever-greater positions of power—from first lady to senator, from senator to secretary of state—we start liking her again once she’s landed the job. It’s not her success that seems to arouse ire, but the act of campaigning itself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Rightists were fine with the idea of Sarah Palin as potential President

It was a real consideration: McCain was older than Reagan was when *he* ran, and had
a far harder life than Raygun ever had.

McCain/Palin voters weren't somehow less sexist than Obama/Biden voters, it's just that
racism tends to override sexism with that crowd (see the support for women like Thatcher,
Schlafly, Palin, and Angle)

[bettyellen]

50. Because she was a dumb - more a mom/ wife and never ever a

This should be an OP.

[ErikJ]

18. Elizabeth Warren woulda killed Trump.

She's sincere, smart and magnetic.

[athena]

20. Dream on.

I always find it very interesting when men refuse to accept that sexism exists. They don't even seem to realize that their behavior illustrates exactly the kind of sexism that gave us President Trump.

[ErikJ]

22. Sexism takes a back seat to ideology

Liz has the ability to drive people to the polls to vote for her. Magnetic sincerity. Smart as a whip.

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. Exactly- rightists *still* love Sarah Palin, and revere the memory of Margaret Thatcher

[budkin]

49. It was a factor but not *the* reason

Fair or not, it had more to do with her reputation, most of which was fabricated by the GOP and the media over the last 20+ years.

[Generator]

12. Whatever these aren't normal times

We are fighting against a foreign coup-Putin and Neo Nazi's in the white house. Navel gazing is pointless. Votes are suppressed or stolen and we are in for the fight of our lives. Will we have elections in 4 years? We said this shit in the Bush years but now I wonder (supreme court!) if it might come true. We are fighting against people that believe ridiculous lies-if they shoot protesters in the streets-will they blame us? What is happening here? I'm afraid. This is not politics like normal. We are up against a real fascist. Or a mafioso installing his cronies and family. Thom Harttman better find something better to do than this pointless crap.

[seaglass]

47. Yep. People need to wake up. This is not normal.

Have you read this?

http://joshuafoust.com/this-is-not-normal/

[Fast Walker 52]

14. it's ridiculous to think this was the major reason. #1 reason was the fucking media being in the

tank for Trump and against her!

[ErikJ]

21. But ya gotta give people a strong desire to get up and vote for ya

not just a strong desire to hate Trump.

[Fast Walker 52]

37. and polls showed that a higher portion of Trump votes were anti-Hillary than Hillary votes were

anti-Trump. If you believe the polls.

Trump benefited massively from a negative campaign, years in the making, against Hillary.

[NurseJackie]

25. He's the one with the show on the Russia Today network, right? Or...

... am I thinking of someone else that you guys like a lot.

[ErikJ]

26. LOL. U guys? U a conservative?

[NurseJackie]

27. Oh brother!

[Omaha Steve]

29. And has total control over his show content

#1 Progressive show. Quotes DUers like me. OOPS. Never mind.

[ErikJ]

30. Thats right. Quotes lots of DUers.

[NurseJackie]

35. He has to say that... otherwise, no show. I can't trust anything from anyone who cozies-up with...

... Russia Today.

It's all really rather predictable and totally expected, wouldn't you say? I mean, after all, what ELSE would he say? He's certainly not going to come right out and admit anything otherwise.

[Omaha Steve]

36. Has he said anything you think was influenced by RT?

Thom and Bill Press are the most progressive shows out there. Marta and I enjoy listening to Bill as she gets ready for work.

[phallon]

31. I wish he would get off Russian Today TV

[ErikJ]

32. He's on Free Speech TV

https://www.freespeech.org/

They need all the donations possible too.

[Omaha Steve]

33. 2014/03/10

"I own my own show," Hartmann said in an apparently prerecorded segment at the beginning of today's episode of "The Big Picture". Referring to "the drama at RT," he said, "it seems important to clarify my status and position." He claimed that he has "total editorial independence" and "nobody at RT has ever in any way tried to influence our content."

[phallon]

34. I hope so.

If that is true, let RT have MSNBC. Except for Joy and Lawrence, they are worthless.

[oasis]

40. Thom Hartmann's two cents. Noted.

[Paladin]

42. Hillary dealt with policy 10 times more than Trump did.

I think Thom Hartmann and some of you non-stop Hillary bashers witnessed a different campaign than I did.

[boston bean]

43. I have no respect for Tom Hartmann.

[Equinox Moon]

44. This makes sense to me

Inspiration is what gets people to the polls. There is a strong case here for - What are you going to do for us/me?

[ErikJ]

56. Right. And even most RWers are for things like

preservation of Medicare, SS, cheaper health care/college and clean air, water and energy.

[R B Garr]

45. I wonder why Thom Hartmann failed to mention the organized 3rd party strategy

to boycott Hillary as a protest vote. How dishonest of him to blame their protest vote strategy on the electorate in general or campaign email, lol. But it figures. Conveniently, nothing is taken in context by those folks, so why start now.

[brewens]

53. "Sometimes that prevent defense'll prevent ya from winning" -Madden We weren't supposed

ask Hillary to really do anything for us. No positive change really. Sanders bashers accused us of wanting ponies or free stuff for that. I guess that's what hoping my tax dollars will some day go for things that help everyone means to third way types. Keep shoveling those tax dollars up to our overlords or risk making them angry.

[apcalc]

54. I blame Comey....and the more news that comes out....Russian hacking

[JI7]

57. it was the fbi plus feeling too secure about some blue states

[andym]

58. She has been negatively "painted" for years

by the media and by GOP operatives. But she was well respected until the GOP started innuendo against her in the endless Benghazi hearings.

Nevertheless, if it weren't for the FBI investigation of the email server and especially Comey's interventions, she would not have dropped to such dangerously low trust numbers (~36% trust her in one set of exit polls, of course Trump did worse at ~33%, but that is of little comfort-- take a look at the Wisconsin exit polls for example which confirm the national trend http://wbay.com/2016/11/09/exit-poll-economic-worries-boost-trump-in-wisconsin/ ).