Also, lets leave the out the false visuals. She won by 3 million votes. She essentially lost by 77k votes in 3 states. 3 states were the combined total of 3rd party votes was over 500k. WI where she lost by 11k, 126K went to Stein.
I’m not sure how you can say Clinton won when we’re stuck with Donald Trump as our president right now. I’m also not sure what you are calling a “false visual.” Are you saying it is false that Sanders obtained more votes than Clinton from younger votes in the primary?
It took a lot to bring her down. A LOT. Sanders would have never made it after the Right got a hold of him. Those same white rural voters, would have never voted for him. Anti-Semitism runs deep and dont think for a second they would have a Socialist Jew in office. (I am Jewish btw) And the Democratic vote would have been much lower and 3rd party would have not have covered the deficit.
You seem to be missing the point entirely. White bigots aren’t going to vote for a Democrat, ever. They’re not the issue, nor were their votes present in the Democratic primary figures I cited earlier. What the Democratic Party needs to understand is that young voters do not respond well to neoliberal candidates, and the Democratic Party is hopeless without support from young voters on the left. Their platform will need to include things like a $15 minimum wage, free tuition at public universities, universal single-payer healthcare, no fracking, and candidates who do not take corporate money if they want to have a prayer of winning elections going forward.
So while you all sit here and call her a “flawed” and “weak” candidate: remember it took Sanders, years of the Right Wing attacks, the FBI, Russia and Trump to bring her down and she still won popular vote by millions. Not so weak.
This is clearly an absurd trolling straw man because I didn’t even mention Clinton, let alone call her a flawed or weak candidate. In fact, Clinton and Sanders aren’t even relevant to this discussion; please try to understand the bigger picture. The Democrats have terrible leadership and got creamed in the House and Senate and got obliterated at the state and local level all over the country.
If it were just about Clinton, they would have a much stronger presence in Congress, but they got wrecked. The problem is not nor never has been Clinton specifically, but the Democratic Party’s muddled, tone-deaf platform and messaging, which are, themselves, resultant from being beholden to corporate interests. They are arrogantly dismissive of potential voters (just like Val Perry Rendel) and far too cozy with their oligarch donors.
My entire response was to Val Perry Rendel’s fantasy that the Democrats can “win with 90%.” They couldn’t in 2016, and it’s only going to get worse going forward, when that 90% proportion of Democratic voters who can tolerate neoliberalism diminishes more and more with each election cycle.